My church defined your church's bible

[orthodox]

So my point remains that it was all about an institution, and accepting whatever wisdom it holds just because it holds it. This still presumes that only that group was the Church.

Not group singular, but groups plural. And yes I freely admit that only the groups that follow the inherited apostolic teachings are the church proper. Just like you probably wouldn't accept churches as being fully legitimate that changed the teachings like Mormons.

All along, you've been using the "agreement" as proof of what the "communion" or dogmatic truth is to begin with, now you're making dogma a separate "true" criteria from agreement!

Well sure. The church is able to distuinguish between dogmatic truth and mere custom. If a new pastor came into your church and said that from now on you're only going to sing hymns and not modern music, you probably can deal with that. But if he came into a baptist church and said he was going to start baptising babies, wouldn't you be up in arms? That's why we believe the consensus on dogmatic issues accurately reflects the apostolic teaching. Churches rarely are willing to give up their teaching. Certainly no en-masse with no remaining evidence.

But we can make up faux "truth" in order to separate ourselves from others, in order to be "better" through claims of sole truth bearing, just like the scripture you cited from 1 John says.

Even you have to admit that Orthodoxy are the sole bearers of truth because nobody else was copying those manuscripts that make up your bible today. That is a FACT, and by stating that fact it doesn't make us proud, it just makes us truthful. Rejecting those facts doesn't make you humble either. It just makes you disobedient to authority.

The church is comprised of its individuals. You seem to be affirming that
The Spirit did all of His witnessing in the beginning, and then subsequently stopped, leaving the Early postapostolic Church as setting the standards, and the institution that grew from their teachings as the sole definition of "the Church".

Again, not one institution, but institutions. And yes, it was the post-apostolic churches that the Spirit was witnessing to. Who do you think he would be witnessing to? The Buddists in China? The unbelieving Jews? Of course it was the Church. And we affirm that the Spirit still witnesses to the Church, but we have no idea what's going on outside the Church. We doubt the Spirit was witnessing to heretical schismatic groups like the gnostics, the monantists, the Marcions etc. Orthodoxy has seen these groups come and go.

Regardless, It may not have been in question in the RCC/EOC, but the point was, we did not make up our OT canon as you claimed.

No, you copied it from the Jews who rejected Christ. That's about as reliable an authority as Mormons.

There was apparently reason enough for them to be questioned; especially when the people who authored them questioned them, and examples include the Maccabees containing contradictions, or something.

There's no shortage of unbelievers pointing to "contradictions" throughout the bible. Why are your alleged contraditions any different?

Not because of their group, but because of what they teach about Christ. And I do not hold my view of Christ because of what the Creed says. I believe the creed captures the basic scriptural truth against the other positions it was formulated against, but even then, I believe its language is often overformulated, which causes problems (e.g. "One substance, three persons")

Ok, so what you teach about Christ is different to what we teach, so again it's not about the institution, it's about the doctrines.

So why don't you give us the Eric B Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed? Or are you anti-creed altogether?

That's not what it says in the text. It says nothing about size, and at that point, the true Church was still relatively small, scattered and persecuted. Clearly, it is about trying to gain control, over as many people as possible by defining "the Church" by your own rule, and that has been more the "catholic" mindset than the mainstream protestant.

Unless I'm missing it, I don't see anything in the text about rejecting others because of the institution. We don't know why he rejected them, except to surmise that he wanted freedom to teach his own thing free of the apostolic influence. Sounds protestant to me.

And what's this nonsense about "gaining control"? The Orthodox never "gained control" over other churches, either by defining "the church" or otherwise. Christians WANTED to be one church back then. They couldn't conceive of splitting into a thousand denominations. And you want to criticize them for that? Havn't your arguments reached the point of perversity?

 

[Eric B]

With regard to the Council of Jamina:

You rely on their OT canon.
You don't rely on their NT canon.
You don't rely on their curse against Christians.
You don't rely on their rejection of who the Messiah is.

The choice to accept one and not the others is illogical.

Why do you accept their OT Canon when they deny your NT canon, when they curse you in their daily blessings, when they reject your Jesus as Messiah? Why?

