I've noticed a LOT of threads on switching to traditional churches, and I have ???s.

[8circles]

Kallistos Ware is a wise man. "We know where God is, not where He is not."

 

This thread is the reasons and stories (that we can expound on-so much is left unsaid) we chose the Ancient ark. It's not a condemnation of Protestants. I tried to walk through exactly why my family left it. I'm sorry if that hurt you.

 

Mouse just made an interesting observation. Ancient Ark ;). It's not that you are not in an Ark, not our place to judge :D. We just know of a specific one that has been working well for a long time! (at least that's how I have come to see it)

 

I thought there was only one Ark?

[KarenNC]

To be honest, I don't know if that would be true of the LDS faith. It's pretty cut and dry, you do and follow, or you don't and get looked at differently amongst your peers in church. Now I have heard some people have been trying to find a "middle way", but it is frowned against, and has been spoken out against by the general church leadership. Really I believe it is their way, their rules, their counsel, or if you disagree you do so outside the church :confused:

 

Could well be. I have very limited experience with LDS. As I said, sometimes the answer is indeed that one needs to move on to that different pasture, weeds and all.:) I know that I struggled with the issue for 20 years, looking very diligently in all different directions for a way to fit, before finally leaving first Christianity, then monotheism. Leaving the religion (or even the denomination) of one's family and social connections is, however, something that I would never encourage anyone to do without exhausting other possibilities first (not that I think you are taking the question lightly). The repercussions of even what might appear to others to be minor changes can sometimes be very far-reaching, and, from my impressions, leaving something like LDS, even for a different Christian denomination, would not be a minor change.

 

Best of luck on your journey.

[simka2]

I thought there was only one Ark?

 

I think the whole thing was stemming of Sparkle's post, which was a pictoral example. I don't think any of us were trying to be too literal otherwise we would have issues of an RC or EO ark ;)

[milovany]

Teatime posted this a couple of months ago and I remembered it just now. It's about the Ark and I loved it.

 

I don't think the claim is so much that the Church is infallible. Clearly no body of believers have ever managed to be perfect and make no mistakes. They have made huge mistakes, but every time a new denomination comes along they, too, make mistakes (and the atheists have the same problem, bless them). A pure Church does not exists (pure in the sense of free of sinful people). Anyway, if one did exist, I wouldn't quality as a member.

 

So maybe think of it more like a boat. The boat is going to be tossed around, take on water, even have people bail out looking for boats that are more sound. But God said He would protect that boat, that it would never sink, and I believe it. Where in Scripture did God say that anyone would need to come along and build a new boat? Make repairs? Sure. But no authority was ever given to give up on the boat and build another one. If you believe in Sola Scriptura, show me where authority was given to Calvin or Luther (he would have been horrified at the thought) or anyone to make a brand new boat? On the contrary, I think there are verses that would be pretty much against that.

 

The EO and the RCC may argue about who owns the boat, but they, by golly, never did make a brand new one. And there is that crazy captain running around with the hat.... and well, it is mayhem and all. But we are still afloat!

 

Incidentally, that analogy is not my own. It is Biblical. The boat was foreshadowed by Noah's Ark, and Churches were built for centuries to look like the inside of a boat.

[kristavws]

So much of what you wrote resonates with me. So many times, I hear people say, "If your church isn't a good fit, find one that is." How can that be? I've always thought we (people, I mean) need to become molded into the image of God, not make God look like us. I feel the same way about church. If you make a church, or pick a church, that is molded into your own image of what a church should be, then in essence, you're only worshiping yourself.

 

If God is never changing, then why should the church that he created need to change?

 

Honestly, this is one of the things that drew us to the EO Church. My dh and I wanted to get back to that which was true, and real. We wanted to be a part of the church that Christ created. When I go to church, I want to worship God. If I want to be entertained, I'll buy tickets to see a movie, play, or concert.

 

Our family became catechumens at our EO parish this month. There are no words to describe how wonderful it has all been. Words seriously can not describe the peace, joy, fulfillment, and more that we have experienced.

 

Krista

[missesd]

Teatime posted this a couple of months ago and I remembered it just now. It's about the Ark and I loved it.

 

That's really food for thought....

[Sparkle]

I keep reading this but then it all comes back to Protestants making their own boat & not being in the Ark & I have a hard time believing it. Bottom line is, I know I'm in the Ark & it's disheartning to be told I'm not.

 

I think I just need to stay away from these discussions. Thank you for staying with me, simka2.

 

I'm sorry. Please forgive me. I don't mean to be antagonistic, and I know that's how it came across.

 

I believe that I am in the Ark. I believe that the EOC is the church that Jesus established and the Holy Spirit has not abandoned it.

 

Do I believe that it is the only way to salvation/Heaven? No. Heck, no! I can think of many Catholics, Protestants, even non-Christians who I believe are in Heaven. I hope we ALL get there someday.

 

Do I think everyone is in the Ark? No. I see the Ark as the Church, with its complete 2000-year history of Scripture and Tradition, a place where I am molded and conformed, not a church where I get to pick and choose my beliefs, and find another church if I don't like the beliefs at this one. The Ark to me, with all his historicity, has a proven "track record", if you will. It's not re-inventing the wheel every 10 years. It is navigating a very specific path.

 

Again, forgive me for having offended you. I am trying to draw a very imperfect analogy. I don't have the corner on holiness :tongue_smilie: I am just trying to do my best, like everyone else. I definitely would not presume to judge you or anyone, truly.

[kristavws]

Oh, I know I can pm you! You and Patty Joanna are always so gracious (and patient) to answer my questions. I just need to put them down on paper in some sort of order!

 

These ladies are WONDERFUL!!! Yes wonderful in all CAPS! If you feel led to do so, I would encourage you to take them up on their offer ;)

[missesd]

I'm sorry. Please forgive me. I don't mean to be antagonistic, and I know that's how it came across.

 

I believe that I am in the Ark. I believe that the EOC is the church that Jesus established and the Holy Spirit has not abandoned it.

 

Do I believe that it is the only way to salvation/Heaven? No. Heck, no! I can think of many Catholics, Protestants, even non-Christians who I believe are in Heaven. I hope we ALL get there someday.

 

Do I think everyone is in the Ark? No. I see the Ark as the Church, with its complete 2000-year history of Scripture and Tradition, a place where I am molded and conformed, not a church where I get to pick and choose my beliefs, and find another church if I don't like the beliefs at this one. The Ark to me, with all his historicity, has a proven "track record", if you will. It's not re-inventing the wheel every 10 years. It is navigating a very specific path.

