Are Protestants Christians?

[Heorhij]

To my dear George,

This is heresy!! Orthodox theologians teach that everyone is born spiritually depraved. Why do you think we baptize and chrismate babies? Whats the point if they already have the Holy Spirit? The true doctrine of Original Sin says that man is born in a state of spiritual death. Scripture calls this sin. [Harmartia= miss the mark, fall short of the glory.] Because of this sin God does not usually admit them into his kingdom until they are baptized. This is what the Orthodox church has always taught.

Dear Pathofsolitude,

I am not a cleric/theologian, so I can be mistaken, but, again, there is no notion of being born in the state of spiritual death in Orthodoxy. Instead, there is a notion of being naturally born into the world that lies in sin. We baptize and chrismate babies (or, rather, we witness God's work of baptizing and chrismating babies) so that these babies are admitted into God's new world, new humankind, or the Church.

And how do you think that atheists are *only* intrinsically good? Talk about onesided!

THat's besides the point People are never born atheists. We were talking about a total absence of anything good in a naturally born man. That is a Heterodox teaching.

Then you add the Pelagian heresy that sinners are "absolutely capable of doing and choosing good", and "can by their own effort serve God and glorify him," and "very often do so." Anathema, anathema, one thousand anathemas! All the saints teach that grace is absolutely necessary for man to cooperate in salvation. Its impossible for man to please God merely by his own effort.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but the Pelagian heresy is, "possere non peccare." I never said that I believe that, or that the Orthodox Church teaches that. It is impossible for a human being (or, rather, for a "human becoming," because Christ is the only real, complete, accomplished human "being") to live all life and not to sin. And yes, I agree with you that God's grace is absolutely necessary. What I disagree with is that this Grace falls on a completely dead human being and acts, works in this human being, making this human being acceptable to God. That is the Augustinian soteriology, which is the foundation of both "branches" of modern Protestant theology, Calvinist and Arminian. On the other hand, the Orthodox soteriology is that a man, being intrinsically good, is born into an ill world; he lives in this world and becomes ill, but there is still a lot of good in him, and this good cooperates with God's grace, so the man begins his "theosis," or path of salvation.

Well George, I really dont know what to say to you. I hope that you and all my detractors come to your senses.

Thank you for caring. I'll gladly accept corrections of all knowledgeable people.

 

[Aristocles]

Disregard this.  I'm not feeding the troll.

Troll? Why this is the official position of the UUOC- the "Unabashedly Uncanonically Orthodox Church". Everyone knows that. 

 

[Schultz]

good point, but i've found it to be very spiritually detrimental for me to scream at a wall, so to speak

 

[Veniamin]

Disregard this.  I'm not feeding the troll.

Can the troll feed us?  It's been a while since I've had a troll stew.

 

[Heorhij]

In all honesty, I don't think Pathofsolitude is a troll. On the Ukrainian forum "Maidan," I often read very similar posts of people who confess Eastern Rite Catholic faith. They also emphasize on the Augustinian "total depravity," and say that we, the Orthodox, should embrace this concept because "that's what the Eastern Church taught all along, not just the Roman Catholic Church."

 

[Keble]

File std. response: of course Protestants are Christians.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Unabashed uncanonically Orthodox 

Oxymoron  To be Orthodox is to follow the canons, which is the definition of canonical.  To be uncanonical by not following the canons makes one of necessity NOT Orthodox.  You're either uncanonical or you're Orthodox, but you cannot be both.

As far as unabashed, I can't question that.

 

[Pedro]

This is heresy!! Orthodox theologians teach that everyone is born spiritually depraved.

Depraved and crippled, yes.  Totally devoid of the image of God so that we are completely incapable of any good work?  No; that latter stance is NOT what Orthodox theologians teach. 

Why do you think we baptize and chrismate babies? Whats the point if they already have the Holy Spirit?

They are not said to have the Holy Spirit at birth; they are given this at baptism/chrismation.  Our understanding of Ancestral Sin, as (I think) Heorhij put it, is that we are born mortal as a consequence of our first parents' separating themselves from the Source of their (and our) life.  Since, then, a newborn infant immediately bears the mortal image of the first Adam, s/he is in need of the image of the New Adam--Christ--an image given to them in baptism.  They are thus united to Christ and brought justified into a place where they can grow in theosis.

