HOLY SCRIPTURES AND DIVINE TRADITION

(Oops...meant to go to Comparative page 2? Or to page 3?)

We have six reasons based on the Holy Bible, that prove that the Divine Tradition is indeed a second Holy Bible, for it is equally important with it. The words Protestant churches will be used to indicate an arbitrary heterodox group for the discussion. Please note that not every Protestant church believes exactly the things put forward here; however a lot do, which is why we used them as the heterodox group of choice. Having said that, all this applies equally well to any non-orthodox Christian whose church, or otherwise formulated congregation (free / no specific structure), holds similar beliefs. And of course, these views could be held by individual people too, including even Orthodox christians who, trying to be "modern", have thrown the Tradition to the bin. The views here are the views of the Orthodox Church and the Papic Church is not used as a heterodox group because they have some shreds of Tradition and, at least in principle, admit its vital importance.

DIVINE TRADITION AND CHURCH: A PARENTHESIS

Divine Tradition is the things we believe in, Church is the carrier of the things we believe in. The Divine Tradition constitutes the invisible element of the church of Christ on earth, whereas Church is the visible element of the things we believe in, in Christ, which consists of people, governing and governed ones. For the difference between Tradition and traditions, please read here. For more on Tradition read also here as well as Chapter1.

REASON ONE

The Lord in Matth. 28:20 says the following to His apostles: "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" [note: the even here means from the time the Lord said it till the end of the world, for the word used in the koine Greek text is eos, which means until; this is why it is in italics].

Here it is in koine, word for word: "with you I am all the days (always) eos (from now until) the end of the eon (a Greek expression which means 'the end of the world').

The Lord testifies here, that He will be together with His Apostles until the world is destroyed. Since the Lord talks about destruction of the world, He is referring to His assistance on earth and not to His assistance in heaven.

But the Apostles, sooner or later would die. With who would the Lord be then, after their death, until the "end of the world"? Obviously with their successors. And we ask you, who are the true successors of the apostles? Could they be the Protestants? Or, similarly, could the Protestants be among these true successors?

From history, it is known, that the Protestants appeared at the time of Luther around 1500 AD (the Anglicans, e.g., in 1547 AD) . Therefore (even if we accept that all Protestants can be traced as far back as then), for 1500 years they did not exist. But the Lord did not say "I will be with you from 1500 AD onwards, from then until the end of the world", but "I am with you all the days, from now until the end of the world". He places the verb "I am" in the present tense and not in the future tense "I will be" and stresses saying "all the days" because He clearly wants to declare that the Apostolic succession started immediately from the Apostolic times, i.e. from the times when the Apostles were still alive, and not later on; and furthermore it is "all the days" non-stop, without any interruptions.

The Orthodox do have such a succession, for the things that they believe in (as we will prove later, via the Divine Tradition) stem from the Apostolic times. We are usually called by Protestants as "traditionalist", after all.

The things however that they believe in, do not have Apostolic succession, for, as we said, they appeared around 1500 AD . Therefore we have the Apostolic succession, we have the Truth. Only then would they have the Truth and the Apostolic succession, if we suppose, that the Lord was wrong by 1500 years placing the Apostolic succession from the time of the apostles and not since 1500 AD when they showed up, something extremely disrespectful!

REASON TWO

Is the Holy Bible inspired by God? Of course, Protestants will hasten to add. The Bible itself says so: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16).

However, in this verse, apostle Paul infers the Holy Scriptures which Timothy knew since childhood, as the previous verse shows clearly: "and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures" (2 Tim. 3:15). Therefore he is talking about the inspiration by God of the Old Testament. (Most Protestant churches agree with this too, but some people try to "trap" people by deliberately avoiding to mention verse 15 and only quote verses 16 and 17; for example, c.f. Betty Miller's protestant workbook "Prove All Things", from the Overcoming Life Studies series).

OK, so we're OK with establishing the God-inspired nature of the Old Testament. So how can the God-inspired nature of the New Testament be proven?

First of all, the Lord said to His Apostles: "He that heareth you heareth me" (Luke 10:16) therefore whatever the Apostles wrote is inspired by God.

So far so good. But, the New Testament contains works and books which are not of the Apostles, but of their disciples. These are the Matthew Gospel, the Luke Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles according to Luke, James' epistle etc. How do they accept these as God-inspired since they are not the works of the disciples of the Lord, i.e. of the Apostles?

They could say that Mark and Luke were disciples of the Apostles Peter and Paul. As their disciples, their books received authority too.

But another disciple of Apostle John was Polycarp, bishop of Smyrne. He also wrote a book. This one is not God-inspired, only historical, genuine work of Polycarp. Something that they agree to as well.

Where do they base the fact that they accept the Gospels of Mark and Luke not only as genuine but also as God-inspired, whereas the Gospel of Polycarp of Smyrne only as genuine historically but not as God-inspired, since, all three of them, Luke, Mark and Polycarp were disciples of the apostles of the Lord?

The answer, is of course: based on the Divine Tradition.

Even if they tell me that, OK, we accept this particular aspect of the Divine Tradition, but not any other aspect from it, there is more to say on this matter.

The fathers of the Church, separating the books of the Holy Bible, not just the genuine ones from the ones that were not genuine but also the historically genuine ones from the ones inspired by God, must have acted themselves not just as historians but also as God-inspired. Since they had the inspiration by God regarding the gathering of the books of the New Testament, we must therefore admit that they also had inspiration by God in their interpretation, for how can we separate the inspiration of God they possessed in the gathering of the books of the Holy Bible from their interpretation? If you do not like the word "inspiration by God" you can use another term that suits your needs such as "shedding of the Holy Spirit" or that they were "moved by God" as long as we understand what we're talking about.

REASON THREE

They say that they only accept the word of the Holy Bible. The Lord, in His prelate prayer, begs His Father to give unity in the cure of glorification for all Christians, saying: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:20-21). The Lord is praying here, as you will agree, for the unity of all (Orthodox) Christians in the cure of glorification.

This unity that the Lord wished for, how is it realised? Just with the Holy Bible that they only believe in or with the Holy Bible and the Divine Tradition that the Orthodox have?

Interpreting, in other words, the Holy Bible without the Divine Tradition, in whichever way someone wants to interpret it as, they have fallen in many heresies which do not allow them to enter the Church and thus to be in a position to begin learning the ascetic road towards theosis (glorification). Therefore they are far away from the wish of the Lord expressed in this prayer. Whereas the Orthodox, having the Holy Bible and the (rest of the) Divine Tradition, we have unity in our Church and therefore we are closer to the unity which the Lord wished for in His prelate prayer. The Orthodox have no subdivisions of the Church, whereas Protestantism alone has hundreds (in less than 430 years from Luther's protest, they were split into an equal number of groups; today, we will find Protestant churches that share the same name but completely different beliefs!).

REASON FOUR

They say they accept only the Holy Bible. Do they follow all the things that the Holy Bible says, especially the New Testament? Of course, they will say.

But the New Testament talks about the seven deacons (Acts 6:3). Apostle Paul talks about the order of the widows (1 Tim. 5:9). Paul again talks about the cover of the head of women while praying (1 Corinth. 11:3). Also, the Lord in the same way He suggested the Sunday Dinner saying "do this" He also suggested the Divine wash-stand saying: "If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet" (John 13:14).

We ask you: Do they in their church follow the order of the widows, the cover of women, the washing of the feet and the election of the seven deacons? No.

And if they do not, where do they base their decision not to follow these things? Answer: based on the Divine Tradition.

REASON FIVE

Do they accept Sunday as the day of rest? Yes, they will say.

But the Holy Bible nowhere talks about the rest of Sunday, but only about the rest of the Sabbath day (Saturday). Do you therefore see that they also accept the Tradition even in the matter of the rest of the Sunday?

REASON SIX

The Old Testament is of two types; the one that was written BC and the one that was written AD . The BC Old Testament, which was written by the Holy men (Moses, prophets etc.) is without vowels; it has only consonents. The Old Testament however that was written anno domini has both consonents and vowels. The vowels were added to the text of the Old Testament by Jewish scholars, who did not believe in Christ, called Masoreites, that lived between the 7th century AD and the 10th century AD . These men 'vowelised' the old Hebrew text based on spoken tradition, which existed until their time, and they were called Masoreites, because Masor in Jewish means tradition.

