Pockets of Orthodoxy

[Julian of York]

Church History is one of the most interesting extra-Biblical studies for me.
I have often wondered about the early Christians spread throughout Asia and Europe, their grasp and belief in Foundational Doctrines, and at what point, if ever, they strayed away by and large from orthodoxy. Would we consider the faith of some of the scattered groups during the middle ages as being of "like precious faith"? Would the Apostles recognize these splinter groups as being direct recipients off the faith of the fathers? Were they,in truth,regenerated believers that we Christians will meet in Heaven?

I ask our "intelligentsia" because I know of no better forum of opinions on viable Christian interests.

The specific groups I think of are:
The Rus of Kiev,prior to the invasion of the Mongols.
The Ethiopian Church
The Coptic Church
The Christians of Lebanon
The Moldavians, Hungarians, Czechs,Maygars, and Bohemians
Other Christian Slavic peoples
Armenians ,Iraqi,Iranian and Afghan pre-Muslim Conquest
The North Africans (especially around the Hippo of Augustus)

Any light, folks?

Julian of York

 

[jax5434]

Church History is one of the most interesting extra-Biblical studies for me.
I have often wondered about the early Christians spread throughout Asia and Europe, their grasp and belief in Foundational Doctrines, and at what point, if ever, they strayed away by and large from orthodoxy. Would we consider the faith of some of the scattered groups during the middle ages as being of "like precious faith"? Would the Apostles recognize these splinter groups as being direct recipients off the faith of the fathers? Were they,in truth,regenerated believers that we Christians will meet in Heaven?

I ask our "intelligentsia" because I know of no better forum of opinions on viable Christian interests.

The specific groups I think of are:
The Rus of Kiev,prior to the invasion of the Mongols.
The Ethiopian Church
The Coptic Church
The Christians of Lebanon
The Moldavians, Hungarians, Czechs,Maygars, and Bohemians
Other Christian Slavic peoples
Armenians ,Iraqi,Iranian and Afghan pre-Muslim Conquest
The North Africans (especially around the Hippo of Augustus)

Any light, folks?

Julian of York

I'm sorry that I do not have enough knowledge in this area to contribute but it is an interesting point and hopefully others will respond. But as I read this I realized that the same question could be asked about all the "christian" groups today.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Julian of York]

So right,Jax!
Nevertheless, before any such study about medieval history could begin, a baseline understanding of what constitutes Biblical regeneration is required.

What points do our readers feel are Foundational and that cannot be excluded from the experience of the truly converted?

I will start the ball rolling with:
1) The Deity of Christ "In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,(and we beheld His glory,as of the only Begotten of the Father,full of Grace and Truth." John 1:14and
"For if,when we were enemies,we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son,much more, being reconciled,we shall be saved by His life.And not only so,but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." Romans 5:10-11
The Deity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is needful for our
1) Reconciliation by His death
2) Salvation by His sinless life ,making Him an acceptable sacrifice
3) Joy and peace ,as a direct result of God's grace in settling the score between us
4) Atonement which has been applied to our account by grace through faith
If Christ is not "very God", the Creator, the Sinless Sacrifice, Risen from the dead, then we (and any pseudo-Christians of yore) are of all men most miserable and lost.
"What must I do to be saved?" "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

I am anxious to hear your thoughts.

Merry Christmas,
Julian of York
Isaiah 32:17

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Church History is one of the most interesting extra-Biblical studies for me.
I have often wondered about the early Christians spread throughout Asia and Europe, their grasp and belief in Foundational Doctrines, and at what point, if ever, they strayed away by and large from orthodoxy. Would we consider the faith of some of the scattered groups during the middle ages as being of "like precious faith"? Would the Apostles recognize these splinter groups as being direct recipients off the faith of the fathers? Were they,in truth,regenerated believers that we Christians will meet in Heaven?

I ask our "intelligentsia" because I know of no better forum of opinions on viable Christian interests.

The specific groups I think of are:
The Rus of Kiev,prior to the invasion of the Mongols.
The Ethiopian Church
The Coptic Church
The Christians of Lebanon
The Moldavians, Hungarians, Czechs,Maygars, and Bohemians
Other Christian Slavic peoples
Armenians ,Iraqi,Iranian and Afghan pre-Muslim Conquest
The North Africans (especially around the Hippo of Augustus)

Any light, folks?

