TOmNossor said:
Suzannah,
Suzannah,
Your history does not go far enough back.
First, the fact that in 533AD there were those who declared such and such anathema is evidence that such and such was believed at this time by so and so.
In 533AD the doctrine of the pre-existence was also condemned. LDS without reservation would say that to condemn this truth was an error by the council. You yourself suggested that the name of the Eastern Orthodox Church began to be formed in the 5th century. The issue would be what was believed before. You have provided evidence that what you call heretical was indeed believed earlier than this.
LDS do not see any apostolic authority post the end of Johns public ministry. As ordained Bishops who only possessed authority over their local churches met and argued about orthodoxy, error was introduced to the church.
Charity, TOm
Hi . I will start with answering your other reply first. Then I will return to this issue.
Dear Tom,
First, thank you for expressing a personal interest in me. That is appreciated! Let me say that I was Orthodox before I became Orthodox. What I mean is, I studied Christian history and theology (both Protestant, Catholic/Apostolic) before my conversion for many years. "Becoming Orthodox" was a formal recognition for me of what I already knew to be true for some time. I studied Orthodoxy specifically for a year before I converted. Before that, I hashed out and agonized over just about every Protestant doctrine out there *wink*...That's probably more than you asked...sorry!
You mentioned some past discussions of imputed righteousness. It is true I may have disagreed on certain points, but I am also certain I have never completely discounted works as integrated with faith. Certainly I have always admired the LDS admonitions toward "works"...these are very good things. But by themselves, without right belief and faith, they are questionable at best. My only issue on either side of this would be: a) faith without right doctrine would be a false faith and b) works without right faith and doctrine together would be incomplete. So yes, I can say that faith completely alone is incomplete. I can also say works integrated with improper belief is also incomplete. I will say that right faith plus right belief plus striving for godliness (works) is the best combination. If I said "faith alone" what I really meant and do mean is/was: right faith, right belief, right actions in accordance with the former. If I said "salvation by Grace", what I really mean is: It is grace! It is grace that we are given the ability to have faith. It is grace that we have the ability to integrate works with faith. It is grace if we are "saved" in spite of sinful selves. While I do not believe that salvation depends completely on "right belief" I also do not believe in salvation on the basis of works. We can have all the right doctrine in the world, and still go to hell because we do not have love. We can have all the love and best intentions in the world, and if our faith is misplaced because of willful unbelief in right teaching, we just might go to hell. Notice I said "willful" and "might". We must strive always for right faith, right belief, righteousness and above all LOVE. If we do not struggle for ALL these things, we cannot be His. Eastern Orthodoxy teaches this. Additionally many Protestants believe it as well. I believed it before I became Orthodox. If I did not state my position perfectly in the past, I apologize and I am certain I will make errors of omission from time to time as I am one of the worlds biggest bozos. Thank you for asking for clarification. I hope we can move past this now.
Thank you for pointing out what you believe to be "healthy" in the EO.
As to your concerns, please allow me to offer the following.
TOm:
It is important that I let Orthodox Christians define what it is to believe in deification within the Easter Orthodox tradition, but LDS should define what our concept of deification is.
Thank you! We feel we have done that and we hope it is now extremely clear. Oblio, myself, Patristic, Choir Dir and Dismas have all offered various sources of information about this.
TOm:
Could a faithful Eastern Orthodox Christian say, "Men may become gods by partaking of the divine nature through Jesus Christ and uniting with the Holy Trinity?"
Me: I feel that this has already been adequately addressed in the various posts already made. Men do not, in Eastern Orthodox teaching, become gods of their own planets with wife-goddesses, procreating throughout eternity. They do not become individual gods.
TOm:
On to more pressing matters. I have looked briefly into the Eastern Orthodox Church. They do not have the huge difficulty required of Catholics to explain the development of the Papacy (but it should be noted that the concept of a Patriarch is also a development). They do not have the "fatal flaw" (in my opinion) of no priesthood authority passed down from the apostolic foundations of the first century like all solely "priesthood of all believers" churches. Great! I am very happy about this and I hope you will continue to study it even if for no other reason than your own knowledge.
But I do see some reason for concern.
Me:
Okay!
Patriarch is the same as a Bishopric. It simply implies that he is head of that Jurisdiction. He is still equal among all other Patriarchs in communion.
TOm:
Is revelation over? Is there absolutely no revelation? Do councils comprised of ordained authorities have the ability to tape into the powers of heaven and define tradition in ways aided by deity?
Me:
We accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils. It is entirely possible that another Council could occur under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We believe that the Holy Spirit has always guided and protected the Church, indeed although other groups have left us and times have been turbulent, the Orthodox Church has remained on Earth at all times pursuant to Jesus: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Even Soviet Communism, one of the greatest enemies of Christianity, could not erase 1000 years of Russian Orthodoxy, Serbian Orthodoxy, Bulgarian Orthodoxy, Romanian Orthodoxy.....In fact, these churches thrived and their witness has been an inspiration to the entire Christian world.
For as long as one Apostolic Successor, one Bishop remains upon the Earth, there is Orthodoxy!
Therefore, since Orthodoxy has been continuous since 33AD, and no one can provide evidence to the contrary, we must assume that our Lord told us the truth.
TOm:
I do not know the answer to the above questions in accordance with Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but I believe one answer produces a church far less likely to be God's church on earth than the CoJCoLDS and the other answer results in a "fatal flaw." I will await your answer and then explain why I believe this. Like I said, I have not extensively reviewed the doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox Church, so I could be missing some things.
Regarding the above: You, the LDS members of this forum have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of any apostacy. You have cited no sources. The above quoted anathemas are simply in response to various heresies that had been going on for some time. I did not assert that Orthodoxy began in the 500's. You are attempting to set up a straw man and you have used my comment "It was not called Orthodoxy until..." to create a frivilous argument. The Church was ONE from the beginning, 33AD. You state that all this error crept in after John's death...this still goes back to our original problem: if error crept in why did not Jesus prevent it by not giving the keys to Peter in the first place? You attempt several insinuations and yet do not provide sources for your claims.
And ChoirDir's question is also legitimate in response to this.
As I said, Tom, I hope you will continue your studies. My very best wishes to you.
