Octave of Prayer

[George Murphy]

"God our Father, your Son Jesus prayed that his followers might be one. Make all Christians one with him as he is one with you, so that in peace and concord we may carry to the world the message of your love; through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever." Amen.
(Collect for Unity, Lutheran Book of Worship, p.39)

Many of you will know that today is the beginning of the Octave of Prayer for Christian Unity, which extends from the Feast of the Confession of St. Peter (18 January) through the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul (25 January). As the name indicates, it's supposed to be a time for prayer & not theological debate. But it also seems appropriate to reflect on just what we're praying for. What do we mean by "Christian unity"?

It seems to me that there are at least 2 questions here, though some might regard them as essentially the same. Recognizing that in reality there are different groups that regard themselves as Christians, we can pose them this way:

1) What is necessary in order for us to be able to regard another group as Christian?

2) Having recognized that another group is Christian, what is necessary in order for us to be able to consider ourselves to be in unity with them? (Some would use more precise language than simply "in unity", such as "in communion [or full communion]," "in pulpit and altar fellowship," &c.)

I don't mean to make this sound like just a legal matter of fulfilling conditions X, Y or Z!

Perhaps some reflection on these questions from people of different Christian communions would be helpful.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

My apologies for absentmindedly posting this here when I thought that I was in the Ecclesiology forum! I'll ask to have it moved.

Shalom,
George

[spiritmech]

I didn't see this post until you mentioned it in the other thread. Sorry,
SM

[furay]

I pray everyday for true Christian unity, but not in the way that most Ecumenists want. Various groups want all "christian" sects and denominations to be "in communion" with each other without giving up their heretical teachings. I'm sorry, but I simply can't recognise that. In order for true Christian unity to come about, everyone has to conform to the truth, otherwise we are just wasting our time. I don't want "Christianity-Lite".... I would prefer the Fullness of God's Church. Now this position will probably make me unpopular here on Theologyweb and especially out in the world where political correctness is rampant, but I have to hold on to the truth. I've spent too much wasted time already fooling around with Lukewarm "churches", I simply have no desire to go back to that. Sorry, but its how I truly feel. All the best.

[Amazing Rando]

I pray everyday for true Christian unity, but not in the way that most Ecumenists want. Various groups want all "christian" sects and denominations to be "in communion" with each other without giving up their heretical teachings. I'm sorry, but I simply can't recognise that. In order for true Christian unity to come about, everyone has to conform to the truth, otherwise we are just wasting our time. I don't want "Christianity-Lite".... I would prefer the Fullness of God's Church. Now this position will probably make me unpopular here on Theologyweb and especially out in the world where political correctness is rampant, but I have to hold on to the truth. I've spent too much wasted time already fooling around with Lukewarm "churches", I simply have no desire to go back to that. Sorry, but its how I truly feel. All the best.

Furay- I think here we may have hit upon another key difference between the Orthodox/Catholic approach to George's questions and the Protestant response.

You said that, "In order for true Christian unity to come about, everyone has to conform to the truth, otherwise we are just wasting our time."

and: "Various groups want all "christian" sects and denominations to be "in communion" with each other without giving up their heretical teachings."

And therein lies the big difference. You seem to be indicating that any teaching that differs even in the slightest from what the official Orthodox church hierarchy teaches is "heresy." Do I understand you correctly? We Protestants are generally a lot more tolerant of doctrinal differences, as long as the essentials of the faith that are undeniably taught in Scripture and have been the historical teaching of the church are upheld. Thus, for example, we are no so quick to hurl the "heresy" label on the sincere faiths of others who may (for example) believe differently than we on issues where the scriptures are ambiguous, such as eternal security, or free-will vs. determinism, etc.

A guiding maxim for this approach has been "In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials (Or "questionable matters"), liberty. In all things, love." It is a statement attributed to St. Augustine. The gist is that the clear, undeniable teachings of Scripture must not be contradicted, but on those matters where the bible is less than clear, certain degrees of freedom should be permitted. And of course, guiding all Christian interactions should be the guiding principle of love.

Anyway, that's why some people are not as eager to throw the label of "heretic" on an otherwise orthodox Christian brother or sister who differs from them theologically on some minor issue.