 

Again, forgive me for having offended you. I am trying to draw a very imperfect analogy. I don't have the corner on holiness :tongue_smilie: I am just trying to do my best, like everyone else. I definitely would not presume to judge you or anyone, truly.

 

I am curious where Episcopalian fits into this? That is an off-shoot of Luther right? Someone PM'd me a link that went over everything that happens in a service, and honestly... it didn't seem as scary or bad as I thought it might.

[tntgoodwin]

Is each denomination/sect/branch/what-have-you a different boat?

 

Yes, that is where I was going with it. Sorry for the confusion. I was thinking that Sparkles "Ark" was the EO church, and the rowboat was some Protestant denomination all alone in the flood.

 

:001_smile:

[Caitilin]

I am curious where Episcopalian fits into this? That is an off-shoot of Luther right? Someone PM'd me a link that went over everything that happens in a service, and honestly... it didn't seem as scary or bad as I thought it might.

 

Episcopalians are the US branch of the Church of England (Anglican), which is an offshoot of the Catholic church. It is not an offshoot of Lutheranism; more like a cousin. :)

Lol to the scary part. Episcopalians are very nice to visitors:D.

[missesd]

Episcopalians are the US branch of the Church of England (Anglican), which is an offshoot of the Catholic church. It is not an offshoot of Lutheranism; more like a cousin. :)

Lol to the scary part. Episcopalians are very nice to visitors:D.

 

So then their services would be very similar?

[Caitilin]

So then their services would be very similar?

 

Yes, extremely so, especially if you're not familiar with either one. The Catholic church permits only practicing Catholics to receive the Eucharist; the Episcopal church is more...flexible. :D

 

(this is just an FYI, if you should decide to attend a service at either church.)

[kristavws]

There's nothing about being RC or EO that says you can't have a personal relationship with Jesus. That relationship is valuable and beautiful. But...for me, that's not enough. It's too simplistic to think that I can know all there is to know about Jesus just by having a "personal relationship" with him, or that I can become like him on my own. I need the Church. I am a big sinner, and while I may have the best intentions in the world, if I don't have the Church, I know I will keep falling right back into sin and away from God. I need the sacraments (or mysteries) with their accompanying graces. I need the prayers of fellow believers and the prayers of the saints. I need the disciplines of fasting, praying, and almsgiving to get me out of my own selfishness and passions. I need the community, who is journeying right alongside me, so we can support and help each other.

 

If there is a big flood coming, should I choose to build my own little rowboat and try to ride it out? Or should I choose to be in the ark, with my spiritual family and a store of provisions, and God's promise that He'll see me through? I might survive in my little rowboat, but I think I have a much better chance of making it in the ark.

 

Great post.

 

Krista

[Lovedtodeath]

Why did they need to be canonized? Why did man get to decide what scriptures made it in and which did not? Aren't ALL of Christ's teachings/scriptures important and relevant??

 

Still trying to get an answer to this too...

 

Many Christians do not believe it was a man that decided. Many believe that God had a hand in it.

 

Many of the gospels were redundant. Some "gospels" were written much later.

 

ALL the books of our New Testament were considered Biblical Scripture long before the end of the first century and a half and this was done independently in many places.

 

http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html AD 170

 

http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml AD 180

 

http://www.ntcanon.org/Clement.shtml AD 190

 

http://www.ntcanon.org/Tertullian.shtml AD 207

 

http://www.ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml AD 320

[8circles]

Teatime posted this a couple of months ago and I remembered it just now. It's about the Ark and I loved it.

 

Well, I don't believe I've created a new Ark. Some people in the history of the Church may have left the Ark but some who came after them have gone back to the Ark. I'm on that Ark, I've just hung different curtains.

[JenniferB]

Who are you, who are moving from non-denom. back to tradition? What age range are you in? What is your religious background? What is your religious teaching/training? What has your past church experience been like? Would you consider yourselves to have been part of the mainstream American Christian culture, say, in the late 70s, 80s, and 90s? Why the change?

 

I am Jennifer.

 

I am 39.

 

I had only known Protestant Christianity until about Christmas time last year.

 

I have gone from Four Square/Pentecostal churches to a Baptist-ish Non-Denominational church. I've been in the non-denom about 10 yrs.

 

I would say mainstream Christianity during the 1990's, like 1995/6 to present.

 

Why the change is a HUGE question, you know! My husband actually started the "questioning." He was listening to a lot of Audible books about history and science, his favorite topics. Then he just started questioning things. His questions sometimes made me mad, but in the end they made me think. Well, our Protestant Christianity started to dry up because of all this questioning, and it started to feel like I/we were loosing our faith. Well, instead of just loosing my faith, or totally drying up, or giving up, or becoming apathetic, I thought I would post a question here on the board. This was the original thread with my question. Since this thread I've been exploring Orthodox Christianity. It's been an excellent exploration, and now I would say it's a journey. I'm becoming Orthodox little by little. I hope to be part of the Church some day.

[8circles]

I'm sorry. Please forgive me. I don't mean to be antagonistic, and I know that's how it came across.

I'm going to be honest & say that I've been hurt by some comments but I don't think they've been meant in a hurtful way. No apologies necessary.

 

I believe that I am in the Ark. I believe that the EOC is the church that Jesus established and the Holy Spirit has not abandoned it.

I believe this too.

 

Do I believe that it is the only way to salvation/Heaven? No. Heck, no! I can think of many Catholics, Protestants, even non-Christians who I believe are in Heaven. I hope we ALL get there someday.

 

Do I think everyone is in the Ark? No. I see the Ark as the Church, with its complete 2000-year history of Scripture and Tradition, a place where I am molded and conformed, not a church where I get to pick and choose my beliefs, and find another church if I don't like the beliefs at this one. The Ark to me, with all his historicity, has a proven "track record", if you will. It's not re-inventing the wheel every 10 years. It is navigating a very specific path.

I think my definition of the Church is different than yours which makes this discussion difficult. I'll just add that I think the bold applies to more than just some Protestants but it seems they are the ones always painted in this light. I know many, many, many RCers who fall into this category. My beliefs are very much in line with EO now yet I was raised in a Calvinist home but I've always been welcomed & accepted within my denomination - not in an "anything goes" way but in a "this is a safe place to grow & learn & mature in your faith" way.

