Hate!?!

May I just point out that exposing false teachings is not hate for the people who are trapped in them. The hate is for the false teachings which burden the people and prevent them from knowing true salvation. 

Eastern Orthodoxy - Is It Really Orthodox?

I first posted this article on 29 July 2010 but I decided it needed to be rerun for my current readers.

==============

Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches consider themselves to be the one true Christian church, both claiming direct apostolic succession, to the earliest church established by Paul. Unlike Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy is composed of several self-governing ecclesial bodies, each geographically and nationally distinct but theologically unified. Each self-governing (or autocephalous) body, often but not always encompassing a nation, is shepherded by a synod of bishops whose duty, among other things, is to preserve and teach the Apostolic and patristic traditions and related church practices. (Wikipedia, Orthodox Church). It is not a monarchy with one all-powerful ruler at the top, but ‘an oligarchy of patriarchs,’ based on the body of bishops and responsible to local or general (ecumenical) church councils. No one patriarch is responsible to any other patriarch; yet all are within the jurisdiction of an ecumenical council of all the churches in communion with the patriarch of Constantinople, who holds the title Ecumenical Patriarch. (Frank S. Mead, Handbook of Denominations, p.183).

To better understand the nature of Eastern Orthodoxy compared to Roman Catholicism in the way they operate as organizations, Patrick Reardon gives a good explanation:

A single illustration may serve the purpose. When monks from Rome established their mission in England, centered at Canterbury, near the end of the sixth century, they continued to remain under the immediate jurisdiction of the Roman Pope and their language in worship continued to be Latin. The same pattern attended the missionary work in Gaul, Germany, Scandinavia and elsewhere in the West. Latin was the language of worship in all these churches (until Vatican II in the early 1960’s), and Rome endeavored with varying success to gain and retain appointment of local bishops. By and large the latter is still the case today. Such centralization and uniformity did not characterize the historical development of Eastern Orthodoxy, as we may see in the matter of language. Notwithstanding the dominance of the Greek tongue throughout the Byzantine Empire, there had always been Eastern Christians who worshiped in Syrian, Ethiopian, Coptic and eventually Arabic; so as Orthodox missionaries moved northward it was understood from the beginning that the native tongues of the new regions would be the languages used for worship and life of the new congregations. In fact, since these native languages had never previously been written down, the missionaries themselves were obliged to elaborate a new alphabet for them and commenced their literature from scratch. One should keep in mind that between the Slavic mission of 863 and the Alaskan mission of 1793 the Orthodox Church put the Gospel into nearly 3 dozen languages that had never been written down before. (The History of Orthodox Christianity, pp. 23-24)

This idea of keeping the individual cultures where the Gospel was preached by Eastern Orthodoxy leads to branches known as “Russian Orthodox,” “Greek Orthodox,” etc. There have even been schisms over the centuries based on some doctrinal issues so that there are also sects called Oriental Orthodox (Coptic and Syrian Orthodox, e.g.).

In my articles about Roman Catholicism, I discussed their teaching authority, baptism, sin, purgatory, indulgences, the Eucharist, Marian dogmas, iconography and the saints. For this article about Eastern Orthodoxy, I will address the same issues.

Teaching Authority:

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not have a papacy, and therefore has no papal infallibility. However, they do teach that scripture alone is not sufficient, rather they add to Scripture “Holy Tradition.” Their authority is the scriptures as interpreted by the seven ecumenical councils of the church. Orthodoxy also relies heavily on the writings of early Greek fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great.

The seven ecumenical councils are also recognized by Roman Catholics and Protestants, and are as follows: The Council of Nicea, 325,. the Council of Constantinople, 381, the Council of Ephesus, 431, the Council of Chalcedon, 451, the Council of Constantinople II, 553, the Council of Constantinople III, 680, and the Council of Nicea II, 787.

Baptism:

The Orthodox Church teaches that baptism is the initiator of the salvation experience, and they practice baptism by full immersion, never sprinkling; pouring is permitted in extreme circumstances. As with Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy believes baptism is necessary for salvation, that baptism washes away “ancestral sin,” and for this reason baptizes infants.

