What Christians Outside Of The Orthodox Church Believe

[wayfaringstranger]

-Mormonism​

I don't mean this as an insult to mormons- I respect aspects of their faith but Mormons are not Christian:
They don't believe the trinity, Christ's divinity and have a separate prophet and set of holy books (the book of Mormon) - in other words they are a different religion, like Islam, though Islam may include Jesus as a prophet and believe in the Virgin Mary.

 

[fortyfive]

The most miserable and bitter person I have ever known is one of my neighbors. It's a man in his forties, living a depressive, angry life, lonely in his room. Nobody likes him, and even dogs are avoiding him.

But the thing that defines him the most, is that he is always right. That's his biggest virtue and asset. Always ready to fight every opinion by endlessly arguing with anyone who dares to have different ideas like his.
He is unable to change his opinion on anything, and he is proud of it.

I think he is missing the point of what life is about, but to someone else, such a living could appear like a noble fight for the truth. And I'm fine with that. It's his choice, and he is bearing the consequences of it.

And no, not because I'm a truth relativist. I believe that God's Word is a clear and whole Truth. But I don't have the monopoly for explaining it.
And I doubt any man has it.

And that's why when I see some contemporary human being proclaiming himself as an exclusive owner of the truth, I'm a little bit skeptical.

Just look at how many always infallible Christians are now just pfizer preachers. Those who followed them are now triple jabbed, and some of them are now dead. But they died convinced that they did the right thing.

I'm critical of believing in any human construct totally, without doubt, and my experience is proving to me that I'm right.
Every person I know eventually disappointed me at some time. And I disappointed them, of course.
I love my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I'm careful in believing them wholeheartedly. They are just fallible humans like I'm.


I have unlimited trust only in God.

 

[Going strong]

Reading the thread, I'm reminded of Matthew 10:34.

 

[Boone947]

As I’ve pointed out several times, Calvinism is a theology designed to appeal to someone’s feeling of specialness. You have never met, and will never meet, a Calvinist who does not believe he’s “elect” yet finds the doctrine so sound that he can’t help but believe in it anyway. It is a theology designed by and for people who want to feel special, pretending to be a serious interpretation of Christian dogma. It is completely alien to the faith of the Apostles.

Speaking of Calvinists, today is the great feast day of "the Apostle to the Calvinists", Saint Francis de Sales Bishop, Confessor, and Doctor of the Church (1567-1622). He converted 72,000 Calvinists to the Faith. How? After God it was his good manners. His kind, gentle example led to many heretics and sinners turning to God and converting to the faith. He's also known as the "Gentleman Saint". As a priest and later bishop of Geneva after the Reformation, St. Francis de Sales traveled through the countryside teaching, preaching, giving spiritual direction, and distributing tracts and booklets he wrote that explained true Catholic doctrine. He even developed a sign language which he used to explain to deaf Calvinists about God. His great meekness with which he received heretics scandalized his friends; they protested when he received insults in silence. He said: "Correction is naturally bitter, but when mixed with the sugar of loving kindness, and warmed by the fire of charity, it becomes more acceptable, gracious and even cordial." Saint Francis de Sales, pray for us!

 

[Starlight]

If it’s very specific time and place why does your tag say it?

To sum it up very briefly and simply, because my church’s tradition stems directly from the Reformation era where Catholics who “protested” the Vatican misuse of power and involvement in politics, etc, were called Protestants. I think there is a thread that goes into more specific details elsewhere on the forum.

Unfortunately, anyone in the US can start a church and call it whatever they want. The majority of those “40,000” churches aren’t affiliated with anything. I’ve seen quite a few churches with “catholic” or “orthodox” in their name but that doesn’t make them Catholic or Orthodox does it?

 

[Viktor Zeegelaar]

Useful article, put some pieces in place for me. What I notice is that when you start to develop your ancient ideas, things go down a slippery slope. Truth is truth and cannot progress. If we believe that what Christ thaught is true, then the way it was interpreted by those closest to Christ is all we have. No wonder the pope nowadays hails fact checking, argues against ''vaccine and covid misinformation''. The Catholic Church has always been a very worldly entity, so it's completely logical that through this slippery slope the Vatican and all its power would be infiltrated by the worldly forces.

