[wepoiyub]

If I may intervene without causing misunderstandings, I would like to bring here another point of view, which however is very delicate, but not far from truth.
If we, orthodox people, are only 10% of the Christians and x% of the non-Christians,will it be correct for us to suppose that the other 90% will be certainly lost? Are we right when we think that if a certain person, Christian or not, haven't heard about orthodoxy but living his life according to God commandments...Romans 2:15...will he be lost as he is not orthodox? however me, an orthodox, having all the treasury at hand and living a Christian life so far from what would be expected...
However, those who know Orthodoxy and deny it- or even have the chance to know Orthodoxy but still rebuke, they are heretics and commit the sin of heresy; but how many are they? are they 90%?
Anyway, I think that this subject is so complex and we may relate to it only humanly; we do not know God's ways; and is not our business!
I found a true orthodox way of thinking in this regard, a patristic: the devil asked a simple monk 'who are the sheep and who are the goats?' ' I am the goat and God knows His sheep'

[biannaruh]

Like the Apostles, with a great sense of urgency, we should try to spread the Truth everywhere because this is what Jesus asked us to do in Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". That's why I care about numbers, not in a sense to say my Religion is the biggest and most popular, but to ask my self is my Religion (who holds the Truth) doing everything possible to convert as many people as possible? Because this is what Jesus asked us to do. In the end how many will be saved only God knows...all we can do is try to help Him save as many as possible. You're forgetting a crucial point, and one which others on this thread have made: that of human free will which will either accept or reject what an Orthodox Christian has to say. Even the Apostles had this problem, there is nothing new under the sun, and we also have the parable of the Sower: You can lead a horse to the living Water, but it's up to the horse if it wants to drink ...

[ImmimiFruff]

Olga,
I agree with your point that "it's up to the horse if it wants to drink", but for the "horse" to actually have a choice and exercise its "free will" somebody should bring "living water" to the horse. That's all I'm saying we should do as Christians bring "living water" to the horse, explain why this is good for the horse and then let the horse decide.

[immoceefe]

I would tackle this question a bit differently, from the level of experience. Our knowledge of history is of course part of our experience, our theological knowledge is part of our experience, but I am thinking more in terms of the experience of harmony and union with God and with His creation. If that experience is real and substantial, then it colors our outlook and perception. And when we observe and experience our world, we will look for evidence and signs of that harmony at work, we will acquire a spirit of serenity and not be easily provoked by discord, whereas it will not appear as such to others. If, on the other hand, we suffer from a state of inner fragmentation, then when we look around us and perceive the world as it appears from such an inner state , we will only see disharmony and fragmentation and find no sense in it and it will be very alarming to us and a cause of great anxiety. And we will wish to come up with some scheme to overcome the disharmony, usually by trying to impose our will arbitrarily on others. The third possibility of course is that our supposed spiritual knowledge is only superficial at best and based on a too literal reading of things, and proudly boast that we are one of the elect.

[ButKnillinoi]

Dear Antoni,

Mere mortals like you and me can not know how many will be saved. A Greek priest once told me that according to the "Book of Revelation" one-third will be saved. On the other hand, many theologians even in traditional days interpretted the "one-third of stars falling" in Revelations optimistically, to mean that two-thirds are saved. Others would interpret the "narrow gate" statements and such to mean that few are saved.

So what do you think "Many are called, few are chosen ... (Matthew 22:14)" means?

Having said that, although we can not know how many will be saved we do know that God desires all to be saved (do you agree with that?). So as Christians we have a responsibility to try to save as many of the "lost sheep" as possible so "there's joy in heaven". That's what I mean by saying that "numbers matter". I mean that we shouldn't just sit on our lap congratulate ourselves and say "Naaah, the world doesn't deserve the Church and the Truth anyway". We teach Truth in faith and love, and point out error as best we can, yes? No?

Like the Apostles, with a great sense of urgency, we should try to spread the Truth everywhere because this is what Jesus asked us to do in Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". That's why I care about numbers, not in a sense to say my Religion is the biggest and most popular, but to ask my self is my Religion (who holds the Truth) doing everything possible to convert as many people as possible? Because this is what Jesus asked us to do. In the end how many will be saved only God knows...all we can do is try to help Him save as many as possible.

One final note, I do believe that many Protestant sects are in serious heresy, but I do admire their missionary zeal We don't "help" by simply assuming people teaching wrong doctrine get "saved" as well, nor do we simply accept wrong teachings even though they have "missionary zeal". So do the Moslems for that matter and their numbers are growing like crazy right now, so should we assume what they are doing is God pleasing?

My parish is mostly converts and we are reaching out in faith and love and Truth to save as many around us as possible, even as St. Seraphim of Sarov teaches "Acquire the spirit of God, and around you thousands will be saved." So, in that light, does it really matter what the Catholics or Protestants or Moslems do? Isn't it what I do that matters, to seek first the Kingdom (Luke 12:31) and the Peace of Christ which surpasses understanding (Philippians 4:7), so that I am ready at all times, when questioned, to defend the hope that is in me (Colossians 4:6), and by my witness sow the seed that another might reap (John 4:37)? And in the end. regardless of what others do or teach, all I can do is answer as Joshua did: "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:15)

Just askin'

Herman the curious Pooh

[ButKnillinoi]

One last thought. I cannot attest or witness to Christ in the Catholic or Protestant churches. I can only witness that I have encountered Christ in a way I never did as a Protestant and say with Philip; "come and see" (John 1:46).