Again, forgive me for having offended you. I am trying to draw a very imperfect analogy. I don't have the corner on holiness :tongue_smilie: I am just trying to do my best, like everyone else. I definitely would not presume to judge you or anyone, truly.

 

No forgiveness necessary. I'm sorry if I've been argumentative. I've been unable to say what I want in a gentler way. :grouphug:

[lmkzbcb]

Answering the OP:

 

I consider myself to have been mainstream in the 80's, 90's, and 2000s.

I went to a Non-denominational church in my teens and early twenties. After marriage, we have gone to mainstream denominations. Currently I am visiting an Orthodox church.

 

Why the change? Frankly, I have become weary of trying to hold on to jello. Let me explain. If I were able to stay in my home town and go to my first church; I would be quite content to stay there. Unfortunately, that church changed dramatically after the pastor left and we move around a lot. Because we move so much, we have visited a lot of churches. I have found that what is true in one church isn't necessarily true in another church even within the same denomination. And even when a denomination has specific doctrine or written statements of beliefs; it doesnt always mean that a church inside of that denomination is going to adhere to that doctrine. It seems as if everything is subject to personal interpretation. When a pastor leaves, the interpretation changes to whoever the next pastor is. You hope that a pastor will consult expostions and commentaries, but it isnt a requirement of them. The system is based on subjective personal interpretation of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura. It has become very frustrating. Jello wiggles, moves, jiggles, can't be nailed down, is squishy, and you can't get a grip on it. I don't want to be in churches like that any more.

 

Another aspect is the worship service. I go to church to actively worship God, collectively. I am not there to be entertained or listen to a lecture series. I read a pamplet about worship in the OC today. Allow me to share a part of it:

"Our worship is based to a great extent on passages from Scripture. We sing most of the service, joining our voices in simple harmony to ancient melodies. Our worship is focused on God, not on our own enjoyment, fulfillment, or fellowship. We come into the pressence of God with awe, aware of our fallenness and His great mercy. We seek forgiveness and rejoice in the great gift of salvation so freely given. Orhtodox worship is filled with repentance, gratitude, and unending praise. Our hearts come to worship seeking to pour out at the feet of Christ all the precious ointment we possess. The liturgy is not a performance, but an opportunity to come together as a family of faith before our beloved Father. True Orthodox worship is comfortable, warm, and joyful. It could be nothing less in His heavenly presence."

Because the liturgy is what it is and the way it is; it affords the congregation to worship Him collectively in a way that is profound. It could not be achieved like this in a lecture or while being entertained. Therefore, I appreciate everything about it.

 

Lastly, the Eucharist. I had miraculous experiences at an Episcopal church when I took communion several different times. I had no idea what the Episcopals believed, but I did my research. I found out that they, RC, and OC teach that you recieve a grace from God through the Eucharist. That He imparts something divine into your life through it. THAT is what I experienced and didn't know what to call it. I had always believed that it was symbolic; I had been taught that. I really dont know why Protestant theologians have largely rejected this teaching of the Eucharist. My understanding is this teaching is recorded all the way back to around 100 AD, and it has remained a teaching of the RC and OC since then. Now that I experienced that divine grace and know it is available to everyone every time we partake in the Eucharist, I can't be somewhere that teaches otherwise.

 

There are some other reasons, but I guess these are the biggies I can think of right now.

 

To answer your question about whether this is happening all over N. America. I can't answer that without a research poll. I can tell you some personal experiences. In 1 RC parish I know, they went from a few people taking RCIA (The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) classes 10 years ago to over a 100 every year for the last couple of years. The OC parish I visit went from all craddle Orthodox 10 years ago to 1/4 to 1/3 of the congregation being new to Orthodoxy. (large parish btw).

[tntgoodwin]

I know I read an article recently that said "mainline" Protestant denominations have had memberships decline the last several years.

[MamaSheep]

I'm still working my way through this interesting thread, so please forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but I wanted to just make a couple of quick comments.

 

Why did they need to be canonized? Why did man get to decide what scriptures made it in and which did not? Aren't ALL of Christ's teachings/scriptures important and relevant??

 

As I understand it, it wasn't so much a matter of deciding which of Christ's teachings were important or relevant (of course they all are), but more an issue of determining which of all the writings which claimed to be records of Christ's teachings or those of his apostles (as well as past prophets) were really what they claimed to be, and were accurately recorded.

 

Lisa, the LDS canon, which is derived from the Greek and meaning rule or measure, would be your Book of Mormon. Also any Bible can be referred to as canon. There is a Jewish Canon and a Christian Canon. Basically a scripture of canon is any list or group of books authoritative by a particular religious community.

 

Just as a point of clarification, the LDS canon does include the Book of Mormon, but also includes the Old and New Testaments, as well as a book called The Doctrine and Covenants, and one we call The Pearl of Great Price. Lisa, you may have heard the term "The Standard Works" in the LDS church; this means pretty much the same thing as "canon".

 

One difference is that our (LDS) canon is an "open" canon, meaning that we believe God can still add to it if He so chooses, whereas many other churches have a "closed" canon, which means they believe God has already given as much scripture as He intends and will not add any more.

 

There are some differences between different branches of Christianity in the specific books that are included in the canon, and therefore in the Bibles that they use. The LDS Bible is generally the same as most Protestant branches use. Speaking in sweeping generalities.

[MamaSheep]

No, not at all. I guess I was afraid of what some of the LDS mothers on here would think :(

I'm with Xuzi on this. I would hope that you'd look as deeply into LDS beliefs as you do into those of other faiths (it's never 'too late' to start learning more deeply, and I hope you know that you would always be welcome and wanted in the LDS church) but one tenet of the LDS faith I truly believe and hold dear is the article of faith that says, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." Each of us is on our own spiritual journey, and I wish you the best wherever yours may take you. There's nothing in our faith that says I should shun you if you left, and I hope there's nothing in my own character that would cause me to do so. :grouphug:

[mommaduck]

Stories of others that have made the journey http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/

[Melinda in VT]

To be honest, I don't know if that would be true of the LDS faith. It's pretty cut and dry, you do and follow, or you don't and get looked at differently amongst your peers in church. Now I have heard some people have been trying to find a "middle way", but it is frowned against, and has been spoken out against by the general church leadership. Really I believe it is their way, their rules, their counsel, or if you disagree you do so outside the church :confused:

 

In my experience, KarenNC's description does fit most denominations, but you are correct that it is not true of the LDS church.