With regard to protestantism, if there are 100.000 denominations, how can there be a single truth there? For what I understand of protestantism it's like a tree with branches that keep splitting and splitting, thereby getting further and further away from the tree trunk. And then you have no idea where you end up. Once again it comes down to this: if there's one truth how can it ''progress'', it cannot.

 

[JustinHS]

To sum it up very briefly and simply, because my church’s tradition stems directly from the Reformation era where Catholics who “protested” the Vatican misuse of power and involvement in politics, etc, were called Protestants. I think there is a thread that goes into more specific details elsewhere on the forum.

Unfortunately, anyone in the US can start a church and call it whatever they want. The majority of those “40,000” churches aren’t affiliated with anything. I’ve seen quite a few churches with “catholic” or “orthodox” in their name but that doesn’t make them Catholic or Orthodox does it?

I understand what Protestantism is. It sounds like the OG denominations are rejecting the responsibility of acknowledging that their own beliefs are what made 46,000 denominations a possibility.

 

[Boone947]

---

Useful article, put some pieces in place for me. What I notice is that when you start to develop your ancient ideas, things go down a slippery slope. Truth is truth and cannot progress. If we believe that what Christ thaught is true, then the way it was interpreted by those closest to Christ is all we have. No wonder the pope nowadays hails fact checking, argues against ''vaccine and covid misinformation''. The Catholic Church has always been a very worldly entity, so it's completely logical that through this slippery slope the Vatican and all its power would be infiltrated by the worldly forces.

Excuse me! Isn’t the same priest (Fr. Damick) who wrote the article himself a person who shills the Vax and a purveyor of false information about the Coronavirus? Didn’t he recently sack an abbot from Ancient Faith radio for criticizing the Jab and the official narrative? I know nothing about Fr. Damick beyond what Orthodox posters on this forum have said about him; that he hosted a pro-choice woman author at Ancient Faith Radio ; he “presents obscure theories as fact” ; he “flirt with the occult and gnostic ideas” ; he is a marketer (“Fr Damick is a marketer. I think in marketing there is an incentive to spin to give ones organization the best image possible. Sort of like what lawyers do”) ; he has a “lack of knowledge in ecclesiology” ; he “represents a watered-down, wishy-washy, ecumenist type of Orthodoxy that is anathema to what the Saints and elders from past and present have always taught” ; is an example of “terminally self-indulgent hipster e-clergy” who “has zero business casting any public criticism about anyone” ; etc. etc. etc. Said one Orthodox poster on this forum, bluntly: “I don’t trust Fr. Damick”. But we can trust that what he writes critically about Catholicism is 100% factual and totally not full of misrepresentions and distortions — right? Odd.

 

[JustinHS]

Excuse me! Isn’t the same priest (Fr. Damick) who wrote the article himself a person who shills the Vax and a purveyor of false information about the Coronavirus? Didn’t he recently sack an abbot from Ancient Faith radio for criticizing the Jab and the official narrative? I know nothing about Fr. Damick beyond what Orthodox posters on this forum have said about him; that he hosted a pro-choice woman author at Ancient Faith Radio ; he “presents obscure theories as fact” ; he “flirt with the occult and gnostic ideas” ; he is a marketer (“Fr Damick is a marketer. I think in marketing there is an incentive to spin to give ones organization the best image possible. Sort of like what lawyers do”) ; he has a “lack of knowledge in ecclesiology” ; he “represents a watered-down, wishy-washy, ecumenist type of Orthodoxy that is anathema to what the Saints and elders from past and present have always taught” ; is an example of “terminally self-indulgent hipster e-clergy” who “has zero business casting any public criticism about anyone” ; etc. etc. etc. Said one Orthodox poster on this forum, bluntly: “I don’t trust Fr. Damick”. But we can trust that what he writes critically about Catholicism is 100% factual and totally not full of misrepresentions and distortions — right? Odd.