All of us, you, the Protestants (if you're not one), and the Orthodox, have as text for the Old Testament not the Old one, which did not have vowels and which had been written by the Holy men, but the New one which was vowelised after Christ (AD) under Hebrews not believing in Christ, who lived, as we said above, between the 7th and 10th centuries AD .

Do you therefore see that even though their church rejects Traditions, they accept this one?

But the worst thing is this: They accept the Jewish tradition until the 10th century AD, regarding the interpretation of the Old Testament, under Jews not believing in Christ, and they deny the tradition of Church, which has people that believe in Christ and interpreted the New Testament! In other words, they accept the Jewish tradition regarding the interpretation of the Old Testament, whereas they deny the Christian tradition in the interpretation of the New Testament.

TO RECAP

The reasons that force us to admit via the Holy Bible the authenticity of the Divine Tradition are:

1. The Apostolic succession which the Orthodox have but they do not have (Matth. 28:20).

2. The unity which the Lord wished for in His prelate prayer (John 17:20) which is being fulfilled by the Orthodox, that have both the Holy Bible and the Divine Tradition but not by those that reject the latter.

3. The inspiration by God of the books of the New Testament was transferred to us all via the Divine Tradition. Therefore even Protestants accept the Tradition in this matter.

4. The Divine Tradition is the one that decided which things in the Holy Bible are of a transitory character and which things will have eternal authority.

5. Establishment of the Sunday rest is based solely on the Tradition and not on the Bible.

6. The tradition of the Jews in the Old Testament is combined with the Old Testament's tradition. They accept that one (even though it was written by Jews not believing in Christ). Again, it is our Divine Tradition that gave the "OK" to this.

ON CHURCH

Based only on the word of the Bible, can we define what church means?

You might say that Church (Ecclesia) means gathering, a society of men. Therefore christian church means gathering, society of men, who believe in Christ. The Protestant priest Nicky Gumbel in his book Questions of Life agrees with the above definition of church and even talks about "the universal church" that according to him is mentioned in the Bible, as he interprets it, to mean the one consisting of "all those worldwide and down the ages who profess or have professed the name of Christ" (Questions of Life, p. 223). In other words, most Protestants believe that Church is a bunch of people together that believe in Christ.

But ... the characteristic of faith in Christ is not the only element that constitutes the meaning of church. Based on the Holy Scriptures there is another two elements of church that are of great importance, from which a third element arises that is of an even greater importance.

What are these elements?

Firstly: Church is not a mere gathering, some society, like some Protestants think, "gathering of the flock", but an organised society with Apostles, Bishops (Overseers) or Presbyters (Elders), Deacons and laity. And here is why. Apostle Paul tells the presbyters of the church of Ephesus: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). From this it is evident, that during the Apostolic church there existed apart from the Apostles, according to this verse, another two types of people: the Presbyters or Bishops, and the flock; i.e. the governing and the governed. Apostle Paul himself, in his epistle to Philippians 1:1 talks about deacons saying: "with the bishops and deacons". Paul himself defines the attributes of the deacons in 1 Timothy 3:2.8 . Therefore the Apostolic Church had apart from the Apostles, presbyters and deacons. In the 1 Tim. 5:22 and in the Tit. 1:5 the Apostle himself wants this organisation of the presbyters and deacons to continue by ordination and carefully tells Timothy (1 Tim. 5:22) "lay hands suddenly on no man", whereas he commands Titus to "ordain elders in every city" i.e. presbyters ; clearly deacons as well. Most Protestants (e.g. free evangelicals) do not have such an organised church with bishops, presbyters and deacons. Therefore their church is not apostolic. However, the Orthodox do have Bishops, who are in place of the Apostles, Presbyters who are in the place of the ancient Bishops or Presbyters, and Deacons. Therefore our Church is Apostolic.

Second element of church is that she can never be abolished. The Lord tells Apostle Peter: "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matth. 16:18). It is evident that the aforementioned society organised by bishops, presbyters, deacons and laity will be inabolishable so that not even the gates of Hades himself, being the truly evil forces, will not be able to destroy this organised christian society. And indeed! If you open the history books, you will see that the christian Orthodox church organised under bishops, presbyters and deacons was not destroyed for 2000 years but exists to date despite all the persecutions that she suffered, and is still suffering (c.f. recent attack by N.A.T.O. on Serbia's monasteries and people; during the communist state in the former U.S.S.R. more than 50 million Orthodox christians were killed for their faith, continuous propaganda against the Orthodox Church in Greece by the atheist governments, propaganda against the Romanian Orthodox Church that they apparently "attack" Evangelical minorities (what were the hyperdogmatic evangelicals doing in a country even they consider as christian, since they preach that it does not matter in which church someone belongs to?) etc. etc.). Whereas the Protestants whether they have such an organised society or not, they do not date back to the times of the Apostles but showed up in the 16th century.

Therefore according to the Protestants there was no Church of Christ for 1500 years despite the clearly stated command of our Lord that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it". So where is the inabolishability of their church?

The third element of the Church is that, she contains the truth. This is mentioned by Apostle Paul in 1 Tim. 3:15, that "the church of the living God" is "pillar and ground of the truth". From this it becomes evident that the aforementioned organised and inabolishable church is teacher of the truth. Our Lord gives so much importance to Church, that He says: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man [ethnic] and a publican" i.e. we Christians must avoid everyone not following the Church, in the same way the Jews would avoid the sinful Publicans and the disrespectful idolaters (ethnics). Therefore the Protestants that are missing at least one of the other two elements (organisation and inabolishability) do not have the bulwark of the truth. Only the Orthodox satisfy both elements and therefore are the One True Church.

A lot of protestant churches imbue a spirit of syncretism (or equally of ecumenism) to their members talking of "churched" and "unchurched" people in a vague fashion and even though they may fall under a certain large group they still accept views of the other sub-groups thereby resulting in a conglomeration of beliefs that can only be explained to the public (laity) by accepting the other sub-groups and even the larger denominations as holding parts of the truth as well; Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox. But the question is, aren't the various heresies that divide the existing Protestant churches an obstacle to salvation?

Most protestants today, based on the verse 1 John 4:2, which reads "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God", deduce that wherever a christian belongs to, they will be saved as long as they admit Christ as their saviour.

This confession of Christ of coming in the flesh is one truth but not every truth. Apostle Paul stresses clearly regarding heresies: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject" (Tit. 3:10). Therefore, it is not only the one leading a wicked life that sins but also the heretic. The heretic has become warped and sins. Also, in his epistle to Galatians 5:19-20, Apostle Paul calls heresies the works of flesh saying: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, ... , heresies". Also Apostle Peter in his second epistle 2:1 talks about false teachers "who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, ..., and bring upon themselves swift destruction". Therefore we clearly see, based on the Bible, that it is not only those that lead a wicked life that sin and thus their works are included in those of the flesh, but heretics too. So therefore how can these Protestants accept a number of different subdivisions within their own larger group or in other groups as not being problematic in the salvation of man since heresies are an obstacle to that according to the Bible? And if these different groups are all not heresies, i.e. false (differing) teachings about Christ, why aren't they all together in one? After all, there cannot be ten truths about Christ but only one as we have seen again and again.

OK OK...some will say now...so is it only the Orthodox that will be saved?

The answer to this important question is that we differentiate between 'true church + church that is false and deceived by heresy' and 'salvation + damnation'. There is a difference between the true church and salvation!

The true and real church is not the only road to salvation but the only safe road to salvation. The one who belongs to the real church is safe. The christian outside the real church is not safe regarding salvation. By this distinction we honour the value of the truth for we grant the safe road to salvation to the true church but we are compassionate to the deceived brothers, for we accept that, the true church is not the only road but the only safe road to salvation.