 

Missesd, can I give you a bit of unsolicited advice? I say this gently, as someone who has been out of Mormonism for about ten years now. Reading your posts, it sounds like you have issues with Mormonism as it is being practiced, but you still sound pretty steeped in Mormonism theologically. It sounds to me like you have taken to heart all the arguments Mormons sometimes make about why other churches are not The True Church. I think it might help if you can take a deep breath and agree to live in limbo for a bit. Take some time to read a basic book on church history. (Not LDS church history, but the history of Christianity.) Something very introductory, just to give you some pegs to hang new knowledge on. Get the book How to Be A Perfect Stranger (I think there are two volumes) and read up on various churches. Pick a church or two or four to visit. Don't visit with an eye to see if this is a church you should join, just visit to get a feel for what other churches are like.

 

Wherever you end up spiritually and theologically, I think this would help you see other churches as they really are, and not just through the lens of Mormonism. :grouphug:

[tntgoodwin]

In my experience, KarenNC's description does fit most denominations, but you are correct that it is not true of the LDS church.

 

Missesd, can I give you a bit of unsolicited advice? I say this gently, as someone who has been out of Mormonism for about ten years now. Reading your posts, it sounds like you have issues with Mormonism as it is being practiced, but you still sound pretty steeped in Mormonism theologically. It sounds to me like you have taken to heart all the arguments Mormons sometimes make about why other churches are not The True Church. I think it might help if you can take a deep breath and agree to live in limbo for a bit. Take some time to read a basic book on church history. (Not LDS church history, but the history of Christianity.) Something very introductory, just to give you some pegs to hang new knowledge on. Get the book How to Be A Perfect Stranger (I think there are two volumes) and read up on various churches. Pick a church or two or four to visit. Don't visit with an eye to see if this is a church you should join, just visit to get a feel for what other churches are like.

 

Wherever you end up spiritually and theologically, I think this would help you see other churches as they really are, and not just through the lens of Mormonism. :grouphug:

:iagree:

[Parrothead]

Well of course the Catholic church is older. Doesn't make it more correct (IMHO). Remember, the reason for the Reformation is that Luther, Calvin, et al believed the Church was wrong. :)

Luther did not want to start his own church. He was a devout Catholic priest who saw things that needed to be fixed. There is a big difference between fixing something that isn't quite right and carrying on than trashing the original and starting a second.

 

I'd much rather be part of the church Jesus started - warts and all - than be part of a church started by man.

 

It's not about "Buddy Christ." I have a personal relationship with my earthly father. We are not best buddies. I have a personal relationship with my commanding officer - we are definitely not best buddies.

God is my father. My daddy. Sometimes I need to be held by Him. Wrapped up in His arms of love. Sometimes I need to be able to talk to Him, and listen when He responds. Me saying impersonal prayers written hundreds of years ago makes no more sense to me than going up to my boss and reading a speech that Ronald Reagan or JFK gave.

Okay, if that is what you want I'll leave you to it. For myself, I prefer something not so casual. I can't imagine God=Daddy.

 

As for impersonal prayers, again, I'd rather pray as Jesus says to pray than make up my own imperfect prayers. Each to his own.

 

I've skipped some pages... but I have a question-

 

These prayers that somebody linked to that are to be repeated morning, mid-day, and night... you say they are from history and apart of the tradition. But where does it every say that Christ spoke these? Are these in the Bible?

There is nothing the humans repeat more than the words, "I love you." Do we ever feel it is repetitious? By the same token why would God not want to hear our prayers again and again, especially the prayer that Jesus taught us to pray. The Lord's prayer comes directly from the Bible - directly from Jesus.

 

Jesus himself repeated his prayers. In Mark 26:44 ...he (Jesus) began to pray again a third time, saying the same words as before.

 

Well, if it is good enough for Jesus, it darn well certainly is good enough for me.

Does that mean it would be in the Old Testament then?? Or do the more traditional churches only use the NT?

There was a bit of limbo. Jesus came and did his work. He made arrangements for the church to begin after his death and resurrection. Catholics believe he put Peter in charge (St. Peter was the first Pope), initiated the 7 Holy Sacraments (baptism, reconciliation, confirmation, Eucharist, marriage, holy orders, annointing of the sick) then after his death and resurrection He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles.

 

So here you have these devout Jewish men and women going to synagogues as was their habit. Eventually the other Jews told them they would have to go elsewhere. So they had to determine where to meet, what to do during the meetings. All of this is discussed in the Acts of the Apostles and the letters which follow the Gospels.

 

None of it was written down in one place. When the New Testament was codified those letters of Peter, Paul et al, had to be gathered up from the churches that had been saving them. By then 300 or so years had passed and there was already ritual going on in the Church every day/week.

 

You can kind of equate it to the Independence Day celebrations in the US every year. Something fairly spectacular happened on 4 July 1776 and there were fireworks. No one wrote down how Independence Day should be celebrated ever year. There were no instructions that hamburgers and watermelon be served, yet 235 years later we celebrate Independence Day.

 

Granted the early Americans didn't know what a hamburger was, and wouldn't have served one. But very slowly things change just bit. The apostles would have had Mass just a bit differently than we do today, but they would be able to walk into any Catholic church and recognize what is happening during the Mass.

 

This is why we recognize Sacred Tradition just as important as Scripture.

 

 

I am curious where Episcopalian fits into this? That is an off-shoot of Luther right? Someone PM'd me a link that went over everything that happens in a service, and honestly... it didn't seem as scary or bad as I thought it might.

Sorry, I messed that up. Episcopalians are not a Protestant splinter. Episcopalians=Angelican=Church of England.

[Parrothead]

If anyone is interested it is worth linking Dr. Scott Hahn's story.

 

It can be found here as an audio CD or MP3 download.

[KarenNC]

Get the book How to Be A Perfect Stranger (I think there are two volumes) and read up on various churches. Pick a church or two or four to visit. Don't visit with an eye to see if this is a church you should join, just visit to get a feel for what other churches are like.

 

Wherever you end up spiritually and theologically, I think this would help you see other churches as they really are, and not just through the lens of Mormonism. :grouphug:

 

This is an excellent book, as well as excellent advice, regardless of which denomination or religion someone is coming from or looking to go to. Look for information from the group itself when at all possible. Compare that to current scholarship by historians if there's a question of fact rather than theological interpretation. Realize that theological interpretations will differ (often widely or even be totally contradictory) depending on the lens through which one views any of this. As an example, consider how Jews would view the Ark analogy that's being used ---*all* Christians took off on a completely different boat from their perspective;).

