I think Christianity is the only religion that has had a major break like the Protestant reformation. For that I blame the papacy, but that’s just me. When you leave years of tradition behind, you come up with all sorts of wild ideas. Muslims and Jews didn’t leave their traditions behind. but then again, just because it’s tradition doesn’t mean it’s good. Praying to Saints has been a tradition, and I don’t personally do that. Reformed Christianity is pretty much the only time a break has happened like this in such a large religion. Again, I blame the papacy for that. It was either with the pope or against him. The Jews are allowed to disagree and so are Muslims.
It’s not my own thoughts. I’ve seen it raised by EOs before. Why did the biggest schism (or heresy as they call it, lol) in Christianity happen under the supposed watch of the very vicar of Jesus Christ on earth? That’s what happens when you lord over people like a monarch. The Orthodox Church allows for difference of opinion. Pretty much every orthodox believes Mary was sinless, for example. Yet I’ve come across a few online who question Mary maybe having committed minor sins prior to the conception of Christ. They have unity, but they don’t force it on people under the threat of eternal damnation. “Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The papacy did not serve, it ruled. This is precisely why this happened. I believe it to be God himself who allowed this great schism to happen as a punishment to Rome, and it still has yet to see its error.
Ironically, I actually put most of the blame for that particular schism on the Orthodox. The Papacy was in the right in that dispute. It started off as a disagreement over canon law and the Byzantines blew it up into an artificial theological controversy.
I meant the Protestant “schism” lol! But how is it the EOs fault? Wasn’t the tension between the East and west brewing since the 8th century due to increasing papal power? I agree the orthodox over reacted, they seem to have a disdain for anything “western,” but the papacy had been encroaching on them for years. If Rome had just let them be and not demanded communion with the supreme pontiff it wouldn’t have happened
The ecumenical patriarch Ignatius was deposed and replaced in an uncanonical manner. Rome objected and continued to recognize Ignatius as the legitimate patriarch. When that happened, the new patriarch (Photios) accused the Pope of heresy, and then it went from there. It bears mentioning that Photios was later reconciled to Ignatius, and died in communion with Rome. But his rhetoric toward Rome (and by extension toward Western Christians) lived on, and set the stage for what followed two centuries later, with the mutual excommunications. Rome's position regarding both the canon law issue and the theological issue was correct, and the Protestant Reformers didn't see those things as a point of contention.
I can understand that what you're talking about is our "walk of faith," our perseverance. One can say "I was saved, I am being saved, I will be saved," and all are applicable. Our faith can grow and mature. I get that. Yet, when I refer to a certain point in time, I'm not wrong about that, either. The indwelling Holy Spirit is our surety that we have been, are being, and will be redeemed, but there is a time certain when the Holy Spirit comes to indwell the Christian. At that moment, a miracle happens in us; we are 'born anew,' spiritually recreated. It can only happen one time. And from my experience, when He entered in and took up residence, making this earthly 'tent' His 'temple,' it was unmistakable. Many, many other people have had this sort of experience; when the Holy Spirit worked that miracle in them, they couldn't help but notice. There can be no doubt that He does not 'creep in on little cat feet' like the poetic fog, seeping into us a tiny bit at a time. It's more like, 'WHAM! Here I AM!' I was talking not long ago with my son. He became 'born again' when he was about 6 years old, just standing outside and looking up at the sky, and suddenly knowing that God is real, that He made that sky and everything else in nature. The things he'd heard from the word of God became real to him right then. It was like a light switch turned on inside him. There can be no question that the entry of the Holy Spirit, when He takes up residence in a human being, is not a protracted event. It happens faster than you can snap your fingers; it happens more suddenly than a bird stops when it hits the window. There may be instances when this transformation occurs in a person too young to comprehend what just took place, with no teaching or reference with which to categorize what just happened. But when he gets older and has been taught from the Bible, he is very likely to be able to look back at it and say, "Huh! So that's what happened." Being a Christian is a lifelong process. Becoming a Christian happens exactly one time, in the twinkling of an eye, during a person's life.