That's like saying why do we accept their God, but not their Messiah (who hasn't come yet, or among some is a Brookly rabbi who died several years ago). God used them to give us the scriptures, and when they rejected Christ, God rejected them. Now what does that have to do with anything? Where do the both of you get this "if you accept one thing from a group you must accept everything" logic?

Who knows? Who cares? The Jews did lots of things against Christians that didn't make sense. The rejected the Septuagint because that is what Christians used. It may be that by this time they had physically lost these books in Hebrew. But the bottom line, why should we care? Various Jewish sects had different canons anyway. Saducees had only the Pentatuch. Who knows what Qumran had. We don't know what tradition the leadership of later Jews inherited.

No, you should follow the Tradition of the Church and not go into rampant speculations.

Inquiring mind was the one who brought the issue of WHY the Jews rejected the Apocrypha that I was responding to. You're now answering for him with your own speculation why, while telling me not to speculate.

I have to say that even when I was a protestant I was sympathetic to the idea that maybe protestants got it wrong in changing the canon. Then again, all the early protestant bibles included the books, but protestantism has changed yet again and is now unwilling to even include them.

Did you see the stuff he posted about the concept of church in that other thread? Even down to the "me and Jesus alone" caricature you frequently use, (which seems fishy to me, especially when you answer that point for him as well, and he doesn't [ok now he has, with the point made to say that if one has done his research, he will take a position like yours]). He is no protestant.
But maybe that was the point of the spoof of us in the other thread; a radical Protestant who thinks others are wrong on the canon. The two of you are using very similar lines of argumentation, making it look all the more suspicious.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. Now I've moved on to better things.

That is my leaning to. But what the better things are? Yet to be deterimined. I dislike the idea of people using the Bible as a shield to protect them from history.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

That's like saying why do we accept their God, but not their Messiah (who hasn't come yet, or among some is a Brookly rabbi who died several years ago). God used them to give us the scriptures, and when they rejected Christ, God rejected them. Now what does that have to do with anything? Where do the both of you get this "if you accept one thing from a group you must accept everything" logic?

Would you eat from a plate of 4 brownies where 1 of the 4 was known to contain arsenic? Or would you abstain from the whole thing?

Why accept 1 thing of theirs when all 4 are done to directly attack and distant themselves from the christians of the early church?

Let's put it actual case scenario. Would you eat from a plate of 4 brownies where 3 of the 4 was known to contain arsenic? Or would you abstain from the whole thing?

 

[Eric B]

Well, I guess I shouldn't accept their god or ANY of their scriptures, then.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

Well, I guess I shouldn't accept their god or ANY of their scriptures, then.

Acceptance of God is outside of the context of the subject. The subject is of the 4 distinct actions taken during this council against Christians. You accept 1 of these 4 actions. I reject all 4.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

I reject their new canon created over the existing canon.

I reject their curse.

I reject them removing us from the synagogues.

I reject them in their rejecting of new scripture.

I reject their rejection of my Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Eric B]

The fact that the Apocrypha was in one canon but not the other, before that council which chose one over the other proves the point that they were at least in question.

So if you reject that, then what do you accept? The Apocrypha according to the "tradition" of the "one true Church" (after all that stuff you said against the Church here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=32786) ?

 

[Eric B]

Well sure. The church is able to distuinguish between dogmatic truth and mere custom. If a new pastor came into your church and said that from now on you're only going to sing hymns and not modern music, you probably can deal with that. But if he came into a baptist church and said he was going to start baptising babies, wouldn't you be up in arms? That's why we believe the consensus on dogmatic issues accurately reflects the apostolic teaching. Churches rarely are willing to give up their teaching. Certainly no en-masse with no remaining evidence.

Everyone is dogmatic about what they think is right. A "consensus" still does not prove it came from the apostles. It was almost a complete consensus on Easter Sunday over Passover, and if not for the small footnote on the controversy, you would include that as universal dogma as well. The references to the other doctrines you are arguing for are still not proof they were univerally held dogma. Evidence for a theory, yes, but not proof enough to claim we are not apart of the Church.

And yes, it was the post-apostolic churches that the Spirit was witnessing to. Who do you think he would be witnessing to? The Buddists in China? The unbelieving Jews? Of course it was the Church. And we affirm that the Spirit still witnesses to the Church, but we have no idea what's going on outside the Church. We doubt the Spirit was witnessing to heretical schismatic groups like the gnostics, the monantists, the Marcions etc. Orthodoxy has seen these groups come and go.

