-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Orthodox Christians
- Thread starter Anastasia
- Start date
- Status
Are they Christians or not? Do you think they will be saved?
Oh my yes! .... They are/were wonderful Christians and carried our Pauline Christianity throughout Asia Minor and the Byzantine Empire. They governed the Church under Constantine to the Ottomans in 1454AD.
They maintained the correct decisions of Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD and beyond of other Emporers, they accurately defined the Holy Ghost and separated God from Jesus from the Holy Ghost. In addition, they carried-on the Mary Magdalene story. They ruled All of Roman Chridtianity untill 1453AD and the RCC untill 1054AD.
They were demonetized around the 1054AD Schism by the remnant of the W. Romans and the RCC. This all resulted when RCC originated in 1053AD during the Schism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–West_Schism
Zara ..
one ..... :saint:
Last edited by a moderator:
And Oriental Orthodox.
They also share in the idea of theosis as a means of salvation. They are not sola scriptura. They are not necessarily young earth creationists. They also sometimes ask Mary or the saints to intercede for them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Eastern Orthodoxy is the branch of Christendom that has changed the least over the centuries.
They are the branch that has held to the original doctrine of the atonement -- Christus Victor.
I like and agree with many of their teachings. Some I can't go along with, though.
They are the branch that has held to the original doctrine of the atonement -- Christus Victor.
I like and agree with many of their teachings. Some I can't go along with, though.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Theosis is simply what Paul is speaking of in Romans 12:2 become transformed into the image of Christ. See I think you are working with differing definitions of Salvation. For most "sola scriptura" believers hold "salvation" as 1 thing: Getting to heaven. Where traditional Christianity to include several of the reformers hold that "salvation" is inclusive of a wide spread of things from faith, to Justification, to sanctification, to glorification, etc... to include "getting into heaven". It depends on the context of what you mean when speaking of salvation thus Orthodox and Catholics believe that theosis is part of our salvation. Because the point of giving us faith is to transform us by having us be born from above and living in the Spirit to restore in us what God originally wanted for us that Adam and Eve fell from by sinning and placing in man what Orthodox call Ancestrial sin where as all western christians hold to a slightly different view called original sin.
As far as young earth creationist I believe Orthodox don't hold anyone to a young earth view but they understand the creation story similar to a Mishnaic type teaching. Teaching theolgoical truths in an understandable format that isn't meant to be taken literal in a technical scientific frame work. But certainly Orthodox can take it that way if they wish.
As for the Saints they hold to the Nicean Creed of the communion of Saints. The belief that all Christians who die temporally aren't really dead but more alive in Christ as they are with God. And since the church resides both in and out of space time that when someone passes from this life they are still members of the church interceding or praying for us in this current struggle cheering us on to life with them in heaven praising God the Father. So they do pray for their intercessions.
I am not a Theosis expert here and will rely on your opinion. I am not even sure if they still practice this. It is problematic particularly if they raise a live Theologian to a semi Deity. Otherwise a dead Saint or Theologian is as important as a dead Pharaoh.
All Christianity is this way. The Profits, Moses, Danial, Revelation ... can't be read without history and a translation of the contortions of language.
Creationism timing is very unsettled in Christendom. The definition of a "day" hinges on the understanding of one Hebrew word yom. I am not a youngearther either. Six 24 HR days for creation is silly. Is it so that the present seventh day (era) of rest also a 24 HR day?
Asking Mary the Virgin or Mary Magdalene, Jesus's Apostle of Apostles, for anything doesn't hurt nor do anyone any good.
zara ..... :thumbs:
Last edited by a moderator:
They teach a false gospel and so those who really believe in the gospel they teach are not going to heaven. They simply are a slightly different ism than the greatest ism in professed Christianty (Romanism). However, as in all ism's there are those who are saved in spite of their affiliation and teachings.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
So according to you any theology that ends with "ism" is a false "religion" which sends people to hell? What do the Calvinist who believe in Calvinism think about that? Or how about the Armenianist who believe in Armenianism? Or how about the Ana-Baptist who believe in Ana-baptism? Or again baptizers?