Nowhere in this idea, however, is the idea that a newborn infant is somehow held personally culpable for the guilt of Adam's sin.  Said infant simply bears the mark of mortality merely by existing...and such an existence "falls short of the glory of God," for it is something other than an enfleshed spirit, created in the image and after the likeness of God, living in perfect communion with Life Himself.

And how do you think that atheists are *only* intrinsically good? Talk about onesided!

He didn't say this.  He said there's good in them.  That's quite different than "only intrinsically good."  The atheist may have darkened his soul against God (who among us hasn't, and we're baptized Christians!), but even as an unregenerate, there still exists an image, albeit a blighted one, of our God in him.

Then you add the Pelagian heresy that sinners are "absolutely capable of doing and choosing good", and "can by their own effort serve God and glorify him," and "very often do so." Anathema, anathema, one thousand anathemas!

He didn't say this, either.  Man can choose to respond to the image of God that yet remains in him, yet the presence of this image is, in and of itself, an act of grace.

All the saints teach that grace is absolutely necessary for man to cooperate in salvation. Its impossible for man to please God merely by his own effort.

Agreed.  But Heorhij did not contradict this.

 

[pathofsolitude]

Oxymoron  To be Orthodox is to follow the canons, which is the definition of canonical.  To be uncanonical by not following the canons makes one of necessity NOT Orthodox.  You're either uncanonical or your Orthodox, but you cannot be both.

According to the establishment, yes. But I am Disestablishmentarian Orthodox. Of course thats another oxymoron to you. I really dont want to debate my ecclesiastical situation. Thats not what this thread is about.

 

[ytterbiumanalyst]

According to the establishment, yes. But I am Disestablishmentarian Orthodox. Of course thats another oxymoron to you. I really dont want to debate my ecclesiastical situation. Thats not what this thread is about.

I think you'll find most here are antidisestablishmentarianists.

Thanks for giving a language teacher an excuse to use a really long word.

 

[pathofsolitude]

George and David,

I am not saying that babies are guilty of Adam's sin. They only inherit the spiritual death of Adam. This idea is thoroughly Orthodox and is actually taught by nearly every Orthodox theologian I have ever read. Admittedly many theologians, however, dont want to call this "sin." But as I said earlier, the Greek "harmartia" only means "to miss the mark, fall short of the glory." Last time I heard, babies werent possessed by the divine glory, eh? Okay then. My conclusion is simply that, because of this depraved state, they are outside of the Kingdom until baptism, unless the Lord infuses the Holy Spirit apart from baptism as was the case with John the Baptist. This is what Orthodoxy teaches.

Nor am I saying that unredeemed man can do absolutely nothing good in the natural order. He can visit the sick and so on. The point is only that his naturally good works are not the least bit spiritually good before God. He cannot please God. This is because it does not come from the love of God which one can only have if God himself infuses that love into the soul by the Holy Spirit.

Anyways the problem is that my detractors have only been reading modern revisionist Orthodox theologians. If they would broaden their spectrum a bit they would see that I am simply repeating the position of historical Orthodoxy.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

According to the establishment, yes. But I am Disestablishmentarian Orthodox. Of course thats another oxymoron to you. I really dont want to debate my ecclesiastical situation. Thats not what this thread is about.

Yet, the credibility of your message has EVERYTHING to do with your ecclesiastical situation.  You don't get to decide on your own authority that you're Orthodox and we're not, not when St. Irenaeus of Lyon stated that communion with the visible Church is one sure mark of one's orthodoxy vs. heresy.  If the Church, which includes most of the posters on this forum, doesn't recognize you as a communicant in keeping with the canons, then your message means virtually nothing.  You might as well be a Protestant.

 

[pathofsolitude]

Yet, the credibility of your message has EVERYTHING to do with your ecclesiastical situation.  You don't get to decide on your own authority that you're Orthodox and we're not, not when St. Irenaeus of Lyon stated that communion with the visible Church is one sure mark of one's orthodoxy vs. heresy.  If the Church, which includes most of the posters on this forum, doesn't recognize you as a communicant in keeping with the canons, then your message means virtually nothing.  You might as well be a Protestant.