[furay]

And therein lies the big difference. You seem to be indicating that any teaching that differs even in the slightest from what the official Orthodox church hierarchy teaches is "heresy." Do I understand you correctly?
Hmmm... I wouldn't say so. One has to be careful when dealing with a words like "heresy" and "heretic". I would say that when one stubbornly and persistently seperates themselves from the Orthodox teachings they start to cross into the realm of heresy. Its really not my place to go around pointing my finger and calling others heretics... perhaps I shouldn't have used that word in the first place.


... on issues where the scriptures are ambiguous, such as eternal security, or free-will vs. determinism, etc.
The Scriptures may appear to be ambigous but the Holy Spirit is present in the Church and will guide believers to the truth in all matters of doctrine.


And of course, guiding all Christian interactions should be the guiding principle of love.
Amen. However, I certainly count it as love when Orthodox Christians nudge people outside the Orthodox Faith to the truth. I myself was not born into Orthodoxy, if it weren't for these loving Christians I would find myself up the creek without a paddle.

[Amazing Rando]

Hmmm... I wouldn't say so. One has to be careful when dealing with a words like "heresy" and "heretic". I would say that when one stubbornly and persistently seperates themselves from the Orthodox teachings they start to cross into the realm of heresy. Its really not my place to go around pointing my finger and calling others heretics... perhaps I shouldn't have used that word in the first place.

It is a word loaded with all kinds of connotations, that's for certain. And I like your definition of "stubbornly and persistently." It reminds me of a time just a few years ago when I was very young in my own faith and had just begun reading the Bible for the first time. Back then, even just 2 years ago, I held a lot of notions that I now recognize as thoroughly unbiblical and would have been very clear heresies had I been aware of the full implications of my beliefs at that time.


The Scriptures may appear to be ambigous but the Holy Spirit is present in the Church and will guide believers to the truth in all matters of doctrine.

:smile: That's what we all like to think... but has it materialized that way? Or do sin and pride get in the way of our understanding of the Truth?


Amen. However, I certainly count it as love when Orthodox Christians nudge people outside the Orthodox Faith to the truth. I myself was not born into Orthodoxy, if it weren't for these loving Christians I would find myself up the creek without a paddle.

:yes: We protestants thrive on doctrinal debates and discussion, in case you'd not noticed. :teeth: All the while, we discuss and deliberate with one another in the spirit of Christian charity and love, trying to arrive at an understanding.

Let me give you an example of my thinking on this. I for one, would never try to dissuade anyone from joining the RCC or Orthodox churches, because they're as faithful as possible to the teaching handed down from the apostles with a major emphasis on biblical truth. But at the same time, I could not fully assent to all of their doctrines, because on numerous areas where the scriptures are ambiguous, I've drawn different conclusions based upon my own studies.

I guess to put it succinctly, from my perspective me, you're just as Christian as I am, even though we likely disagree on any number of "minor" church doctrines to whom the scriptural witness is seemingly (from my point of view at least) ambiguous. Though I gather that to you, I would be at best, heterodox, correct?

[furay]

We protestants thrive on doctrinal debates and discussion, in case you'd not noticed.
I've noticed. I was a Protestant since I was 9 years old and a couple days ago I turned 20. You could even still call me a Protestant really... seeing as how I'm still inquiring into Orthodoxy. I've made up my mind about it, though. :smile:


But at the same time, I could not fully assent to all of their doctrines, because on numerous areas where the scriptures are ambiguous, I've drawn different conclusions based upon my own studies.
I think its spiritually dangerous to independantly draw your own conclusions on Scripture. After all, "no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). You testify yourself that two years ago you held some incorrect beliefs based on reading the Bible yourself. Thankfully we have a wellspring of guidance in the form of the Holy Fathers who have gone before us. Led by the Holy Spirit they help teach us the correct meaning of difficult Scripture. Everyone is influenced in their beliefs by someone else. Who will you rely on for help? Holy men of God or Mega Church Pastors like Rick Warren?


Though I gather that to you, I would be at best, heterodox, correct?
We're both heterodox, seeing as how we are both outside of the church as of present. Thankfully by the Grace of God this can be corrected.

