I became a Christian through protestant ministers. There's no way I'll know Jesus through EO, it's unavailable in my country.
So EO view of others in the Christiandom is fully negative?
So EO view of others in the Christiandom is fully negative?
I became a Christian through protestant ministers. There's no way I'll know Jesus through EO, it's unavailable in my country.
So EO view of others in the Christiandom is fully negative?
What if I've nothing to do with the EO church my entire life? Am I not a Christian? The church during the 100 AD, the persecution scattered Christians to several locations, they didn't know what Eastern orthodoxy is.
What if I've nothing to do with the EO church my entire life? Am I not a Christian? The church during the 100 AD, the persecution scattered Christians to several locations, they didn't know what Eastern orthodoxy is.
They're just Jesus believers
Protestant also have the teaching of the apostles. And why would I give the EO priest to judge my Christian identity? Just because I'm not a part of organization? When Paul wrote to the church of corinth, does he act like he's judging as God and act like he's more holy?I read an account somewhere once about an Orthodox priest who attended some type of seminar with people from mixed protestant denominations. At lunchtime he sat down with a protestant minister and they discussed their faith. The minister eventually asked the priest, "so do you think I'm a Christian"? The priest replied, "I don't know".
The Church of 100 AD was the Orthodox Church. It still is. There were a number of different churches founded by the apostles, all of them together made up the Church. The apostles wrote letters to those churches. Those letters are what we call the new testament today.
Protestant also have the teaching of the apostles. And why would I give the EO priest to judge my Christian identity? Just because I'm not a part of organization? When Paul wrote to the church of corinth, does he act like he's judging as God and act like he's more holy?
Well you expect everyone is able to agree on everything? EO is not perfect either, it has nothing to do with protestantism, it's a humans flaw.Protestantism is a bit of mix and match form of teaching with thousands of different groups. Nearly none of those groups agree with each other. Going back to Luther and Zwingli and even beyond, there have always been people who have separated themselves and practiced their own forms of religion. 1 John 2:19 speaks of one group:
They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us.
2 John 1 Goes a bit further:
2Jo 1:9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
2Jo 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;
2Jo 1:11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
Well you expect everyone is able to agree on everything? EO is not perfect either, it has nothing to do with protestantism, it's a humans flaw.
The east blame the west and the west blame the east for schism in 1054That people do not agree on everything and that humans are flawed is the reason there were Ecumenical Councils. Early on there were some who taught that Christians had to be circumcised and keep the Jewish law, while some taught they did not. The matter was resolved by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Yet even now there are groups who mix Judaism with Christianity, change the teachings of Christianity, and all manner of other things.
The east blame the west and the west blame the east for schism in 1054
Ecumenical Council didn't solve everything.
I thought in EO view except the EO themselves all are heretic?The East/West schism is not over any article of faith. Each side agrees that the other is still the Church, but they are not in communion with each other.
I thought in EO view except the EO themselves all are heretic?
It's too arrogant to say a group had the fullness of the truth. To protestant, EO just another protestant that claim that have something that others don't have.It's similar but not that direct. The Orthodox Church holds the fullness of the truth. Other groups do not hold the fullness of truth. Each of them to a varying degree. There are heretics, and then there are heretics.
It's too arrogant to say a group had the fullness of the truth. To protestant, EO just another protestant that claim that have something that others don't have.
It's too arrogant to say a group had the fullness of the truth.
How is the chain of the western church were broken? You admit the validity of the Western Church after the 1054 schism in ealier post.The Orthodox Church is definitely not protestant. There is nothing to protest. The Orthodox Church has existed since its founding by Jesus Christ. There is an unbroken chain of the laying on of hands from the apostles right down to my priest today.
But it's not the EO who preached the gospel to the whole world. As I said, it's impossible for many to be Christian because the EO isn't accessible in many country.it’s not arrogant at all if it’s true. Christ wasn’t being arrogant when He told the Samaritan woman that she worships what she doesn’t know.
How is the chain of the western church were broken? You admit the validity of the Western Church after the 1054 schism in ealier post.
There's no way I'll know Jesus through EO, it's unavailable ...
When one Christian meets a minister and priest in a room and what I don't know is any one of them.The minister eventually asked the priest, "so do you think I'm a Christian"? The priest replied, "I don't know".