Baptism is immediately followed by chrismation and Holy Communion at the next Divine Liturgy, regardless of age. Although baptism is a separate mystery (sacrament) from chrismation, normally when it is said that someone "has been baptized" this is understood to include not only baptism but chrismation as well. In some practices, first communion is also administered at once. The Orthodox Church makes no judgment concerning the efficacy or validity of baptisms performed by other denominations, as regards people who are members of those respective denominations. The precise status and significance of such baptisms has not been revealed by God to the Orthodox Church; however, as a practical matter, they are treated as non-efficacious unless and until the person joins the Orthodox Church. Persons coming to Orthodoxy from other denominations, and who had been baptized with water in the name of the Trinity, are generally not received by holy baptism, but instead through holy chrismation, after which their former baptism is deemed to be efficacious. (http://orthodoxwiki.org/) (Chrismation is the anointing of oil for the baptism of the Holy Spirit.)

As discussed with Roman Catholicism, according to the Bible only faith is necessary for salvation. Also, the Bible does not say one has to be a member of a particular denomination for baptism to be valid. And, since baptism is a public symbol of a proclamation of faith in Christ, baptizing infants is pointless.

Sin and salvation:

Unlike Catholicism’s teaching of sin being either venial or mortal, the Orthodox Church has a more biblical view. Here is an interesting explanation (copied from Religion Facts but link no longer there): The result of sin, then, was a blurring of the image of God and a barrier between God and man. The situation in which mankind has been ever since is an unnatural, less human state, which ends in the most unnatural aspect: death. Salvation, then, is a process not of justification or legal pardon, but of reestablishing man's communion with God. This process of repairing the unity of human and divine is sometimes called "deification." This term does not mean that humans become gods but that humans join fully with God's divine life.

Purgatory:

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not have a doctrine on purgatory as a place. They do believe in the possibility that the dead can have a change of their situation based on prayers by those living. This, of course, contradicts Hebrews 9:27.

Indulgences:

The Eastern Orthodox Church has never practiced the use of indulgences the way Roman Catholicism has throughout history.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches believe one can be absolved from sins by the Sacred Mystery of Confession, which in the East is preceded by a period of fasting. Because of differences in the theology of salvation, indulgences for the remission of temporal punishment of sin do not exist in Eastern Orthodoxy, but until the twentieth century there existed in some places a practice of absolution certificates (συγχωροχάρτια – synchorochartia). While some of these certificates were connected with any patriarch's decrees lifting for the living or the dead some serious ecclesiastical penalty, including excommunication, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, with the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, had the sole privilege, because of the expense of maintaining the Holy Places and paying the many taxes levied on them, of distributing such documents in large numbers to pilgrims or sending them elsewhere, sometimes with a blank space for the name of the beneficiary, living or dead, an individual or a whole family, for whom the prayers would be read. Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos Notaras (1641–1707) wrote: "It is an established custom and ancient tradition, known to all, that the Most Holy Patriarchs give the absolution certificate (συγχωροχάρτιον – synchorochartion) to the faithful people … they have granted them from the beginning and still do." A Russian Orthodox source says that these certificates were in use among Greek Orthodox until the middle of the twentieth century, and were ‘certificates which absolved from sins, which anyone could obtain, often for a specified sum of money. The absolution granted by these papers, according to Christos Yannaras, had no connection with any participation of the faithful in the Mystery of Penance, nor in the Mystery of the Eucharist’. The same source interprets the Western indulgence also as absolution from sin, not as remission of temporal punishment. (Wikipedia)

While this is much different than the Roman Catholic view, indulgences are still unbiblical.

Eucharist:

Eastern Orthodoxy’s Eucharist is virtually identical to the Roman Catholic Church. They believe, as do Romanists, that the bread and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ. Unlike Romanists, Orthodox communicants usually receive both elements.