But the issue was not the Spirit witnessing to the Church versus other religions, but rather He only guided a few generations of "fathers" into truth, and left everyone else to just follow them.

No, you copied it from the Jews who rejected Christ. That's about as reliable an authority as Mormons.

Do you have any statement where Protestants said "Let us accept the canon of the Christ-rejecting Jews"? (And I thought Protestants just made it up. Now the story has changed)

There's no shortage of unbelievers pointing to "contradictions" throughout the bible. Why are your alleged contraditions any different?

Because it is not unbelievers who are making the claims about these books. Still, why would either the Jews or Protestants choose some books from your canon to reject (leave out of the Palestine canon), if they just made up the distinction?

Again, not one institution, but institutions.

Ok, so what you teach about Christ is different to what we teach, so again it's not about the institution, it's about the doctrines.

So why don't you give us the Eric B Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed? Or are you anti-creed altogether?

Unless I'm missing it, I don't see anything in the text about rejecting others because of the institution. We don't know why he rejected them, except to surmise that he wanted freedom to teach his own thing free of the apostolic influence. Sounds protestant to me.

And what's this nonsense about "gaining control"? The Orthodox never "gained control" over other churches, either by defining "the church" or otherwise. Christians WANTED to be one church back then. They couldn't conceive of splitting into a thousand denominations. And you want to criticize them for that? Havn't your arguments reached the point of perversity?

Not group singular, but groups plural. And yes I freely admit that only the groups that follow the inherited apostolic teachings are the church proper. Just like you probably wouldn't accept churches as being fully legitimate that changed the teachings like Mormons.

Even you have to admit that Orthodoxy are the sole bearers of truth because nobody else was copying those manuscripts that make up your bible today. That is a FACT, and by stating that fact it doesn't make us proud, it just makes us truthful. Rejecting those facts doesn't make you humble either. It just makes you disobedient to authority.

But any "fact" is not what is being rejected. It is NOT fact that all of the rest of your doctrines are automatically proven.
This statement says a lot. "Disobedient against authority". This strongly suggests, it is all about control. You insist it is not about an institution, a group or leaders. It is a body of people, under Christ's authority and doctrine. (And I don't know what you mean by "teach about Christ different to what we teach"). Yet because I don't leave one institution and join another [your] institution, (or that my whole "group" doesn't adopt your group's practices, in which case it would become one of several "true [sub]groups" then I am disobedient. So it is about the institution or institutions, or whatever, apparently! Should I snatch babies and dunk them in water three times? Should I bow to the next religious picture I see? Is that "obedient" enough for you?
What's prideful is if these are not issues by which we judge others as not in Christ's Church, just like all the other sects that do it. Diotrophes was trying to establish his own "apostolic authority", and that is what "catholisicm" does, casting everyone else out of, [in his idea] "Christ".

 

[Inquiring Mind]

The fact that the Apocrypha was in one canon but not the other, before that council which chose one over the other proves the point that they were at least in question.

So if you reject that, then what do you accept? The Apocrypha according to the "tradition" of the "one true Church" (after all that stuff you said against the Church here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=32786) ?

Both Canons were determined by Jews. What the Jews did at the Council of Jamnia is same that Martin Luther tried to do when he wanted to remove James, Jude, and Revelations from the already decided Canon of the New Testament. They were in question as you put it solely on the issue of a lack of a counterpart in Hebrew. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shown that reason to be groundless so there is now not a valid reason for removing them with respect to 20/20 hindsight. Although the Essennes had departed from the Jews to establish their own monkish type life they did keep the original Hebrew language of the Bible intact. I accept the Apocrypha on the basis of the LXX not because of the RCC or the EO. I also accept the Apocrypha on the basis of the councils of the forth Century. In Question you say. For the first 400 years Christians could not even agree what was inspired or not inspired with respect to the 100 or so documents out there. Each prominent writer after the death of the Last Apostle had differing opinions on what was inspired or not. The NT doctrine was not even established until men came together at a council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and once and for all made a discernment under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as what was considered inspired. This Council of Christian men, whatever they were, made the decision with the help of the Holy Spirit for the rest of humanity and christiandom.

