Darla wrote:
I do agree with you, Scott, that the Catholic and Orthodox church both claim to be the original church and that it's one of the two that has a linear/apostolic right to say to that. (Wasn't the split in 1054 AD over the filioque clause and papal supremacy? That's what both the Catholic and Orthodox churches say is the "Great Schism." Not sure why the 4th century keeps coming up as the pinpoint of the split.)
From a historical standpoint, the major differences in doctrine and practice started developing in the late 4th and early 5th century, concurrent with the historical fall of the Roman empire and the breakdown of communications between Rome and Constantinople. Over the years, the "bishops" of those two locations assumed supremacy over a portion of the group but the major fracture had, for all intents and purposes, already happened. They just didn't realize that they had set themselves down a road that would cause this rupture.
In fact, while looking around, I have found that even some Orthodox historians acknowledge that the split was starting to happen by the 4th century.
http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/Orthodox_Church/schism.shtmlHere's another discussion of major theological (doctrinal) disagreement that was already happening in the 4th century.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/doctrine1.aspx#Holy%20TrinityDarla wrote:
Two things prompted my husband and I to back out on the teaching of the Bible being the foundation of the faith: 1) Realizing that the Bible itself doesn't teach that doctrine, and seeing the divisions it has brought in to Christ's Body because of wide and divergent interpretations, and 2) Learning that there was a historical church that still existed (in my prior ignorance, I'd thought there was the original church, then idunno, something went wrong and finally at the reformation everything was righted by ... um, someone). At that point, we knew we had some searching and decision-making to do.
For point 1, the Bible teaches that anything in contradiction to it is error. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 specifically states that Scripture is god-breathed and sufficient to make man "complete" and "thoroughly equipped for every good work." If Scripture is sufficient for this, why would we need anything else? 2 Peter 1:20-21 says that Scripture is not for private interpretation by man (hence, we can all read it and understand it). Revelation 22:18-19 say that we should not add to or take away from the revealed word of God. Furthermore, Jesus Himself repeatedly chastises folks for following as law the traditions of men and starts his condemnations with "It is written..."
Not only that, but since we are looking at historical stuff, let us remember that in the early church, doctrinal issues were only ever discussed in light of Scripture by folks like Polycarp, Clement, etc. They didn't cite "church fathers," they cited Scripture. Furthermore, when folks like Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote about apostolic authority in the second century, they always cited the written Scripture, not any oral traditions. In the 4th century Cyril of Jerusalem was also advocating and teaching sola scriptura.
Darla wrote:
We looked at both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Well, not really because we somehow knew from the start we couldn't get behind papal supremacy (we later learned why). And, in our understanding, the Catholic church has changed tremendously. They have not stuck to decisions made in church-wide ecumenical councils that they'd attended and been a part of, they changed the Nicene Creed without approval from the other patriarchs, they replaced papal primacy with papal supremacy, they have added new doctrines (the immaculate conception doctrine is less than 200 years old, for example) and so on. The Orthodox Church has not become something new/different. It has developed to be sure (just like an infant develops in to adulthood but is still the same being), but in theology and doctrine, it has not changed.
As far as being the same today as in the first century, the following concepts have all changed in the "orthodox" church since the first century and are part of doctrine: infant baptism (never referenced in the early church or early church writings, baptism is frequently discussed but infant baptism is not present until the third century), "ever-virgin mary" (not alluded to until well into the second and third century).
How many bishops/pastors are at each congregation of an orthodox church? How many congregations in the Scriptures are ever referred to as having one or fewer bishops or pastors? Just a question for study.
Darla wrote:
"Thy Word is truth." Yes, I agree. Thy Word is Christ Jesus the Lord, though, it's not a book -- it's CHRIST. Logos ("word") and graphe ("scripture") are two different words and are not used interchangeably in the New Testament. When logos is used in the Bible, it's referring to Christ or His oral words or to oral preaching. Look it up. "Scripture" (something written) is graphe. I didn't find one time in the New Testament that logos referred to anything written (in dozens of uses). So I don't see that "the Word of God" means anything but Jesus Christ (and by nature, His Church since the Church is Christ's body). Christ came to start a church, not to write a book. The Bible is honored and venerated within the Church because it is a gift of the Holy Spirit to us (and truth be told, I've never seen the Scriptures honored more than since becoming Orthodox; they fill the text of our services, the book is encased in precious metals, we stand when the gospels are read, etc.). But it's the the Church that has the "faith handed down," it's the Church that is Christ presenting Himself tangibly to the world (i.e., His Body), it's the Church that is the "pillar and foundation of the truth." Not the Bible.
In one place where I saw logos used, if it meant the Bible and not Christ, it would have been idolatry. There were several places where it made no sense for it to be a written word. But in all uses, it made wonderfully clear sense to be words taught/spoken by Christ and those He trained (and those they ordained).
...except where we are told that the Scripture is the truth, and the word is not necessarily logos. The church is indeed the body of Christ, but the church of the first century and of Scripture is not necessarily the "orthodox" church of the 21st century.