Julian of York

The Rus adopted Christianity in the 9th and 10th centuries; the Slavic peoples in general were Christianized through efforts of missionaries such as Sts. Cyril and Methodius (the Cyrillic alphabet is named for St. Cyril). The Copts trace their faith back to St. Mark the Evangelist who was the first bishop of Alexandria, the Ethiopians are said to have been converted in the fourth century and have, until the present day, been largely dependent upon the Coptic Church--this changed when the See of Alexandria made the Ethiopian Church autocephelous, i.e. the Ethiopian Church chooses its own bishops now. Christianity spread eastward, possibly even by apostolic activity (the Mar Thoma Christians of India claim St. Thomas the Apostle as the founder of Christianity in India); Armenia was the first officially Christian nation in the 3rd century, before Christianity was even granted tolerance by the Roman government.

In the 5th century the Nestorian controversy created a schism in the Church, specifically because the Council of Ephesus condemned not only Nestorius but Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was highly venerated among Christians in the East (Iraq, etc); the Assyrian Church of the East is the Church that rejected the Council of Ephesus. Until Catholic missionary activity in the Middle East (creating the Chaldean Catholic Church, a particular church within the Roman Catholic Church) the Christians in Iraq and beyond (as far East as China) were "Nestorian".

Christianity in North Africa was highly tied to the Christianity of Western Europe, particularly places like Carthage, from whom Tertullian came (and is the earliest Christian writer to write in Latin).

Does any of this help fill in some of the gaps? I'm hoping I didn't misunderstand some of what you were asking for.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dark_Lite]

Church History is one of the most interesting extra-Biblical studies for me.
I have often wondered about the early Christians spread throughout Asia and Europe, their grasp and belief in Foundational Doctrines, and at what point, if ever, they strayed away by and large from orthodoxy. Would we consider the faith of some of the scattered groups during the middle ages as being of "like precious faith"? Would the Apostles recognize these splinter groups as being direct recipients off the faith of the fathers? Were they,in truth,regenerated believers that we Christians will meet in Heaven?

I ask our "intelligentsia" because I know of no better forum of opinions on viable Christian interests.

The specific groups I think of are:
The Rus of Kiev,prior to the invasion of the Mongols.
The Ethiopian Church
The Coptic Church
The Christians of Lebanon
The Moldavians, Hungarians, Czechs,Maygars, and Bohemians
Other Christian Slavic peoples
Armenians ,Iraqi,Iranian and Afghan pre-Muslim Conquest
The North Africans (especially around the Hippo of Augustus)

Any light, folks?

Julian of York

Well, to start, how are you defining orthodoxy?

 

[Julian of York]

My humble preference when defining words is the Webster's 1828 Edition Dictionary. Mr.Webster used much Scripture and gave much sound doctrine in his original edition. It may be "Googled" up.
Orthodoxy n.(Gr. right,true,opinion: from "to think".)
1)Soundness of faith; a belief in the genuine doctrines taught in Scripture
2)Consonance to genuine Scriptural doctrines.
My usage of the word "orthodoxy" is the Latin solas scriptura, by Scripture alone, and depends on no other factor. Therefore, we would consider one group to be orthodox by being in line with Holy Writ, and one group as being out of line with the Word and, therefor, un-orthodox.
The key to this topic is,"Were they ever orthodox, how long did they remain orthodox,and when and why did they depart from the Word of God?"

I trust that you see my point.

J.o.Y.
Isaiah 32:17

 

[CryptoLutheran]

My humble preference when defining words is the Webster's 1828 Edition Dictionary. Mr.Webster used much Scripture and gave much sound doctrine in his original edition. It may be "Googled" up.
Orthodoxy n.(Gr. right,true,opinion: from "to think".)
1)Soundness of faith; a belief in the genuine doctrines taught in Scripture
2)Consonance to genuine Scriptural doctrines.
My usage of the word "orthodoxy" is the Latin solas scriptura, by Scripture alone, and depends on no other factor. Therefore, we would consider one group to be orthodox by being in line with Holy Writ, and one group as being out of line with the Word and, therefor, un-orthodox.
The key to this topic is,"Were they ever orthodox, how long did they remain orthodox,and when and why did they depart from the Word of God?"