Side note: For the first 300 years, christianity could not even decide on the reality of the Trinity. There were varying opinions on this subject. The ECFs were equally divided over this Issue. The first Council of Nicaea met in 325 AD formalized the Doctrine of the Trinity. At this same council they expanded the Apostles Creed to the creation of the Nicene Creed. Even the origins of the Apostle's Creed is left to speculation as to when it was created. Most say the Apostles themselves created it, but records attesting to this do not exist or are vary vague.

 

[Eric B]

The council chose one of THEIR existing canons over the other. That is not what Martin Luther did, as he did not choose one canon that existed prior, but rather edited an existing canon.

 

[El_Guero]

Well whatever you call it, it is confusing trying to figure out what you are arguing for.

I argue like someone that has done some research into the Past and ignored what I was taught by my Pastors of old.

 

[El_Guero]

Not group singular, but groups plural. And yes I freely admit that only the groups that follow the inherited apostolic teachings are the church proper. Just like you probably wouldn't accept churches as being fully legitimate that changed the teachings like Mormons.

Did you really intend to Compare Christians to Mormons?

IMHO. Basil & John Chrysostum would have blasted the mormon herersy and I do not think they would have been kind to your allegation that modern NT Christianity should be compared to a heresy.

 

[orthodox]

Did you really intend to Compare Christians to Mormons?

So mormons aren't Christians?

IMHO. Basil & John Chrysostum would have blasted the mormon herersy and I do not think they would have been kind to your allegation that modern NT Christianity should be compared to a heresy.

If by "modern NT Christianity" you mean protestant land, absolutely they would have considered that a heresy. In fact to suggest otherwise is quite amazing. Chrysostom says the Church, "is but one, by the unity of her doctrine" (V, 244; XI, 554). Obviously, protestants have left that unity.

 

[El_Guero]

So you endorse heretics . . . great for you.

So mormons aren't Christians?


If by "modern NT Christianity" you mean protestant land, absolutely they would have considered that a heresy. In fact to suggest otherwise is quite amazing. Chrysostom says the Church, "is but one, by the unity of her doctrine" (V, 244; XI, 554). Obviously, protestants have left that unity.

By modern NT Christianity I mean the 'Church'. The universal 'Church' that has always existed. I mean the return to NT Christianity as recognized by the Church Fathers, the Reformers, and the modern Christian Theologians. The unity of our doctrine is our understanding of Our Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

But, I do not mean heretics and their supporters. I don't and the Church Fathers did not. Neither did Paul, Matthew, Mark, John, or that little guy you seem to forget - Jesus Christ, "The Author and Perfecter of our faith".

 

[orthodox]

Everyone is dogmatic about what they think is right. A "consensus" still does not prove it came from the apostles. It was almost a complete consensus on Easter Sunday over Passover, and if not for the small footnote on the controversy, you would include that as universal dogma as well. The references to the other doctrines you are arguing for are still not proof they were univerally held dogma. Evidence for a theory, yes, but not proof enough to claim we are not apart of the Church.

And the agreement at the Jerusalem council in Acts is no proof they were correct either. But we follow the biblical model that the Church gathers together its bishops in council to decide matters of dogma. You can ignore the scriptural model if you choose to, just like you could have ignored the Jerusalem council, but that puts you outside of the scriptural model and outside of historic Christianity.

But the issue was not the Spirit witnessing to the Church versus other religions, but rather He only guided a few generations of "fathers" into truth, and left everyone else to just follow them.

No, we believe that the Holy Spirit still guides the CHURCH, but we believe he guided it in ALL ages. So we hold to what the Church taught in every age. You doubt the Holy Spirit's guiding in all ages, so why you expect His guidance in your age to you personally is rather arrogant, considering you doubt His past guidance. What is that parable about the one who invests what he is already given, will be given more, but he puts what he has been given into a hole and does nothing with it, even that will be taken away.

