Are there any arguments to prove that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church of the Bible that preserves the fullness of Christian faith? What are the differences between the EOC and the LRC when they have similar claims?
From my point of view, Witness Lee’s claims are based on his own opinion. The claims of the EOC have facts which can be proved with the Holy Bible, dogmatically and historically. (I am sorry, I will use my copy and paste approach to cite some other authors).
1 The Founder and the Church history.
The founder of the Local Church is not God but a Chinese man named Witness Lee. (He could be Russian, German or American – it does not matter. What matters is that the founder of the LRC was a mere mortal). Origin: 1927 So, it’s not the Church of Jesus Christ, but the church of her founder, Witness Lee, who had no historical connection to the Church of the Bible which was founded in 33 A.D.
The Orthodox Church is the first Christian Church, the Church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ at the day of Pentecost in the year 33 A.D. and described in the pages of the New Testament. Her history can be traced in unbroken continuity all the way back to Christ and His Twelve Apostles.
Writings of the early Christians (the Apostolic Fathers and the Church Fathers) support this bold claim because they describe the faith, doctrines and practices of the early Church which are similar to the Orthodox faith. (Many of the writings were lost because of the early Christian persecutions but those that exists prove that the EOC shares the faith of early Christians. For example, The Didache (mid to late first century) says that early Christians fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays – Eastern Orthodox fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, too. The Church Fathers believed in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine – the EOC holds to the same faith. (BTW, Luther shared the same believe about the Real Presence. WL rejected it)).
One of the first historians of the Church was
Eusebius (AD 260/265 – 339/340), the bishop of Caesarea. His book
The Church History was a 4th-century pioneer work giving a chronological account of the development of Early Christianity from the 1st century to the 4th century.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.toc.html
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm
In "The Church History", Eusebius describes the history of the Church of the Bible which is the history of the Orthodox Church.
The Canon of Scripture is another matter to consider. Who gave us the biblical canon? Luther? Witness Lee? Or was it the “fallen” and “pagan” Church?.. Prior to the late 4th century, there was no united canon, and that the Church had continued in the faith, united, even without having a canon, because they had the teachings of the apostles and those the apostles trusted, guiding them and guarding them in the faith, and keeping them from heresy.
Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–298 – 2 May 373) was the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. Up until then, various similar lists of works to be read in churches were in use. Athanasius compiled the list to resolve questions about such texts as The Epistle of Barnabas. Because Athanasius's canon is the closest canon of any of the Church Fathers to the canon used by Protestant churches today, many Protestants point to Athanasius as the father of the canon. (BTW, if the Church was fallen and pagan in the 4th century, why did WL use the Scriptures that the “pagan” Church leaders (like St Athanasius) had confirmed to be the New Testament? If the Church was fallen and pagan, then Witness Lee should have “recovered” another canon. Why did he use the New Testament of the "fallen" Church? In the Holy Bible, Jesus Christ never asked anyone to write down books about His life and teachings. The Apostle Paul never asked anyone to include his letters in the biblical canon and make it a part of the Scriptures. When the Lord or the apostles mentioned the Scriptures, they meant the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament) only. The New Testament didn’t exist that time. It could not be a part of the Scriptures. Centuries later, it was the Church that made decision to create the new Canon of Scripture).
The LRC is based on one man's opinion about the Bible and the Christian faith. WL changed his doctrines. In Taiwan, he had one views. In America, he had others.
It means he had no criterion of truth. The Orthodox Church has this criterion. It is the consensus of the Church Fathers.
The Orthodox Church never changed the Faith in the last 2000 years. The EO doctrines stem from early church teachings and councils. (It takes a lot of time and effort but it’s possible to check it. Just read the Nicene Creed, decisions of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and writings of early Christians).
In a thread, a brother mentioned “the Eastern Orthodox who "stayed the ancient path", even after modern highways were built”. From the Eastern Orthodox view, the modern “highways” were false roads build by those who had no idea about the ancient Christian faith. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings”. (Hebrews 13:8-9).
The followers of the highways builders are reaping the fruits now: This is an article I read last week: “
Eva Brunne, the world's first openly lesbian bishop in the Lutheran Church, has called for a church in Stockholm, Sweden, to remove all signs of the cross, and instead build an Islamic prayer room in order to welcome Muslims.”
2 Apostolic succession
The LC doesn't trace her roots from the apostles. It is the church of a man who proclaimed himself an apostle. On what basis? Can this organization be the true church? What do we mean when we say "church"?
We Orthodox Christians mean by Church the Body through which Jesus is present and active in the world today. It was founded by Christ through the apostles and has maintained a living, historical connection with the apostles through the ordination of its clergy. The fact that the bishop who ordains an Orthodox priest today can trace his ordination historically all the way back to the apostles and through them to Christ is a guarantee that the Orthodox Church was not founded by someone called Joe Smith a few centuries ago but by Christ Himself and traces its existence historically back to Jesus. We call this "apostolic succession". It means that our Church is the authentic and genuine Church or Body of Christ in the world today. It continues to teach not one man's interpretation of the faith but the complete deposit of faith as it was handed down to the Apostles by Jesus.
In the Nicene Creed of faith our Church is described as the "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church": "One" because there can only be one true Church with one head Who is Christ. "Holy" because the church seeks to sanctify and transfigure its members through the Sacraments. "Catholic" because the Church is universal and has members in all parts of the world. The word "Catholic" comes from a Greek word katholikos (kath-oh-lee-KOHS) which means world-wide or universal. '"Apostolic" because its teachings are based on the foundations laid by the Apostles from whom our Church derives its teachings and authority without break or change.