There’s a saying that goes “a broken clock is right twice a day.”

 

[Lamkins]

I attended a service in Joel Osteen’s church. I had a lot to say about it in my book American Pilgrim, but what vividly stays with me is how loud it was. As if I were in a nightclub, it produced adrenaline and gave me a short-lived buzz that, I would guess, parishioners there confuse for God’s grace.

As a former charismatic your reaction is very interesting. They think it’s the Holy Spirit moving. They’d describe the service as anointed, meaning the spirit was moving and/or the speaker himself was anointed ( specially touched by God). You’re not allowed to ever question the legitimacy of anyone in authority because that’s the same as questioning God. It’s typical cult rules. Dopamine hits lure you in, threats keep you trapped.

I edited out some stuff I think I’m wrong about.

 

[Kentucky Gent]

Why say “Protestant” and not heterodox? “Protestant” has a very specific time and place in Christian history. Just say “non-denominational” instead.

I like your suggestion to say "heterodox". I think I will start using it - thanks for that.

However, I don't agree that ' “Protestant” has a very specific time and place in Christian history. Just say “non-denominational” instead.' After all, Protestantism persists to this day: that's 504 years and counting, not just the years when western Europe was going through the break up.

Not only that, the Prot Reformation is the mother of all heterodox/ non-denominational Christianity. Once Martin Luther let the genie out of the bottle, it inevitably led to all the 46,000+ varieties of heterodoxy. So IMO heterodox and Protestant are interchangeable.

 

[Hermetic Seal]

Excuse me! Isn’t the same priest (Fr. Damick) who wrote the article himself a person who shills the Vax and a purveyor of false information about the Coronavirus? Didn’t he recently sack an abbot from Ancient Faith radio for criticizing the Jab and the official narrative? I know nothing about Fr. Damick beyond what Orthodox posters on this forum have said about him; that he hosted a pro-choice woman author at Ancient Faith Radio ; he “presents obscure theories as fact” ; he “flirt with the occult and gnostic ideas” ; he is a marketer (“Fr Damick is a marketer. I think in marketing there is an incentive to spin to give ones organization the best image possible. Sort of like what lawyers do”) ; he has a “lack of knowledge in ecclesiology” ; he “represents a watered-down, wishy-washy, ecumenist type of Orthodoxy that is anathema to what the Saints and elders from past and present have always taught” ; is an example of “terminally self-indulgent hipster e-clergy” who “has zero business casting any public criticism about anyone” ; etc. etc. etc. Said one Orthodox poster on this forum, bluntly: “I don’t trust Fr. Damick”. But we can trust that what he writes critically about Catholicism is 100% factual and totally not full of misrepresentions and distortions — right? Odd.

Fr. Damick wrote that book several years ago (2011 originally, 2017 revised), years before he became a shill for Coof Juice nonsense or was the Ancient Faith content director. As far as I can tell he doesn't have any connection to Ancient Faith promoting work by that pro-choice woman, which I think predated his current prominent role in the company by several years. It seems that most of his negative tendencies have emerged years after this was published. His recent behavior has been disappointing but this book is still a useful resource.

 

[Kentucky Gent]

It's a stock photo, I don't know.

FYI, there is no emoji for "disappointed yet understanding".

 

[Boone947]

I like your suggestion to say "heterodox". I think I will start using it - thanks for that.

However, I don't agree that ' “Protestant” has a very specific time and place in Christian history. Just say “non-denominational” instead.' After all, Protestantism persists to this day: that's 504 years and counting, not just the years when western Europe was going through the break up.

Not only that, the Prot Reformation is the mother of all heterodox/ non-denominational Christianity. Once Martin Luther let the genie out of the bottle, it inevitably led to all the 46,000+ varieties of heterodoxy. So IMO heterodox and Protestant are interchangeable.