[justamouse]

If anyone is interested it is worth linking Dr. Scott Hahn's story.

 

It can be found here as an audio CD or MP3 download.

 

I can't thank you enough for posting this.

 

About two years ago I knew a Catholic homeschooling family, and I had been in spiritual searching mode. The mother gave me this CD and book, and me, thinking that Catholics were not 'saved' and idol worshipers, I threw them out--and I never spoke to her again.

 

God have mercy on me. I need to find her and apologize.

 

This story is amazing.

[simka2]

I can't thank you enough for posting this.

 

About two years ago I knew a Catholic homeschooling family, and I had been in spiritual searching mode. The mother gave me this CD and book, and me, thinking that Catholics were not 'saved' and idol worshipers, I threw them out--and I never spoke to her again.

 

God have mercy on me. I need to find her and apologize.

 

This story is amazing.

 

:grouphug:'s. Sometimes I really hate hindsight! Even though there is something freeing in the humility of realizing I was wrong.

[Carol in Cal.]

If anyone is interested it is worth linking Dr. Scott Hahn's story.

 

 

Every time I read Scott Hahn's story or hear from anyone who changes from mainstream or born again Protestantism to either RC or EO, I think, "Wow, if only they had known thoroughly about confessional Lutheranism. That's what they really are."

 

Retention of the liturgy and church year? Check

The Real Presence in the Eucharist? Check

Infant Baptism? Check

Respect for and knowledge of and continuity with the earliest/historic Church? Check

The Communion of Saints (and the historic Creeds) Check

Sola Scriptura--which only means that the Bible trumps Tradition where they contradict, not that it fell perfect from the sky in year one and should be the only thing ever considered? Check

Sola Fide--which means that salvation itself comes through faith, but not that works are unnecessary, just that they ARISE from faith in gratitude, rather than being a prerequisite for it? Check

Sola Gratia--which means that salvation is God's gift and that none of our merit helps us get it or even keep it? Check

The importance of clear, straightforward Biblical and church history teaching at all ages? Check

The precedence of knowledge of God and His Word and actions over knowledge of saints and their actions, but still knowing about them? Check

Repetitive, community prayer as well as personal extemporaneous prayer? Check

The precedence of talking to God Himself? Check

Acceptance of Christian art in all its forms--music and visual and written art, particularly? Check

Vibrant, present-day life in the Spirit? Check

 

We are catholic but not Roman Catholic. We are the historic evangelicals. (In Germany, where Luther taught, we are called Evangelisch, not Lutheran. To this day, older confessional Lutheran church in North American almost always have the word 'evangelical' in their names. Evangel means Gospel or good news. Our focus on the Gospel gives us our original name.)

 

This is what confessional Lutheranism is and has. We are historical and traditional and Gospel-centered. We are a continuation of the historic and traditional Church.

 

(We are also, pretty much, the best-kept secret in Christendom. Unfortunately.)

Edited March 21, 2011 by Carol in Cal.

[Colleen in NS]

(short reply) OK, I'm finally back! Now I'm going to wade through everything and make a longer reply. It'll probably be awhile before you see it, though, because I'll have to do it intermittently this afternoon, lol. Thanks to everyone who has participated! Whew!:D

[KarenNC]

Every time I read Scott Hahn's story or hear from anyone who changes from mainstream or born again Protestantism to either RC or EO, I think, "Wow, if only they had known thoroughly about confessional Lutheranism. That's what they really are."

 

Retention of the liturgy and church year? Check

The Real Presence in the Eucharist? Check

Infant Baptism? Check

Respect for and knowledge of and continuity with the earliest/historic Church? Check

The Communion of Saints (and the historic Creeds) Check

Sola Scriptura--which only means that the Bible trumps Tradition where they contradict, not that it fell perfect from the sky in year one and should be the only thing ever considered? Check

Sola Fide--which means that salvation itself comes through faith, but not that works are unnecessary, just that they ARISE from faith in gratitude, rather than being a prerequisite for it? Check

Sola Gratia--which means that salvation is God's gift and that none of our merit helps us get it or even keep it? Check

The importance of clear, straightforward Biblical and church history teaching at all ages? Check

The precedence of knowledge of God and His Word and actions over knowledge of saints and their actions, but still knowing about them? Check

Repetitive, community prayer as well as personal extemporaneous prayer? Check

The precedence of talking to God Himself? Check

Acceptance of Christian art in all its forms--music and visual and written art, particularly? Check

Vibrant, present-day life in the Spirit? Check

 

This is what confessional Lutheranism is and has. We are historical and traditional and Gospel-centered. We are a continuation of the historic and traditional Church.

 

(We are also, pretty much, the best-kept secret in Christendom. Unfortunately.)

 

By "Real Presence" do you mean transubstantiation (as in RC and EO), consubstantiation (as in Anglican) or something else?

 

I know RC, EO and Anglican (including Episcopal) each have a tradition of apostolic succession (though I also know they don't all consider each other to have such, necessarily;)). Is this also true of the Lutheran Church? How does confessional Lutheran differ from other forms of Lutheran (I'm assuming it does or you wouldn't have felt the need for a modifier:))?

[Gooblink]

Every time I read Scott Hahn's story or hear from anyone who changes from mainstream or born again Protestantism to either RC or EO, I think, "Wow, if only they had known thoroughly about confessional Lutheranism. That's what they really are."

 

Retention of the liturgy and church year? Check

The Real Presence in the Eucharist? Check

Infant Baptism? Check

Respect for and knowledge of and continuity with the earliest/historic Church? Check

The Communion of Saints (and the historic Creeds) Check

Sola Scriptura--which only means that the Bible trumps Tradition where they contradict, not that it fell perfect from the sky in year one and should be the only thing ever considered? Check

Sola Fide--which means that salvation itself comes through faith, but not that works are unnecessary, just that they ARISE from faith in gratitude, rather than being a prerequisite for it? Check

Sola Gratia--which means that salvation is God's gift and that none of our merit helps us get it or even keep it? Check

The importance of clear, straightforward Biblical and church history teaching at all ages? Check

The precedence of knowledge of God and His Word and actions over knowledge of saints and their actions, but still knowing about them? Check

Repetitive, community prayer as well as personal extemporaneous prayer? Check

The precedence of talking to God Himself? Check

Acceptance of Christian art in all its forms--music and visual and written art, particularly? Check

Vibrant, present-day life in the Spirit? Check

 

We are catholic but not Roman Catholic. We are the historic evangelicals. (In Germany, where Luther taught, we are called Evangelisch, not Lutheran. To this day, older confessional Lutheran church in North American almost always have the word 'evangelical' in their names. Evangel means Gospel or good news. Our focus on the Gospel gives us our original name.)