As with the Roman Church, Orthodoxy claims the Eucharist is a sacrifice of Christ. They teach that, although Christ was sacrificed once, the elements turn into his sacrificed body/blood to be offered to God as a propitiatory sacrifice, and although all the events of sacrifice are not repeated (incarnation, last supper, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension), they are indeed present in the Eucharist. All comments made previously in relation to the Roman Catholic mass are also applicable to Eastern Orthodoxy; the teaching is patently unbiblical and idolatrous.

Mary:

Like Romanism, Orthodoxy adheres to the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, giving the title “Mother of God” to Mary, and, like Rome, uses the title to exalt her. However, the origin of this unique doctrine seems to have been the Council of Chalcedon in 451, where the title Theotokos was given to her. This title means “God-bearer” or “mother-of-God.” The original purpose of this title was not to exalt Mary but to counter a heresy by the Nestorians which said Christ was actually two separate persons - the divine Word and the man Jesus.

The Orthodox Church also believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary in the same manner as Romanists, including the teaching that even her hymen remained intact while giving birth to Jesus. I’ll repeat here what I noted about this belief under Roman Catholicism: In A.D. 553, the Second Council of Constantinople declared Mary “ever virgin.” The idea for this had begun to form as early as the end of the second century, but by the fourth century there was a lot of debate about it. It appears the belief triumphed because of the rise of asceticism and monasticism, which revered celibacy over marriage as being more spiritual. Gnostic beliefs that the material world was evil led to the idea that sexual relations were part of evil pleasures and not good for spiritual growth. Therefore, the idea that Mary could ever have had sexual intercourse was seen as something that would have corrupted her, and that Jesus would never have been born from a woman who would afterwards be soiled with sexual relations… Somehow the idea that a baby passing out of the womb and breaking the woman’s hymen would bring corruption to her, even without her having sexual relations!

You can continue to read there about the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic beliefs as to why Mary had to be a perpetual virgin rather than a real wife to Joseph and bearing children.

Again like Romanists, Orthodox Christians revere Mary to the point of idolatry, saying she is to be highly honored. While they reject the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception,” some say she was free from actual sin, some say she never sinned and some say she died sinless. So even without a specific doctrine, it appears that most Orthodox Christians believe Mary was sinless in some fashion.

Eastern Orthodoxy denies the Roman Catholic dogma of the Assumption. However, they have a very similar teaching called the “Dormition” (Mary’s “falling asleep”).

Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Mary died a natural death, that her soul was received by Christ upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day. "...Orthodox tradition is clear and unwavering in regard to the central point [of the Dormition]: the Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body – like His – was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven, in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives wholly in the Age to Come. The Resurrection of the Body ... has in her case been anticipated and is already an accomplished fact. That does not mean, however, that she is dissociated from the rest of humanity and placed in a wholly different category: for we all hope to share one day in that same glory of the Resurrection of the Body which she enjoys even now.

(Wikipedia)

Review my comments correcting Rome’s teachings about Mary and they can be applied also to Eastern Orthodoxy’s teachings.

Iconography and the Saints:

Even moreso than Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy is heavily into iconography. This is based on the outcome of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which supported veneration of icons.

An Orthodox believer does not consider these images of Jesus and the saints the works of men but as manifestations of the heavenly ideal. They are a kind of window between the earthly and the celestial worlds. Through the icons the heavenly beings manifest themselves to the worshiping congregation and unite with it. Thus, it is impossible to understand Orthodox worship apart from icons. In Orthodoxy the idea of image is the key to understanding the ways God with man. Man is created ‘in the image of God’: he carries the icon of God within himself. (Bruce Shelly, Church History in Plain Language, p. 142) An Orthodox cherishes and kisses an image of Jesus or Mary or St. Nicholas for much the same reason that he cherishes and kisses a photograph of his mother, his grandfather or Aunt Dot. (Reardon, The History of Orthodox Christianity, p. 17)

The problem with iconography was discussed in my article on Roman Catholicism; it is idolatry. It is venerating images of what the imagination says Christ and others would look like. While using the imagination to form a likeness of a person may be condoned, a likeness of Christ, who is God incarnate, must not be imagined. Without knowing what he looked like, everyone could have their own ideas and imagine all sorts of images which could be anywhere from sober to blasphemous. The making of an image of God for worship is a violation of the commandment.