A lot of Protestants whose church has no specific structure (free) believe that the church mentioned in the Bible is only invisible and not any of the visible churches on earth specifically (Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican etc.) and that therefore the "dead" members of church according to the Bible refer not to the "dead" members of a specific visible church but in general (to its inivisible element only). Even Protestants whose church has a specific structure (e.g. Evangelical Anglicans) believe the "dead" members "in church" are all the people in the world that are not going to some arbitrary "christian" church, known as "non-churchgoers"; not necessarily their own church as long as it is a "christian" church (even though certain churches are preferred than others; e.g. Jehovah's witnesses are excluded whereas Pentecostals are included, so that the "arbitrary" is relative) and thus, in effect not to one specific visible church.

When the Lord suggests "tell it unto the church" (Matth. 18:17) for the brotherly understanding of christians, what does this mean? That He clearly is referring to a visible church. When Apostle Paul tells the Bishops of Ephesus: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" (Acts 20:28) He is clearly talking about a visible church, where the shepherds know the sheep and the sheep know their shepherds. When Apostle Paul commands Titus and Timothy to ordain certain presbyters and deacons, he is obviously talking about a visible church, in which the governors are known, specific and visible. The visible element of church is not only needed hagiographically but logically too, for the Lord, the Apostles and christians are not only invisible souls but visible bodies too. We are not only "angels", but visible men too. The visible element of church is therefore needed and logical.

So far, we have seen that the true church is not only invisible but also visible and is the Orthodox Church, who is the only safe road to salvation. But most protestants will say now that they would never accept the fact that whoever is inside this visible church, who is the only safe road to salvation, will be saved, for a lot of Orthodox christians are bad people; we do have criminals etc. that are Orthodox Christians.

We have said so far that the true church is also visible and the only safe road to salvation. But this does not imply that every member of hers will be saved! No. Every true member of hers will be saved. The rotten members and the darnels will be thrown to hell, they are the dead members of the Church.

Aha! But .. how is it possible for a true church to have dead and sinful members despite the command of the Lord who wants her be "a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle" (Ephes. 5:27) ?

What the Lord talks of here is the ideal state, that we must strive to get to. The element of striving to get to the ideal state appears elsewhere in the Bible too; when the Lord says "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matth. 5:48), is it possible for us to be perfect, like God is, sinless? This is impossible. It does not mean however that the one that is not perfect like the Father is, is not a member of the Church.

OK, this verse was talking about those that fight and have a fighting spirit towards perfection. The one that is not fighting, is he a member of the Church?

He is, but a dead one.

How do we prove this?

The crucified and resurrected Body of the Lord has its wounds. Why can't His Church, who is His Body, not be true church, because she has her wounds, the wicked men, her dead christian members? Wasn't Jude one of the 12 Apostles as well, and he even participated in the Table of the mystery? He was a disciple and Apostle, but also a traitor. The Lord did not drive him away, but let him leave on his own.

In the parable of the Net (Matth. 13:47) the Lord talks about gathering "every kind" of people in His Church; so He talks about bad members in His Church. In the parable of the Tares (Matth. 13:24) about tares, who had appeared together with the blade of wheat. In the parable of the Royal Wedding (Matth. 22:11) about a man not having clothes suitable for the wedding. In the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matth. 25:1-14) about foolish virgins, who awaited the arrival of the bridegroom, like the wise virgins also did.

Clearly, in these parables the Lord stresses the coexistence of good and bad in the same net, in the same field, in the same royal wedding, and in the same procession to meet the bridegroom, the Lord. Also, in these parables the Lord stresses that the separation of the good and the bad i.e. of the rotten members, tares, men not having garment for the wedding, and the foolish virgins, will take place at the future judgment. This is also preached by the Evangelion of the future judgment (Matth. 25:31-46) according to which the separation of the good and wicked will take place during the Second Coming.

But how can we be sure that the rotten members in the net, the tares in the field, the ones not having a wedding garment in the parable of the royal wedding and the five foolish virgins picture the wicked people in the Church and not the wicked people outside Church, bad people in general?

Simply: The Lord says: "the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea ...", "the kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field ...", "the kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son", "then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins ...". The kingdom of God is His Church. Therefore the net is the Church of God, the sea is the world, the fish in the sea are men in general, the good and rotten fish in the net are the good and wicked people in the Church of God, and the pulling of the net out of the sea is the future Judgment. The picture is quite clear. Similarly, we have tares and wheat in the field, the ones having and the ones not having a wedding garment in the royal room, and wise and foolish virgins in the custody to the bridegroom: good and bad people inside the Church (the field, the royal room, the custody).

Still not convinced regarding this important matter of the Bible specifically talking here about good and bad people within the one Church and not the world over? Here is more biblical evidence.

The Lord says "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matth. 7:23). Here we see examples of men that had the power to prophesy and do miracles, thus were part of the church, but were workers of iniquity, they were rotten members of the Church.

But our Lord, you might say, says here "I never knew you" so therefore they were not His members.

The "I never knew you" does not mean this, that they were not His members but that they were dead members, that they lived a wicked life. If they were not completely His members, how come they prophesied and did miracles? This is what the Apostle Paul also says: "and though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing" (1 Corinth. 13:2). So here we have members of Christ. Members because they have faith, dead because they haven't got love.

And something else: In Corinth, there was a christian that was incestuous. As one leading a wicked life was he out of the church of Christ or part of her?

You might still say that being wicked he was not part of the Church.

In this case, since he was not a member of the Church, why is it that Apostle Paul threatens to kick him out of his church saying: "for I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, him that hath so done this deed, ..., to deliver such an one unto Satan ..." (1 Corinth. 5:3-5) ? Here is therefore the church of Corinth upon Apostle Paul, who had her dead member, the incestuous christian. It wasn't only him but other members as well probably, to a lesser degree, for Paul says: "it is reported commonly that there is fornication among you" (1 Corinth. 5:1). On the existence of dead members in Church, Apostle Paul makes mention in the verses 1 Corinth. 5:9-11 where the separation of the wicked people away from church and the wicked people in church is clear, where he says: "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat". These wicked brothers are members of this church until they are kept at a distance by the other christians. Therefore the Church of Corinth had her dead members!

TO RECAP:

It has been proven that the Church is an organised, inabolishable society of christian people, carrier of the grace and teacher of the truth. The Church is not only invisible (the so-called triumphant Church), but visible too (the militant Church), for, as we said, our Lord and the Apostle Paul speak clearly about her visible side. We also said, that the things going against the true Church are heresy and wicked life. Heresy is separated from the truth of the true Church, as it is clearly stated by the Apostles Paul and Peter in the aforementioned verses of Tit. 3:10, Gal. 5:20, 2 Peter 2:1. The wicked people will be separated from the wise by the Lord during the time of the future Judgment, as we saw in the parables of the Net, Tares, Royal Wedding, Ten Virgins and in the Evangelion of the Future Judgment. Therefore the Church is visible and within her we have not heretics but christians that think correctly (wisely), in an orthodox way that is, and from them others will be true members and others will be dead members. Such a Church, organised, inabolishable and visible having the Apostolic succession and historically proven as such is only the Orthodox Church. This is therefore the true Church and not any Protestant church that showed up in or after the 16th century. For more information the reader is advised to read two excellent papers by Professor Arakaki in Hawaii here and here.

Back to Theme One

COMMON FALLACIES

a. We're all correct, more or less. OK, not some of the extreme groups maybe, but definitely the main denominations : Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant.

Are we? A Saint that God sees fit to become known to the people so he or she can intercede for us, becomes known as such after his or her death and becomes canonised by the local Church's Synod where he or she belongs to when the following three conditions have been satisfied:

a.) Signs from God must be involved (incorruptible remains, golden colour on bones, miracles during their life and after death etc.)

b.) Their holiness during their lives will be the common knowledge of the Christian people. In other words, the Church will only be making official what is already common knowledge. In fact the koine for what we would call "canonise" in the West, is κοινοποιώ namely, "make common knowledge".

c.) Their teaching and life must have always been Orthodox.

The decision will be taken by the local Church and the other Churches in the Orthodox world will have to become aware of this of course.

Let us very briefly examine what happens in the Roman Catholic Church as regards Saints and miraculous events.

The Papal Church has given us "temporary saints" in the past even while these were still alive; through the use of the infamous indulgencies.