 

This is what confessional Lutheranism is and has. We are historical and traditional and Gospel-centered. We are a continuation of the historic and traditional Church.

 

(We are also, pretty much, the best-kept secret in Christendom. Unfortunately.)

 

How do I find a confessional Lutheran church? I'd like to learn more. My first exposure to Christianity was through a Lutheran church, back when I was 12-16 years-old, and I'm feeling drawn back to that...I think. :)

[mommaduck]

By "Real Presence" do you mean transubstantiation (as in RC and EO), consubstantiation (as in Anglican) or something else?

 

I know RC, EO and Anglican (including Episcopal) each have a tradition of apostolic succession (though I also know they don't all consider each other to have such, necessarily;)). Is this also true of the Lutheran Church? How does confessional Lutheran differ from other forms of Lutheran (I'm assuming it does or you wouldn't have felt the need for a modifier:))?

 

The EO does not teach transubstantiation in the RC sense and does not use the term. We simply say that "it's a mystery" ;)

[KarenNC]

The EO does not teach transubstantiation in the RC sense and does not use the term. We simply say that "it's a mystery" ;)

 

Thanks for the correction!:) Are RC and EO churches in communion (ie can an EO person take communion in an RC church and vice versa)? I was under the impression they both could, which may explain my confusion or poor choice of words. How about with Anglican (I know RC does not consider Anglican communion any more valid than it does Protestant)? Lutheran? Others?

 

 

It's all very interesting. I know Anglican accepts baptism from RC, for instance, also from EO and Lutheran, IIRC, but not from other Protestant churches because of the apostolic succession issue.

Edited March 21, 2011 by KarenNC

[mommaduck]

Thanks for the correction!:) Are RC and EO churches in communion (ie can an EO person take communion in an RC church and vice versa)? I was under the impression they both could, which may explain my confusion or poor choice of words. How about with Anglican (I know RC does not consider Anglican communion any more valid than it does Protestant)?

 

I believe the RC will permit an EO person to take communion in an RC Church. HOWEVER, the EO will not permit an RC person to take communion in an EO Church NOR do they permit their members to partake of communion in the RC Church (to do so is self-excommunicating).

[OnTheBrink]

 

 

 

 

Jesus himself repeated his prayers. In Mark 26:44 ...he (Jesus) began to pray again a third time, saying the same words as before.

 

 

 

Is this a typo? There is no Mark 26:44.

[mommaduck]

nm

Edited March 21, 2011 by mommaduck

[mommaduck]

is this a typo? There is no mark 26:44.

 

matthew 26:44 ;)

[Lovedtodeath]

I am beginning to get that. There is no "perfect" religion. I read a blog someone posted on here about "church shopping" and ecclesiastical consumerism. It hit home about not making the church FIT you, but about you fitting the church. I was especially chagrined to read the lines, "not making the church in YOUR image, but rather making yourself into God's image" :blushing: The problem, though I think isn't so much that, but making sure it "rings true to you". It has to speak to something deep within you about whether it feels right or not. I thought finding the true ordinance of what happened after Christs teachings, after his death, and the oldest religion/church would help settle that for me. But nope, I do feel more informed, more enlightened, but I can't say that what I am learning is necessarily where I feel I am supposed to be. I will say the church I was originally thinking of looking at, after reading that blog no longer holds such appeal. For it is one I would say is playing to the masses, rather then not being *of* the world. So, all in all, it *has* been helpful... and that is what is most important, even though in a way I feel back at square one... there is NO *perfect* church....

Yes, Jesus made it clear that we are to worship in truth and that some people would claim to be his followers but he would not accept them and that his followers are no part of the world, separate. Set apart. These are the scriptures I examine time and again. Matthew 7:21-23; Romans 10:2; Mark 7:6,7; John 17:16; James 1:27; Matthew 26:51, 52; John 18:36; John 13:35; 15:12, 17; 1 Corinthians 1:10; John 17:22.

 

Why are we trying to find a church we like, rather than THE church that IS right?

:iagree:

 

But this is not quite so. I'm not meaning to be argumentative here; just want to clarify. The East and West diverge at a fundamental point that affects everything that flows from that point forward, and that is on its view of original sin.

By the east and the west you are referring to the difference between RC and EO, correct? I don't feel that my denomination/religion teaches a view of original sin in a way that contrasts with the EO teaching. My understanding of Adam and Eve's sin has always been that due to their sin perfection was lost. We all inherited a disease of imperfection and the ransom sacrifice was a way of healing us. I don't think this is in contrast to the EO teaching?

[ktgrok]

Thanks for the correction!:) Are RC and EO churches in communion (ie can an EO person take communion in an RC church and vice versa)? I was under the impression they both could, which may explain my confusion or poor choice of words. How about with Anglican (I know RC does not consider Anglican communion any more valid than it does Protestant)? Lutheran? Others?

 

 

It's all very interesting. I know Anglican accepts baptism from RC, for instance, also from EO and Lutheran, IIRC, but not from other Protestant churches because of the apostolic succession issue.

 

Anglicans, and RC for that matter, accept any baptism that was done "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". You don't have to be rebaptized to go from one of those to the other. Anglicans have an open communion,so anyone that is baptized can partake, regardless of denomination. The RC has a sticky mess as far as recongnizing the validity of the Anglican communion service, with the short answer being "it depends". There was a time in history when the liturgy to consecrate a priest was changed, and the RC maintains that the change means that the consecrations may or may not have been valid. So any priests that descend from that line are not considered validly ordained, although even they would admit it's impossible to be sure. But there has been "cross ordinations" for lack of a better description, since then, by Old Catholics that ARE considered to have valid ordination. So any priest that comes from those lines IS considered to be validly ordained. And trying to figure out who is who is not really possible on a day to day basis. Clear as mud?

