Christ is Risen!

[john w]

Welcome to the Big Top.


"I am an Orthodox Christian (hence my choice of "Christian - Other". There needs to be an "Orthodox" choice, as we are the second largest Christian group after the Catholics)."-Knee V

Uh, oh...maybe not...

 

[Knee V]

It will be good to get an Orthodox perspective at times, particularly when talking to Catholics. Have you been over to Cruciform's defense of the necessity of the Magisterum? It's not so much kicking a dead horse but more like beating one's head against a brick wall. Also I think the Orthodox have some insights to spirituality that could be helpful to Protestants.

Are you a member of the American Orthodox Church? I visited one in Tacoma and loved the acapella worship. There seem to be a lot of former Presbyterians in the AOC. Are you one of them?

I've glanced at Cruciform's thread about the Magisterium. Orthodox vs Catholic debates about the Magesterium, Pope, etc, almost always end the same way, with one side saying that the other side misinterprets Scripture, the Councils, Church Fathers, etc. So I have very little interest in participating in that.

My parish is part of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). I'm pretty sure that's what you meant. Although my parish is OCA, I frequently visit a monastery about 4 hours south of me which is under the Greeks (but only as a formality. The monastery has very little to do with the Greek archdiocese and serves all "flavors" or Orthodox). My wife's and my spiritual father is the abbot there.

I'm also a former Presbyterian (PCA), coincidentally.

 

[Krsto]

I've glanced at Cruciform's thread about the Magisterium. Orthodox vs Catholic debates about the Magesterium, Pope, etc, almost always end the same way, with one side saying that the other side misinterprets Scripture, the Councils, Church Fathers, etc. So I have very little interest in participating in that.

My parish is part of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). I'm pretty sure that's what you meant. Although my parish is OCA, I frequently visit a monastery about 4 hours south of me which is under the Greeks (but only as a formality. The monastery has very little to do with the Greek archdiocese and serves all "flavors" or Orthodox). My wife's and my spiritual father is the abbot there.

I'm also a former Presbyterian (PCA), coincidentally.

There seems to be a connection between being a Presbyterian and more easily accepting the Orthodox Church as a good place to be (for lack of a better term), and possibly accepting the RCC as well. Do you believe there is anything in Presbyterianism that would pre-condition a person towards the Orthodox church that say a Baptist or Pentecostal wouldn't accept? My experience in both the Baptist and Pentecostal churches is that being either one would make one less likely to switch to being Orthodox as they feel they are "better than that." Your thoughts?

 

[Knee V]

There seems to be a connection between being a Presbyterian and more easily accepting the Orthodox Church as a good place to be (for lack of a better term), and possibly accepting the RCC as well. Do you believe there is anything in Presbyterianism that would pre-condition a person towards the Orthodox church that say a Baptist or Pentecostal wouldn't accept? My experience in both the Baptist and Pentecostal churches is that being either one would make one less likely to switch to being Orthodox as they feel they are "better than that." Your thoughts?

I've actually met very few Reformed/Presbyterian-to-Orthodox converts (I've met some, to be sure). In fact, most of the converts from a protestant background that I've met have been Baptist or Pentecostal. I'd say that of all the protestant/evangelical groups, the Reformed camp has the hardest time with Orthodoxy.

Based on the people that I've spoken with, people from backgrounds such as Baptist, Pentacostal, non-denom, etc, tend to convert because they were looking for something deeper and more stable (or some other closely similar reason). The few formerly Reformed people that I've met largely converted either because of philosophical/theological reasons (e.g., they thought that the God of Calvinism was schizophrenic, or that debt/satisfaction/penal substitution was scripturally and historically inconsistent, or something else along those lines), or because, although content with where they were, they were presented with or came across ideas that they had to do something with (which was the case with me, although starting with Catholicism only to come to Orthodoxy RIGHT before confirmation in the RCC).

I've met or known of significantly more Reformed people who converted to the RCC as opposed to the EOC, due AT LEAST in part to the Thomistic school of thought in the RCC, that is quite similar to the Calvinist world view. But in general, there are many subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) similarities between the RCC and most of the Protestant/Evangelical world, similarities that aren't shared between the RCC and EOC. Often, people in the EOC lump the RCC and Protestants into one broad camp that they'll refer to as "Western Christianity".

It's often easier for someone to jump from one "western" brand to another. Catholics and Calvinists (and many other groups such as Lutherans) often have similar difficulties when they're looking into the EOC. Some Calvinists/Presbyterians make that jump successfully, but many more (from my understanding) who are looking down the Apostolic/Liturgical/Sacramental road tend to stay on the "western" side of the fence between the EOC and RCC.

Sorry if that was too much in one post. I hope that was something along the lines of what you were looking for from me.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Hello. I go by Knee V. I'm not new to message boards, but I'm new to this one. I hate arguing and beating dead horses, but I love fruitful and civilized dialogue. I hope to have a good time here.

In Christ,
Knee V

*
Hello Knee I hope you make SOME friends who share your views, they help to rub balm into welts that you are sure to get from the beatings

 

[Krsto]

I've actually met very few Reformed/Presbyterian-to-Orthodox converts (I've met some, to be sure). In fact, most of the converts from a protestant background that I've met have been Baptist or Pentecostal. I'd say that of all the protestant/evangelical groups, the Reformed camp has the hardest time with Orthodoxy.