In particular, Pope Leo X, who was known as a very niggardly man, was thinking day and night how to find new ways to collect money. This was achieved via the following cunning (i.e. satanic) plan of his: He would publish absolution-of-sins documents (known as indulgencies) on which he would write (as supposed universal bishop - contrary to the teachings of the Church - for more on this, please read the incredible "The Papacy" by abbe Guette), that he has power to forgive sins to both the living and the deceased and even to those in "purgatory" (for the Roman Catholic Church teaches the existence of purgatory, a Medieval notion). He pretended that the money collected thus would be used to help the armies fighting in the East in "the name of Christ". With these indulgencies, Leo informed the people that whoever would give the expenses of a whole year for one soldier, would have absolution for all sins he or she would commit in the next five years; those that would give more money than this would have a bigger right in order to sin for more years!

The late pontiff had announced the infamous "butcher of the Serbs" as a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church! For an account of the appalling state of Roman Catholicism on such issues today, the blessing and aid of criminals, there are many online sites that discuss them; e.g. try "The Pavelic Papers" or "The Vatican". (Their persecution of the Orthodox has not stopped, of course; as we speak, Uniates attack and destroy Orthodox Churches in Slovakia).

But the point is that pseudo-Saints are made when no signs from God are involved, the holiness of these people is questionable to all the locals, including Roman Catholics, and their teaching and life are many times against the Gospel (recall the "butcher").

So where is the similarity?

The Pope instead of "making common knowledge" God's will, will "sanctify" (αγιοποιώ = make saint) pseudo-Saints for political purposes or simply because he can.

The Pope is considered to be infallible and head of the Militant Church, which is the visible side of the One Indivisible Church of Christ. Such a heretic belief is at the very basis of their Church! Not in accordance with the beliefs of Christianity, where the head of the whole Church can only be Christ! After all, if it weren't for the Pope's autocracy, no one would have protested against him and Protestantism would not have been born ... And Anglicanism separated from Roman Catholicism following its own separate road (or rather roads).

So, are we all similar? Are we all correct?

If we're all so similar why don't we all unite in one Church and allow ourselves the differences in our belief systems to exist in the individual eucharistic parishes? Like some baptist churches do? And like the World Council of Churches would love us to do, mixing Truth and Lies all together into a damnable amalgam?

This is what the Antichrist will also ultimately want, of course: a unity of the world's religions under his secular power. But for now people still realise that we truly differ and that we all believe in things that contradict each other.

For example, either the Pope is the "holy autocrat" the Roman Catholics support and infallible ex cathedra, or anti-christian as the rest of us believe, because he locks up Christ in the Heavens and presents himself as Christ's true voice on earth (though Protestants will attack the Pope's standing as a Bishop as well, something the Orthodox will not do of course if the Roman Catholic Church turns Orthodox, for we are against the innovation of Papal Infallibility of the 19th century yet not Petromachs and/or against Holy Orders!). We cannot have both standings true however!

Either Holy Tradition in Church is needed for our salvation, a second Bible indeed, within whose atmosphere we must live and understand correctly the Bible in one way, or it is not needed like the Protestants support and we therefore interpret the Bible based on the mottos sola scriptura and ecclesia reformata sed semper reformanda and end up in schism after schism being created.

(And of course, once a dogma falls, so does the next and like a domino we end up in the current situation where even women are ordained priests, since the notion of a hiereus priest is now reduced to a minister of the Church and of course ministers can be female as well if all they have to do is organise speeches in their congregations ... And since we cannot be politically incorrect either and must be "modernists", why not admit homosexuals too? After all, using the motto science is god we know that homosexuality is actually caused by genes, and is not a sin, so what the Bible says about homosexuals must be excluded, or ignored, or we must find new interpretations to increase the number of our flock for else we will be called "fundamentalists", God forbid ... and indeed, many Protestant groups admit now homosexuals as priests!).

All these beliefs cannot co-exist however. Or the wrong ones kept and ignored ...

What kind of Christianity would develop if political correctness starts creeping in there as well? We suppose it already has, since especially in the West we are not even allowed to use the word "heresy" any more, as if it is a dirty word!

Christ is not divisible though! Even His garments were not torn by His enemies and yet the various denominations are doing just that all the time, using ridiculous arguments such as "the theory of branches" and other machinations in order to hide the simple fact that each Protestant has substituted the Pope as the sole interpreter of Scriptures with themselves! In other words, what they were protesting about they now each one faithfully repeat; only in a worse way!

We are similar? Where? How? Perhaps we could use Anglicanism's syncretistic theological relativism to explain how come three different parishes in a small town in the UK, for example, have three different ideas on what the Sacrament of the Eucharist entails: one priest supports some sort of Christ's real presence there, another one who is an Evangelical Anglican does not of course, and another priest hasn't got a clue and gives up saying "these are difficult matters for us to think about"!!! The central Sacrament, the centre of Christianity, and they haven't got a clue!

But the difference in the answer makes the world of difference! If the bread and the wine are not only symbolic after they are changed, then those who don't believe this are doomed, for Christ tells us this is the way to life! How can their absurd thinking fit in all this?

And yet we are all correct more or less? How more and how less, dear reader?

Does this answer satisfy you? Are you happy to put doctrinal differences aside for the sake of "love"?

That is not love but criminal ignorance. And it is known as agapology: empty words of pseudo-love!

b. Nobody is 100% correct; we are only human after all.

Yes, we are human. But the Church is the Body of Christ and therefore can never fall into apostasy. We can, but not She. We can move away and create a new group which we call "christianity", but it will not be the One Church out of which we moved away from in the first place. We decided to move away. Or probably our ancestors did and we were brought up there; or the "shepherds" of those churches where we belong to. The new church is a man-made church. We might belong there now, but we are confused and deceived. She is not the Church. The Church is not only human. But the thing is that most people confuse the meaning of the word Church. In Greek, it is Ecclesia i.e. gathering (calling of the people). But when the word Ecclesia mentioned in the NT, it means something much more than a mere "gathering of the flock". For details on this, look up Chapter 14 and Theme Two.

FOOTNOTES

overseers = In koine, it reads episcopous for overseers; bishop in Greek is episcopos i.e. overseer, guard, supervisor, and the same word is used in modern Greek for bishop (in today's sense of the word). The bishops and the presbyters see over the laity; for this reason, those that try and look for the word "bishop" in a translated Bible will not always find it with that word; e.g. here King James' version uses overseers to stress that meaning of the "double" word, for it refers to both bishops (whoever they were in those times - read further on for this) and to presbyters, whereas in Philip. 1:1 it uses bishops; the original in koine uses episcopous in both cases. Similarly the word presbyter stems from the Greek presbyteros for elder (not the elder used for monks; that is geron) and we find it in this meaning in the translated Bible (c.f. Tit. 1:5). However, even though on a first glance, we might hastily deduce that we should thus substitute overseer for bishop and elder for presbyter we will only be half-right if we do so; and therefore be led to heretical deductions (for more details on this important topic, read here). This is exactly because in the koine (old) Greek of the time when the Bible was written, the word overseer referred to the presbyters mainly (and maybe to the Apostles as well when these were not mentioned explicitly), for the Apostles were the bishops, in today's sense of the word, at those times! In other words, the King James translation is very misleading when it is trying to use both words (overseer and bishop) corresponding to the same word from the original, namely overseer. This is why we must never try and interpret the Bible based on a translation and why we must always look back to the koine text. Of course, we must never try to interpret the Bible without referring back to the Holy Fathers too, as the Holy Oecumenical Synods decided. In any case, remember that bishops or presbyters in today's sense of the word are overseers in the Bible, presbyters in today's sense are the elders mentioned in the Bible, and deacons stay deacons, while the laity is usually referred to as flock; the bishops in today's sense, are the Apostles in the Bible. Of course, one other difference between Apostles and Bishops is that the Apostles were Bishops Universal (no one specifically was the Universal bishop - that is what the Pope claims today!), whereas each ordained Bishop is only Local.