[George Murphy]

I pray everyday for true Christian unity, but not in the way that most Ecumenists want. Various groups want all "christian" sects and denominations to be "in communion" with each other without giving up their heretical teachings. I'm sorry, but I simply can't recognise that. In order for true Christian unity to come about, everyone has to conform to the truth, otherwise we are just wasting our time. I don't want "Christianity-Lite".... I would prefer the Fullness of God's Church. Now this position will probably make me unpopular here on Theologyweb and especially out in the world where political correctness is rampant, but I have to hold on to the truth. I've spent too much wasted time already fooling around with Lukewarm "churches", I simply have no desire to go back to that. Sorry, but its how I truly feel. All the best.Before criticizing "ecumenism" I think it would be helpful for people actually to read some material from the serious ecumenical dialogues of the past 40 years. Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue edited by John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Augsburg, 1992) will be of interest to EO participants here.

Of course there are naive folks who think that we can just unite on the basis of believing in God and being nice to other people but that isn't remotely what serious ecumenical discussions have been about. They have involved serious wrestlings with theological issues that have divided different communions. The extensive Lutheran-RC bilateral dialogues are especially instructive.

In many - I don't say all - areas it's been seen that previous disagreements have been due in part to misunderstanding of what the other party was trying to express and to different ways of trying to state fundamental truths. (E.g., the real differences between Lutherans & RCs on the Eucharist turn out to be relatively small.)

As to "heretical" teachings, the 1st thing that's needed in examining another communion's teachings is to find out what they actually are, not working with a presumption that one will find heresy. I'm sure that from furay's standpoint there are some teachings of the Lutheran church (just to take what I'm most familiar with) which are heretical. But I suspect that if he tries to describe those supposedly heretical teachings in any detail it will be seen that he hasn't represented the Lutheran tradition very well. (But spare us the filioque for now.)

Shalom,
George

[Jawa Man]

Sorry I haven't responded either. I wanted to earlier today, but my focus was somewhere in the fiery depths. I had done a sin on Sunday that I knew I needed to tell someone (a la James, confess your sins to one another) but because I didn't, I was allowing it to torture me and cut me off from God somewhat. Now I feel somewhat better since I've let it out!

Anyway, I believe the official Orthodox stance is that the True Christian is Orthodox. But the name "Christian" alone doesn't work now because other denominations use the same name, so Orthodox helped clarify what type of Christian, out of what I think the Church would call "wannabes". This is no offense to other denominations, and I hope it isn't viewed that way. I suppose it's based on what your denomination considers Christian. If you consider Christian to mean all that confess Christ (and agree on a certain amount of basic theology) then I believe a lot of people on this board who have crosses in their names are Christian. If you mean it in a more strict sense, like the group that was named so at Antioch, then I would say it means Orthodox alone, because I believe that group was Orthodox.

I hope that wasn't too long-winded.

To me, to consider the Orthodox Church in unity with another church would be to say that the other church cleaved itself into Orthodoxy through accepting the doctrines and going through any process necessary to make the members of the church become Orthodox. I've read so far that priest in a non-orthodox confession (at least from the Byzantine Catholics, and it's up to the bishop I think) only has to go through a re-vesting, not a chrismation or baptism. I hear convert marriages can work the same (but this is up to the bishop), that somehow they can be received into the Church with a sacremental marriage. This is basically "scoop out the bad and replace with the Church".

Going back to unity - as some threads here show, even among Orthodoxy, not all jurisdictions are in communion with one another, but this is typically thanks to extreme ecumenism that seems to be infecting a lot of Patriarchs. Nevertheless I plan on joining Greek Church!

[George Murphy]

Sorry I haven't responded either. I wanted to earlier today, but my focus was somewhere in the fiery depths. I had done a sin on Sunday that I knew I needed to tell someone (a la James, confess your sins to one another) but because I didn't, I was allowing it to torture me and cut me off from God somewhat. Now I feel somewhat better since I've let it out!

Anyway, I believe the official Orthodox stance is that the True Christian is Orthodox. But the name "Christian" alone doesn't work now because other denominations use the same name, so Orthodox helped clarify what type of Christian, out of what I think the Church would call "wannabes". This is no offense to other denominations, and I hope it isn't viewed that way. I suppose it's based on what your denomination considers Christian. If you consider Christian to mean all that confess Christ (and agree on a certain amount of basic theology) then I believe a lot of people on this board who have crosses in their names are Christian. If you mean it in a more strict sense, like the group that was named so at Antioch, then I would say it means Orthodox alone, because I believe that group was Orthodox.
It's hypocritical to say that all non-Orthodox are at best "wannabe" Christians and then add "no offense." Of course it's offensive! If that's really what you believe then be a Mensch and say so without sugarcoating it. OTOH if you suspect that there's something wrong with that claim then re-examine your understanding of what it means to be Christian.

