Why did God forget to mention Eternal Damnation in most of the Old Testament?

Today in fundamentalist//evangelical/orthodox (conservative) Christianity what is the worst consequence of turning your back on God?

Answer:  eternal damnation

Now, the details of what “eternal damnation” actually entails differs by denomination and even within conservative denominations.  Here are some of the most common descriptions:

1.  A place of eternal torment; burning but never dying in real flames of fire; brimstone; worms that do not die; gnashing of teeth; total darkness.  Hell.

2.  A place of psychological/spiritual torment, but no actual physical pain.

3.  Eternal separation from God.

Obviously, the first option is horrific and unimaginable, but the second option isn’t pleasant either.  Suffering that never ends is still horrific.  The third option is very vague.  Does it mean that we go on living, partying, having fun…just all without God?  I doubt it.  I would guess that the people who use this concept imagine it as if God puts you in the corner…forever.  Still not a pleasant experience.

So isn’t it strange that if that is what every human being who has ever lived faces if he turns his back on God and dies…the God of the Old Testament never said a word about any concept of an afterlife until after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians??

Let’s look at a few examples:

In the Garden of Eden, what was God’s warning regarding eating the forbidden fruit?  Eternal damnation in hell?  Nope.  Never mentioned.  Don’t you think that might be a detail that Adam and Eve should have known to help them resist the temptation of Satan?  Imagine if God had said to Adam and Eve:  “If you eat from this tree you and every child born to you, and every descendent thereafter for the next 6,000 years will be cast into utter darkness, into a place of torment “where the worm dieth not and the fire is never quenched!”

But, no, God says nothing about eternal torment in hell or any other type of eternal punishment.  What does he say?  Answer:  “You will surely die.”  I don’t know about you but I would much rather cease existing than writhe in agony in the flames of hell for all eternity!

Now, I know that conservative Christians will read this statement and start jumping up and down saying, “God meant both physical AND spiritual death…in hell!”  But that is not what the Good Book says, Pilgrim!  You are reading into the passage your own bias.

And what about the Great Flood?  Did God warn the people of the earth that if they didn’t repent they would all be drowned, and, much, much worse, they would all burn forever in the Lake of Fire?  Nope.  Not a word.

And how about Pharaoh and the Egyptians?  Did God order Moses to warn Pharaoh that all the first born of Egypt would be killed…and then cast into Hell to suffer unspeakable eternal torment?  Nope.  Never mentioned.

So in story after brutal story of the Old Testament God harshly punishes the stubborn, complaining Hebrews, often killing large numbers of them…but never warning them of Hell and eternal torment.  And never sending a warning to the “evil” inhabitants of Canaan that if they did not repent, not only would they be slaughtered by the sword down to the newborn baby, but they would spend an eternity in hell “where the worm dieth not.”

Nope.  Not a word.

So it isn’t until the time of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel do we start seeing a concept of an afterlife and suggestions of eternal punishment and suffering for evil.  Why did God wait to bring up the danger of eternal damnation and the opportunity for eternal bliss until that point in time?

Many non-fundamentalist Christian scholars believe that this is why:

The early Hebrews had no concept of an afterlife.  No heaven/paradise and no hell.  This life was it.  But if you wanted a good life with material blessings, you had to obey Yahweh.  If you didn’t obey him, he would curse you and maybe even kill you.  Obedience to Yahweh brought happiness, material wealth, and the possession of the land (Canaan).

The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the Captivity in Babylon destroyed the concept of receiving blessings in this life.  This life was a living hell for the captive Hebrews!  The Hebrew people were severely depressed and hopeless, living in a foreign land, essentially as slaves.  So, what did the Hebrew priestly class do:  they created a belief in an afterlife.  “If you obey Yahweh and his laws, God may not bless you in this life, but he will bless you in the afterlife.  But if you disobey him in this life, He will punish you in the afterlife.”  So this is the beginning of the belief that would eventually become Hell:  a place of everlasting horrific torment for those who disobey the laws of Yahweh.

So, isn’t it odd that a God who states that he never changes, tells NO ONE for thousands of years that if they reject him, he will send them to a place of eternal torment, possibly including eternal burning?  Either this God is very forgetful or this God is not just.  In fact, this God by any standard of decency would have to be Evil incarnate…to send people to a place of eternal torment without ever warning them of its existence.