As with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy encourages prayers to the saints.

Summary:

As with the Roman Catholic Church, we have seen that Eastern Orthodoxy practices some of the same unbiblical teachings. They deny the sufficiency of Scripture, teach baptism as necessary for salvation and that baptism itself has salvific value, teach that the dead can be prayed for to improve their condition, and practice a form of indulgences. Additionally, they teach the continual sacrifice of Christ in their Eucharist, exalt Mary as a sinless, perpetual virgin to be venerated, and practice idolatrous iconography and unbiblical prayers to the saints. For these reasons, while not as unbiblical as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy still must be considered a cultic sect of Christianity.

Agglomeration

Dallas Jenkins tries to show how it’s okay to watch his horrible The Chosen and his new series House of David. He claims more people are reading the Bible now. Well, if they do, then they wouldn’t waste more time watching them with all the heresy and blasphemy in them. BUT, I sincerely doubt his claim about everyone praising his stuff for leading them to the Bible and salvation.

WOW! Pay attention to how Satan would destroy the minds of our CURRENT generation (vs “the next”).  It’s really spot on!

A reminder that Christians should not be involved with Freemasonry.

Only One Question Solves the Mystery of the Sin of Sodom.

Christianity Today Astray argues that Jesus wasn’t nailed to the cross. They caught so much flak that they had to retreat from the idea!

7 Ways New Agers Twist Bible Verses

A Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) now has a Men’s Same-Sex Attraction Group! A bit more information including the connection to Tim Keller.

So why isn’t this Cardinal excommunicated from the Catholic church?!?  AND, why aren’t these bishops excommunicated?!?

Pope Francis: Servant or Enemy of Christ? It’s a 57-minute video examining Francis and even the Catholic Church. Well worth the time.  Additionally, here is an excellent article describing what a hypocrite he was regarding ecology and “climate change.”  So, what will Jesus say to him?

While talking about Catholics, how about this: The Stations Of The Cross: A Practice Of Medieval Fraud

No, Jim Caviezel did NOT hear from Jesus. The movie was unbiblical.

Is there any United Methodist Church left which follows the teaching of Jesus? This woman “pastor” has foolish ideas.  Abject heresy and blasphemy in another UMC. And this Methodist preacher compares Jesus to an MS-13 gang member he supports!!

A Warning to the Church about Todd White.  This guy is really bad news and I’ve often posted links to articles showing just how bad he is.  Another video of a blasphemous “sermon” he taught. 

Institute in Basic Life Principles

IBLP was/is Bill Gothard’s legalistic and bible-twisting organization for which I had gathered a lot off articles exposing. (His Advanced Training Institute—ATI—is included.)

I have a nice 3” 3-ring binder about 2/3 full. It begins with my request for information about IBLP from Midwest Christian Outreach, which is a Christian Apologetics and Counter Cult Ministry in Lombard, IL. They sent me copies of article they had in their journals as well as other articles from other discernment ministries.

Following these are articles I wrote examining his Basic and Advanced Seminar textbooks, which I late posted on my blog as well as sending to Bill Gothard.

Then there are lots more articles from various ministries and more material from MCO. 

Most of the rest of the publications are print-outs of articles from Recovering Grace Ministries, which has wonderful examinations of Gothard’s teachings and help for those leaving Gothardism.

I would really like to send this binder of articles to someone who would be interested in learning about IBLP/Bill Gothard or maybe someone who knows people involved with IBLP and  would find the information helpful to lead them out of it.

If you are interested in acquiring this data, let me know and I will be happy to ship it off to you. Just email me at jude3.gctwm@yahoo.com

Articles now allow comments

I forgot to let my readers know that my blogs are back open for comments!

But I still do not allow false teachings or engage in debates. These types of comments are deleted. 

He Is Risen Indeed!

Baptism is NOT Necessary For Salvation Nor Does It Save You

I’ve had a Catholic criticize my article, Roman Catholic Baptism Is Unbiblical, claiming that baptism is indeed necessary for salvation. He included the following Bible verses as “proof texts” that baptism does indeed provide salvation.  Well, let’s just examine his “proof” for what it is.