Actually this forum was/is run by Roman Catholics who are considering conversion to Orthodoxy. And there seems to be a fair amount Papalists, Anglican highchurch type Protestants, and Orthodox catechumens who are not equipped to judge. Besides, most Orthodox people here seem to be the Ecumenical Patriarchate type, who are all about the Byzantine Establishment. By no means is this forum the test of whether I am in or outside the Church. That is quite a ridiculous idea.

 

[prodromas]

PoS I really don't understand why you are:
a. So aggresive.
b. Will not clearly answer questions put forward as other posters have of yours.
c. Realised that when you seem to have the right position and no one else at all agrees with you there might be something wrong (unless we are all going to hell and you and the Saints are not?)
and finally d. Why you can't see that your position does not sprout Christ centered love only your own pious opinion which only you believe is right?

 

[Ebor]

Actually this forum was/is run by Roman Catholics who are considering conversion to Orthodoxy.

Your knowledge of the owners and mods is somewhat dated. May one ask if you have read may postings of others here to learn something of the people who post? 

And there seems to be a fair amount Papalists, Anglican highchurch type Protestants, and Orthodox catechumens who are not equipped to judge. Besides, most Orthodox people here seem to be the Ecumenical Patriarchate type, who are all about the Byzantine Establishment. By no means is this forum the test of whether I am in or outside the Church. That is quite a ridiculous idea.

What is "the Church" to you, please? Could you more clearly define what things like "The Church" and "Genuine Christians" mean to you?

Where you are, there is the Church?

Ebor

 

[ozgeorge]

Actually this forum was/is run by Roman Catholics who are considering conversion to Orthodoxy. And there seems to be a fair amount Papalists, Anglican highchurch type Protestants, and Orthodox catechumens who are not equipped to judge.

I'm a cradle Orthodox of 41 years. Am I equipped to judge? Oh, hang on, no I'm not, because I'm:

the Ecumenical Patriarchate type, who are all about the Byzantine Establishment.

So the only person who's opinion is of any value to deciding whether you are in the Church is you, who belongs to the "Ancient and Holy See of the Disestablishmentarian Orthodox".
Do you need some more Bacofoil?

 

[Robert W]

<snip> Disestablishmentarian Orthodox <snip>

;D :laugh: ;D  "Disestablishmentarian Orthodox"  :-X  :-X  ;D

This must be one of the funniest things I have heard in a long time. Congratulations pathofsolitude you have made me do something I actually never thought I would do: make a post on this forum.

To continue the topic "Are Protestants Christians?". I have been brought up in the Evangelical Lutheran church of Finland. Christian faith has always been important to me but I do remember a specific time in my life when I actually decided "I will follow Jesus Christ". This soon led to problems, it appeared to me that the church I belonged to, or at least its bishops, was not interested in this (another topic).

While looking around for a spiritual home I have been attending a Pentecostal church for some years. Becoming a Pentecostal has never really been an option for me (yet another topic) but I did get to know many honest good Christians (as far as I knew).

During the last year I have been attending the Orthodox Church in my town, have become catechumen. And officially left the Lutheran church (and this is quite a deal for a Finnish citizen, has to do with taxes, population records and other stuff).

So the question "Are Protestants Christians?" makes me wonder: when did I become a Christian?

Was it from childhood due to the upbringing my parents gave me?
Was it when I decided that I will follow Christ?
Was it when I started attending the Orthodox Church?
Was it when I became a catechumen?
Was it when I officially left the Lutheran church?
Or...
Will it be when I officially enter the Orthodox Church (same thing with taxes and population records)
Will it be when I become chrismated?
Or will it be when I have killed my ego, crucified my body and am only living to serve God?

My priest has taught (I'm paraphrasing here so be kind) during catechism class that there are two kinds of Christians:
1. Christians who believes (all) the teachings of the Church. These are called Orthodox.
2. Christians who do not believe (all) the teachings of the Church. These are NOT called Orthodox.

These things are of course stupidly obvious. But I believe he told us this precisely so we would not pass judgment whether a Lutheran or a Pentecostal is Christian or not. He has also taught us that it is strictly forbidden for an Orthodox to say if another human will go to hell or not and this extends to all sorts of similar things. Of course I could have misunderstood completely and it might be completely acceptable to call "Disestablishmentarian Orthodox" "not Christian".