most Protestants = Of course some Protestants (e.g. Anglicans) have kept such an organisation in their church. However, they have clearly introduced innovations which never existed before throughout the Church's history (e.g. ordination of women, but not related to the worship of Mary like the kollyridians would do; so not even related to some first-christian heresy, but, rather, a totally new innovation!). Even though an Anglican priest would in most cases have been ordained in a direct orthodox succession from the Apostles, and today it is an important step towards the union with the One Church that the Anglican Church has accepted Ordination as a Mystery he still however accepts, preaches and alters the doctrines of the Church, that is, alters the Truth of the Church, which is the third element discussed above, so the gratis of Priesthood cannot be with him and thus neither can the Sacrament of Ordination be fulfilled. Of course, Sacraments cannot be counted to simply seven, since the Church herself is mystical and everything needs the grace that engulfs her and we need to be within her environment: we cannot have "half the sacraments working" in order to obtain "half the grace". That is plain absurd. After all, even an Orthodox priest does not stay a priest only by the gratis of Priesthood handed to him mystically by the consecration bestowed upon him by his bishop; for he needs to stay within the Church and consciously accept all of the Lord's commands (being a steward of His Mysteries), and also admit them in public. Otherwise, heresy would be impossible to occur amongst priests: they could simply claim that even though they preach new things (heretical teachings) they have the gratis of Priesthood! But Christianity is not magic! Arius was an Orthodox priest but when he insisted on his heretical teachings he was excommunicated and defrocked. Of course the above discussion only holds as relates to male Anglican priests, as female priests would not be priests if they returned to Orthodoxy; from an Orthodox perspective, the priest is a representative of Christ during the Liturgy, as will become evident by our future notes on the subject, so therefore only males can represent Christ, for Christ was male; the subject on the issue of Ordination of Women which will appear in the future in these notes will satisfy the curious reader as to the details which must at this stage be absent (subject notes still in progress). When it is completed, the subject will appear in the page of Advanced Analysis (not ready yet). Suffice it to say (for now) that the main difference lies most of the times in the wrong typology of their theology: Mother Virgin represents all people (men and women) not just women. The priest represents Christ during the Liturgy, and therefore there is a difference between the male-by-necessity priest and the male-or-female lay person, rather than looking at the difference as between males and females. That typology is that of occultism (god and goddess)! As Biblical evidence, take the fact that all of the Apostles (who are differentiated as priests from the other disciples as we have discussed before) were male. If the (relative) Priesthood was to be allocated to women as well, certainly the Mother of God, being the most pious female, had every right to become one; and yet her Son did not even call her to become a "priestess"! Notice that from the Tradition we also know that none of the women went above the level of a deaconess who were not ordained to holy orders but had duties similar to those of sacristans or female ekklesarises in female monasteries; however none were ever allowed to become deacons, priests or bishops. But even this limited service of females to the diaconate was soon effaced from the Consciousness of the Church, and for good reason (we will examine this in the Advanced notes).

One other great example of an equal-to-the-Apostles female preacher of the Gospel to the nations who nevertheless never became a "priestess" is the example of St. Photini (the Samaritan woman who was renamed Photini i.e. "enlightened one" when she was baptised). A great missionary she was, going all the way to Carthage in Africa, and yet she was not a "priestess". Of course, even her preaching the gospel and apostolic diaconate was a need of the times of the first Church. We cannot expect this extraordinary situation of the times to continue in second and later generations. For more information the reader is asked to read this article here (to appear).

This holds for everyone; even an Orthodox priest who starts commemorating saints not accepted by the Church, or preaches new beliefs etc.; the gratis leaves him, and if he does the terrible sin of creating a new schism in Church, a new wound on the body of Christ, he may even be excommunicated by the Church. As for the Anglican Church, lack of belief in Body and Blood, rejection of the Precious Cross (we have known certain evangelical subdivisions to use the trefoil as their symbol instead of the cross!), rejection of Mystic Confession, and thousands of other alterations on christian doctrine; all these are reasons why there is not even any need to check against Apostolic succession in their ranks, until of course they return to Orthodoxy. By examining the notes starting on this front, it will be readily seen that such alterations are indeed alterations and therefore deviations in the realm of christian worship, in other words heresy; therefore, even if they had kept apostolic episcopal succession (after the king replaced the Pope) the above argument would invalidate this anyway. Of course, since they broke away from the Roman Catholics, themselves having already deviated, there is nothing further to discuss! However we will look at all this more clearly later.

ten truths =  What some people claim to be "Orthodoxy" is not Orthodoxy by any definition. They believe that there exist ten or twenty truths in Christianity, all over the world, and that no single Church has the Truth fully; the Orthodox by claiming they uphold the One Truth are "fundamentalists" and of course also "proud, triumphantists". Now, some of these beliefs have arisen due to the fawning overtures of some Orthodox hierarchs who "politick" with the various popes. But they are often forced to do so due to an inferior political position (to that of the rich and powerful Rome) and thus say a few things they do not believe even themselves. Ecumenical Patriarchs, in particular, are situated in Constantinople, the city most people know today as Istanbul. A few thousand Orthodox souls, situated at the centre of one of the most imperialist Islamic countries! Understandably, thus, many times Patriarchs are placed in very difficult positions and are forced to make statements that go against the Orthodox position and common sense. A good example of this are Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos' contradicting statements (sometimes overtures to Rome, sometimes - when he can - the opposite).

Orthodox Christians should not therefore learn Orthodoxy through public statements but through following the life of the Church as that is taught to us through the Holy Fathers (whose lives we ought to try and imitate), the Bible and the rest of the Orthodox Tradition. The Orthodox Church believes to be the Church of Christ; and so does Rome today. We respect their views but let us confess in honesty what we believe and what we do not. Let us not fall victims to empty words like "two lungs", "sister churches" and so forth that patriarchs and popes alike have often stated in public, in one way or another, especially after the advent of television and world media. Here is therefore yet another good reason why we should all turn off our television sets!

Even though the Basic notes suffice to disprove this erroneous and dangerous belief (because it is one usual way to the pan-heresy of ecumenism), we will examine this issue here more fully. In particular, the word "Orthodoxy" stems from the word "Orthodoxia'"which means "Correct Belief" and at the same time means "Correct Worship". Non-orthodox christians are known as "Heterodox" which means in "Other Belief" and again "Other Worship" but it is implicit that it is referring again to the same religion, Christianity. The Muslims e.g. are not Heterodox but "Allodox" (in "Different Belief", "Different Faith"). So, one by claiming he is Orthodox, he automatically implies that their belief is right, in some totality. This already contradicts the view on "scattered truth" they mention. According to his own words, claiming he is nevertheless "Orthodox", this implies a certain form of "triumphantism" (as he would claim later against the real Orthodox) and thus he should not use it. But the thing is: they always do.

Another aspect of Orthodoxy, is Orthopraxis. In other words, acting out the things Orthodoxia teaches about. Both elements are needed for salvation: Orthodoxia and Orthopraxis. Orthodoxia without Orthopraxis is hypocricy, dead. Orthopraxis without Orthodoxia is of course impossible. So, more accurately, one should say that: both Orthodoxia and Orthopraxis are needed together for salvation. Regarding outside Orthodoxy, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not claim that it is impossible; for only God can make decisions on the salvation of souls; He will judge us. What we do know and can say is that Orthodoxy is the only safe road to salvation, and not the only road to salvation. So much for our "triumphantism"! If they want to find absolutisms, they should go search a few Pentecostal groups that call the rest of the world "whore Babylon".

In fact, the concept of "duality" of evil and good projected in so many neo-protestant groups, and esp. in Jehovah Witnesses groups, is against the beliefs of the Orthodox Church, as are fundamentalism, hatred and pride. It is not "racist" to say "I know where the full Truth exists", or "separatist"! We do not claim that we know by our own intellect the full truth! Only mad men claim this! (After all we cannot know Christ in His essence but only through His uncreated energies). But we simply point to people where the Truth, Christ, abides in mystically, viz. inside the One Church, which is known to be such by the presence of the bishop in the diocese, in communion with his flock and they with one another in the unity of faith and life in Christ. The Church does not lead to salvation but the Church coincides with salvation. Separatism comes by getting a conglomeration of contradicting rationalist beliefs together and mixing them, hoping in the eyes of men we look "good". Because this always leads to greater divisions even if momentarily it may appear to people that it is a truly ecumenical (in the good sense) move from our part. Another thing also is that Orthodoxia, the only safe road to salvation does not imply salvation of all of its members; we clearly state that we have both live and dead members. This of course is also biblical (c.f. e.g. the incestuous Corinthian in the Bible who was part of the One Church and yet a terrible sinner; in particular c.f. 1 Cor. 5:9-11).