Herman the encountering Pooh

[Matajic]

God desires all to be saved... which is why He has offered the Church to the world since the day of her founding, to be, as His Body, the light that shines into the darkness; and the darkness receives it not, but the darkness does not overcome it.

INXC, Fr Irenei

[addifttiest]

I always struggle with that. If the Orthodox Church is the only true Church, why did God allow it to currently comprise just 10% of all Christians? Why did God let 90% of all "nominal" Christians become un-Orthodox.?

Could not the same be said for Roman catholics? If Rome is truly the one true church then why would God allow the heterodox to denounce the roman faith?

[popsicesHoupe]

Having said that, although we can not know how many will be saved we do know that God desires all to be saved (do you agree with that?). So as Christians we have a responsibility to try to save as many of the "lost sheep" as possible so "there's joy in heaven". That's what I mean by saying that "numbers matter". I mean that we shouldn't just sit on our lap congratulate ourselves and say "Naaah, the world doesn't deserve the Church and the Truth anyway".

... That's why I care about numbers, not in a sense to say my Religion is the biggest and most popular, but to ask my self is my Religion (who holds the Truth) doing everything possible to convert as many people as possible?

Frankly, you don't need numbers to determine that. Just a good, hard, honest look at oneself. To look at numbers as a determinant of whether one is properly conducting outreach, is to run the risk of altering the message to increase the numbers - which I think we all agree is not the way to go.

In any case, the initial idea being debated, was of using the proportion a given faith community represented in the population, as evidence (or lack thereof) for its being the True Faith, not as an indicator of its missionary effectiveness. And the argument of "numbers don't matter" was in that context - of determining "who's right", so to speak.

In Christ,
Michael

[citicroego]

but to ask my self is my Religion (who holds the Truth) doing everything possible to convert as many people as possible? This is an attitude that I have seen among many Orthodox, and yet I have to ask myself is this really within the Patristic mind of what the job of the Church is? I simply do not see this attitude in Scripture of the Church Fathers - it is purely a modern misreading. St Paul talks about being the aroma of Christ to those who are coming alive, and the aroma of death to those who are perishing. It seems to me that if we read the NT carefully and look at the history of the Church and also at the Patristic understanding of salvation and the Church's role in salvation it is not our job to 'convert' people, but rather to struggle toward Christ-likeness so that we too can be the aroma of Christ to those around us.

Zeal is good, but zeal without knowlege is not. It is one thing to answers people's questions and be willing to be a support and a resource to those who are drawn to Christ and His Church. It is another thing entirely to push people toward something that WE think is good for them. The latter, even undertaken with the seeming best of intentions ends up being dehumanizing. It is us trying to push our will and our ideas of what is right and good on others. This is why Orthodoxy stresses that our ascetical struggle to purify ourselves from sin, receive the Holy Spirit and become like Christ is our first priority.

[ButKnillinoi]

Could not the same be said for Roman catholics? If Rome is truly the one true church then why would God allow the heterodox to denounce the roman faith?

To be fair, I think Angelos' point is that "salvation" might be bigger than either the Catholic or Orthodox churches--a popular idea--even if it is not really supported by the Patristics avowed by both churches!

[addifttiest]

So we are talking about salvation? Doesn't this go back to the old debate as to whether Christ died for the sins of "all" or for "many"? I forget where that verse comes from the NT.

[ImmimiFruff]

Herman,

Yes I do think that "salvation might be bigger than either the Catholic or Orthodox churches". Having said that, I do believe that both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches offer the complete road map to salvation. How many of their adherents actually take advantage of it, I have no idea.

Regarding our Protestant brothers in Christ I tend to be agnostic. I would venture to say that any Protestant who loves his/her neighbor as oneself and loves God with all his/her heart is probably in good shape with Jesus even if he's on the wrong side of the argument regarding the "filioque" (just to mention an exampe).

So regarding the need to do missionary work I was referring mostly to pagans in places like Africa and Asia and not towards heterodox Christians.

Finally, to answer Jason's point, I do believe that Christ died for "all" and not for "many"

[ButKnillinoi]

You didn't answer any of my other questions, but you might be interested to know that the Orthodox Church in Africa is growing rapidly, and the Orthodox Church in Malaysia is also growing despite severe persecution.

It is not our place to judge the relationship between God and another person, I wouldn't begin to try. But at the same time, if asked, I would not say that the Methodist Church is "just as good" a path as the Orthodox Church.

You might enjoy this story by the Russian writer, Tolstoy: Three Hermits.