The teaching of my Priest is also the opinion of my bishop, His Eminence Panteleimon of the Diocese of Oulu (otherwise His Eminence would give a whupping to my priest).

...And now you know why I have refrained from posting sooner. I do not know when to shut up.

Please have patience.
- Robert

 

[prodromas]

Robert that was a beautiful post and especially for a first one! This has opened my eyes to the definition of a Christian and I think everyone not just PoS and I thank you very much for it.

 

[James]

Hmmm, the "Papalist" word...brings back fond memories 

james

 

[pathofsolitude]

Thats a great post by Robert.

Too many people these days hold to the "water makes the christian" heresy. A dear poster taught this earlier in the thread. I testify that bare water does absolutely nothing. Most Protestants and Roman Catholics get sprinkled but to no effect. And in many Eastern European countries now most people say they are "Orthodox" but dont really believe anything. However, even if they did believe in everything their church teaches, that still does not make them Christian! Even the devil believes it all. Most people were baptized into the Church as babies, brought up in the religious culture, and remain only externally observant. Thats the way it has been for thousands of years actually. In many states/millets by law everyone had to be baptized. But do you think most of them were seated in the heavenlies by living in the Spirit continually? Not by a long shot! Therefore the majority of them are not Christians.

So the question "Are Protestants Christians?" makes me wonder: when did I become a Christian?

Was it from childhood due to the upbringing my parents gave me?
Was it when I decided that I will follow Christ?
Was it when I started attending the Orthodox Church?
Was it when I became a catechumen?
Was it when I officially left the Lutheran church?
Or...
Will it be when I officially enter the Orthodox Church (same thing with taxes and population records)
Will it be when I become chrismated?
Or will it be when I have killed my ego, crucified my body and am only living to serve God?

Yeah. I would say that we become Christians when we receive the Holy Spirit. Thats it. "Christian" means "Anointed One." This is a mystical experience in which one enters the heavenly realm.

In response to the people who asked me my view of what the Church is- I say that the Church is everyone who has the Holy Spirit. The Church is the mystical body of Christ. Again, its not manmade Established State "churches", as the external structures are only the shell of the real thing. As to who I think is "in"- mostly Orthodox solitary walkers, monastics, clergy, and some devout lay people; some confused Roman Catholics; and possibly a few Protestants who dont feel comfortable in their religion. Everybody who prays continually is already in or will soon be in the Church.

pathofsolitude [not PoS thankyou]

 

[prodromas]

Are you actually listening to yourself? How can you congratulate Robert on a good post when your position is fundamentally the opposite.

 

[pathofsolitude]

Are you actually listening to yourself? How can you congratulate Robert on a good post when your position is fundamentally the opposite.

Of course I only mean the part of his doubting [or seemingly doubting] that one is a Christian simply by virtue of external things such as Church membership. That was a great post for me because practically everyone else on the thread has more or less held to the "water makes the Christian" heresy. Obviously I did not mean any parts were great that are "opposite" of what I said. I am just rejoicing that, regardless of whether he thinks *I* am a Christian, he does not think everyone who calls himself a Christian actually is a Christian. That is a major step in the right direction.

Please I dont want to keep responding to these useless squibbles.

 

[prodromas]

Useless squabbles? Pathofsolitude when you come on to a forum make wild accusation call everyone heretics besides yourself how do you not expect people to react negatively.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

In response to the people who asked me my view of what the Church is- I say that the Church is everyone who has the Holy Spirit. The Church is the mystical body of Christ. Again, its not manmade Established State "churches", as the external structures are only the shell of the real thing. As to who I think is "in"- mostly Orthodox solitary walkers, monastics, clergy, and some devout lay people; some confused Roman Catholics; and possibly a few Protestants who dont feel comfortable in their religion. Everybody who prays continually is already in or will soon be in the Church.

You claim to be Orthodox, yet this "invisible church" ecclesiology is something only Protestants teach; this understanding of the Church is not at all Orthodox.  The Church is indeed the mystical body of Christ that transcends time and space as filled by the Holy Spirit, yet it is also an earthly institution with a hierarchical human authority structure and a history of ministry and interaction with the world.  You seem to want to define the church as something purely mystical, but, to be truly Orthodox, you cannot have this invisible church without also submitting to the human authority of the institutional, visible Church.  As long as you remain outside of the institutional Church, ruled in its local assembly by an Orthodox bishop, and manifesting its unity with Orthodox bishops around the world through common communion in the sacraments and Orthodox doctrine, you cannot rightly call yourself Orthodox.  Is this not what such luminaries as Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Cyprian of Carthage taught their flocks?  Search their writings and see if I don't speak truth.