Shalom,
George

[furay]

It's hypocritical to say that all non-Orthodox are at best "wannabe" Christians and then add "no offense." Of course it's offensive! If that's really what you believe then be a Mensch and say so without sugarcoating it. OTOH if you suspect that there's something wrong with that claim then re-examine your understanding of what it means to be Christian.

Shalom,
George I suppose its offensive, but at least he is honest. No use going around sugarcoating everything so you can please people. And I honestly don't think its a case of pride either. I believe I am a very proud person... its in my fallen nature, but to claim the Orthodox Faith as the One True Christian faith has nothing to do with pride. Just the opposite, I believe it builds humility. Every time I look to the Church as my guide, I can see how poorly I live up to Christ's standards. Truly I am the lowest of the low.

EDIT: I just want to add, that when I say that the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I'm not condemning everyone outside of it. I certainly don't take the position that everyone who is not Orthodox is going to hell and have no opportunity to be with God. God saves whom He wills. That being said, It would be disingenuous of me to say that all christian churches are equal and Pentecostal Churches, for example, have just as much truth as the Orthodox Church.

[George Murphy]

I suppose its offensive, but at least he is honest. No use going around sugarcoating everything so you can please people.My point was that he was sugarcoating it by tacking on the phrase "no offense."


And I honestly don't think its a case of pride either. I believe I am a very proud person... its in my fallen nature, but to claim the Orthodox Faith as the One True Christian faith has nothing to do with pride. Just the opposite, I believe it builds humility. Every time I look to the Church as my guide, I can see how poorly I live up to Christ's standards. Truly I am the lowest of the low.

EDIT: I just want to add, that when I say that the Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I'm not condemning everyone outside of it. I certainly don't take the position that everyone who is not Orthodox is going to hell and have no opportunity to be with God. God saves whom He wills. That being said, It would be disingenuous of me to say that all christian churches are equal and Pentecostal Churches, for example, have just as much truth as the Orthodox Church.OK, & that was what I was trying to express in post #1 by making a distinction between (1) whether some other group is Christian & (2) whether or not there is sufficient agreement between one's own church & another to be in full communion. E.g., I have no problem with saying that the Southern Baptist Convention is Christian. But full communion between Baptists and Lutherans isn't possible at the present time because of Baptist views on baptism and other matters.

& you need to understand that present divisions between EOs & other Christians are not simply a matter of the Orthodox thinking that there are some defects in RC, Lutheran &c churches. Those other churches also have objections to some aspects of Orthodox belief & practice.

Shalom,
George

[furay]

My point was that he was sugarcoating it by tacking on the phrase "no offense."

:duh: Sorry 'bout that, I had just woken up when I typed that and was still half asleep... I must have totally misread your post. Don't know what I was thinking...

[Anoetos]

Re: "Unity"

We already have all the unity we need to have because we are "in Christ".

Seems rather blithe I know, but I really believe it. The cry for "unity" in the ecumenical movement is really a cry for "visible conformity" which would be nice but certainly isn't necessary and anyway, it's surely something we will have in the eschaton.

I don't see denominational differences as the unalloyed evil so many of us have been taught to believe they are. We regularly distinguish between essential doctrines and adiaphora and I think that, between the various churches there is a strong consensus on these things. There are, of course, exceptions, I know and not always minor ones (Just ask yourself, "What, if anything, does Baptism do?" and then ask someone from a different church :P). And I think that, in the majority of cases, while we may be guilty denominationally of dogmatizing this or that "pet doctrine" thus widening the divide, the real unity we enjoy as blood-bought believers in Christ remains sufficient.

Any man made effort to forge a visible unity among us, is, I also think, doomed to fail. It will, inevitably, impose a veneer of apparent unity while within there is and can be no real unified attendance on saving truth. Christ did not tell the Apostles to create and maintain this kind of unity; and if this 'visible conformity' is included in what He did pray for, we need to remember that this prayer was for the Father to make us one, not that we would strive for it. Which begs the question of whether the Father failed either to honor Christ's prayer or if He did honor it, did He fail to do what our Lord asked Him to do?

Of course, we can always do better to be charitable and congenial towards one another and certainly we should cooperate as individuals in the work of being salt and light, but in this matter of "visible unity" I think we've been sold a bill of goods.