Mark 16:16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Notice it first says, “He who believes.” The belief in Jesus as savior is what saves the person, and the baptism is the outward sign of an inward faith/spirituality. Notice in the second phrase it says, “he who does not believe will be condemned.” The one who does not believe will not be saved through baptism. 

John 3:5: Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

IF the water referred to is baptism, then notice one must be born of the Spirit (i.e. born of the Holy Spirit because of faith in the salvation of Jesus). But water here is not literal, rather it refers to cleansing (e.g. Ezekiel 36:24-27). John MacArthur points out, When water is used figuratively in the OT, it habitually refers to renewal or spiritual cleansing, especially when used in conjunction with “spirit” (Num.19:17-19; Ps.51:9, 10; Is. 32:15, 44:3-5, 55:1-3; Jer. 2:13; Joel 2:28-29). Thus, Jesus made reference to the spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (cf. Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5), required for belonging to His kingdom.

Notice though, that Jesus is restating vs. 3 where He says, “Unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Replace “born again” with “born of water and of the Spirit.” “Born again” has the meaning of placing one’s faith in Christ for salvation.

Acts 2:38-41: And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

It doesn’t take a theological scholar to see that Peter did not say anyone needed to be baptized to be saved. He stated the first thing to do was “repent.” Then he says the baptism which follows is in the name of Jesus, which implies with their repentance they put their faith in Jesus for salvation. Those who were saved were “those who received his word”— i.e., the sermon he had just preached about Jesus beginning at verse 14. They asked what they should do after hearing this sermon. If they didn’t repent and place their faith in Jesus, being baptized in His name would not give them salvation. Real repentance knows how evil sin is and that it must be forsaken “and the person and work of Christ totally and singularly embraced.”

The Apologetics Study Bible says this: Many groups use these verses to teach that baptism is essential to salvation. Yet Paul made a distinction between the two when he wrote, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Co. 1:17). He then described the gospel as “the power” to save (v.18). Baptism and the gospel are thus set in opposition to each other. Paul explained that “the gospel . . . is God’s power for salvation” (Rom.1:16).

Acts 22:16: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

This was said by Ananias AFTER Paul had an encounter with Jesus and more teaching by Ananias. Paul had been given the faith and the Holy Spirit. So Ananias is telling him to now be baptized. As most commentaries will point out, grammatically calling on the name of the Lord precedes “rise and be baptized.” Calling on the name of the Lord is what saved Paul, not the baptism.

Romans 6:3-4: Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Notice he says ‘baptized into Christ Jesus.” They were believers and then baptized into that faith. The baptism symbolized their faith in Christ as they were “buried with him through baptism.” BUT that is assuming Paul is talking about water baptism. But what do scholars have to say? “Paul is actually using the word baptized in a metaphorical sense, as we might be saying someone was immersed in his work, or underwent his baptism of fire when experiencing some trouble.” 

This is pretty plain because Paul says we were buried into death and yet we didn’t die.

1 Corinthians 6:11: And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

This passage doesn’t even mention baptism, rather it is about being washed, etc, but the Spirit! Baptism would come later.

Titus 3:5:  He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit…

Again, this is not about baptism but about regeneration and renewal by the Spirit! Water baptism isn’t even hinted at.

1 Peter 3:21: Baptism … now saves you…

How about we look at the context of this passage starting at vs 18:

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the]spirit; in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…

So notice he says, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, i.e. not with water but with an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I suggest the reader look at the very thorough explanation at “Got Questions."

Ephesians 2:8-9 says salvation is not of oneself, i.e., works—and baptism is a work. Baptism is the outward sign of an inward faith/spirituality. Without the inward faith, baptism has no meaning—it does not provide salvation nor is it necessary for salvation.

Now the amusing thing is that Catholics have four paragraphs in their Catechism which prove they don’t believe that water baptism is what saves you:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”[62] Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,”[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

None of this is even hinted at in the Bible and has been invented by the Papist Church as a way to maintain the lie that Baptism is what provides salvation.