Based on the people that I've spoken with, people from backgrounds such as Baptist, Pentacostal, non-denom, etc, tend to convert because they were looking for something deeper and more stable (or some other closely similar reason). The few formerly Reformed people that I've met largely converted either because of philosophical/theological reasons (e.g., they thought that the God of Calvinism was schizophrenic, or that debt/satisfaction/penal substitution was scripturally and historically inconsistent, or something else along those lines), or because, although content with where they were, they were presented with or came across ideas that they had to do something with (which was the case with me, although starting with Catholicism only to come to Orthodoxy RIGHT before confirmation in the RCC).

I've met or known of significantly more Reformed people who converted to the RCC as opposed to the EOC, due AT LEAST in part to the Thomistic school of thought in the RCC, that is quite similar to the Calvinist world view. But in general, there are many subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) similarities between the RCC and most of the Protestant/Evangelical world, similarities that aren't shared between the RCC and EOC. Often, people in the EOC lump the RCC and Protestants into one broad camp that they'll refer to as "Western Christianity".

It's often easier for someone to jump from one "western" brand to another. Catholics and Calvinists (and many other groups such as Lutherans) often have similar difficulties when they're looking into the EOC. Some Calvinists/Presbyterians make that jump successfully, but many more (from my understanding) who are looking down the Apostolic/Liturgical/Sacramental road tend to stay on the "western" side of the fence between the EOC and RCC.

Sorry if that was too much in one post. I hope that was something along the lines of what you were looking for from me.

Yes that's quite interesting, even if you do strike a blow to my not-so-scientific observations about migration to the EOC

I can see how eastern could supply the depth that western Christians feel a need for and might not get.

Your statement, "presented with or came across ideas that they had to do something with" intrigues me and is perhaps getting at what I was fishing for - could you relate more of your experience with that?

 

[Knee V]

*
Hello Knee I hope you make SOME friends who share your views, they help to rub balm into welts that you are sure to get from the beatings

Well, I don't expect to. I did a little lurking before I joined, and I didn't come across any members that I could tell were Orthodox (although by no means was my search exhaustive).

If the beatings come, I'll have to learn to like them. As we say in my neck of the woods, "the beatings will continue until morale improves." We'll see how things pan out.

 

[Knee V]

could you relate more of your experience with that?

I can try, and I doubt that I'll do it very well in a few paragraphs. So here's my summary:

In short, I was introduced, by way of the Catholics, to the idea of Apostolic Succession. That really hit home to me. Christ ordained his Apostles, who then started churches and ordained leaders there, who then ordained leaders after them, who then ordained leaders after them, etc, passing on that ministry throughout history, and thus the bishops of today can trace their ordination back to the Apostles themselves, and thus to Christ Himself.

I had to let that brew in my mind/heart for a while. In conjunction with that was looking at the development of the church and how the early Church believed and worshiped; that they held apostolic succession as a necessary element in the life of the Church; that they were liturgical, preserving that element of Jewish worship that the Apostles themselves maintained; that they were Eucharistic; etc.

After some more twists and turns it ended up being between the claims of the RCC and those of the EOC. Part of this struggle came back to what the essence of Apostolic Succession was, and how the two sides saw it differently. Was it that the bishops were the successors of the Apostles as long as they were in communion with the successor of Peter, who cannot err, as the RCC would have it, or was it that the bishops were the successors of the apostles as long as they held to the Faith of the Apostles.

I think I'll leave it at that. It was basically looking at the history of the Church and how it has lived on through the centuries. Another way to word my struggle was that it was a question of "basis". On what basis do I understand Scripture the way I do? On what basis is my pastor "ordained"? On what basis do I say that one teaching is right and another is wrong? On what basis do I even say that the Bible I hold is legit? On what basis can I say that I know anything at all (at least when it comes to spiritual matters).

I had to do something with the information that the Catholics gave me. It ended up being that I left my roots, but didn't go with the Catholics. I concluded that the EOC best answered those questions. And since then my search has ceased to be based in academics (although it was always a spiritual search, it was still about how I know that I'm "in the right"). After experiencing the EOC for a while I've come to learn that my questions were wrong from the start (not that they were not valid). My question should have been "how do I come to truly know and love Christ and be like Him?"

 

[DaveDodo007]

Welcome to the glue factory.

 

[Krsto]

I can try, and I doubt that I'll do it very well in a few paragraphs. So here's my summary:

In short, I was introduced, by way of the Catholics, to the idea of Apostolic Succession. That really hit home to me. Christ ordained his Apostles, who then started churches and ordained leaders there, who then ordained leaders after them, who then ordained leaders after them, etc, passing on that ministry throughout history, and thus the bishops of today can trace their ordination back to the Apostles themselves, and thus to Christ Himself.

I had to let that brew in my mind/heart for a while. In conjunction with that was looking at the development of the church and how the early Church believed and worshiped; that they held apostolic succession as a necessary element in the life of the Church; that they were liturgical, preserving that element of Jewish worship that the Apostles themselves maintained; that they were Eucharistic; etc.