[George Murphy]

Re: "Unity"

We already have all the unity we need to have because we are "in Christ".

Seems rather blithe I know, but I really believe it. The cry for "unity" in the ecumenical movement is really a cry for "visible conformity" which would be nice but certainly isn't necessary and anyway, it's surely something we will have in the eschaton.

I don't see denominational differences as the unalloyed evil so many of us have been taught to believe they are. We regularly distinguish between essential doctrines and adiaphora and I think that, between the various churches there is a strong consensus on these things. There are, of course, exceptions, I know and not always minor ones (Just ask yourself, "What, if anything, does Baptism do?" and then ask someone from a different church :P). And I think that, in the majority of cases, while we may be guilty denominationally of dogmatizing this or that "pet doctrine" thus widening the divide, the real unity we enjoy as blood-bought believers in Christ remains sufficient.

Any man made effort to forge a visible unity among us, is, I also think, doomed to fail. It will, inevitably, impose a veneer of apparent unity while within there is and can be no real unified attendance on saving truth. Christ did not tell the Apostles to create and maintain this kind of unity; and if this 'visible conformity' is included in what He did pray for, we need to remember that this prayer was for the Father to make us one, not that we would strive for it. Which begs the question of whether the Father failed either to honor Christ's prayer or if He did honor it, did He fail to do what our Lord asked Him to do?

Of course, we can always do better to be charitable and congenial towards one another and certainly we should cooperate as individuals in the work of being salt and light, but in this matter of "visible unity" I think we've been sold a bill of goods.You're right that unity in the most important sense does not require "visible conformity" or the abolition of different church structures - i.e., merger of denominations. E.g., the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is in full communion with the Episcopal Church in the USA but the 2 churches are not merged. In some ways it's inefficient but it works.

But there are limits. If Baptists don't recognize baptisms done in other churches in some cases (e.g., of infants) then there is obviously a lack of unity. Similarly if the RCC doesn't recognize pastors of other churches as validly ordained & thus able to be valid ministers of the Eucharist in the fullest sense.

Shalom,
George

[Jawa Man]

George, I was only saying that to the Orthodox Church, calling Her members true Christians is not done to offend other denominations, but just to bear the title of what they view as their historical right. Kind of like how Neo-Nazis are not the same as the real Nazis! So to the Orthodox Church, others who wear this title have splintered away from the Mother Church, or are just outside of it.

Sorry if I made you mad.

[George Murphy]

George, I was only saying that to the Orthodox Church, calling Her members true Christians is not done to offend other denominations, but just to bear the title of what they view as their historical right. Kind of like how Neo-Nazis are not the same as the real Nazis! So to the Orthodox Church, others who wear this title have splintered away from the Mother Church, or are just outside of it.

Sorry if I made you mad.Who said anything about being mad? I'm just pushing you to be straightforward in your statements.

I've tried not to get into disputes on this thread because the theme is, after all, prayer for unity. But as the Octave draws to a close it might be appropriate to ask you to clarify what you said in an earlier post:


If you consider Christian to mean all that confess Christ (and agree on a certain amount of basic theology) then I believe a lot of people on this board who have crosses in their names are Christian. If you mean it in a more strict sense, like the group that was named so at Antioch, then I would say it means Orthodox alone, because I believe that group was Orthodox.Precisely what do we know from scripture - or from any other reliable source -
that would distinguish the Christians of Antioch in the Book of Acts as distinctively "Orthodox"? I.e., what justifies a claim that the EO is in continuity with those Christians but Evangelicals & RCs aren't (e.g.)? (& by "reliable source" I don't mean just saying "tradition.")

Shalom,
George

[Jawa Man]

I think what you mean is "Don't say 'Because the tradition makes it right!'" You're right about that, I believe; the Catholics have their own tradition, too, and that doesn't make them right. But I believe based on the consistency of the tradition. This is an argument that was founded by Jezz, by the way. For instance, place Orthodox and Monophysitism (is that the right word for them?) side by side. Aside from the dispute over the natures of Christ, the Monophysites and Orthodox agree on the other doctrines, despite the fact that the Monophysites don't accept all of the Ecumenical Councils that the Orthodox do.