 

[pathofsolitude]

Useless squabbles? Pathofsolitude when you come on to a forum make wild accusation call everyone heretics besides yourself how do you not expect people to react negatively.

Whoa!! When did I call everyone else heretics? Obviously I dont think the Byzantines are heretics if I call them "Orthodox". Maybe its because you think I said that that you respond so negatively to everything I say.

 

[pathofsolitude]

You claim to be Orthodox, yet this "invisible church" ecclesiology is something only Protestants teach; this understanding of the Church is not at all Orthodox.  The Church is indeed the mystical body of Christ that transcends time and space as filled by the Holy Spirit, yet it is also an earthly institution with a hierarchical human authority structure and a history of ministry and interaction with the world.  You seem to want to define the church as something purely mystical, but, to be truly Orthodox, you cannot have this invisible church without also submitting to the human authority of the institutional, visible Church.  As long as you remain outside of the institutional Church, ruled in its local assembly by an Orthodox bishop, and manifesting its unity with Orthodox bishops around the world through common communion in the sacraments and Orthodox doctrine, you cannot rightly call yourself Orthodox.  Is this not what such luminaries as Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Cyprian of Carthage taught their flocks?  Search their writings and see if I don't speak truth.

There is nothing "invisible" about it! I really dont know where you got that idea from. The Church is made up of humans and humans are very visible creatures. And, [maybe it was in the other thread going on right now,] I affirmed that bishops have authority over their own local community. In the time of Ignatius [110AD] there was at least one bishop in every town. This corresponds to the situation in many towns in America [like mine] where there is only one Orthodox church. The priest, to Ignatius and I, is basically their bishop. However, the Greek Archdiocese of which he is a member, does not claim any territorial authority. Therefore I am not bound to obey that group and am free to travel out of town to attend a different church- which is what I do.

 

[Ebor]

Therefore I am not bound to obey that group and am free to travel out of town to attend a different church- which is what I do.

But what kind of church is one question.  I don't think anyone here is disputing that in the US one may go to a parish in another town. (Indeed in much of this country that is necessary).  But if one attends a church then one might think that there is agreement with it's practices and tenets, and that is not a 'solitary' practice either, but one of community.

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

PoS I really don't understand why you are:
a. So aggresive.
b. Will not clearly answer questions put forward as other posters have of yours.
c. Realised that when you seem to have the right position and no one else at all agrees with you there might be something wrong (unless we are all going to hell and you and the Saints are not?)
and finally d. Why you can't see that your position does not sprout Christ centered love only your own pious opinion which only you believe is right?

Prodromas,

This is a rather common pattern with some 'Netizens as well as people in RL.  They make sweeping (and sometimes outrageous statements) with no support.  Their own opinions are, apparently, supposed to be accepted unquestioned by others,  They have special knowledge and those who do not agree with them are subject to derision and being patronized and discounted; sometimes they resort of name-calling as though that will somehow prove that their opinions are the One True and Only Way(tm).  They *don't* answer other posters questions (frankly it seems that sometimes they can't because they don't have any real evidence or support) but rather continue to puff the superiority of their opinions and often repeat certain phrases and portions as though repeating something will convince or make it true. 

Such people are "doing their part" to tell others that they are Wrong and must agree with them.  When such messages are not accepted, they can say it's all the other people's fault. But they feel assured in their own righteousness.  :-\  "Cheap Righteousness".

Ebor

 

[Pravoslavbob]

I am Disestablishmentarian Orthodox.

Thank you for showing your true colours.  Not that you haven't already anyway.  You come on here saying half the world is going to hell (in this and your other thread where you claim that human society is controlled utterly by the devil), accusing others of heresy and behaving arrogantly, citing erroneus texts or taking Orthodox ones out of context.  Meanwhile, you  show no humility and do not think for a moment that you just might be wrong.  You loudly proclaim to know all about Orthodoxy, and then you show that you are not by disparaging the Church by calling it the "institutional" church of which you are happy to not be a member, etc. etc.  All signs that it is you who are the heretic, and no one else. 

