Orthodox Christianity

Orthodox Christianity ^ | Richard Shaward

[don-o]

Hello and welcome to my site. My name is Richard Shaward and this site reflects my Christian journey.

What I share on this site are things regarding Christianity that have had a personal impact on me, articles that I like, articles that have shaped my theological thinking, and what I would like to share with others while on my Christian journey.

A little background about me. I was not raised a Christian. I became a Christian at age 20 in a small Dutch Reformed and Calvinistic denomination and those early years were formative and meaningful. I went to a Reformed College and received a B.R.E degree. Later I became went to a Baptist Seminary and received a MDiv degree. I became a Baptist Pastor and served in three Baptistic type Churches.During all these years my life worldview was mainly within a mindset of the Anti-Rome Protestant Reformation. There are many Protestant Christians who, like me, are/were often very ignorant of a broader deposit of Christianity outside of a post 16th century box. In sincere ignorance I never knew that Christianity was broader than that Western historical context. I stumbled upon Eastern Orthodoxy. My family entered the Orthodox Church and after five years. I desire to have an Evangelical Orthodox Christianity that has existed throughout all of the Church’s History since the book of Acts and yet as powerful of a witness today.

I do not want to be labeled ”Eastern Orthodox” but I desire to be an Orthodox Christian. The word “Orthodox” simply means “right glory” or “right belief,” and Orthodoxy therefore is the fullness of the Catholic (whole) Christian Faith that has once been delivered to God’s people (Jude 1:3). To be Orthodox is not just an exercise of the “head” but is also “right living.” It has been said that the “only heresy is a heresy of life” and it is our life that we will be held accountable for, not for what we may fallibly believe and may even get wrong in our continuing journey.

Thanks for visiting. I don’t allow many comments to show publicly with a post as most comments are invites to debate and arguing; and this site does not have debating as its purpose. It simply expresses my Christian journey, and that journey is thankfully always being tweaked.

But I invite all comments and I assure you I DO read them all. Again, thanks for visiting.

[Dutchboy88]

"the problem many protestants have in general, and calvinists in particular is they think there was one Christian who lived between 95ad and the 16th century and that is St. Augustine."

Interesting that you claim Augustine is the band leader. I find him marginal, at best. As Harley says, another early writer who held a mixed bag.

Most perceptive Catholics at least realize that Paul is the real decoder of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If RCs would read the Book that they claim they delivered to the world (choke), then they would discover (God permitting) that almost none of the doctrines promulgated by Rome appear anywhere in the text. Rather, the simple message of Jesus electing whom He will by Grace, calling whom He will by Grace, justifying whom He will by Faith, and ultimately glorifying whom He will, has gotten lost in their world of sacerdotalism, mariolatry, indulgences, penance, absolution, sacraments, transubstantiation, etc.

[don-o]

from

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/orthodox-education/prima-scriptura/

“ The Holy Scriptures are perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church, but the greatness of the heights to which the Scriptures ascend is due to the great mountain upon which it rests. Taken from its context, within the Holy Tradition, the solid rock of Scripture becomes a mere ball of clay, to be molded into whatever shape its handlers wish to mold it. It is no honor to the Scriptures to misuse and twist them, even if this is done in the name of exalting their authority. We must read the Bible; it is God’s Holy Word. But to understand its message let us humbly sit at the feet of the saints who have shown themselves “doers of the Word and not hearers only” (James 1:22), and have been proven by their lives worthy interpreters of the Scriptures. Let us go to those who knew the Apostles, such as Saints Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, if we have a question about the writings of the Apostles. Let us inquire of the Church, and not fall into self-deluded arrogance.”

[CTrent1564]

HarleyD:

Thanks for the link. A good read and clear presentation of of the Reformed position in using Reformed Theologians own words [which is a better way to present it to those outside of that tradition rather than someone else writing about it form outside of said tradition].

I think on this issue, The Reformed position is much more dogmatic in its declaration of penal substitution as defide doctrine, than even Rome or Constantinopile is on the atonement. In both the Catholic and Orthdodox Church, it is referred to as the “Theory of Atonement” of which several views are seen as acceptable and the foundation is rooted in the Incarnation and Trinity, which goes to Christus-Victor-Recapitulation and some level of satisfaction or substitution is acceptable, in the Catholic theological framework, if we understood it as “Christ died for us” and “for our salvation” [which seem to be stated in the Nicene Creed] vs. “in place of us” where Reformed-Penal Substitution goes.

Again thanks for the link, I much rather get into posts with folks who present their position and discuss the other sides without getting into tennis matches with each other, which is common in these threads.

[CTrent1564]

don-o:

Nice link, that theology as expressed on that site is not in conflict with the Catholic Church. Tradition, which means literally to “hand on or to pass on” is indeed understood as that which was handed on from Christ to the Apostles, what Catholics refer to as “Apostolic Tradiiton” of which both Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition [Creeds, Councils, Consensus of the Fathers, Liturgy-Lex Orandi—lex credente] are both to held in esteem and venerated.