Therefore it is possible to exist within the one Church and be a sinner; there exist sinners that are not outside the Church of Christ but members of hers; the Orthodox Christians having a weak faith and not living in Orthopraxis. We mentioned before the Ephesians verse: "One Lord, One faith, One baptism ...". One of the many reasons why the three ones are placed here, is to indicate the importance of oneness. Looking at the Greek wording of this sentence, one who knows the language well can easily see that it mentions three things that are uniquely "balanced" and one. This is obvious to Greek-speaking readers but if you are only an English-speaking reader it may be easier to think of this sentence by an example. Think for a moment that this was an advertisement: "One Lord, One faith, One baptism". What you see "advertised" here is the "oneness" of three "objects" together. They are "balanced" by their common "oneness" in the sense that if one of them is unique, so is the other one. Consequently, if suddenly you find out that one of these objects is not unique you will not only know you have been lied to but also start suspecting that one of the other "objects" may also not be unique! Obviously as a Christian you will agree that the Lord is One and (unless you are in some radical neo-protestant group) that there is only one baptism. (Of course, from an Orthodox canonical perspective that would have to be an Orthodox baptism conducted by an Orthodox priest who is a steward of the mysteries of God). Therefore, the second "object", the faith, can only be one.

Faith however cannot be separated from the faithful who worship inside the temple and thus from the local Church (diocese) and thus from the Ecclesia herself (you are advised at this stage to look up the "Meaning of Ecclesia" we have presented in the Introduction of the Main Page if you have not already done so). In other words, whether we deal with the faithful within one Orthodox temple, or the faithful of their diocese more generally, or the Orthodox faithful of the dioceses of one autocephalous Church, say, or the Orthodox faithful around the globe, the "size" and "external organization" are not what uniquely determine the oneness of the faith here but the Ecclesia.

We mentioned before that Greek-speaking peoples would be able to understand that passage more easily. Why is this so? This is because the importance of the oneness is particularly stressed here a lot more by the fact that the Lord is male (enas), the faith is feminine (mia) and the baptism is neuter (ena). Enas-mia-ena. Oneness in all the structures of the Hellenic language.

But more importantly, we should point out that even though Christ the Truth does come to individual people, bringing them some little help and enlightenment that still does not suffice for it is not salvation; for it says that the Ecclesia as a whole is the pillar and ground of the Truth and thus we can only use the Church as the unique measure, as the only yardstick, that will determine if our little enlightenment was from the Truth of Christ or from the "father of lies" and also how we can interpret it, within what context, so that it becomes an event placed within the mystical beauty and unity of the Church. The pre-eternal and uncreated Body of Christ does not lead to salvation; it is salvation. For this reason we need to enter this Body to be saved in an absolute sense (although in all that depends on us we may not be saved unless we follow Orthopraxis). And as we saw above, the Ecclesia cannot be separated from the unity of faith and convictions: the faith is one.

Thus, only in that unique visible and invisible Body having one faith and convictions can this Truth be interpreted, based upon the dogmas of the mysteries of God. After all, every Protestant accepts the Revelation as a divinely inspired book. But as to whether St. John was enlightened to write this based upon the Holy Spirit, thus constituting word of God, or whether he was not, and thus wrote a heretic pamphlet, is not something that any Protestant group decided or can decide by any means; but the Orthodox Church did in the Ecumenical Synod of 410 AD, where the decision was infallible because the Holy Spirit mystically enlightened all the priests to come to the same decision "in the Spirit", exactly like it had happened in the Apostolic Synod in Jerusalem, in accordance with the promise of Christ.

The Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth; and as such, the Church, under the unity of faith and convictions in Christ, was the only one able to decide whether the Book of Revelation was divinely-inspired or not. She was not a simple carrier but an interpreter of the Word of God. She is the yardstick of our salvation for She is salvation. Until that time, the Book of Revelation was not accepted amongst many individual Orthodox. But afterwards every one did for the decision of the Holy Spirit that promised to lead His Body was binding for all Christians.

Indeed, Orthodox Christians are not allowed to interpret the Bible by themselves but they need to refer to the Holy Fathers and the dogmas of the Orthodox Church. We should also point out that the Synod in Carthage made many other decisions which the Protestants do not accept as binding, even though they came from the same enlightened mind of the Church, the Sole Jurist. Can any Protestant find the exact reasons why this is so? Can they decide how come this "scattering of truth" which happens among them does not lead them to "one mind" but to a "scattering of faiths", contrary to the Ephesians' verse?.

Everything however, from the Bible to the doctrines, was decided and kept within the Church. The Church has always been the Sole Jurist of Holy Tradition throughout the centuries.

Christ is the Chief Cornerstone of our faith, which faith is so important that it be one that it is represented as the "rock of Peter" which we must all share (priests and lay). Just as Peter stayed entrenched in the faith so all the Apostles were to stay equally entrenched in the same one faith, forming "one" and at same time the "twelve cornerstones" of the faith (as we read in Revelation).

The people who use the above "ecumenist" arguments are "ecumenist" Orthodox who are "loose" in the faith and were affected by contemporary Protestant beliefs or Protestants who live in the sea of rationalism and do not believe in mysteries. Anyway the view on "twenty truths" contradicts the essence of 1 Timothy 3:15, Ephes. 4:5 ff. . Further down we read: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith ... unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph. 4:4-12). Now these are not ministries that are irrelevant to one body but the ministries needed within One Body. The Church needs her apostles and her prophets and her evangelists and her pastors and teachers; the ministry work. These are different needs within one Church clearly, for the "perfecting of the saints".

Of course, the only way out of this (for them) is to claim that the Church is not one. But the Church consists of faithful people who have faith. Thus while these people can of course be, as they are in fact, scattered at the four corners of the world, the Church herself must have one faith. That is what One Church means: one faith and one liturgical life in Christ, in communion with each other under the bishop. Apart from anything else, there is an additional complication to their view: the fact that Christ promised that nothing will destroy His Church until the end of time, no one and nothing; not even the mouths of the heretics and the attacks of the heathen. How can they claim then that the Church of the first centuries fell into apostasy? Many people did do just that, creating heresies, but the Church stayed put in the end, consisting of the remaining group of Christians, who kept the same faith as that had originally been given to them by Christ and His Disciples.

It is not the individual people's fault that they were born away from Orthodoxy; but God knows this and will take this into consideration when He judges them. Whereas we, the Orthodox, have nothing to be "triumphant" about, because we will receive no spiritual salary for being Orthodox if we were born into an Orthodox family and thus baptised as infants! What for the heterodox and the allodox is salary and a gift, true reason for them to be joyous when returning to Orthodoxy (and for us and the whole of the Ecclesia in fact -- Not just the Bible but also Saints have told us repeatedly through the centuries that the Heavenly side of Ecclesia rejoices on the return of even one person, deviated Orthodox or non-Orthodox coming to Orthodoxy), is for us Orthodox a serious gift we were given at birth and thus a serious responsibility to continue to stay on the path of Truth, to keep trying to live an ascetic life towards theosis and a reminder that as Orthodox we have no excuse for deviating to other beliefs and worships; nothing more!

This is why the Orthodox Church, as the only safe road to salvation, cannot claim that every non-Orthodox will go to hell; for apart from the fact that they may have not known the Truth of Christ and thus Christ might save them individually based upon the law of their conscience, even if they find and embrace Orthodoxy, the struggle is something they must continue all their lives, as it happens for us too, and they, like us, could fall even the last minute if not careful. In particular, the Church can say for sure that Orthodox Christians will not be saved if they consciously abandon Orthodoxy.

For more on how the Orthodox Church views the non-Orthodox Christians, the reader is highly advised to read this article by Patrick Barnes.