[Lovedtodeath]

Jesus himself repeated his prayers. In Mark 26:44 ...he (Jesus) began to pray again a third time, saying the same words as before.

 

Well, if it is good enough for Jesus, it darn well certainly is good enough for me.

He was repeating his own personal prayer and supplication.

 

I found this regarding this subject. I hope it helps the discussion at hand:

Directing attention to another way in which hypocrites abused the privilege of prayer, Jesus said: “When praying, do not say the same things over and over again, just as the people of the nations do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words.”—Matt. 6:7.

 

Jesus was not saying that his disciples should avoid repeating heartfelt supplications and expressions of thanksgiving in prayer. The gospel of Matthew relates that in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus prayed late into the night, repeatedly using “the same word.”—Matt. 26:36-45.

 

However, it would be wrong to mimic the repetitious prayers of “people of the nations.” They were in the habit of babbling “over and over again” memorized phrases that included many superfluous words. The Bible contains the example of Baal worshipers of ancient time who “kept calling upon the name of Baal from morning till noon, saying: ‘O Baal, answer us!’” (1 Ki. 18:26) And concerning Gentile opposers of Christianity at Ephesus, we read: “One cry arose from them all as they shouted for about two hours: ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!’” (Acts 19:34) In a work of the Roman poet Terence (second century B.C.E.), we read the following complaint: “Pray thee, wife, cease from stunning the gods with thanksgivings, because thy child is in safety; unless thou judgest of them from thyself, that they cannot understand a thing, unless they are told of it a hundred times.”

 

To this day, many “people of the nations” make repetitious prayers to their gods. For example, some Buddhists use a rosary of up to 108 beads in chanting the namu amida butsu (“may the soul rest in peace”).

 

“So, do not make yourselves like them,” continued Jesus, “for God your Father knows what things you are needing before ever you ask him.”—Matt. 6:8.

 

Regular heartfelt prayer that includes praise, thanksgiving and petition to God is an important part of true worship. (Phil. 4:6) But it would be wrong to say the same things over and over again believing that such uninterrupted repetition is necessary to inform God of our needs, as if God were ignorant, inattentive and absentminded. A person should pray in full recognition that he is communicating with the One who “knows what things you are needing before ever you ask him.”

[Lovedtodeath]

The EO teaching on sin and salvation uses words like "healing" and "disease" and "illness". These are more along the lines of the EO view. But the EO view is not as juridcical as the West's tend to be. The word "ransom" is used, but not nearly to the extent as it is in the West.

 

It is ridiculous to say that ALLLL of the West believes thus and so...there is not unified agreement on these things...so please don't think I am painting the West all one color--there are shades of differences.

 

Frederica Mathewes-Green has a wonderful (short) essay on her website: www.frederica.com. If you search for this: /christs-death-a-rescue-mission-not-a-payment-for-sins.html on her site, you will find it. I can't find it right now because the server seems to be down.

 

Kind regards,

Patty Joanna

Thank you, I think the bolded part says a lot.

[justamouse]

Original Sin:

 

Because I've recently read Hahn's conversion story, that is what's in my head to answer this with, and it goes back to Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura and why they are not accepted within RC or EO

 

But the more I studied, the more I came to see that for the ancient Hebrews, and in Sacred Scripture, a covenant differs from a contract about as much as marriage differs from prostitution. In a contract you exchange property, whereas in a covenant you exchange persons. In a contract you say, "This is yours and that is mine," but Scripture shows how in a covenant you say, "I am yours and you are mine." Even when God makes a covenant with us, He says, "I will be your God and you will be my people." After studying Hebrew, I discovered that 'Am, the Hebrew word for people, literally means, kinsman, family. I will be your God and father; you will be my family, my sons and my daughters, my household. So covenants form kinship bonds which makes family with God.

I read Shepherd's articles, and he was saying much of the same thing: our covenant with God means sonship. I thought, "Well, yeah, this is good." I wondered what heresy is involved in that. Then somebody told me, "Shepherd is calling into question sola fide." What! No way. I mean, that is the Gospel. That is the simple truth of Jesus Christ. He died for sins; I believe in him. He saves me, pure and simple; it's a done deal. Sola fide? He's questioning that? No way.

I called him on the phone. I said, "I've read your stuff on covenant; it makes lots of sense. I've come to pretty much the same conclusions. But why is this leading you to call into question Luther's doctrine of sola fide?" He went on to show in this discussion that Luther's conception of justification was very restricted and limited. It had lots of truth, but it also missed lots of truths.

When I hung up the phone, I pursued this a little further and I discovered that for Luther and for practically all of Bible Christianity and Protestantism, God is a judge, and the covenant is a courtroom scene whereby all of us are guilty criminals. But since Christ took our punishment, we get his righteousness, and he gets our sins, so we get off scot-free; we're justified. For Luther, in other words, salvation is a legal exchange, but for Paul in Romans, for Paul in Galatians, salvation is that, but it's much more than that. It isn't just a legal exchange because the covenant doesn't point to a Roman courtroom so much as to a Hebrew family room. God is not just simply a judge; God is a father, and his judgments are fatherly. Christ is not just somebody who represents an innocent victim who takes our rap, our penalty; He is the firstborn among many brethren. He is our oldest brother in the family, and he sees us as runaways, as prodigals, as rebels who are cut off from the life of God's family. And by the new covenant Christ doesn't just exchange in a legal sense; Christ gives us His own sonship so that we really become children of God.

 

 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Original Sin:

 

Because I've recently read Hahn's conversion story, that is what's in my head to answer this with, and it goes back to Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura and why they are not accepted within RC or EO

 

The quote of Hahn is an unfair representation of the totality of Lutheran teaching. I think that Hahn does not and never did understand confessional Lutheranism. If he had, he probably would have gone that way, as I read his path. Most of the early changes in his thinking and the things that he grows to value most about Catholicism are retained in confessional Lutheranism. I read his books all in a clump about 12 years ago, and my overwhelming response was, if only he had seen that path instead of thinking that his protestantism was the only one.

 

It's not that we get off scot-free. God Christ puts His righteousness onto us--like the wedding garment in the parable. The only merits that count are Christ's, the ones that He has by virtue of living the sinless life that no one else did or could. He won in the strife against Satan, the strong tempter and deceiver, and claimed us as His own. In every communion service that we celebrate, the ancient words "to them gave He power to become the sons of God, and hath promised them His Holy Spirit" is proclaimed. Then the pastor turns to the altar and prays (for and with the congregation): "Grant this, Lord, unto us all." We are sons and heirs of God by His free gift. It's not just a legal exchange. It's far more. A relationship, individually and corporately, as we are part of Christ's Body, the Church. A covenant with God and each other. We don't deserve or earn this in any sense, but receive it freely from God through faith, His gift. In thankful response we serve Him and our neighbors.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Carol in Cal.