[Matajic]

Dear friends,

Let us not, please, let this thread veer into a discussion about which bodies today may or may not be Church, offer paths to salvation, etc.; this is, as we all know, well outside the scope of this forum. Please keep focused on the question about why God allows heresy to thrive, as understood from the Orthodox Church's patristic heritage.

INXC, Fr Irenei

[ImmimiFruff]

As many posters stated God allows heresies to thrive because he allows free will. Having said that, it is unusual that for the last 1000 years God has not intervened, as He did for example with Arianism, to ensure the continued dominance of Orthodoxy. My conclusion is that God in the end willed today’s minor heresies to thrive because given the sinful human nature that was the in the best, though imperfect, interest of Christianity. Let us ask ourselves which is the only developed country in the world where Christianity is still vibrant, secularism is not dominating, and the average person goes to Church every Sunday? It’s the US. A country where no dominant State-sponsored Church exists and where different denominations compete for the hearts and minds of the average person.

Gallup poll created a “religiosity index based how often people go to Church and how important they view religion in their life. The US had an index of 61, Portugal 57, Italy 56, Greece 52, Armenia 50, Israel 44, Germany 37, Ukraine 37, Spain 32, France 30, Russia 28, Sweden 23. Latin Americans countries, where Protestants and Catholics are doing aggressive missionary work were higher than the US (e.g, Brazil 69, Colombia 69)

[Matajic]

Angelos: you seem to have missed a point made earlier. When God intervened in the Arian debate, He did not ensure 'the continued dominance of Orthodoxy'. He ensured that the true light was not lost in the darkness; but Arians were (numerically) in the majority for quite some time.

I must admit I find your latest post baffling, purely in its attempted details. Despite your statement, I would characterise the US as a country in which secularism has a radical hold on almost every dimension of life, particularly religious ideals and practices.

The Fathers of the Church, for their part, would never allow for a moment the idea that God purposefully allows heresies to thrive 'because that was in the best, though imperfect, interest of Christianity'. The existence of heresy is always the chaos of sin. In her encounter with it, the Church may helpfully create new terms, new modes of articulation or speech; but heresy itself is always darkness, always against the Church. She struggles in this context; she bears the marks and scars of her Master; and like Him she defeats the darkness and is purified through the struggle -- but sin is always sin, and God always works against sin, never as one permissive of it.

INXC, Fr Irenei

[biannaruh]

My conclusion is that God in the end willed today’s minor heresies to thrive because given the sinful human nature that was the in the best, though imperfect, interest of Christianity. Are there any human beings, Angelos, who can presume to know the mind of God? This line of reasoning reminds me of another recent non-Orthodox poster (who has, in the last couple of months, remained silent) who tried to argue that the Great Schism of the eleventh century was "beneficial" to Orthodoxy.

Your comment of "today’s minor heresies" is meaningless. Heresy is heresy, heresy is a distortion of the true Faith. Period. The Orthodox Church does not distinguish between "major" and "minor" heresies, in the same way as it does not categorise sin as "venial" and "mortal". It is impossible to be "a little bit pregnant".

[ImmimiFruff]

Father Irenaeus,

Would you agree that there are many heretics who do God's work on earth? No person is perfect, everyone is a sinner. For me heretics are not worse sinners, just Christians who do not get the full benefit of our Lord's Truth, like our Orthodox brothers do. If anything Orthodox (and for me Catholics as well) have less of an excuse when they sin given the Truth that is more accessible to them

For me the real sinners are those who do not feed the hungry, do not give water to the thirsty, do not welcome strangers, do not clothe the naked and do not visit the ill and those in prison (as per Matthew 25). So in the end we need to look at someone in his/her totallity and prioritize those attributes that Jesus did (i.e., love for God and love for neighbor).

Finally, I had the opportunity to live in England, Greece and the US. I stand by my view, as supported by scientific research, that people care about God and His Son in the US way more than in Europe. I'm a born again Christian (now Catholic, raised Orthodox) and I believe that if I had not lived in the US I would not have rediscovered Christ.

[Matajic]

Dear Angelos: you are delving into rather tried and tired territory here (which I do not mean as a personal affront; simply as recognition that this is where such conversations almost always lead) - namely, taking the question of whether and why God allows heresy to survive/thrive, and transforming it into a much more generic question on whether people outside the Church can do good things. Of course they can; of course people in the Church are sinners. These are distractions from the true question. The true question is whether heresy itself, as a category and way of existing, can in any sense be seen as something that God purposefully allows to persist in order to benefit Christians; and here there is no possibility of that being answered 'yes' in any way that is consonant with patristic thought. It is simply inconceivable that God would intentionally employ darkness to foster light - He 'in whom there is no darkness at all'. You mustn't try to make your point by in fact side-stepping it all together into something which may emotionally resonate, but which doesn't in any way address the theological question.

As to the cultural question: I know of no sociological study in the world that would identify any culture as more secular than the USA. England may be, spiritually, a far more apathetic culture, and America a far more spiritually exuberant one; and both are heavily secular. But between the two, America is secularised to a complete different level.

INXC, Fr Irenei