Reread what I said! I did not speak of "theology" but of soteriology - another gospel. I said they preach/teach/beleive in a false gospel and that is what sends them to hell. Sacramentailism is a false gospel at its core.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Ok so anyone who believes in a system of salvation that could be catagorized with an "ism" are preaching another gospel? In that case I bring up the same group as before and ask you or them what they think about that.
And I contend that Sacramentalism is not a false gospel and that despite what you think you actually practice Sacramentalism. Because Sacaments aren't the Gospel themselves they are ways which God gives grace to us. The gospel is a different animal. It comes from Greek indicating a military victory anouncement ie "good news!" (the battle is won!) What is the Good News? What is this miliatary victory anouncement? Well, Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Assryrian Christians, Protestants, Baptist all claim the same thing. God became incarnate, suffered and died for us but also he raised from the dead defeating sin and death so that whomever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life with the forgiveness of sins. Where we differ is in aspects of understanding this Good news.
Last edited by a moderator:
They do still believe in it. I was talking with an Oriental Orthodox priest a few weeks ago and asked if they believed it like the Eastern Orthodox.
Plenty of Reformation and post-modern Christians will argue otherwise.
You mean the Shabbat? That is approximately 24 hours, sun down to sun down. If they truly looked at the context of doctrines in the world, how could things like creation research institute type of places not convince them of the literal 24-hour days young earth creationism?
How does the different view of original sin not compromise their salvation through Christ or offer something completely different than scripture?
Orthodoxwiki also cites 2 Peter 1:4
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis said:
If they can hold this about creation, how much does their "Tradition" really stop them from not literally believing in Christ's literal incarnation, death, etc.?
OK. You are the Theologian here.
Scripture is an assembly of words and is filled with words, symbolisms, reverse parallelisms, proverb, verbal traditions, satire, punctuations, ...... all are bounded on history of that day, translations, human misunderstandings, objections to content, and images of the benevolent Diets ..... .
I still join the camps defining Days to mean era's that can be billions of years and can overlap.
Sue convinces me. How about you?
.............................................................................................. SUE
...................................................
...................http://fieldmuseum.org/about/sues-10th-anniversary
"Days" are mostly irrelevent, ONE GOD, ..... EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING ; are not!
zara ........ :type:
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Well, first of all I would challenge that Ancestrial sin is different than how scripture speaks of it. Ancestrial sin for the Orthodox holds that humanity has a fallen nature by virtue of decending from Adam and Eve. Humanity, because of the first event, trends towards sin. However, emphasising God's Justice man is accountable for their own personal sin. But we don't hold the guilt for Adam's or Eve's sin. Personally however I hold that we do hold the guilt but then I'm Catholic.
Yes but in both cases the idea isn't that we become ourselves God which I think is how the misunderstanding of what the ECF is saying but that we as humans are partaking of the divine nature. Or become true images of Christ himself.
Its a good question but shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how "Tradition" and "Scriptures" work or viewed from and Orthodox understanding. First of all "Tradition" can never teach something that has never been taught. Let me quote the Orthodox here
The Trinity copnception has been struggled in Christiandom since Paul's and Peter's intense debates when James gave Christiondom to Paul.
The Eastern Orthodox, being the State Church from Constantine the Great, still generally keeps the prevailing Arian principal desicion of Constantine eminating from the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD that there is only One God, one Jesus/Christ the Son of Man/God, and one Holy Ghost, each distinct.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/doctrine1.aspx
THE HOLY TRINITY
By the 4th century a polarity developed between the Eastern and Western Christians in their respective understandings of the Trinity. In the West God was understood primarily in terms of one essence (the Trinity of Persons being conceived as an irrational truth found in revelation); in the East the tri-personality of God was understood as the primary fact of Christian experience. For most of the Greek Fathers, it was not the Trinity that needed theological proof but rather God's essential unity. The Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil of Caesarea) were even accused of being tri-theists because of the personalistic emphasis of their conception of God as one essence in three hypostases (the Greek term hypostasis was the equivalent of the Latin substantia and designated a concrete reality). For Greek theologians, this terminology was intended to designate the concrete New Testamental revelation of the Son and the Spirit, as distinct from the Father.
