It's Just Stupid

[AJB4]

The Eastern Orthodox church, the Oriental Orthodox church, the Roman Catholic church, etc. all claim to be the original. It's stupid. Which one is it? And I know that y'all will say "The Eastern Orthodox church", and give me an explanation as to why, but I could go over to OBOB and ask the RCs why the Roman Catholic church is the original, and they could give me an answer just as good. Same goes for Coptic. It's stupid...

/rantover

 

[Silentchapel]

Hey, at least the three of us stick to what we believe. Our criteria for Truth is tad different from typical 'I go there because singing's better / church's closer' mindset some non-apostolics have.

 

[Jacob4707]

The Christians, the Jews, the Buddhists, etc. all claim to be right. It's stupid. Which one is it? And I know that y'all will say "The Christians", and give me an explanation as to why, but I could go over to NoGodButAllah and ask the Muslims why Islam is correct, and they could give me an answer just as good. Same goes for Atheists. It's stupid...

/rantover

Yeah, it can be frustrating and confusing.

 

[DarkNLovely]

This is what I said last week. I don't believe in any true physical church, personaly. I honestly and truly do not buy for a minute that God would not allow His church to be evident beyond the shadow of any doubt. All these churches have amazing arguments for their claims and if you want to join one, God bless you, but you will not be able to sort this out intelectually. You must pray and fast and trust Him to lead you to the one that is best for you!

 

[Asinner]

Go and experience them all. True Christianity is revealed and is made evident in the worship and the people.

Love,
Christina

 

[Jacob4707]

I honestly and truly do not buy for a minute that God would not allow His church to be evident beyond the shadow of any doubt.

Luke 10:
21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
22 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." 23 Then he turned to his disciples and said privately, "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. 24 For I tell you that many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it."

Matthew 13:44 "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

Ephesians 3:
4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.... 8 Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain [to everyone]* the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

* "the words enclosed by [ ] are of doubtful authenticity with regard to the original text" (both the NA and UBS Greek texts enclose this in brackets)

 

[Lady Bug]

Something that I can probably say at the TAW forum without stirring the pot too much, I hope:

But doctrinally speaking, there is no way that the RCC (as we know it to be today) is the original church. It frustrates me when I hear of the RCC being the first church. Geographically speaking, Rome had some sort of primacy (or whatever the word is, help me if I'm wrong lol) but as far as dogma, no...For example, Wasn't the filioque, and Immaculate Conception added by Rome hundreds of years after the church began?

 

[Komnenos]

Something that I can probably say at the TAW forum without stirring the pot too much, I hope:

But doctrinally speaking, there is no way that the RCC (as we know it to be today) is the original church. It frustrates me when I hear of the RCC being the first church. Geographically speaking, Rome had some sort of primacy (or whatever the word is, help me if I'm wrong lol) but as far as dogma, no...For example, Wasn't the filioque, and Immaculate Conception added by Rome hundreds of years after the church began?

Yes it was. And those are a few of the many reasons why the RCC broke with Orthodoxy. Before the split, The PAtriarch of Rome was 1st among Equals (Primus inter Paras) not the leader ofthe Church! (only of the Church of Rome)

 

[SeraphimSarov]

You must pray and fast and trust Him to lead you to the one that is best for you!

Emphasis mine. I strongly disagree with what you say here. One should trust God to lead one to the TRUTH, not to what one perceives to be best. What we think doesn't matter. The truth is objective and unchanging.

 

[nutroll]

This is what I said last week. I don't believe in any true physical church, personaly. I honestly and truly do not buy for a minute that God would not allow His church to be evident beyond the shadow of any doubt. All these churches have amazing arguments for their claims and if you want to join one, God bless you, but you will not be able to sort this out intelectually. You must pray and fast and trust Him to lead you to the one that is best for you!

I think personal perspective has a lot to do with how we see this issue. For me, the notion that God's Church is made up of believers from all the different denominations makes God's Church less evident to people. It is so hard to tell people that Christianity is the truth when we disagree on so much. I think it makes so much more sense that God established one visible Church, that there was a Schism, which is where the Catholic church comes from, and that because of problems within the Catholic church, there were many varied attempts to correct the problems, and that each succeeded in some respects, but failed in others. I can't fathom how it is that God established an invisible church that would be open to whatever theology and practice that anyone wanted to add to it at any point in time.

But I also agree with you, that intellectual arguments can't prove this, but that it comes through prayer and fasting. One of the things that I love about Orthodoxy, is that, despite how it might appear on a message board some times, it is very experiential, and not about employing logic as though God was a math problem to be solved. Even in studying the Trinity, it becomes obvious that the real "proof" of the Trinity, is based in the social nature of man, We are made in the image of God, which means that we are interconnected with each other. Through becoming more connected to each other, we learn the love that exist between the Persons of the Trinity, and we find ourselves transformed in that love. Though the Church has had to clarify certain issues about the Trinity, it is really because these issues truly impact us experientially, and not just intellectually.