Of course we are joyous for being blessed to be members of the One Church. However our being in Orthodoxy creates responsibilities, leaving absolutely no room for pride! Therefore God - Who knows our hearts and our situation on earth - will judge us accordingly. And as He is just, we need not worry about the salvation of others beyond a point, because that shows lack of faith and trust in God's ability to take care of them! So shouldn't we deduce that what the Spirit of Truth does is not scatter the One Truth and wait for people to discover it but bring people to the unique place where the Truth exists? And that "place" is not some external dead building with a sign that reads "The Truth is in here". Christ is the Truth and His Body, the Living Organism of Christians, is the Ecclesia. The unique place is the Ecclesia expressed by the sacramental intercommunion of the Local Churches and Patriarchates with each other, all under a unique faith of convictions in Christ, dogmas, ethics and liturgical life as it breathes and lives within the living atmosphere of Holy Tradition: in an absolute sense, the One Church is our salvation.

We repeat, that in the case of the Orthodox the Spirit aids us by helping dead members become again living ones, and to the heterodox and allodox by bringing them to Orthodoxy. One could list here millions of miracles and events through history that have made heterodox and allodox return to Orthodoxy. Of course, things do not look good for heterodox Christians, because in most cases people cannot see the orthodox path of the Truth because they do not wish to do so, and not because they live far away from the nearest Orthodox temple. They prefer to play little games and try to get away with as little prayer and ascesis as possible. How can God then come to them? But many are well-meaning and, through also the prayers of many holy people, especially those of monks who daily pray that God bring the heterodox and allodox to the Church, God finally acts and we have wonderful conversions. We will discuss some of these wonderful stories in our Patristic section (often being expanded with new material).

So most of the time, my dear reader, it is rather that we do not want to see the Truth than anything else. Like "gold in the dust", though; this is how the Fathers describe the impossibilty of spiritual ascension in Heterodoxy. It is not possible for heresy to help her members arise spiritually as it is a sin of the flesh. Still, individual heterodox Christians and allodox, when they reach dead ends, humility often leads a lot of them to seek the Truth, rather than try and find ways to support the impossible, simply to satisfy an inflated ego (or the salary of some local pastor)!

Of course, one could claim that Orthodoxy the way the Eastern Orthodox Church views it, is not Orthodoxy the way it should be; that is their own view and respected. (Theme Two discusses exactly this). However, whichever is the True Faith the Bible is clear that it must be one body and the Christians must be returning to this Body which coincides with salvation and not be scattered in different beliefs.

After all, if indeed the Eastern Orthodox had five true doctrines (say), the Catholics four, the Protestant Churches some one, some two and some three different doctrines; what would be the point in that?! Have a "sadistic" Spirit which enjoys hiding the true doctrines from various people in order for what? It is not possible for people to study extensively all the existing philosophies and religions in detail in 10 lifetimes.

The World Council of Churches which (supposedly) aimed to "re-unite" all these beliefs together into one Body, to "re-discover" this Body, failed however to do so in the past 100 years! In the meantime only God knows how many naive Protestants waited for the results and then simply ... died! "We will re-discover the doctrines and ethos", they promised them! "Don't worry!" they told the poor Protestants. "Why should you go to the Orthodox who have one faith? Stay with us, we have a million faiths and soon we will make them one", they promised. The Orthodox presence of course in this organisation was and is in order to help them come to the Truth and we do not consider ourselves as an organic member of this body (and since they do not want to listen we should in fact leave pretty soon, as most Orthodox Churches believe this to be the sound solution).

In the meantime, however, they claim that the Truth does not matter or that the Truth itself can be split up. If what they claim is true, we would have no single basis upon which to "discover" the Truth, but doomed to an eternity of sin and inability to find the full Truth. This would also destroy the salvation work of Jesus because He is the Truth and the Uncreated and Pre-Eternal Body of His is our salvation. Unless of course one believes what certain Protestants believe: that all who simply believe in Jesus (and nothing more) are already saved; of course they forget that the word "faith" has many etymological derivatives, and that faith is not mentioned in the Bible as the only step but rather the first step.

And regarding the view some hold that "each denomination plays the role of a part of the One Body", the answer to that is simply that "that could be true only if we all believed disjoint things which when brought together as a whole produced a whole body". This however now contradicts the one faith issue we mentioned before! And if these were all brought together why don't we have one whole but significant overlaps? The Protestants do not have one faith but one common denominator of faiths.

What happens in reality of course, is that we all share views which are contradicting if placed together. And let us not forget that most Protestant denominations believe fervently that the Truth is within them only, in other words that they are "the One Church" (we respect the view of course).

After all, the enemies of Christianity have long supported WCC hoping that "all Christians will unite". They know and even fund some of the more extreme Protestant denominations which of course even they know are false beliefs, in order to destroy Christianity. Even the enemies of the Church know that if Christianity mingles truth with lies it will disappear!

The Apostle wants Christians to believe in "the one", to be "like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" (Philip. 2:2). One mind cannot exist when people have the truth scattered, unless of course it is a schizophrenic mind. And even the parables, so clearly tell us the same thing as we saw above.

One should also wonder ... what is heresy then? On what basis can we turn around and claim that this or that Church is heretical or not? The Bible itself is not only unclear on the issue but one must also realise that people over the centuries would find new ways to "alter" the dogmas, by new thoughts that the devil would bring to them. Without a carefully developed dogmatic system, synods, patriarchates, Holy Tradition, under one faith, how would they dare point a finger and claim heresy to a newly proclaimed belief by using only one book they have, and that badly translated each applying their own personal interpretations depending on what is popular this week?

If they do not share one faith how will the faithful know when they have in front of them a novelty, a heresy, and when they do not? For this reason the word "heresy" is only kept amongst Protestants for very extreme groups (like Jehovah Witnesses and Scientologists), i.e. in a minimalist sense. But if the Spirit goes where He wants aren't you, Protestants who call Jehovahs as un-Christian, wrong? "They deviate from the Bible", you will claim. The Bible or your interpretation of the Bible? Who is your Chief Cornerstone against whom your interpretation becomes authentic? His Holy Tradition or your personal traditions cut off from the One Tradition? And didn't you say that it does not matter in the first place that these believe wrongly somehow? Ah, but now when it becomes pretty obvious that these cults are terrible heresies, all of a sudden you change your tune? And what about the ones that are not "so obviously" destructive but they still lead to spiritual death? Who gives you the right to lead people to heretical groups? And how do you know that what Moroni taught was not "true", say? How will you know if Mormons are heretics or not? These are new "revelations" outside the Bible!

The point is that heresy cannot be practically dealt with amongst people who hold the above beliefs. Let us now turn our attention to the talk of the Bible on heresy. If what they claimed is true, if the truth is indeed so split up why does the bible speak so fervently on heresy? After all, we would all be heresies according to their definitions c.f. e.g. Tit. 3:10, Gal. 5:20, 2 Peter 2:1. (However note that the word "heresy", Hellenic for "αίρω" has multiple meanings in the OT which differ from those found in the spoken tradition of the time when Christ lived as well as in the way it was used by the NT writers! In the above verses we gave, it does have the ordinary meaning we use today but not in most other places. So watch out here because the Bible does not use the term in the way we do today; for this reason one needs to be careful when examining the Bible on this topic; we highly recommend the article here as a good starting point on the matter).

Another thing: they wonder what the word Ecclesia in 1 Tim. 3:15 means; trying to indicate the 1 Tim. 3:15 verse may have another meaning, perhaps "temple"! The word is ecclesia of course, as temple is naos. But as we saw in the Introduction, each temple represents the whole Church, with the priest as the president during the Liturgy. This "miniature Ecclesia" again only reflects the Ecclesia which abides in the diocese, under one bishop, the presbyters and deacons under him and the flock (laity). All having the same faith. So even if you thought of this verse as talking about the temple, it would still come down to the issue of the one faith.

The word however is not naos (which could perhaps include a temple of the heathen or of the heretics or at any rate indicate some external human construction which is not what the Ecclesia is) but ecclesia which word means something much more than a mere congregation of people together; but these are issues discussed at length in the notes above. Ecclesia is both invisible and visible too, as Apostle Paul speaks very clearly on her visible side and, at the same time she is both pre-eternal and uncreated, being the Body of the Uncreated Christ that sent the Holy Spirit to guide Her through the eons.