Modern Orthodox theologians tend to emphasize this personalistic approach to God; they claim that they discover in it the original biblical personalism, unadulterated in its content by later philosophical speculation.
This is a profound understanding but for some reason remanins severly contraversial.
zara ....:godisgood:
The Eastern Orthodox, being the State Church from Constantine the Great, still generally keeps the prevailing Arian principal desicion of Constantine eminating from the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD that there is only One God, one Jesus/Christ the Son of Man/God, and one Holy Ghost, each distinct.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/doctrine1.aspx
THE HOLY TRINITY
By the 4th century a polarity developed between the Eastern and Western Christians in their respective understandings of the Trinity. In the West God was understood primarily in terms of one essence (the Trinity of Persons being conceived as an irrational truth found in revelation); in the East the tri-personality of God was understood as the primary fact of Christian experience. For most of the Greek Fathers, it was not the Trinity that needed theological proof but rather God's essential unity. The Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil of Caesarea) were even accused of being tri-theists because of the personalistic emphasis of their conception of God as one essence in three hypostases (the Greek term hypostasis was the equivalent of the Latin substantia and designated a concrete reality). For Greek theologians, this terminology was intended to designate the concrete New Testamental revelation of the Son and the Spirit, as distinct from the Father.
Modern Orthodox theologians tend to emphasize this personalistic approach to God; they claim that they discover in it the original biblical personalism, unadulterated in its content by later philosophical speculation.
This is a profound understanding but for some reason remanins severly contraversial.
zara ....:godisgood:
Last edited by a moderator:
Romans 4:5-12 completely repudiates the use of divine ordinances in regeneration, remission of sins or justification.
No we do not! We don't even come close to the same thing. The good news is the news about COMPLETE SATISFACTION (Rom. 3:25) of the laws two demands:
1. The condemnation/punishment of the law against sin FULLYsatisfied
2. The righteousness demanded by the law FULLY satisfied
That is how Christ won the VICTORY over sin - by fully satisfying God's Law by his life (spotless lamb) offered up substitutionarily for sinners which God accepted and the proof is the resurrection over death by Christ.
Your gospel is BAD NEWS when it comes to satsifying the demands of God's righteous demands! You preach a HALF gospel and thus "another gospel" as you deny the most important aspect.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I disagree with your interpretation of Romans 4:5-12. That passage has nothing to do with repudiating ordinances in regeneraton or remissions of sins. It certainly has to do with the primacy of faith over being able to work to gain salvation as if God would owe anybody anything. But it doesn't forgo ordinances. That is a misreading of that passage. Faith must come first. Works done with out faith to hold over God doesn't work. However, contextually in Romans Faith is always primary so that once obtain works of obedience would follow. Paul in this passage repudiates the idea that works of their own cannot move God to save us.
We're going to have to disagree.
I don't know what passage you are referring to but Romans 3:25 says
Nothing in that passage that says complete satsifaction. Not that I disagree that Christ provides complete sastisfaction for the propitiation of our sins by dying on the cross for those who believe. But I don't think that is what you mean.
I agree that Christ won the victory over sin by satisfying God's law in his life and rising from the dead in his own power. But you miss an important aspect. The very nature of the incarnation reveals that God joins himself to man in order to satisfy attonement requirements but not substitutionary rather he offered up himself in brotherhood, a holy, perfect, blameless sacrifice, freely offered for all sinners for sinners. which, was worth so much more than our punishment. Taking upon himself sin and death.
- Status