To me at least, it seems strange to say that although Orthodoxy has remained consistent (doctrinally) for at least 1500 years, the first 500 were the years of different doctrines. There's one doctrine, especially, that some think was added, which is the prayer to the saints. One of my arguments against that, based on the consistency of tradition, is the consistency of the early Church to attack heresy and record it. iirc, I read on tektonics.org that there was even one author who condemned people who had differing astronomical views to be heretics! The historical anal-ness (pardon my French!) of the Church makes me arch my eyebrows in wonder when I think that the first 500 years were times when the Church accepted some bad baggage.

There's also the more subjective (and therefore much more likely to be wrong) approach I had with Orthodoxy. I feel that God has been drawing me to it, although that could be wrong.

[George Murphy]

I think what you mean is "Don't say 'Because the tradition makes it right!'" You're right about that, I believe; the Catholics have their own tradition, too, and that doesn't make them right. But I believe based on the consistency of the tradition. This is an argument that was founded by Jezz, by the way. For instance, place Orthodox and Monophysitism (is that the right word for them?) side by side. Aside from the dispute over the natures of Christ, the Monophysites and Orthodox agree on the other doctrines, despite the fact that the Monophysites don't accept all of the Ecumenical Councils that the Orthodox do.

To me at least, it seems strange to say that although Orthodoxy has remained consistent (doctrinally) for at least 1500 years, the first 500 were the years of different doctrines. There's one doctrine, especially, that some think was added, which is the prayer to the saints. One of my arguments against that, based on the consistency of tradition, is the consistency of the early Church to attack heresy and record it. iirc, I read on tektonics.org that there was even one author who condemned people who had differing astronomical views to be heretics! The historical anal-ness (pardon my French!) of the Church makes me arch my eyebrows in wonder when I think that the first 500 years were times when the Church accepted some bad baggage.

There's also the more subjective (and therefore much more likely to be wrong) approach I had with Orthodoxy. I feel that God has been drawing me to it, although that could be wrong.You're talking generalities here. My question was, what do we know about the Christians of Antioch, as described in Acts, that would justify identifying them with today's Orthodox (as you suggested) rather than with, say, Anglicans or Lutherans? (Of course the latter names weren't used then but I'm talking about substance, not labels.) I suspect, e.g., that since a lot of those Christians were Jewish & they were still very close to the Passover tradition, that they often used unleavened bread in the Lord's Supper - EO rejection of azymes notwithstanding.

& my point about tradition was also specific. I have a great respect for genuine tradition but won't buy an answer to my previous question that says in essence "they were Orthodox because Holy Tradition says they were."

& my point is not that those Antiochean Christians were Lutherans! It is rather that trying to foist a lot of those modern distinctions back on the 1st century church is anachronistic.

Shalom,
George

[Jawa Man]

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought you were asking me to prove that Orthodoxy went back all the way to "Christian" at Antioch. Forgive me for my slow pace in catching on, and if it is any excuse, I'm just kid! Anyway, I think Scripture shows us at least that these guys wouldn't identify themselves as Evangelicals... simply because they knew how to agree! :)


And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

So I can at least learn from this that all of these believers agreed. Without appealing to tradition at all, though, I can only be certain that these guys at least had it together, and they learned their stuffs from the apostles. So I guess I can't definitely prove it to you that these guys were Orthodox anymore than I can prove they were Anglican or Lutheran. *sniff, sniff*

[George Murphy]

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought you were asking me to prove that Orthodoxy went back all the way to "Christian" at Antioch. Forgive me for my slow pace in catching on, and if it is any excuse, I'm just kid! Anyway, I think Scripture shows us at least that these guys wouldn't identify themselves as Evangelicals... simply because they knew how to agree! :)

So I can at least learn from this that all of these believers agreed. Without appealing to tradition at all, though, I can only be certain that these guys at least had it together, and they learned their stuffs from the apostles. So I guess I can't definitely prove it to you that these guys were Orthodox anymore than I can prove they were Anglican or Lutheran. *sniff, sniff*ACts 2:41-42 (you quote 42-47) then gives the following marks of the church: Baptism, the apostles' teaching, fellowship, the Lord's Supper ("the breaking of bread") and prayer. Every group calling itself Christian claims these marks (though one could question traditional Quakers, who have completely spiritualized the sacraments). A great deal depends on what "the apostles' teaching" includes. To interpret this passage consistently we'd have to limit ourselves to the way Acts represents that teaching.

Having "all things in common" (v.44) seems to have been abandoned pretty early. 5:1-11 indicates one type of problem that it led to.

Shalom,
George