Do you have any statement where Protestants said "Let us accept the canon of the Christ-rejecting Jews"? (And I thought Protestants just made it up. Now the story has changed)

Hey, you protestants are telling the story about your canon, you should be telling us. As far as I see, Luther came up with the speculation/fantasy that the modern Hebrew canon must be the same as the ancient one, and either through capriciousness, or because he wasn't happy with the docctrines in it, he downgraded its status in his teachings, as he did with James and Revelatioin. For some reason, protestants continued with the slippery slope of downgrading, but pulled back on James and Revelation.

Anyway, sounds to me like you don't even know yourself why you have a particular canon. Does this not bother you?

Because it is not unbelievers who are making the claims about these books.

But are the claims any different? That is the issue.

Still, why would either the Jews or Protestants choose some books from your canon to reject (leave out of the Palestine canon), if they just made up the distinction?

Why did the ancient Marcionites only use Luke and certain select parts of Paul? How do I know? Why do I care? I want to know what the Church is doing in all ages, not the latest fad, or revisionist Jews or Lutherans

This statement says a lot. "Disobedient against authority". This strongly suggests, it is all about control.
You insist it is not about an institution, a group or leaders. It is a body of people, under Christ's authority and doctrine.

It is the authority of the Church, which is not just about the leaders as you suggest. It is the authority of the whole body. Yes, leaders are a part of that. Did Paul say to obey the leaders of the Church or did he say to go form a new schism when you disagree with the church? You tell me what scripture teaches. You don't obey scripture about holding to traditions, you don't obey scripture about holding church councils to form doctrine, you don't follow scripture about obeying authorities in the Church. Instead of sola scriptura, maybe you shoud call it partum-scriptura.

(And I don't know what you mean by "teach about Christ different to what we teach"). Yet because I don't leave one institution and join another [your] institution, (or that my whole "group" doesn't adopt your group's practices, in which case it would become one of several "true [sub]groups" then I am disobedient. So it is about the institution or institutions, or whatever, apparently! Should I snatch babies and dunk them in water three times? Should I bow to the next religious picture I see? Is that "obedient" enough for you?

You're starting to rave a bit now. Assume for a second that our practices and teachings are right and yours are wrong. Assume you are asking your questions above the the Apostle, or even Christ himself. What would THEY say? That is the question for you to ponder. You think they would say "do what you want to do, be what you want to be". I suggest they wouldn't.

What's prideful is if these are not issues by which we judge others as not in Christ's Church, just like all the other sects that do it. Diotrophes was trying to establish his own "apostolic authority", and that is what "catholisicm" does, casting everyone else out of, [in his idea] "Christ".

Yeah, Diotrophes was trying to establish his own apostolic authority, which was bad BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY. Was John prideful in taking him to task? Of course not because he had apostolic authority. The Church believes it continues to have apostolic authority.

 

[orthodox]

So you endorse heretics . . . great for you.

??? huh

By modern NT Christianity I mean the 'Church'. The universal 'Church' that has always existed. I mean the return to NT Christianity as recognized by the Church Fathers, the Reformers, and the modern Christian Theologians.

Which one is it, the Church Fathers, the Reformers or modern Theologians? You've got to pick one, because they don't teach the same thing.

The unity of our doctrine is our understanding of Our Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

What understanding is that?

But, I do not mean heretics and their supporters.

And who is going to define who are heretics? You?

 

[Eliyahu]

??? huh
And who is going to define who are heretics? You?

The Words of God, Bible is the Judge until the Lord comes.

For the major doctrines and teachings, it is not difficult to judge according to the Bible.
None of the Bibles, neither KJV, nor Catholic Vulgate, nor NIV, nor NASB denies that Idol making and Idol worshipping are the grievous sins.

Now if Roman Catholic performs the Idol making business and Idol Worshipping, isn't Roman Catholic Heretic ?

Please tell me your honest judgment on this.

 

[orthodox]

The Words of God, Bible is the Judge until the Lord comes.

For the major doctrines and teachings, it is not difficult to judge according to the Bible.
None of the Bibles, neither KJV, nor Catholic Vulgate, nor NIV, nor NASB denies that Idol making and Idol worshipping are the grievous sins.

Now if Roman Catholic performs the Idol making business and Idol Worshipping, isn't Roman Catholic Heretic ?

If you were worshipping idols, you wouldn't be Roman Catholic by definition. So it looks like you are already confused. See how tricky it is?