 

[Orthosdoxa]

I honestly and truly do not buy for a minute that God would not allow His church to be evident beyond the shadow of any doubt.

Evident to whom? The whole of Christianity?

God doesn't need to follow OUR rules. And since people are so very, very different (look at all the varying political opinions in my candidate thread, even among people of the same religious belief!), it doesn't make any sense to say, Every Christian on the planet would have to agree that it's "evident" in order for this to be true. What two people on the planet agree on anything? This would make the nature of the Church subject to fallen human understanding, rather than God's laws.

I can't fathom how it is that God established an invisible church that would be open to whatever theology and practice that anyone wanted to add to it at any point in time.

Indeed.

AJB4, seek and you will find. I've been there with your frustration, believe me.

 

[Philothei]

Searching is one thing and by now you should be able to tell the difference. Have you though of taking a formal class on Christianity 101 it might help you see the larger picture.

I think that your decision should not be based on what it suits YOU rather where God is found. Have you seek God in prayer? in fasting and in a humble spirit?

God has mysterious ways of manifesting Himself to us. But our approarch to Him should come not in arrogance and demand but in a humble and broken spirit. Many people who converted to Orthodoxy felt the calling by God after they opened up their hearts....(not only their minds) to it. They submitted their lives and trust in Christ and His Church.

Maybe you can meet with the Orthodox priest and talk over all these conserns of yours.

God bless

Philothei

 

[Shubunkin]

Well, that's only your opinion that it's "stupid" to believe that we are the original Church. Historically speaking, it's the one. The other apostolic churches you mentioned came from the root of the original church and changed through the centuries. The Eastern Orthodox held onto the doctrines, and kept them. Historically, all the Orthodox came from one church. I don't see what is stupid about that. I don't see what is stupid about keeping the doctrines pure, and undefiled, and remaining the same through the centuries.

The original Church did not disappear for 1500 years. I read one of the members here mention a few days ago - if the Bible didn't change, then how can we say the Church did? The Church put the Bible together. Why believe one and not the other?

Read Church History, and you will see for yourself. We all must be convinced of the truth. It's only stupid if you don't do that.

 

[Orthosdoxa]

Well, that's only your opinion that it's "stupid" to believe that we are the original Church. Historically speaking, it's the one. The other apostolic churches you mentioned came from the root of the original church and changed through the centuries. The Eastern Orthodox held onto the doctrines, and kept them. Historically, all the Orthodox came from one church. I don't see what is stupid about that. I don't see what is stupid about keeping the doctrines pure, and undefiled, and remaining the same through the centuries.

The original Church did not disappear for 1500 years. I read one of the members here mention a few days ago - if the Bible didn't change, then how can we say the Church did? The Church put the Bible together. Why believe one and not the other?

Read Church History, and you will see for yourself. We all must be convinced of the truth. It's only stupid if you don't do that.

 

[Jacob4707]

 

[Philothei]

That was my post/response in which I changed the words, including inserting "Muslims," etc., to make a point - and I clearly indicated that I had changed AJB4's words. It is NOT what AJB4 originally wrote.

Sorry .... did not see it .... oh brother.... what a mess i will edit it... can you edit my post in your quoted message of my post...??? I hope that made some sense...

 

[Shubunkin]

Come to think of it, each and every church out there all claim to be the original - even if 1500 years had passed before someone "resurrected" it. But, hey, I have my Church History book here somewhere, and I'll check it out to see if Calvinism started in the First Century A. D., or Pentecostalism, etc. Oops, it didn't start until after Martin Luther hammered his little list of 95 theses on the door of the church in 1517. It makes one wonder why God couldn't protect his Church for 1500 years?

 

[PostTribber]

The Eastern Orthodox church, the Oriental Orthodox church, the Roman Catholic church, etc. all claim to be the original. It's stupid. Which one is it? And I know that y'all will say "The Eastern Orthodox church", and give me an explanation as to why, but I could go over to OBOB and ask the RCs why the Roman Catholic church is the original, and they could give me an answer just as good. Same goes for Coptic. It's stupid...

/rantover

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name." (John 20:31) the Bible has a way of clearing the 'obstacles' to truth.

 

[Jacob4707]

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name." (John 20:31) the Bible has a way of clearing the 'obstacles' to truth.

Yes. That's why everyone agrees on what the Bible says and means.

 

[Ioan cel Nou]

Yes. That's why everyone agrees on what the Bible says and means.

As exemplified by this poster's ardent desire that we should know which particular subsection of Protestant eschatology he adheres to.

James