One cannot be Orthodox and reject the teachings of the fathers. True, the fathers on occasion have contradicted each other, but that is why we look at the common consensus of their teachings, and especially the Ecumenical Councils. The Eastern Orthodox Church adheres to the teaching set forth in the Creed that the Church of Christ is one.
Let’s see what the Fathers wrote about Apostolic Succession:
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107), a student of John the Apostle. In the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius wrote about three degrees ministry:
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop."
Writing about AD 94, Clement of Rome states that the apostles appointed successors to continue their work where they had planted churches and for these in their turn to do the same because they foresaw the risk of discord. He uses both 'bishop' and 'presbyter' to refer to these men.
Hegesippus (180?) and Irenaeus (180) introduce explicitly the idea of the bishop's succession in office as a guarantee of the truth of what he preached in that it could be traced back to the apostles, and they produced succession lists to back this up.
WL and his followers had no apostolic succession. They and their teaching have nothing to do with the historical Church.
3 Biblical argument.
WL believed that the historical Church became pagan and fallen. Orthodox Christians don’t share his views. The historical Church which is the Eastern Orthodox Church, founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, has never been pagan or fallen. (There is no such event or a Council when the entire Church in Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch changed Her doctrines and faith. Certain local churches like the church of Rome fell off from communion with other Orthodox churches but the entire universal Orthodox Church still keeps the union). As the Body of Christ and the sole vessel of salvation, as the pillar and foundation of truth, the Church never divided itself nor disappeared, but always, over the entire history of Christianity, taught the pure teaching of the Gospel in the abundance of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit.
If WL’s words about “the fallen Christianity”are true, then it means that the gates of Hades has overcome the Church (Matthew 16:18) and Christ has not fulfilled his promise. BTW, it was not the only promise that He gave us. “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.” (John 14:16) “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”. (John 14:26)
Where was the Holy Spirit prior to Luther, pardon, Witness Lee? Where had been Christ till 1517 or 1927? Was He with His Church or somewhere else? Wasn’t it the Lord Who said, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age”. (Matthew 28:20) What about the apostles? Does it mean that Christ chose wrong people to lead His Church? And the apostles were so incompetent that they were not able to leave good disciples? And what about the Apostle Paul who said, “to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever!” (Ephesians 3:21) It was the same apostle who called the church the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and wrote: “...just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:25-27).
In other words, if one believes that the Holy Spirit made a pause till 1517 (or 1927), or the Church had been fallen, paganized or messed up... till he or someone else recovered it, then he must admit that the Lord and the Apostle Paul were liars.
The invisible church theory doesn’t work. It contradicts the Bible. Council of Jerusalem (or Apostolic Conference) in Acts 15:6-31 was visible enough to make decisions for the whole Church.
The Lord’s words in Matthew 18:16-17 also contradict the idea of the invisible universal church: “But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
The English word “church” means “ekklesia” in Greek. In the times of the New Testament “ekklesia” meant "assembly." The word could not be referred to a never assembled group, and the invisible church has never assembled.
Another proof is Ephesians 5:23 where the Apostle Paul says, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church (ekklesia), his body, of which he is the Savior.” And, of course, Christ’s words to Peter support it more than anything else: And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18). The Lord speaks about one church (ekklesia), not many churches or assemblies.
Some more examples:
Acts 8:1: “On that day a great persecution broke out against the church (ekklesia) in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.” As we can see, it was a visible church, assembly, because you can’t persecute something which is invisible.
Ephesians 4:4–6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
If the Body is one, why is there so many churches, with different doctrines and teachings? Can one head have numerous bodies? “Is Christ divided?”(1 Corinthians 1:13)
Jesus says in John 10:16 “...there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” As we all know, the modern Christian world has no union. So, it’s impossible to call so many different churches one flock. For example, there are Protestants who call same sex relationship a sin, and there are Protestant churches that anoint lesbian bishops who are married to lesbian priests.
When the Lord said, “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them" (Matthew 18:20), He said it to his disciples. It was the words to His church, to His ekklesia, and not to self-styled assemblies and self-styled lesbian bishops and self-styled apostles like Witness Lee.
One of the main differences between the EOC and the LRC (together with other Protestant and neo-protestant churches) is that
the historical Church (Orthodox Church) is not based on the Bible. Rather, the Bible is a product of the Church. (NB The Church is based ON CHRIST). For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called "The Bible." In fact, there was no one put his hands on a single volume called "The Bible." In fact, there was no agreement regarding which "books" of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical. The Church’s holy prophets and Apostles wrote the books contained in the Bible. The Church determined which books were authoritative and belonged in Holy Scripture. The Church preserved and passed on the texts of these Scriptural books.
So, these are a few arguments to support the position of the EOC. When I share them with my wife, who is an active member of the LRC, she ignores them. She knows nothing about the Church history, nothing about writings of early Christians, nothing about the Apostolic and Church Fathers, nothing about the Creed, nothing about “the Church History” by Eusebius, nothing about the EOC (except icons which she calls idols) but she believes that the LRC is the body of Christ. What are her arguments? Because Witness Lee said so. What was his argument? I don’t know. I believe his views were based on his own personal opinion, not on facts. Personally, I believe it's only Our Lord Jesus Christ can say who of us belong to His Body. But historically and dogmatically, the LRC has nothing to do with the Church of the Bible.
I am sorry, if I offended someone. But I do believe that the EOC is the historical church, the Church of the Bible, which has never been fallen. Some people (laymen, priests, bishops, and even local Orthodox churches like the church of Rome) can fall away from the truth, but not the entire Church. Otherwise, it would contradict the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I want to finish my post by the Lord’s words from John 17:19-21: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”
God bless.