So once again, thanks for making the Easter Orthodox Tradition present here, it only confirms what most Catholics here already know that the Orthodox and Catholic Church are closely related and why in the the Catholic Eucharist, the Catholic Church does not forbid Orthodox Christians from partaking in Holy Communion with Catholics whereas Protestants are not allowed to share in the Eucharist with us.

I think the Orthodox Position is similar or maybe even more strict than the Catholic position, but I will let you clarify that for me.

[Gamecock]

Poisoning the Well:

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

_____________________________

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."

During Class:

Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

_____________________________

Examples of Poisoning the Well

"Don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel."

"Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart."

You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend's boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him, everything you hear him say is tainted.

And of course: I believe the poster may intend to ignore the Calvinist bullies, who regularly bait Catholic FReepers into title posts for discussion, overwhelm them with overlong material, and then use that as an excuse to practice their snark lines, to insult Mary, the Holy Father, and generally dash any hope for a discussion.

[boatbums]

You’re very welcome! Merry Christmas to you and yours.

[don-o]

An Orthodox priest would not commune a non-Orthodox. He would give a blessing at the Chalice and after the conclusion, the non-Orthodox may receive the blessed (not consecrated) bread.

Though the Roman Catholic Church allows communion to the Orthodox, an Orthodox would require the blessing of his priest (and that would be at the direction of the bishop). I have no knowledge of this being done, perhaps it has. Perhaps in the gulag.

[RnMomof7]

If I may intrude, I believe the poster may intend to ignore the Calvinist bullies, who regularly bait Catholic FReepers into title posts for discussion, overwhelm them with overlong material, and then use that as an excuse to practice their snark lines, to insult Mary, the Holy Father, and generally dash any hope for a discussion.

Rita, last time I looked the 'religion forum" looked more like Rome's news line, the forum being over run with attempts to proselytize , the spiritually deaf...

Catholics hear the same tired and ignorant complaints over and over. If you’re like me and tend to go ballistic, avoid those threads.

Rita there is hearing and HEARING ..a huge gulf between them ...

[RitaOK]

” Nothing personal”, I was informed, speaking of these intellectual exercises. I gave as good as was given, which was my bad. I have no clue about the excuses for the utterances of others, against Catholics.

If I speak, it’s a diatribe. If Calvinists speak, its “pearls of wisdom”. If I complain, it’s an adhominen attack. I don’t much like that format and sure don’t like the general tone, since I had never anything like it.

I do hope all have a blessed and merry Christmas. You can pray for me and I can keep you in mine.

[RitaOK]

You probably are right about the religion forum where Catholics have a presence, but I never go there, so I don’t know. I use FR for strictly politics.

I just stupidly stumbled into what felt like a snake pit, by accident, on the main page, drawn by the title, which I mistook for being of interest to Catholics. Shocked by what I saw, I just reacted to the atmosphere (and sure lies), because I was unprepared all around.

Won’t happen again, in that way, that’s for sure. I certainly won’t be heading to the RF either, for more of the same, I presume.

As for listening and actually HEARING, you are quite right. Faith is a gift,
a gift of grace. A person can’t beat others over the head with their own beliefs, by insulting the beliefs of others, no matter what.

Anyway, I am recovering, so I wish you a blessed Christmas. Rita

[RnMomof7]

And I wish you a very Blessed Christmas as well :)

[johngrace]

Wise statements.

[Gamecock]

If I complain, it’s an adhominen attack.

Where did I say you posted and ad-hom? I said your post was poisoning the well.

[RitaOK]

Okay. Have it as you wish.

” When I complain, it’s poisening the well. “. When the Calvinists complain, it’s theology, or science. Anyway, I can’t play well with others in bashing contests pretending to be evangelization, on both sides.
And I was plenty wrong to engage in it. Just caught me off guard and I fell in. Thx.

Rita

[don-o]

imo, rather than “poisoning the well” I took your comments as an observation of how the conversation in this forum invariably goes. It’s why I mostly refrain from participating in it. And your prediction was borne out.

I found the site posted while looking for some Orthodox material regarding the problem of evil in God’s world. I finally got around to posting the useful thing I found there in my post 61.

There are a few comments on the thread that indicate to me it was worthwhile to make the thread. Then there is the usual posse (their numbers seem to be fewer that in the past). Bless their hearts.

[CTrent1564]

don-o:

Thanks for the post, I wasn’t sure if there was a uniform Liturgicl Practice among all the Eatestern Orthodox Churches, are that each Metropolitan/Patriarch sort governed Liturgical practices/disciplines. It does appear, based on your post that there is pretty much a standard Liturgical discipline regardless is its Greek, Russian, Romanian Orthodox, etc.

Good link and good posts going on among a subset of posters, minus the usual suspects.

