What's wrong with the Eastern Orthodox system?

[Churchwork]

Man's Flesh Likes to Add Levels of Bureaucracy
The Eastern Church

The patriarch of Constantinople is the highest ecclesiastical official of the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is like a pope. There are no popes in the Church in the Bible. For example, there is a partriarch of the whole continent of Africa. You just don't find this in the Bible.

The next level down are the patriarchs. There should be no patriarchs (13 of them) in their Church, because there were none in the Bible. There were apostles and elders only. There should not be ecumenical patriarchs nor should there be patriarchs.

Metropolitans are the next level down: one who is a bishop who is head of an ecclesiastical province and ranks next below the patriarch (this is also the wrong meaning of a Bishop since a Bishop is always an Elder of Biblical locality, not a region of church-cities).

There should not be patriarchs. Below them, the Metropolitans are suppose to be considered regional Apostles (they should not be called bishops) if they were directly chosen by God, but they are not. This is proven by testing the Apostles: "hast tried them (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/needtoagree.htm) which say they are apostles" (Rev. 2.2). They are just men in a denomination who rise to power in a pastoral system of struggle like corporations in the world. It was the system devised by Constantine in bed together with state to change the operations of the Church which placed the Church in ruin. This is described as th Pergamum church period which means "high tower" as all denoms try to do.

You might be wondering by now, what is wrong with people that they don't read the Bible properly? The only answer I have is the flesh wars against the Spirit and makes a mess of things. It sure has made a mess of the church and makes the body of Christ look like a laughing stalk to non-believers. Have faith though all these problems will get fixed with Biblocality.

Bishops in the Eastern church are over a district of churches. Yet, there is not suppose to be diocese districts for bishops in the New Testament.

Biblically speaking and by the Holy Spirit, there are just Apostles of region of churches (e.g. Macodenia, Judea, Syria, Asia Minor) and Elders (Bishops) of a Biblical locality (e.g. Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Philippi). God does not need all these extra levels of men operating like in bureacracies in corporations, so why does man? It is because of the corporation-like structure man thinks is needed because of increases in population, but it is not necessary at all. Such ideas are born out of the marriage of state and church in the Pergamum church period (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/7churches.htm).

Parishes/Priests in the Eatern Church: The priest teaches and may or may not be an Elder, so again the Eastern Orthodox system is wrong, because Priests do not head up a locality unless they are also Elders. Elders are the ones who take care of a Biblical locality, not the priests for heavens sakes! Priests operate locally.

Apostles operate regionally. Evangelists operate locally. Prophets are local too. Pastors or priests (Shepherds, teachers) operate locally. This is the proper ordering we see in the Scriptures.

EOC does so much wrong! Wrong teaching (non-OSAS and historicalism)! And wrong structure for the Work for the Church!

By the way, the reason a system teaches non-OSAS is so you give them more money or work for them more. They want to make you feel guilty that you could lose eternal life if you don't work for them enough. Historicalism is a heresy because it teaches now today is a time of a millennial peace despite wars and rumors of wars. This lowers one's standard of conscience. Rev. 20.3 says the nations will no longer be deceived in the millennium so the the 1000 years has not started yet, nor has Christ returned to reign with an iron rod during the 1000 years (Rev. 20.2-7). Christ is not reigning now with an iron rod, but indwells believers by the Holy Spirit. Overcomers in Christ could not be martyred if we were reigning with an iron rod today.

[OrthodoxChristian]

The patriarch of Constantinople is the highest ecclesiastical official of the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is like a pope. There are no popes in the Church in the Bible. For example, there is a partriarch of the whole continent of Africa. You just don't find this in the Bible.

The next level down are the patriarchs. There should be no patriarchs (13 of them) in their Church, because there were none in the Bible. There were apostles and elders only. There should not be ecumenical patriarchs nor should there be patriarchs.

Metropolitans are the next level down: one who is a bishop who is head of an ecclesiastical province and ranks next below the patriarch (this is also the wrong meaning of a Bishop since a Bishop is always an Elder of Biblical locality, not a region of church-cities).

