I am asking this as someone who is becoming disolusioned with the reformation and its values. Is the orthodox church as it is seen in the East really the church as it was set up by the apostles in the book of Acts?
Sources exist on Orthodoxy out there but it is all very confusing, would be obliged if any of you orthobros could help me out with sources.
Other urls found in this thread:
Why don't you just believe what the Bible says and leave it at that?
Read this and you'll understand.
"Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: The Experience of God, Vol. 1: Revelation and Knowledge of the Triune God" by Dumitru Staniloae
I do! But the dogmas of the church are important to, without them you get the enlightenment.
The reformation should have been a return to church roots and not something new.
Thanks!
Non-orthodox here but I've been having some of the same thoughts, user.
Here's what I've picked up so far:
1. Read the books and letters in the new testament in their entirety; too much context is lost when Protestant fundamentalists or Roman Catholics cherry pick passages to support their pet doctrines and practices. e.g. the Orthodox position on primacy but not supremacy of the Bishop of Rome becomes apparent when St. Paul and Peter are shown as equals in Acts, Galatians, etc.
2. Read the early Apostolic Fathers. These guys are often the direct successors of the Apostles and evangelists in the book of Acts. You'll notice some funny things Protestants never bring up, like infant baptism, real presence (of some kind) in the eucharist, church hierarchy, bishops, etc.,
Issues surrounding topics like predestination are treated as more of a mystery and approached carefully, as opposed to the hard-line positions of the Reform churches or Lutherans.
Or when combined with some other basic books on the history of the period things that Roman Catholics won't acknowledge, like the Bishop of Rome just being the "First among equals," and not some domineering overlord.
3. Read the Eusebius' history of the church, Gibbon's Roman Empire to provide some background. Also, there's Orthodox Bishop Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity. It will cover some of the same material but provide a history of the Orthodox church from their perspective.
Wish you the best, user. The church scene is a disaster these days. I hope you find the right place.
A lot of what you're talking about isn't mentioned in the Bible. Dogma, enlightenment, and orthodox aren't. Other examples are trinity and rapture. Yes, some of these concepts are discussed in the Bible, but usually not anywhere near how we use the words we invented since then.
I fully agree that the reformation should have been a return to church roots, but it at least got closer. People that know the scriptures know that even the righteous will scarcely be saved though, so I wouldn't worry about what the popular beliefs, dogma, or "culture" is in whatever is considered to be the "church" at the time. The real church are those who worship God in spirit and in truth. Just read your Bible and try to interject the least of your biases as possible and let it convict and change you instead.
Because not everything in the bible is a clear cut as we would like it to be and you need to provide context to certain passages. Take infant baptism for example. The case for or against is really pretty shaky. There are passages that seem to support and others that are more vague or even go in the opposite direction. That's where you read about the 2nd century leaders and find out that they practiced it, so in all likelihood, it was being practiced during the time of the new testament.
Just out of curiosity, since I've never heard arguments for it. What are your thoughts and biblical backings for it?
Also, I'm sure you've seen how even political atmospheres can entirely shift in less than a decade, so I don't really trust anything other than the Bible as anything other than a useful reference vs. the Bible which I see as the word of God.
At the time of the reformation it was closer, but look at places like the USA. The reform churches, presbyterians, true Anglicans, Lutherans have a very small presence compared to the rest of evangelical America. The country is dominated by baptists, methodists, and an odd assortment of nutty pentecostals and non-denominationalists, all of which have virtually nothing in common with the principles of the reformation except perhaps a general disdain for Roman Catholics and an extremists/ignorant understanding of what Sola Scriptura meant to people like Zwingli, Luther, or Tyndale.
The heritage that we're left with has ultimately, on the whole, probably drifted even further away from the true church.
come home white man
In terms of picking a denomination for your fate, Apostolic is pretty close though, but even just saying that name is risky because even that term has its own sub-denominations.
Orthodoxy is dissimilar from Catholicism on absurd points of dogma; politically they operate in much the same way in the east as Catholicism did in the west. Protestantism is to me preferable.
For instance the prosperity gospel which televangelists preach and our president believes. American consumerism has done a number on all of European heritage culture.
I'm pretty sure the devil's plan always was to break the church into little pieces, because then it'll sit around arguing over who is right and wrong instead of being used to do something in the world.
In my previous post I guess my question came off confusingly. I was asking about arguments for infant baptism, since you seem to know about some.
The main gist of the argument for, based solely on biblical evidence is passages that say things in the book of Acts and possibly some other books/letters (can't remember) like ". . . and she was baptized and her whole house." Now one could easily say that everyone in the house believed the gospel first and then was baptized, but since this kind of phrasing appears several times it begins to be kind of odd to assume that everyone in all of these instances always believed, but the case is ambiguous. Then in light of early church fathers (2nd century) who were, in some instances, disciple of Apostles, like Polycarp, you see that they were baptized as infants or endorsed it. Since these guys were being brought up or converted into Christianity during the time of the new testament or only a few years after the last letter was written it would be pretty odd if they simultaneous invented the doctrine by themselves and no one raised a fuss over it.
A quick google search will give you the various scriptural references. As I said in the previous post, the case for it is fairly vague based on scripture alone, but that's also true for the converse.
protip: christianity was devised by russian diaspora, and is run by russian diaspora
orthodox: not diaspora
catholic: diaspora
reformed & protestant: not latin, not greek
it's literally about race.
Interesting, I've never thought about the "all of their household" aspect. I would say it's probably not a critical issue either way. Since most denominations have at least some variation of either needing to do other things to get saved or confess Jesus is your lord and savior and an infant would be incapable of either. I'd have to do more research into it, but I'd imagine it's not strictly encouraged or forbidden and would be fine to do out of respect and reverence to God and to show your dedication to raising your kid right, but not as a way of saving your kid or anything.
Hi, Orthodox Christian here. You should first and foremost think about your family and people surrounding you and how leaving your current denomination might affect your family life negatively.
If that is the case (think about it, you would in some way reject values that your family gave you), then I would never suggest to anyone to join the Orthodox church.
There is nothing wrong with Protestantism or Catholicism.
...
Orthodoxy is the one true church.
you really think russians just blinked into existence in 862 A.D.
Catholics have bishops in union with the Successor of St. Peter.
Orthodox have bishops but in schism from Peter.
Protestants don't have bishops.
The Church of Rome is literally the only church on earth that can trace its lineage back directly to the apostle; and not just any apostle, but the head of the apostles: Peter.
The Church Fathers say that union with the Church of Rome is necessary and an essential mark of the true Church.
You have to be insane not to be Catholic. Read Matthew 16:18. It's pretty clear.
Orthodox church in Russia was fucked up by Peter the Great. Dont know about other countries.
Thanks everyone for the responses in this thread, I am reading and considering them all. Thought it would die immediately.
Some protestants have bishops.
Nice thing to note: He's referred to only as St. Peter and not Pope Peter or Bishop Peter. Pope is another thing that isn't biblically based.
Also, Jesus wasn't Catholic and I'm pretty sure he wasn't insane.
Is SSPX true catholicism or are they heretics?
cool jesuit taqqiya
your pope was the one who split from the orthodox church because he didn't want the byzantine emperor to have power over him
They are ultra hard-line traditionalists. They can't be heretical at all.
At worst schismatic, and solely because of stupid church politics that has nothing to do with the teachings.
Because the bible leads to the church. Sola scripture is a contradiction.
How religious is Greece though?