[don-o]

Discipline being the keyword. Actual practice - I would suspect there are stories out there. But, I prefer to focus on the ideals - what they are and where they came from. One of my favorite quotes “This is the faith of the Apostles.”

[don-o]

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2012/07/orthodox-ecclesiology/

Universal Ecclesiology and Eucharistic Ecclesiology

Orthodox Tradition prefers to practice Eucharistic ecclesiology than universal ecclesiology.

Universal ecclesiology depicts the church as a single organic whole including in itself all church units of any kind all over the world. The different parts or members of this church are joined like branches of a single tree. According to the Eucharistic ecclesiology which is more primitive one, each local church was the church of God in all its fullness. Every local church manifests all the fullness of the church of God and not just one part of it. The Eucharist is where Christ dwells in the fullness of His body. The Eucharist could never have been offered in a local church if it had been just one part of the church of God.

Where the Eucharist is there is the fullness of the church. Eucharistic ecclesiology

denies the idea of ‘parts’ cherished by the universal ecclesiology.

Eucharistic ecclesiology upholds conciliarity in the church. In fact no local church with its presiding bishop has the right to exercise authority or power over other local churches. But they live in fellowship and mutual support. If the bishops meet in council, one of them serves as the president of the councils. His authority or priority is based on the higher witness and love of his church. Primacy is a legalistic expression whereas priority is founded on authority of witness and that is a gift of God. But the ecclesiology of a Universal Pontiff seems to suggest a superior to all the other bishops or a ‘super- bishop.’ In consequence, the others seem to become mere administrative instruments of the supreme head.

A note on local church seems to be relevant here. In the Orthodox tradition the word ‘local’ mainly refers to a large cultural grouping with the same cultural heritage or a geographically distinct area like an island. The expression local church often refers to a regional church. The present autocephalous churches like Coptic Orthodox Church, Indian Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church etc are examples of local churches.

Four Marks of the Church.

[don-o]

http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kingdomofheaven.aspx

Introduction

We were created to live on earth unlike animals who die and disappear with time, but with the high purpose to live with God —not for a hundred years or so—but for eternity!

Every individual instinctively strives for happiness. This desire has been implanted in our nature by the Creator Himself, and therefore it is not sinful. But it is important to understand that in this temporary life it is impossible to find full happiness, because that comes from God and cannot be attained without Him. Only He, who is the ultimate Good and the source of all good, can quench our thirst for happiness.

Material things can never wholly satisfy us. Indeed, we know from experience that every item we have desired has pleased us only for a short while. Then it became boring, and we started to desire something else. This process of satisfaction and boredom then repeated itself many times. The most striking example of unquenchable thirst for happiness was Solomon, the famous King of Israel, who lived around 1000 B.C. He was so rich that all the household utensils in his palaces were made of pure gold. He was so wise that kings and famous people from far away lands came to hear him. He was so famous that his foes trembled at the mere mention of his name. He could easily satisfy any of his wishes, and it seemed that there was no pleasure that he did not possess or could not obtain. But with all of this, Solomon could not find total happiness to the end of his life. He described his many years of searching for happiness and his continual disappointments in the book of Ecclesiastes, which he began with the following phrase: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity (Ecc. 1:2).

Innumerable other wise people who were also successful in life came to the same conclusion. It seems that in the depth of our subconscious something reminds us that we are just wanderers on this earth and that our true happiness is not here but there, in that other and better world known as Paradise or the Heavenly Kingdom. Let man own the whole world and everything that is in it, yet all this will interest him for no more than a short period, while the immortal soul, thirsting for personal communication with God, will remain unsatisfied.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to this earth in order to return to us our lost capacity to spend eternity in the blissful presence of God. He revealed to people that all their evil lies in sin and that no one through their own efforts can overcome the evil within themselves and attain communion with God. Sin, ingrained in our nature since the fall, stands between us and God like a high wall. If the Son of God had not descended to us through His mercy for us, had not taken on our human nature, and had not by His death conquered sin, all mankind would have perished for ever! Now, thanks to Him, those who wish to cleanse themselves from evil can do so and return to God and obtain eternal bliss in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Now we will discuss in detail how you can achieve this aim. We will examine:

Which benefits were granted to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

How Jesus Christ lived on earth and suffered for us.

Which path leads to the Kingdom of Heaven.

How Jesus Christ helps us to walk along the path of salvation.

[RitaOK]

Thank you, don-o, I appreciate a clear eye on my intention, if not my tone. (Going ballistic is never a pretty sight.). This all started from another thread and started out as an observation on another thread I had blundered onto.

The “posse”, I have deduced, wouldn’t know an observation if Moses drew it on papyrus with a magic marker. To run shrieking through responses, with the hair on fire, looking for some place to make their regular derogatory snit deposit on some rube who blundered in, is the point of the game.

I thought the other thread was a Catholic post. Yikes. The skinning I took there prompted my comment here, on this one.

And a blessed merry Christmas to you and yours. Rita