I trust that you see my point.

J.o.Y.
Isaiah 32:17

It's actually Sola Scriptura, and for the Reformers--the guys who coined the concept--it was more methodology than dogma. The point of Sola Scriptura wasn't so that everyone could go interpreting Scripture for themselves, but with the idea in mind that if and when the Church was teaching contrary to Scripture, the Church needed to reform itself to Scripture.

Of course the question arises, what is the proper interpretation of Scripture? In this case it too is emphasized that our interpretations of Scripture are not infallible (only Scripture is) and thus there is no infallible interpretation of Scripture. Furthermore, a rejection of the historic teachings of the Church were never considered, namely the Reformers had no intention of turning over the Ecumenical Creeds or the like; but rather to bring reform and correction to areas of the Church's theology and practice that was deemed to have deviated. For Luther these areas included Justification first and foremost, but also practices such as the Eucharist in both kinds, as well as various liturgical reforms such as the saying of the Mass in the vernacular.

Orthodoxy, however, isn't what I think the Bible says. Orthodoxy is what Christians have a shared consensus of faith on. The Bible is part of orthodoxy, there would exist no Bible apart from the common and shared consensus and agreement of the Faithful, the democracy of Faith, as experienced and lived out in and by the Body of Christ.

The Vincentian Canon is an excellent summary of what constitutes the catholicity and orthodoxy of the Christian Church,

"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[E.C.]

Church History is one of the most interesting extra-Biblical studies for me.
I have often wondered about the early Christians spread throughout Asia and Europe, their grasp and belief in Foundational Doctrines, and at what point, if ever, they strayed away by and large from orthodoxy. Would we consider the faith of some of the scattered groups during the middle ages as being of "like precious faith"? Would the Apostles recognize these splinter groups as being direct recipients off the faith of the fathers? Were they,in truth,regenerated believers that we Christians will meet in Heaven?

I ask our "intelligentsia" because I know of no better forum of opinions on viable Christian interests.

The specific groups I think of are:
The Rus of Kiev,prior to the invasion of the Mongols.
The Ethiopian Church
The Coptic Church
The Christians of Lebanon
The Moldavians, Hungarians, Czechs,Maygars, and Bohemians
Other Christian Slavic peoples
Armenians ,Iraqi,Iranian and Afghan pre-Muslim Conquest
The North Africans (especially around the Hippo of Augustus)

Any light, folks?

Julian of York

The Rus of Kiev remained Christian throughout and after the Mongols. Today they are called Ukrainians and are part of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
The rest of the Slavs are all part of the Eastern Orthodox Church except for the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats and Slovenes who have historically been Roman Catholic.


The Christians in Lebanon are mostly Maronite Christians (who are part of the Roman Catholic Church), Antiochian Orthodox (part of the Eastern Orthodox Church) or Armenian Apostolic Orthodox (part of the Oriental Orthodox Church).

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church is part of the Oriental Orthodox Church as well as the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt.

The Christians in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan were mostly part of either the Assyrian Church of the East or the Chaldean Catholic Church (part of the RCC) or if they were Armenian than they are part of the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church.


Would the Apostles recognize their Faith? You'd better believe it. Mark, who wrote one of the Gospels, was the first bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, and thus can be called a founder of sorts of the Coptic Church. The Copts eventually spread down to Ethiopia.

St. Paul preached to the Greeks. We know this from his Epistles that are considered Scripture (Corinthians, Timothy, Titus, Thessalonian, etc). The Greeks first sent missionaries to the Slavs in the 9th century and they eventually became Christians.


These are not mere "splinter groups". They are Churches who have been around since the time of the Apostles. They pre-date the Reformation by 1,500 years and they pre-date the Crusades by roughly 1,000 years. Of all the Christian groups in the world the only two which the Apostles would recognize would be the Eastern Orthodox Churches (mostly Greeks, Romanians, Slavs, Arabs and a growing number of Americans and Western Europeans and Africans) and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians, Syrians and Indians of India). The Apostles would most recognize either one because everybody else from Catholicism to Pentecostalism splintered away from them.


Forgive me if my tone sounds a bit harsh, but I'm a bit confused by the thread (and the fact that its close to midnight in the real world).