 

[Eric B]

And the agreement at the Jerusalem council in Acts is no proof they were correct either. But we follow the biblical model that the Church gathers together its bishops in council to decide matters of dogma. You can ignore the scriptural model if you choose to, just like you could have ignored the Jerusalem council, but that puts you outside of the scriptural model and outside of historic Christianity.

It is the authority of the Church, which is not just about the leaders as you suggest. It is the authority of the whole body. Yes, leaders are a part of that. Did Paul say to obey the leaders of the Church or did he say to go form a new schism when you disagree with the church? You tell me what scripture teaches. You don't obey scripture about holding to traditions, you don't obey scripture about holding church councils to form doctrine, you don't follow scripture about obeying authorities in the Church. Instead of sola scriptura, maybe you shoud call it partum-scriptura.

No, we believe that the Holy Spirit still guides the CHURCH, but we believe he guided it in ALL ages. So we hold to what the Church taught in every age. You doubt the Holy Spirit's guiding in all ages, so why you expect His guidance in your age to you personally is rather arrogant, considering you doubt His past guidance. What is that parable about the one who invests what he is already given, will be given more, but he puts what he has been given into a hole and does nothing with it, even that will be taken away.

Its not that I do not follow traditions; its that you have not proven your traditions were really taught by the apostles.
I believe in holding church councils, so I don't know where you get that from. I do find it funny that you do not consider the Jerusalem council to be the first of the Seven, but rather [the politically infused] Nicea instead, which can make a strong argument that the Church of that time and later was already (almost admittedly) a different institution from the apostles.
And I do obey authorities. Maybe not yours, but then neither do I follow JW or Mormon authorities.

And I believe the Spirit guided the Church of all ages, but just like now with all our carnal division, we did not always completely listen to Him, hence the unbiblical tradition of the past. You're the one assuming that some generations of the entire Church were perfectly obedient, and then it all broke loose at some point, except for those who followed whatever the oldest group(s) taught. In reality, one age listened to the Spirit in one area (unity), and did what they wanted elsewhere, and another age simply swapped one area for the other.

Hey, you protestants are telling the story about your canon, you should be telling us. As far as I see, Luther came up with the speculation/fantasy that the modern Hebrew canon must be the same as the ancient one, and either through capriciousness, or because he wasn't happy with the docctrines in it, he downgraded its status in his teachings, as he did with James and Revelatioin. For some reason, protestants continued with the slippery slope of downgrading, but pulled back on James and Revelation.

Anyway, sounds to me like you don't even know yourself why you have a particular canon. Does this not bother you?

Why did the ancient Marcionites only use Luke and certain select parts of Paul? How do I know? Why do I care? I want to know what the Church is doing in all ages, not the latest fad, or revisionist Jews or Lutherans

But are the claims any different? That is the issue.

You sound like the one speculating now. Anyway, I pretty much followed your rule of "consensus" on that one. The entire Church today agrees on the 66 books; not everyone agrees on the other books, and to compare total nonbelievers' arguments with Spirit-led Christians doesn't mean anything.

You're starting to rave a bit now. Assume for a second that our practices and teachings are right and yours are wrong. Assume you are asking your questions above the the Apostle, or even Christ himself. What would THEY say? That is the question for you to ponder. You think they would say "do what you want to do, be what you want to be". I suggest they wouldn't.

Yeah, Diotrophes was trying to establish his own apostolic authority, which was bad BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY. Was John prideful in taking him to task? Of course not because he had apostolic authority. The Church believes it continues to have apostolic authority.

"What if", basically. OK, I always ask "what if", for any claim I run across. And yours just does not have enough proof for me to assume it is true. I "rave" sometimes, because you start raving about what I refuse to believe, follow or obey, none of which you have come close to proving, except to presume it based purely on its own self-assumed authority. It's not about "do what you want to do", and that is an inflammatory caricature that noone here has advocated except Inquiring Mind (which is why it looks like ultimately part of an argument for your side).
This debate is no different than the ones with the sabbathkeepers, the Church of Christ, and fundies on hymns only or no fermented beverages. Perhaps you should consider that you are closer to those groups and Diotrophes in spirit, and thus just as apart of the problem of schism.