After some more twists and turns it ended up being between the claims of the RCC and those of the EOC. Part of this struggle came back to what the essence of Apostolic Succession was, and how the two sides saw it differently. Was it that the bishops were the successors of the Apostles as long as they were in communion with the successor of Peter, who cannot err, as the RCC would have it, or was it that the bishops were the successors of the apostles as long as they held to the Faith of the Apostles.

I think I'll leave it at that. It was basically looking at the history of the Church and how it has lived on through the centuries. Another way to word my struggle was that it was a question of "basis". On what basis do I understand Scripture the way I do? On what basis is my pastor "ordained"? On what basis do I say that one teaching is right and another is wrong? On what basis do I even say that the Bible I hold is legit? On what basis can I say that I know anything at all (at least when it comes to spiritual matters).

I had to do something with the information that the Catholics gave me. It ended up being that I left my roots, but didn't go with the Catholics. I concluded that the EOC best answered those questions. And since then my search has ceased to be based in academics (although it was always a spiritual search, it was still about how I know that I'm "in the right"). After experiencing the EOC for a while I've come to learn that my questions were wrong from the start (not that they were not valid). My question should have been "how do I come to truly know and love Christ and be like Him?"

How do you think the EOC has helped you answer that question?

 

[beloved57]

What people do not realize is that when Christ was risen from the dead, all for whom He died, they too were risen from the dead, and seated together with Him in the heavenlies..Eph 2:6

 

[Knee V]

How do you think the EOC has helped you answer that question?

I'd answer that a few ways.

One is that I learned that that is the right question to ask. Life is about drawing closer and closer to Christ. Everything else is just there to help that or to hinder it. Breathing is good because it keeps me alive so that I can pray. Eating is good because it gives me the strength to pray. Paying taxes is good because it lets us seek God out in peace. Etc, etc.

Secondly, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." God has already sought us out. If we care enough to love Him in return, He is right there. Not just so that we can intellectually know that we're "right" with Him, but so that we can actually enter into a real and living communion with Him. If we actually seek Him, we will actually find Him.

It's one thing to say a few magic words, get a Bible, and join a church. It's another to learn day by day that life is miserable when we aren't seeking God's face every day. If we are willing, by God's grace and with His help, crying out to him moment by moment for that strength, to fight against our flesh and strive to "pray without ceasing" as Paul encourages us, or, as Christ Himself puts it, to "deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him", then we will find Him.

Or to put it differently, we need to learn that God is everything; that the only prize to be sought is God Himself; that once God "fills the hole in our heart", anything else we try to put in there instead feels like hell.

And I'm not saying that we strive in order to "please" God, or to "earn" something from Him. God forbid! Rather, we strive to die to ourselves so that we might not be blinded and deafened, and in general "desensitized", from perceiving God; from truly knowing Him.

I probably botched that all up. I've never been all that good at summing up my thoughts. Basically, God is right there for the taking. Aggressively pursue Him, and don't take "no" for an answer.

 

[Krsto]

I'd answer that a few ways.

One is that I learned that that is the right question to ask. Life is about drawing closer and closer to Christ. Everything else is just there to help that or to hinder it. Breathing is good because it keeps me alive so that I can pray. Eating is good because it gives me the strength to pray. Paying taxes is good because it lets us seek God out in peace. Etc, etc.

Secondly, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." God has already sought us out. If we care enough to love Him in return, He is right there. Not just so that we can intellectually know that we're "right" with Him, but so that we can actually enter into a real and living communion with Him. If we actually seek Him, we will actually find Him.

It's one thing to say a few magic words, get a Bible, and join a church. It's another to learn day by day that life is miserable when we aren't seeking God's face every day. If we are willing, by God's grace and with His help, crying out to him moment by moment for that strength, to fight against our flesh and strive to "pray without ceasing" as Paul encourages us, or, as Christ Himself puts it, to "deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him", then we will find Him.

Or to put it differently, we need to learn that God is everything; that the only prize to be sought is God Himself; that once God "fills the hole in our heart", anything else we try to put in there instead feels like hell.

And I'm not saying that we strive in order to "please" God, or to "earn" something from Him. God forbid! Rather, we strive to die to ourselves so that we might not be blinded and deafened, and in general "desensitized", from perceiving God; from truly knowing Him.

I probably botched that all up. I've never been all that good at summing up my thoughts. Basically, God is right there for the taking. Aggressively pursue Him, and don't take "no" for an answer.

That's Knee V. How has the EOC been instrumental in these realizations or would they have happened apart from your association with them?

 

[Knee V]

That's Knee V. How has the EOC been instrumental in these realizations or would they have happened apart from your association with them?

I don't know how things may have happened differently if my life circumstances were different. My life happened the way it happened. Although I can say that in my time NOT in the EOC, I never came to the realization of the significance of that "pearl of great price". I think that it happened in the EOC the way it did because in the EOC, the pursuit of Christ is what salvation IS; it is the entire Christian faith for the EOC, as opposed to getting something like a legal acquittal, or getting to "enjoy heaven".