Finally, let us also say this: the Bible does actually tell us that this Truth is not divisible, even though the Protestants were rationalising otherwise so happily, a few paragraphs above! "Is Christ divisible?" (1 Corinth. 1:13). This rhetoric question is of course meant to have the answer NO as the context makes it obvious (you are advised to look the verse in context). Truth is not material that you can cut up and share out. And then, if you collect the pieces, you can put them back together and make the material whole again. Christ, the truth, cannot be divided. You cannot have a bit of Christ among the Catholics, a bit among the Protestants and a bit in Orthodoxy. Christ is One and Indivisible.

Therefore the "only" way the Protestant argument would "work" (actually not but for the sake of argument only) is if the Indivisible Christ shed His indivisible truth upon each and every one of them that simply confessed to be Christian. It would of course imply that they would have fully received Christ into their lives, in some way. In particular, having had one Lord and one baptism, and the whole Christ, they would also have one faith.

The number of the more mainstream Protestant groups has increased exponentially in the past century, lying in excess of 1,000. If we actually adjust for individual beliefs, i.e. faith, and not in terms of alliances, we get a much larger estimate. For example, one of the most serious and ancient Protestant groups is the Anglican Church. If we adjust by faith, they should really be considered three groups instead of one because (as it was pointed out above) their individual views differ substantially in terms of doctrines. Other Protestant groups are a lot more split up, but even if we only allow a factor of 3 to arise from this rough adjustment, our calculations give us a number of 3,000 faiths. (However, according to OODE, this number seems to actually be ten times larger!)

Surprised? You shouldn't be. After all, why do you think the leaders needed a "World Council of Churches"? They could not achieve the much desired unity by themselves (the contrary seems to have happened) and so they decided to simulate the Orthodox Church's oneness by means of a "continuous ecumenical council" of sorts, where every group could have their say and come to certain "democratic" decisions.

But this oneness we have, my dear Protestant friends (and we all speak here to you with love and concern; these sad realities of our times are not your fault) is not achieved by alliances. This oneness is achieved by having one faith as that was delivered unto us from Christ within His inabolishable Church. The first step in achieving this unity that you secretly desire is not by talking of "scattered truths" in order to find an excuse to stay where you are, but by a wholehearted repentance and wish for return to the House of God, to His Orthodoxy.

When the prodigal son had made an alliance with harlots and inn-keepers spending his money in women and drink, he was still under the impression that all would eventually be well and it was clear in his mind that he was in "good company". Even worse, he was under the illusion that he was still a good son. No doubt he found many excuses in order to explain his deviation from his Father's House: he was young, he needed to have some fun, to live his life etc. But when the money ran out, and he started eating worse than pigs, he humbled himself and realised that he was neither good nor a son any more. So he returned to the One House of his Father without presumption: and that is when he started living again in orthodoxy.

We do not say these words here in order to make the reader sad, but in order to make him or her thoughtful and alert to the "harlots and inn-keepers" of our time.

St. James motioned to the Orthodox Christians of his time: "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins" (James 5:20). It is clear that there is one truth, here, and not many. Moreover, these Christians were clearly aware of ways to correct the heresy of the deviated person. If the truth was scattered, would it be possible for such a conversion (let alone methods) to be possible? If the truth was scattered would there be anyone who would not in fact err from the truth? The original speaks a lot more clearly in showing that no deviation is tolerated if they want to continue using the name "Christian". And if they all had the fullness of the truth, in order to listen to St.James' advice here, wouldn't that mean that they would necessarily have the same faith?

These Christians did not sweep issues under the carpet or keep a minimalist approach. On the contrary they took such issues very seriously: heresy needed to be overcome in order to help "save a soul from death". (But also, so that heresy, did not spread like a spiritual fire into a heretical group of spiritually burnt victims.) And since Protestants believe that such an attitude is a little harsh as "no one can know exactly what they need to do" in such circumstances, they forget that these Christian people would simply need to advise the person in heresy (or who had begun to heretise) on what the Church had already taught since the beginning; they did not need to "re-discover" the truth by their own intellect: the Truth was manifested in the totality of the congregation; and in a miraculous way it never left the totality of the Church, because Her Head, Christ, is at the helm.

Salvation cannot be separated from the Truth of Christ. Christ our God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).

"As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me", Christ told us explicitly (Jn. 15:4). We need to abide in His Body, the Ecclesia who, like her Head Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb. 13:8) in her essence.

The author of this article, often talks too much and is full of many other passions, dear reader. He was Orthodox since birth but had deviated from the faith, years ago, and was in deep spiritual isolation. But the prayers of holy men helped this prodigal son that you witness writing to you today return to the One Body of Christ, for otherwise spiritual death would have been a certainty for him. He still feels how low his spiritual progress is, given what was shown to him and what ascetic pearls he has seen on Mount Athos, men full of Christ who helped him with their prayers and example to come to Home. For these shortcomings (evidenced throughout these notes you read) we all ask for your forgiveness, dear reader. We just hope you will at least take us seriously (and the author in particular) so that perhaps he might have some of his numerous sins hidden if you return home. May Christ our God grant this sooner.

More information on "the theory of branches" will be represented in the Advanced Analysis notes. We cannot use simplistic "crude" language in this case, like we have done here for the benefit of the readers, but we will need to be very careful how we define things in order to understand how such theories are some of the most clever machinations of the demons. In particular, we need to make more precise the Orthodox position on Church and moreover in what sense "the truth can come to us" makes sense from an Orthodox viewpoint. Notes still in progress.

Holy Oecumenical Synods = Due to Jesuit influences in Russia, it is sometimes mentioned that the Orthodox Church only accepts Seven Oecumenical Synods. As a matter of fact, the Orthodox Church accepts Nine Oecumenical Synods to date. Read also this link.

closer = "Why only closer?", someone may wonder here. "Either you Orthodox are united or you are not! After all, you claim that the Ecclesia is One and Indivisible! Why only closer then?" This is a very good question. The reason is that John 17 is not referring to divided Churches (the Church is One and Indivisible and cannot be divided; those who are in heresy are outside the Church) but to Orthodox Christians inside His One and Indivisible Church. The unity Christ is praying for is the unity of the Orthodox in the glorification cure, theosis, i.e. the cure of the sickness of religion. Depending on how much each of us tries to make a reality the Life of the Church (Orthopraxis) or not, this unity will become more realised or not, respectively. Being inside the "right" environment (as Orthodox with Orthopraxis) however allows us to be "closer" to this unity wished for by Christ, as also Roman Orthodox History triumphantly shows. Those who are not even inside the One Church, however, like the Protestants, cannot even form an external unity in opinions or even form one united congregation with constant beliefs without having heretical schisms follow. This is of course something to be expected since the Protestant religions, as apostasized congregations from heretical Papism, have never lived the Divine Revelation of Christ in His Church, and they worship a non-existent "Christ" (a man-made "Christ" that is not the One who was revealed to us). As such, they do not worship God. As soon as we abandon God in our lives, the "void" is immediately taken up by the other "master" who tries to destroy us through the sickness of religion. For more information read here.

Istanbul = All the major cities in modern-day Turkey have Greek names, a remainder of the days when these Christian cities were part of the Christian Roman Empire. Ankara, for example, stems from Agkyra which means Anchor. When the Turks would ask Roman Christians "Where are you going?" they would reply in Greek that they were going "to the City" (pronounced iss-tin-Pollen). ("City" is short for "Constantine's City" which is what Constantinople means). Hence Istanbul!

saints = The word saints is not used here in its more restrictive sense that we often adopt and are accustomed to (i.e. the Fervent Intercessors known to us through God who are now in the Church Triumphant) but refers to the living members of the Ecclesia (since the departed do not have need of perfecting any more) who live in Orthopraxis -- in other words the word saints refers to all pious Orthodox Christians who live close to the Church and live Her mysteries in their lives on a daily basis.

Back to Top of this page

Back to Theme One Back to Theme Two