I bear you no personal malilce, but as long as you hold to your position as a stalwart heretic, I will no longer respond to your posts, and I encourage everyone else here to do the same.

 

[Pravoslavbob]

;D :laugh: ;D  "Disestablishmentarian Orthodox"  :-X  :-X  ;D

This must be one of the funniest things I have heard in a long time. Congratulations pathofsolitude you have made me do something I actually never thought I would do: make a post on this forum.

To continue the topic "Are Protestants Christians?". I have been brought up in the Evangelical Lutheran church of Finland. Christian faith has always been important to me but I do remember a specific time in my life when I actually decided "I will follow Jesus Christ". This soon led to problems, it appeared to me that the church I belonged to, or at least its bishops, was not interested in this (another topic).

While looking around for a spiritual home I have been attending a Pentecostal church for some years. Becoming a Pentecostal has never really been an option for me (yet another topic) but I did get to know many honest good Christians (as far as I knew).

During the last year I have been attending the Orthodox Church in my town, have become catechumen. And officially left the Lutheran church (and this is quite a deal for a Finnish citizen, has to do with taxes, population records and other stuff).

So the question "Are Protestants Christians?" makes me wonder: when did I become a Christian?

Was it from childhood due to the upbringing my parents gave me?
Was it when I decided that I will follow Christ?
Was it when I started attending the Orthodox Church?
Was it when I became a catechumen?
Was it when I officially left the Lutheran church?
Or...
Will it be when I officially enter the Orthodox Church (same thing with taxes and population records)
Will it be when I become chrismated?
Or will it be when I have killed my ego, crucified my body and am only living to serve God?

My priest has taught (I'm paraphrasing here so be kind) during catechism class that there are two kinds of Christians:
1. Christians who believes (all) the teachings of the Church. These are called Orthodox.
2. Christians who do not believe (all) the teachings of the Church. These are NOT called Orthodox.

These things are of course stupidly obvious. But I believe he told us this precisely so we would not pass judgment whether a Lutheran or a Pentecostal is Christian or not. He has also taught us that it is strictly forbidden for an Orthodox to say if another human will go to hell or not and this extends to all sorts of similar things. Of course I could have misunderstood completely and it might be completely acceptable to call "Disestablishmentarian Orthodox" "not Christian".

The teaching of my Priest is also the opinion of my bishop, His Eminence Panteleimon of the Diocese of Oulu (otherwise His Eminence would give a whupping to my priest).

...And now you know why I have refrained from posting sooner. I do not know when to shut up.

Please have patience.
- Robert

Great post Robert.  Thanks for sharing with us about your road to Orthodoxy and your other thoughts.  Welcome to the forum! 

 

[Pravoslavbob]

Depraved and crippled, yes. 

Hi David.  How are you?

Are you sure that you want to be saying that we are born depraved?  Maybe you could flesh this point out some more.  Thanks.

 

[James]

The newbie reminds me of Matthew777...for some reason

 

[PeterTheAleut]

There is nothing "invisible" about it! I really dont know where you got that idea from. The Church is made up of humans and humans are very visible creatures.

You must not read your own posts, then.  I got that idea of which you speak from you.

In response to the people who asked me my view of what the Church is- I say that the Church is everyone who has the Holy Spirit. The Church is the mystical body of Christ. Again, its not manmade Established State "churches", as the external structures are only the shell of the real thing. As to who I think is "in"- mostly Orthodox solitary walkers, monastics, clergy, and some devout lay people; some confused Roman Catholics; and possibly a few Protestants who dont feel comfortable in their religion. Everybody who prays continually is already in or will soon be in the Church.

How are you NOT identifying the Church as purely an invisible reality with the above quote?

And, [maybe it was in the other thread going on right now,] I affirmed that bishops have authority over their own local community. In the time of Ignatius [110AD] there was at least one bishop in every town. This corresponds to the situation in many towns in America [like mine] where there is only one Orthodox church. The priest, to Ignatius and I, is basically their bishop. However, the Greek Archdiocese of which he is a member, does not claim any territorial authority.