There should not be patriarchs. Below them, the Metropolitans are suppose to be considered regional Apostles (they should not be called bishops) if they were directly chosen by God, but they are not. This is proven by testing the Apostles: "hast tried them (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/needtoagree.htm) which say they are apostles" (Rev. 2.2). They are just men in a denomination who rise to power in a pastoral system of struggle like corporations in the world. It was the system devised by Constantine in bed together with state to change the operations of the Church which placed the Church in ruin. This is described as th Pergamum church period which means "high tower" as all denoms try to do.This is simply incorrect. In the Orthodox Church, there is no "pope" or "level of bishops". All bishops have equal authority.

A bishop is the successor (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession) to the Apostles (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostles) in the service and government of the Church. The bishop thus serves εις τόπον και τύπον Χριστού (in place and as a type of Christ) in the Church. No bishop in Orthodoxy is considered infallible. None has any authority over or apart from his priests, deacons, and people or the other bishops. They have the responsibility of maintaining the unity of the Church throughout the world by insuring the truth and unity of the faith and practice of their diocese. The bishop represent his particular diocese to the other churches or dioceses, and represents the Universal Church to his own particular priests (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Priest), deacons (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Deacon), and people.
According to Church Law (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Canon_law), bishops of an area must meet in councils (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Council). When doing so, the metropolitan or patriarchate presides administratively.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Metropolitan

Do your research before making these ridiculous statements please. Downright wrong information (willfully?) like this is extremely insulting.

[Churchwork]

Biblically, a bishop is an Elder of a locality, not a successor to an Apostle. Apostles work regionally to appoint Elders of a locality. If anyone is in place as a type of Christ it is an Apostle, because an Apostle is directly commissioned by God, whereas a Bishop is appointed by an Apostle to take care of a Biblical city. There is also no set apart priests in the Bible, for all Christians are priests and saints. We are a royal priesthood. So you can see the entire structure of the Roman and Eastern Churches are wrong and thus, not of God. Hence the Bible considers them to be the great harlot (Rev. 17) that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8). In the Bible, there is no diocese. An Elder of a locality is never in charge of more than one locality. It is only Apostles who work regionally like for the churches of Judea or the churches of Switzerland.

[OrthodoxChristian]

Biblically, a bishop is an Elder of a locality, not a successor to an Apostle.When the Church started that was the case but as Christianity spread there arose a need for regional bishops to keep unity within the church. The ideal situation would be a bishop for every city which is how it was when the church started.

As for a bishop being a successor to an apostle, that's just the way it is. Think of it this way: say I started a company. When I died or left, someone would succeed me or take my place.

For example:

Walt Disney was succeeded by Roy Miller who was succeeded by Michael Eisner who was succeeded by Bob Iger... all of these people are Walt Disney's "successors". That's how the idea of Apostolic Succession works.


There is also no set apart priests in the Bible, for all Christians are priests and saints. We are a royal priesthood.So you're against clergy altogether eh? No pastors? No "elders"?

"Priest" is just another name for "pastor" or "presbyter". All "pastors" are "priests".


So you can see the entire structure of the Roman and Eastern Churches are wrong and thus, not of God. Nope. Your accusations against the Orthodox Church are wrong. I would know... I'm Orthodox.

Just an FYI, the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church are NOT the same churches so please do not lump us into the "evil Roman church" category. The Eastern Church is not "Catholic without the Pope".

[Churchwork]

When the Church started that was the case but as Christianity spread there arose a need for regional bishops to keep unity within the church. The ideal situation would be a bishop for every city which is how it was when the church started.
I don't believe that, since the Apostles still remain the regional workers. You have to understand the organizing of the Church is informal. This is ideal.


