You are your own orthodoxy

[J3thekingofking]

We're bounded by time and space. We can't go back to live with Jesus and the apostles. But every denomination claims orthodoxy in their own way. They've huge overlap of agreement in doctrines but the distinction is enough to separate them.

Eastern orthodox, Roman catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Methodist and thousand other groups.

Which one is right? Which church should I go? How I set my boundary? How can I discern?

- Some said just read the bible.

- Some said bible alone is not enough, interpretation must include tradition otherwise we'll in error.

- Some rely on a more abstract concept like just follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, making their own experience the interpretation of truth.

But most of the people simply don't care. They're not interested in other school of thought. They just stick to their denomination's teaching. Many don't even know the history of their own denomination.

if we want to discern, shouldn't we do it objectively? You can't say you're an Anglican and claim Anglican has gotten most of the things right but you have no clue about what others' christian group are teaching. Many chose a church base on the distance of the church to their house. So convinent became a truth then?

 

[dzheremi]

I disagree. No one is 'their own' Orthodoxy. I became Orthodox precisely because I saw in it the faith that I did not have but wanted (and still want) -- not because they had intellectually or emotionally satisfying answers to the questions you've asked here.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I disagree. No one is 'their own' Orthodoxy. I became Orthodox precisely because I saw in it the faith that I did not have but wanted (and still want) -- not because they had intellectually or emotionally satisfying answers to the questions you've asked here.

The church divided.

It divided.

It divided.

The church kept dividing.

Until each person reading a bible became their own church, a flag atop a hill. ..

 

[HTacianas]

We're bounded by time and space. We can't go back to live with Jesus and the apostles. But every denomination claims orthodoxy in their own way. They've huge overlap of agreement in doctrines but the distinction is enough to separate them.

Eastern orthodox, Roman catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Methodist and thousand other groups.

Which one is right? Which church should I go? How I set my boundary? How can I discern?

- Some said just read the bible.

- Some said bible alone is not enough, interpretation must include tradition otherwise we'll in error.

- Some rely on a more abstract concept like just follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, making their own experience the interpretation of truth.

But most of the people simply don't care. They're interested in other school of thought. They stick to their denomination's teaching. Many don't even know the history of their own denomination.

if we want to discern, shouldn't we do it objectively? You can't say you're an Anglican and claim Anglican has gotten most of the things right but you have no clue about what others' christian group are teaching.

I spent years stumbling down that very road.

 

[J3thekingofking]

I disagree. No one is 'their own' Orthodoxy. I became Orthodox precisely because I saw in it the faith that I did not have but wanted (and still want) -- not because they had intellectually or emotionally satisfying answers to the questions you've asked here.

The issue btw Eastern and western church is not easily resolved. If there's a clear answer to this, Eastern Churches will dominante the entire Christianity, but sadly it didn't. So for a protestant, Eastern orthodoxy is just a protestant church.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I have never placed a high importance on denomination. Fellowship is what is important. I like a good preacher / teacher, but which church is not important.

We're bounded by time and space. We can't go back to live with Jesus and the apostles. But every denomination claims orthodoxy in their own way. They've huge overlap of agreement in doctrines but the distinction is enough to separate them.

Eastern orthodox, Roman catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Methodist and thousand other groups.

Which one is right? Which church should I go? How I set my boundary? How can I discern?

- Some said just read the bible.

- Some said bible alone is not enough, interpretation must include tradition otherwise we'll in error.

- Some rely on a more abstract concept like just follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, making their own experience the interpretation of truth.

But most of the people simply don't care. They're not interested in other school of thought. They just stick to their denomination's teaching. Many don't even know the history of their own denomination.

if we want to discern, shouldn't we do it objectively? You can't say you're an Anglican and claim Anglican has gotten most of the things right but you have no clue about what others' christian group are teaching. Many chose a church base on the distance of the church to their house. So convinent became a truth then?

 

[J3thekingofking]

I have never placed a high importance on denomination. Fellowship is what is important. I like a good preacher / teacher, but which church is not important.

I get your point. But when you explore different church, you'll find good preacher contradict themselves. Now, where does your definition of 'good' preaching come from? You can't define the right good when you only attend one kind of church. To someone who grow up in a charismatic church, good preacher is someone who can speak in tougue.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I get your point. But when you explore different church, you'll find good preacher contradict themselves. Now, where does your definition of 'good' preaching come from? You can't define the right good when you only attend one kind of church. To someone who grow up in a charismatic church, good preacher is someone who can speak in tougue.

I agree. I have been speaking in tongues for over 50 years and would not attend a church where this was not taught and practiced. So preaching is important. I am not sure that is denomination specific. I have been to catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and of course Pentecostal churches (and others) where the Spirit moved. So yes, I would seek out such a church. I would also want true worship and praise and not mere "entertainment." Sounds like you are on the way. Personally I would suggest the Assemblies of God, The Church of God, Pentacostal Holiness, or any like churches where they are not afraid of letting the Spirit move. As far as teaching and doctrine, that is going to be a little tougher. Even some of these churches have gone back on some important teaching that should be included.
But that, I think, is a good place to start.
BTW, we (my wife and I) are currently looking for a good Spirit Filled church.

 

[Petros2015]

If there's a clear answer to this, Eastern Churches will dominante the entire Christianity, but sadly it didn't.