[OnTheBrink]

If God is never changing, then why should the church that he created need to change?

 

Honestly, this is one of the things that drew us to the EO Church. My dh and I wanted to get back to that which was true, and real. We wanted to be a part of the church that Christ created. When I go to church, I want to worship God. If I want to be entertained, I'll buy tickets to see a movie, play, or concert.

 

Our family became catechumens at our EO parish this month. There are no words to describe how wonderful it has all been. Words seriously can not describe the peace, joy, fulfillment, and more that we have experienced.

 

Krista

 

I wasn't raised in a Christian home; we did go to church, but it was fluffy at best and Christianity was something you did on Sunday mornings, it certainly wasn't a lifestyle. The concept of a God that never changes wasn't introduced to me until I was in my 20's. I "found" Jesus, so to speak, when I was 21, at a non-denom mega church in CA. I stayed there until I moved out of state and attended S. Baptist churches with the EX. I wasn't satisfied with any of the S. Baptist churches we attended. When we moved to where I live now, I found a non-denom that wasn't like the main-line protestant or Baptist churches and I've been at this church for almost 12 years. The idea that God doesn't change therefore the church shouldn't change has never crossed my mind before. I never made that connection. I have studied church history, lightly, as in enough to form a "family tree" so to speak, but I've never studied it in depth. Until "meeting" Patty Joanna and Milovany, I thought Eastern Orthodoxy was the Russian or Greek way to be Catholic! (don't laugh!) I never, ever, knew it was THE Church that goes back to the days of the Apostles. So, I became interested.

 

To be honest, I was raised being told the RCC was "the whore of babylon" and that Catholics were idol worshippers. It never occurred to me to question that as a child, and I don't believe it to be true today, but that teaching (the idol worship part) makes it hard for me to embrace the idea of having icons be an integral part of worshiping God. Same with the issues around Mary. I do believe she was blessed by God, but I don't believe she was perfect and sinless. Praying to a saint terrifies me. To me, that's ascribing to a human the notion that they can do what only God can. I'm sure I'm misunderstanding what all these things mean to the OE folks. But I am a product of what I've been taught and changing that thinking is difficult and some of these concepts are foreign to me.

 

I believe in God, and His word. I believe in the resurrection of Christ. I believe He was born of a virgin and His death paid for my sins. I believe Scripture is the inspired Word. I believe Christ is the only way to Heaven. Beyond that, I dunno! Does it matter that I struggle with the Mary issue? Or the saint issue? Will God reject me over these things? I don't think so. And I don't think He'd reject me if I embraced these issues, too.

 

I have to say, my discovery of the EO church has challenged me in many ways. In ways that no other faith system has, and there are things I like about other faiths but I'm not drawn to those faiths.

 

I'm just not sure what to do with all this.

 

Sorry for rambling, again. :tongue_smilie:

[justamouse]

The quote of Hahn is an unfair representation of the totality of Lutheran teaching. I think that Hahn does not and never did understand confessional Lutheranism. If he had, he probably would have gone that way, as I read his path. Most of the early changes in his thinking and the things that he grows to value most about Catholicism are retained in confessional Lutheranism. I read his books all in a clump about 12 years ago, and my overwhelming response was, if only he had seen that path instead of thinking that his protestantism was the only one.

 

 

 

But if The RCC made many of those changes (I'm new to this, I know they made changes, not exactly which ones yet) that were of the 95 thesis, and Luther never really wanted to start a new church, why would he be want to be a confessional Lutheran when he could just be RC?

[simka2]

The quote of Hahn is an unfair representation of the totality of Lutheran teaching. I think that Hahn does not and never did understand confessional Lutheranism. If he had, he probably would have gone that way, as I read his path. Most of the early changes in his thinking and the things that he grows to value most about Catholicism are retained in confessional Lutheranism. I read his books all in a clump about 12 years ago, and my overwhelming response was, if only he had seen that path instead of thinking that his protestantism was the only one.

 

It's not that we get off scot-free. God Christ puts His righteousness onto us--like the wedding garment in the parable. The only merits that count are Christ's, the ones that He has by virtue of living the sinless life that no one else did or could. He won in the strife against Satan, the strong tempter and deceiver, and claimed us as His own. In every communion service that we celebrate, the ancient words "to them gave He power to become the sons of God, and hath promised them His Holy Spirit" is proclaimed. Then the pastor turns to the altar and prays (for and with the congregation): "Grant this, Lord, unto us all." We are sons and heirs of God by His free gift. It's not just a legal exchange. It's far more. A relationship, individually and corporately, as we are part of Christ's Body, the Church. A covenant with God and each other. We don't deserve or earn this in any sense, but receive it freely from God through faith, His gift. In thankful response we serve Him and our neighbors.

 

But if The RCC made many of those changes (I'm new to this, I know they made changes, not exactly which ones yet) that were of the 95 thesis, and Luther never really wanted to start a new church, why would he be want to be a confessional Lutheran when he could just be RC?

 

This line of reasoning is interesting to me. First off, I think there are some very wonderful Protestants out there! So, it doesn't surprise me in the least that there are forms that would be very close to my belifes.

 

On the other hand, what if Luther had been able to contact the EO church back in the day? We will never know the answer to that. Sometimes it's not just about the belifes (that's usually where it starts) but it evolves to being about the roots, the foundation, the source.

 

Again, I have probly butchered this explanation. It was just something I was considering ;).

[Lovedtodeath]

The idea that God doesn't change therefore the church shouldn't change has never crossed my mind before. I never made that connection. I have studied church history, lightly, as in enough to form a "family tree" so to speak, but I've never studied it in depth. Until "meeting" Patty Joanna and Milovany, I thought Eastern Orthodoxy was the Russian or Greek way to be Catholic! (don't laugh!) I never, ever, knew it was THE Church that goes back to the days of the Apostles. So, I became interested.

Well, I believe that the Church did change and a restoration was needed. I believe that Matthew 13 describes a time when Christ's true followers would not be evident. I am interested in other views of this illustration.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Lovedtodeath