The Greek Archdiocese claims no territorial authority?  That's news to me.  The GOA doesn't call itself the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America for nothing.  This title is itself a claim to territorial authority.

Come to think of it, the Church has made adjustments to circumstances resulting from her rapid expansion during the time of the Byzantine empire by establishing bishops as rulers of dioceses (WITH territorial boundaries) and priests as rectors of parishes and vicars of their bishops--ultimately, the bishop and not each local priest is the ruler of every parish in his diocese--and you would set yourself up to judge this adaptation as uncanonical, because we no longer have a bishop in every city?  We do still have a bishop in every city; he rules vicariously through every priest to whom he has delegated his ruling authority, yet he is still the episcopos, or overseer.

Therefore I am not bound to obey that group and am free to travel out of town to attend a different church- which is what I do.

IOW, obedience to an authority outside yourself is not part of your vocabulary.  You're free to roll your own Christianity. :-\

 

[Pedro]

Hi David.  How are you?

Doin' good.  Busy!

Are you sure that you want to be saying that we are born depraved?  Maybe you could flesh this point out some more.  Thanks.

Sure; both girls are down for a nap  ...

When I say "depraved" I don't mean we're devoid of the image of God, held guilty of Adam's sin and/or completely incapable of any good response towards God, a la total depravity and monergism.  What we are is, to quote West Side Story, "depraved on account'a we're deprived!"  We've been deprived of communion with God who is Life, so we're depraved b/c of the death that reigns in our fleshly members, ie our mortality.  We're like an apple that's been picked from a tree and is starting to experience rot.  Are we still recognizable for what we are (created in God's image)?  Yeah.  Are we what our Harvester wants us to be?  No; we're rotting and unfit for use, even though we're still technically "apples."

...and here the metaphor ends, but I hope you get the idea.  We're depraved and crippled--i.e., mortal and operating under the fear of said mortality--from birth, and we need union with our Life in order to restore the dead, rotten parts of ourselves to living, working order.

 

[Pedro]

Also...didn't Augustine talk about the one, institutional church in which the true, practicing members resided?

Sort of a "wheat growing with the tares" kind of thing?  I see no reason why admitting that we don't know who the saved are necessitates that we call something other than the visible, Orthodox Church, "The Church."

Just a thought.

 

[Pravoslavbob]

Thanks for clarifying things David.  I must say, though, that I don't like the word "depraved."

Was you last post meant for me?  I don't get it if it was, as I agree with the things you wrote here.  Maybe you can explain this also, if you get a chance. 

Thanks!

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Thanks for clarifying things David.  I must say, though, that I don't like the word "depraved."

Was you last post meant for me?  I don't get it if it was, as I agree with the things you wrote here.  Maybe you can explain this also, if you get a chance. 

Thanks!

If by "last post" you mean this one:

Also...didn't Augustine talk about the one, institutional church in which the true, practicing members resided?

Sort of a "wheat growing with the tares" kind of thing?  I see no reason why admitting that we don't know who the saved are necessitates that we call something other than the visible, Orthodox Church, "The Church."

Just a thought.

, I think this fits in more with what pathofsolitude has been preaching about an invisible church of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Pedro]

Yeah; sorry.  That one was to jump in on what pathofsolitude was saying...

 

[GOCTheophan]

Oxymoron  To be Orthodox is to follow the canons, which is the definition of canonical.  To be uncanonical by not following the canons makes one of necessity NOT Orthodox.  You're either uncanonical or your Orthodox, but you cannot be both.

Amen!

And that is why the OCA is not Orthodox for the simple reason it uses the Papal Menion. Of course there are lots of other reasons she outside of the Ark of Salvation too.

Theophan.

 

[GOCTheophan]

In all honesty, I don't think Pathofsolitude is a troll. On the Ukrainian forum "Maidan," I often read very similar posts of people who confess Eastern Rite Catholic faith. They also emphasize on the Augustinian "total depravity," and say that we, the Orthodox, should embrace this concept because "that's what the Eastern Church taught all along, not just the Roman Catholic Church."

I dont think that Path of Solitude is defending the Calvinist heresy of total depravity.

I think he is defending the Orthodox truth of Original Sin. The fact that we are born with a guilty nature, Spiritually cut of from God and subject to death and decay.

Read the canons of the Council of Carthage.

Theophan.