We had heterodoxies before the Protestant revolution though. Some of them are still with us to this day…

 

[An0dyne]

Does this book address the non-radical Reformation at all? I don't see any content here addressing it, really. That is to say, the OG Evangelical (i.e., Orthodox Lutheran) Church.

Also, just a point on 40,000+ denominations--one can really divide all of protestantism into 3 main strands: Lutheran, Reformed, and Anabaptist. Then there's Anglicanism, which started as Lutheran but ended up coming under Reformed influences after the reign of Mary Tudor drove many of the English Reformers to exile in Geneva. Anglicanism and its descendent denominations, including Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists/Puritans, etc., are particularly influential in America and around the world due to the spread of the British Empire at this influential time in history. This makes it seem like there are many denominations, but they're really all ideological offshoots of the same philosophies with varying degrees of differences.

It seems disingenuous to say this kind of disagreement does not exist in Catholicism or Orthodoxy. There are "Pentecostal Catholics." There is the GOARCH and ROCOR. Etc. The latter, for example, has a much wider discrepancy than, say, Wisconsin vs. Missouri Synod Lutheranism.

Just my two cents--not intended as a debate!

 

[Paisios Harlan]

There’s a saying that goes “a broken clock is right twice a day.”

Or, like our Lord said, follow what they teach, not what they do. Follow the teachings that follow both the Gospels and the Saints of the Church, that is.

"Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." Matt 23:3.

 

[Alan Roebuck]

You won't be able to convince anyone Orthodox of anything by making an argument from Scripture. In fact, it's not even allowed on this forum. The argument goes something like, "We wrote the Bible and we know the one correct interpretation, and you have no right to form your own independent thoughts based on what the Bible says."

That's why I personally gave up on religious discussions involving any conflicting points of view on this forum, a while ago. Romans 9 directly contradicts what the author says, and could not be more clear. But, that makes no difference to those who hold tradition higher than Scripture, which of course they are free to do especially on their own forum.

To each his own and I pray everyone finds his and her way to the truth. But fair warning to you as a new member, you won't get far supporting your position with Scripture around here.

Edit: I don't mean any disrespect by this post, and I am truly grateful for many things I've learned about the Christian faith on this forum. Anyone please correct me if I'm in error in what I said here.

I was not trying to convince anyone, but I was interested to know how Orthodox Christians react to something like a scriptural argument for some of the points of Reformed theology.

 

[Alan Roebuck]

If by this you meant to say "You won't be able to convince anyone Orthodox of abandoning the Church and 2000 years of Apostolic succession and saints using sola scriptura" then yes.

Orthodoxy has an understanding of predestination. Read a good explanation here for the curious. You and the other poster are implying Orthodoxy doesn't believe in any sort of predestination; it's just not the same as the heartless Calvinistic understanding of it. The author also wrote much more about Calvinism and predestination than what was shared in Roosh's post.

And (all) shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29)

I have read your linked Orthodox article on predestination and as a Calvinist, I can agree with most of the author says. My disagreement is mostly what some things that were left out. Here are some excerpts from the article, and my responses:

“Brothers and sisters, in this realm which defies comprehension, we understand only one thing: Predestination is the combination of divine grace and human will of the grace of God which calls, and the will of man which follows this calling.”

I agree with that.

“…each human possesses all the freedom necessary to achieve salvation with the help of the grace of God. God desires, and if man desires also, then he or she is already predestined.”

I also agree with that, but add the proviso that according to Scripture, God gives us the desire to come to Christ and without this gift of grace, we would not come to Him. See e.g., Ephesians 2:1—10: We were dead in our trespasses and sins until God made us alive together with Christ.

“In the question of predestination, all is incomprehensible:”

I mostly agree; we cannot know the exact nature and mechanism of divine predestination. But we can know what God has told us about it.


“God is just, He is Justice itself. In giving the law to all, He wills all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4), as says the Apostle.”

What God wills is less certain than what God predestines. God wills that none commit murder, but it happens. God also willed that the Son would die for the sins of the world, and it happened with certainty. God’s will in this sense does not determine all that occurs, but his predestination does make things certain.