As for a bishop being a successor to an apostle, that's just the way it is. Think of it this way: say I started a company. When I died or left, someone would succeed me or take my place.There are no verses in the Bible for Bishops becoming Apostles in successorship. In fact, there is no successorship at all. Apostles are directly commissioned by God, and as Apostles make their rounds to the church localities for their region of churches, they try to ensure each locality has an Elder (Bishop) responsible for appointing the Elders of the meeting places within the locality. That's just the way it is. Any system that violates this principle violates biblocality in God's word.


For example:

Walt Disney was succeeded by Roy Miller who was succeeded by Michael Eisner who was succeeded by Bob Iger... all of these people are Walt Disney's "successors". That's how the idea of Apostolic Succession works.There is no successorship in God's word. It is entirely up to God who He directly commissions as an Apostle. There may be none for a time or there could be several in a region. It's informal. Elders are different. They are appointed by an Apostle for a locality. Can an Elder become an Apostle? Certainly, but not based on appointment by someone, but based on God directly commissioning that worker to be an Apostle. He may no longer be an Elder or now be both an Apostle and an Elder. An Apostle can at the same time be both an Apostle and Elder if he is also in charge of a locality. He could also be in charge of a meeting place. But normally Apostles are too busy traveling from one locality to the next. However, it is good from time to time the Apostles of a region of churches get together for the region of churches to agree upon the questions you see in our profile. Each region of churches usually has a center locality that the Apostles would meet at from time to time.


So you're against clergy altogether eh? No pastors? No "elders"?

"Priest" is just another name for "pastor" or "presbyter". All "pastors" are "priests".There are no priests because the Bible says every Christian is a saint, a royal priesthood. Pastors are part of the 4 fold ministry (Eph. 4.11) as shepherds and teachers. Elders are of two types. And Elder of a locality appointed by a regional Apostle, and an Elder of a meeting place, approved by the Elder of that city of believers.

Biblically the term priest is inappropriate for workers because all Christians are priests. In keeping with the Bible we are royal priesthood. Hence, no clergy and no intermediary priesthood. In fact, the pastoral system of always having someone up at the podium is wrong. It is better to have smaller groups of 50 if possible seated around a circle or throughout a house broken up into two or three groups and allow everyone to share and participate with what they have to offer. Larger settings of thousands gathered should be less frequent if at all as was at Pentecost or when Jesus saw 500 at one time.


Nope. Your accusations against the Orthodox Church are wrong. I would know... I'm Orthodox.

Just an FYI, the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church are NOT the same churches so please do not lump us into the "evil Roman church" category. The Eastern Church is not "Catholic without the Pope".Any system that teaches you can lose salvation is wrong since the Bible says those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). They try to control you on this basis casting doubt into your heart. But a Christian has no doubt because he knows he can never lose salvation.

The Eastern Orthodox is like the Pergamum church period which married state and church and it is closely tied with the Roman Church in that it has many of the same false teachings: sinless Mary, non-OSAS, amillennialism, infant baptism, etc. to name just a few. Though technically it is not the great harlot of religious Rome, it is taken from the same cloth.

[OrthodoxChristian]

The Eastern Orthodox is like the Pergamum church period which married state and church and it is closely tied with the Roman Church in that it has many of the same false teachings: sinless Mary, non-OSAS, amillennialism, infant baptism, etc. to name just a few. Though technically it is not the great harlot of religious Rome, it is taken from the same cloth.
I disagree. I don't have time to cover every point now but I will get to it in detail eventually.

I assure you that my faith is in Christ, and Christ is the center of the Orthodox Church. He always has and He always has been.

But for now, brother, blessings and peace be with you, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, AMEN.

[Churchwork]

To consider whether you are saved, I would first inquire about whether you think you could lose salvation and if you accept the Jesus who will return to reign on earth for the 1000 years and if you think Mary was never selfish or without sin? I might even want to ask you, do you accept Israel as the center of all nations from where Christ will reign in the 3rd Temple in Jerusalem? That's just for starters considering your profile: many more issues like you adding books to the 66 books of God's word and not accepting there is a real place called Hell. When you are wrong on so many items you really do place yourself in the category of the unsaved tares trying to look like the saved wheat as there are far many more unsaved in Christendom than there are saved.