I thought about that too. But they were frontline vs Islam when it arose, and the Russian branch was highly persecuted and suppressed under Communism. The Eastern Churches experienced trauma, a lot of trauma if you read the history sometime, that was the conclusion I came to. In that trauma was sacrifice on their behalf for the rest of Christianity, and in that sacrifice, I saw Christ. There was betrayal too. Check out the history sometime.

Orthodox Church - Table of Contents - IntraText CT

 

[dzheremi]

The issue btw Eastern and western church is not easily resolved. If there's a clear answer to this, Eastern Churches will dominante the entire Christianity, but sadly it didn't. So for a protestant, Eastern orthodoxy is just a protestant church.

Alright. That may be how some Protestants see common cause (?) with Orthodoxy or something, but I don't think that's actually borne out in history, where following initially cordial interactions, Protestants were often disappointed and/or confused by their reception among the non-Latins, as in, e.g., the ultimate results of their interactions with Constantinople during the time of HH Patriarch Jeremias II (who eventually told them to stop writing to him), or with Alexandria a few centuries later after the arrival of Presbyterian missionaries there in the time of HH Pope Demetrius II (who eventually forbade under pain of excommunication that any should adopt Protestant teachings or attend their meetings). The clear answer is as it has always been (namely, that Orthodoxy is Orthodox, and everything else is something else), but I suppose it's not as clear if you view everything through a denominational lens, since that's what makes sense for your own churches/christianities.

 

[J3thekingofking]

I thought about that too. But they were frontline vs Islam when it arose, and the Russian branch was highly persecuted and suppressed under Communism. The Eastern Churches experienced trauma, a lot of trauma if you read the history sometime, that was the conclusion I came to. In that trauma was sacrifice on their behalf for the rest of Christianity, and in that sacrifice, I saw Christ. There was betrayal too. Check out the history sometime.

Orthodox Church - Table of Contents - IntraText CT

The site need to be revamped, the structure is confusing to me

 

[Petros2015]

The site need to be revamped, the structure is confusing to me

Yeah - I was looking for an online version of the book, but that was a pretty horrible one. If you hunt around you might be able to find a better one. "The Orthodox Church" by Kallistos Ware, and also "The Orthodox Way" by the same author is excellent. But the first covers the history as well as the nuts and bolts. The second is more the spiritual path behind the doors and in the heart. They are worth a read if you have an interest in exploring the topic.

 

[prodromos]

The site need to be revamped, the structure is confusing to me

Click on "Introduction" in the table of contents, then on the page that comes up click on "Click here to hide the links to concordance".
After that, click "next" at the bottom of each page as you make your way through the book. Much easier to read.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Use II Peter 1 as the yardstick.

 

[Lukaris]

I think there are Christians who still believe that in living out our faith, we must at the very very foundation understand that we must fear the Lord & keep His commandments (see, Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, John 14:15-18, John 5:22-30).

Despite the various theological differences among Orthodox, Catholics, & Protestants, these basic moral understandings were common. There are many individuals within all of the Christian communities that no longer understand or (& perhaps some do not want to) the need to fear the Lord & keep His commandments ( Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

I do not claim to know the Bible as I fully should but I do understand some key points as to how the Lord’s commandments follow from the old to New Testaments. Basically, the moral law is the same but stoning those who violated it or having to offer sacrificed animals for repentance were abolished by the Gospel.

The foundation of the commandments are found ( for ex.) in Deuteronomy 5, Deuteronomy 6 etc. Examples of refraining from immorality ( which the Apostles decreed, see Acts of the Apostles 15:19-21) and living to work & share with others can be found in Leviticus 18, Leviticus 19, Leviticus 20, Isaiah 58 etc.

We see John the Baptist preparing the Way of the Lord with repentance & keeping the commandments ( see Luke 3:1-22). It seems at this point that blood ordinances & stoning penalties are abolished. The Lord calls us to repent ( Matthew 4:17. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, Matthew 6, Matthew 7 clearly has abolished the severity of blood ordinance & stoning with repentance, forgiveness etc.

Still, the moral law remains as St. Paul testifies in Romans 1. The Lord told the rich young man to keep the commandments ( Matthew 19:16-19). St. Paul repeats this after much of his salvation theology in Romans in Romans 13:8-10.

I believe I am expressing myself within a proper aspect of Orthodox faith tradition and what had been mostly common Christianity. This is not comprehensive on my part since theology varies among Christians but I think it is a necessary understanding we need to have but is being lost ( see 2 Thessalonians 2).

 

[Albion]

But every denomination claims orthodoxy in their own way.

Many, but not "every" denomination claims to be correct. However, "orthodoxy" is a standard that exists outside of what any particular denomination may profess.

Which one is right? Which church should I go? How I set my boundary? How can I discern?

Start with the Nicene Creed (the standard used here on Christian Forums) and then study Christian history.

But most of the people simply don't care.

I'm not sure that we can say this. Many may fall into that category, but there are many others who seek the church that is certain about what's right and what's not.

if we want to discern, shouldn't we do it objectively?

Sure.

You can't say you're an Anglican and claim Anglican has gotten most of the things right but you have no clue about what others' christian group are teaching.

That might be true of some people. There are members of some denominations who just grew up in whatever denomination it was that their parents took them to, learned all that church's beliefs, and probably also were told that everybody else is wrong.

Many chose a church base on the distance of the church to their house. So convinent became a truth then?

Well, we can indeed find people who chose a church for poor reasons, but that doesn't mean you have to do the same thing or that there is nothing else that anyone can do.