And yet we do not know who is predestined, so from man’s point of view, it is as if the will of man determines his salvation.

“The Divine gift is for all! The wounds of Jesus Christ are healing for all. The blood of Jesus Christ is the miraculous ladder by which we all can ascend to paradise.”

And yet not all are forgiven. Is that entirely the fault of the unbelievers, because they lack the character to believe and be saved? In that case God is too weak to save all. It is more consistent with the words of Scripture and the character of God to acknowledge that God predestines, both the end (salvation) and the means (faith in Jesus.)

Also, even if God does not predestine in the Calvinistic sense, He is still responsible for sending unbelievers into eternal torment, for He could have arranged things for all to be saved.

“Thus, God, because of His justice, mercy and providence for all, desires salvation for all. Inasmuch as it depends on Him, He does not desire the ruin of anything, even the most minute.”

Just as God desires that none shall steal, He desires that all be saved. Very true. But He has also told us that He predestines some for salvation (e.g., Ephesians 1.) This is a mystery, and we must believe Scripture.

“He hated Esau (saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau [Malachi 1:2,3] Trans.) for He foreknew his evil disposition. He is merciful to whomever He wishes, for He foreknows that the person will be good and of an obedient will.”

No disagreement with that, but we must remember who gives each person his unique will and disposition: God.

[Quoting a confused Christian] “God knows ahead of time if I am predestined for paradise or doomed to torment. If I am predestined for paradise, to attain it there is need for no further toil. If I am sentenced to torment, it is completely futile for me to try to escape it. Neither in the first case, nor in the second am I free.”

Predestination is not fatalism. If you are of God’s elect, you will freely choose to come to Christ in faith. If you are not, you won’t. God predestines the means as well as the ends.

“God always wants your salvation, for He is the Lover of mankind; and you can always be saved, for you are free. God's grace and your will form predestination. God desires (your salvation): desire (salvation) also, and you will be predestined.”

Very true. “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

[Commenting on Jeremiah 18] “See how God changes His decision according to how man changes his disposition? God has decided to save the righteous and grant retribution to the sinful.”

This is perfectly consistent with God predestining that He will change His decision in response to man’s acts.

“Your predestination depends on the will of God and your will.”

But your will, despite being free in the ordinary sense, was predestined. Our wills are free in the sense that we choose what we want to choose, but not in the sense that God does not know the outcome until we make our choice. God know the end before it happens.

 

[paternos]

Originally posted on RooshV.com

The word “heterodox” is a term that the Orthodox use for the non-Orthodox. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Father Andrew Stephen Damick reviews all the major Christian denominations, and even some non-Christian religions, based on what they believe and how their doctrines conflict with the truth of Orthodoxy. Because God’s Church cannot err, it takes only one falsehood or misinterpretation to put you out of the Church. Father Andrew reviews these falsehoods and why they’re wrong.

What is the truth?​

A deception that will cause you spiritual harm is to think that, because your non-Orthodox Church has some truth, or even a lot of truth, it is good enough and you shouldn’t have to endure the social discomfort and pain of having to change Churches, learn a new prayer rule, drive to a church that is located further out, and so on. Think deeply about this deception if you happen to be caught in it. You are stating that you are willing to stay away from the fullness of Christ’s truth, who went through the pain of crucifixion to bring the truth to us, because you are currently comfortable and don’t want to be inconvenienced or made uncomfortable. Why then do you deserve to receive the full complement of grace that comes from beholding the teachings of God’s Church in its completeness, of which were maintained over the centuries through the blood and sufferings of countless martyrs? Once you look at changing Churches in this way, the barrier should fall away, or at least become that much more manageable. A bit of worldly discomfort is worth it if it means a greater closeness with God for eternity.

Will the heterodox be saved?​

Unfortunately, there are some Orthodox online who are quick to condemn someone to eternal damnation if they are not Orthodox. Ignore them because their behavior is not what the Church teaches.