I'm with @Jellies on this one. If you ask a typical devout American Muslim what their religion is all about and then ask a typical devout Muslim from Africa, the Middle East, or the Far East, you'll see dramatic differences. Same book, same prophet, totally different religious & world views. And then there are all the Muslims who only identify as Muslim out of fear they'd be killed as infidels otherwise.
Yes and then Rome went on to declare all must be subject to the supreme vicar of Jesus Christ on earth to be saved there is no reason why the eastern churches must be in communion with Rome. Whether Rome was right or not on that issue, it didn’t matter much for the schism, because if they didn’t believe every living being had to submit to the pope, it could have just been one of the several times that the churches were out of communion with each other and nothing happened. But it wasn’t, because by this time the popes taught themselves the “visible” head of the church on earth, usurping our Lord Jesus Christ.
In fairness, I know many people take that t be the Arian position, however that is not necessarily fair or correct. Arius taught that there was a time when the Son was not. That position in my view is unable to the reconciled to the fist 18 verse of John's Gospel, a view that was also help by the first four councils. In so doing Arius did not challenge toe claim for divinity, but imagined a second order of divinity. I don't want to write a 3000 word essay on the subject, but I felt it was important to make that clear. We have little of what Arius wrote as there was a major burning and destruction of his writings.
I want to add one more thing to this. When children come to faith and receive the indwelling Holy Spirit at so young an age that they can't categorize it in their minds, if they grow up to adulthood and never recognize the event, one possible reason for this is that they're in a denomination which fails to teach them that there can be such an event and experience, and what is the significance of it. These are the same denominations which generally fail to teach their members how to be led by the Holy Spirit. It seems like there are things which each denomination could teach the others; the 'full picture' has become fragmented, and most denominations are running around proudly displaying an incomplete jigsaw puzzle while pooh-poohing the notion that any other denom might have a few of the missing pieces.
Which makes no sense. Arius's position demoted Jesus to a creature, basically nothing more than a super-angel like Lucifer or Michael. Which has heretical implications, such as, e.g., that the Son was open to sin just as Lucifer was. It also takes the power of creation away from the Son and invests it in the Father alone, which is contrary to Scripture.
I don't think we should consider that Islam and Judaism has that kind of agreement. For examples, a lot of Muslims don't just hate kafirs but very often those who they see as the wrong type of Muslim. For example, the ruling Sunnis in Saudi Arabia seriously abuse Shia Muslims. One of my acquaintances is an Orthodox Jew. He has been to several family parties mainly because his wife wants to come. He won't eat or drink anything and sits in a room alone. A female friend I had (sadly deceased) belonged to Reform Judaism and she was totally different and would eat food that wasn't Kosher.
Go back and re-read what I actually said, carefully. Then think about it, and then re-read it again. You are arguing with something I never said.
I agree, however we don't help the case when we accuse him of saying something other than he did. I am not an Arian Christian, nor an Arian sympathiser. We are very prone to interpret Arius beyond what he said, which we know in principle, despite the destruction of his works.
What is a Christian? A Christian is a disciple of Jesus Christ. A Christian is one who believes in and follows Jesus. Right? Well, how can an infant believe in, follow, or be a disciple of Jesus?
Fixed that for you. Jesus is just one person of the Trinity. Christians have existed even before the New Testsment. Jesus did not change religion, he merely intensified and clarified the eternal religion, which was, is, and ever shall be. Ever since there was an awareness of God, there existed his peculiar people. To draw a contrast between the Old Testament and the New is a heresy of marcionism. As we discussed before, the gospel fully exists in the Old Testament, and Jesus already held people accountable for it. Our religion is one, and does not change. Now and forever, world without end, amen.
No way am I getting into all of that again! I will only point out that the word "Christian" contains "Christ." who is the 2nd Person of the Trinity.