Do the Orthodox idolize rationalism?​

What is faith?​

The occurrence of miracles​

Critiques of Roman Catholicism​

-Doctrine​

-Rationalistic​

-Spiritual excesses​

-Remitting sins​

-Error of purgatory​

Critiques of Protestantism​

-It constantly changes​

-Emotional conversion process​

-Pietism​

-Doctrine of the Great Apostasy​

-The “Invisible Church”​

To paraphrase Father Josiah Trenham, the invisible church is a great name for something that doesn’t exist.

-The prosperity gospel​

-Calvinism​

-Puritanism​

-Quakers​

-Revivalism​

-Evangelicalism​

I attended a service in Joel Osteen’s church. I had a lot to say about it in my book American Pilgrim, but what vividly stays with me is how loud it was. As if I were in a nightclub, it produced adrenaline and gave me a short-lived buzz that, I would guess, parishioners there confuse for God’s grace.

-Pentecostalism​

Out of all Protestant groups, I believe it would be easiest for a Pentecostal to convert to Orthodoxy, which does have the genuine gifts they seek that come from God and not the demons.

-Mormonism​

Heresies​

Here is a selection of heresies that the book explains…

-Antinomianism​

-Soul competency​

-Congregationalism​

-Dualism​

The problem that impacts the Armenian Church I left, monophysitism, is also discussed.

Overall, Father Andrew’s book was packed with useful information. For me it served as a textbook to understand the modern religious landscape and how a multitude of people continue to fall for ancient heresies that were long ago debunked by the Church or who believe in outright fabrications of lying men. To prevent yourself from falling for such a fabrication, and to help lead others away from lies, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy is a useful tool.

Learn More: Orthodoxy & Heterodoxy on Amazon
Permalink

Thanks for this article.

I picked up the book.

Some things stand out for me. Having lived away from God for the largest part of my life. I was busy finding truth in all forms but in divine truth. I loved math because with certainty I could say the outcome of 1 and 1 is 2. But to life I took a very relativist approach. You believe this and I believe that and there is no truth and therefore there is no conflict. Spirtitually I knew I was off practicing that behaviour. Even though I didn't know the truth. I knew relativism to be wrong.

The writer is more opposing relativism than anything else. Without truth we can not live. I will be enslaved by my passions and my emotions.

This is exactly what I see around me in those that practice psychologism, emotionalism, nothingism, psychiatrist, newageism, cristalism, witchery.

Ofcourse we know all this is untruth. Does a 25 year old psychologist can teach you 2 tricks to make your sinful life livable? Will panicky reacting to every negative emotion save you? Will believing there is no truth save you? Will pills relieve your pain? Will sitting on your ass in white clothes listening to an Indian guru save you? Will meditating save you?

The antichrist comes in many disguises. God though comes in one form. It's up to us to not be seduced by the trickery but focus on the one true.

I am grateful to learn about the truth of God of his son Jesus Christ and let the truth live through me.

What I also value is the approach that if I don't understand what's written in Bible. That what's written is not wrong, but that I am wrong and maybe ignorant.

Truth.

 

[josemiguel]

He is still responsible for sending unbelievers into eternal torment, for He could have arranged things for all to be saved.

How is one responsible for the chives of another? This only holds if human will is predetermined by God as you claim.

who gives each person his unique will and disposition: God.

Heart of the issue anthropologically here: will is proper to nature in Orthodoxy, Calvin a nominalist.

Predestination is not fatalism. If you are of God’s elect, you will freely choose to come to Christ in faith. If you are not, you won’t.

Fatalism:

• A doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them also a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine. Example: Fatalism that regards social problems as simply inevitable.
• The belief that what will happen has already been decided and cannot be changed.

You are a fatalist who just described fatalism.

But your will, despite being free in the ordinary sense, was predestined

Then human will is not free, because in the ordinary sense the human chose nothing, it was chosen already for the human.

Our wills are free in the sense that we choose what we want to choose, but not in the sense that God does not know the outcome until we make our choice

That is the Orthodox position.