47 thoughts on “Why did God forget to mention Eternal Damnation in most of the Old Testament?

  1. I took a class on “Heaven and Hell” by an Eastern Orthodox priest. He led us through the whole Bible on both. (He jokingly said that by the time we were through we were going to feel “like Baptists” with looking up all the Bible references he gave us.) According to the EO, it's in there (hell in the OT).



  2. Where?

    Please give me a passage prior to Isaiah and Jeremiah that discusses a place of eternal torment for the wicked.

    All references to Sheol refer to the grave. Even believers went to Sheol.


  3. I can't — I'm in St. Louis — all my notes are at home in Michigan! Right now I can only remember that there are 4 “levels” of hell. Each has a different name and description and function. Also, the EO have a version of purgatory much like the Roman Catholics. It is somewhat different, but still a version of purgatory. When we die, according to them, we ALL go to this “place.” We need to become perfectly clean by repenting of all of our sins — because no unrepented sin can enter into heaven. It is not a place of torment. It is similar to what CS Lewis described in his book, “The Great Divorce.”



  4. There is no teaching of “hell” in the books Gary is willing to accept. He is correct about this. The only problem though is that he takes it to be that just because it was not taught early on must mean it was not taught at all. Christ taught it, that is all we need if we are Christians. His beef would be with a branch of Judaism.

    There are shadows then there is light, Christ came to replace/fulfill/expose the shadows. There are books in what we consider the OT which do teach life after death, Isaiah, Psalms, Job, etc but Gary won't accept those because they won't prove his point. You are debating Christianity, therefore what Christ teaches and says is THE most important thing we need to know, Christ taught there is a heaven and a hell. End of debate as far as Christians are concerned. If you want to ignore what Christ said then you are no longer debating Christianity.

    Really, this stuff is not so hard to figure out.


  5. No, not that easy. It would not necessarily be under “hell.” As I said, he taught that there were 4 different names, descriptions, and functions. I can't remember those. Sorry. (Also, I'm not saying that I/we [Lutherans] agree with their teaching. I was only saying that that is what they believe.) He (the priest) gave a very thorough teaching of this. It was seven weeks long and was like a college level course.



  6. From the Orthodox Church in America's website:

    According to the saints, the “fire” that will consume sinners at the coming of the Kingdom of God is the same “fire” that will shine with splendor in the saints. It is the “fire” of God’s love; the “fire” of God Himself who is Love. “For our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29) who “dwells in unapproachable light.” (I Timothy 6:16) For those who love God and who love all creation in Him, the “consuming fire” of God will be radiant bliss and unspeakable delight. For those who do not love God, and who do not love at all, this same 66consuming fire” will be the cause of their “weeping” and their “gnashing of teeth.”

    Thus it is the Church’s spiritual teaching that God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment. God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God’s splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light.

    … those who find themselves in hell will be chastised by the scourge of love. How cruel and bitter this torment of love will be! For those who understand that they have sinned against love, undergo no greater suffering than those produced by the most fearful tortures. The sorrow which takes hold of the heart, which has sinned against love, is more piercing than any other pain. It is not right to say that the sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God… But love acts in two ways, as suffering of the reproved, and as joy in the blessed! (St. Isaac of Syria, Mystic Treatises)

    This teaching is found in many spiritual writers and saints: St. Maximus the Confessor, the novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky. At the end of the ages God’s glorious love is revealed for all to behold in the Face of Christ. Man’s eternal destiny – heaven or hell, salvation or damnation – depends solely on his response to this love.


  7. This to me sounds like typical revisionist, wishy-washy, liberal Christian BS. “Oh…my, my, my…the terrible suffering of being separated from God's love in hell.”

    Sorry. That is no the picture that your Lord, Jesus painted of hell. Even if it is true:

    It is still punishment.
    It is still eternal.
    It is still unjust.


  8. Yes I do, and I know this argument you are trying to set up. The trinity would consist of Christ etc and the OT would mean Christ was present. Christ was present but Christianity was not, Christ had not come and He had not taught and He had not submitted, suffered, sacrificed etc. Those things were not complete in the OT but they became complete when He came. Just as the teaching of heaven and hell became complete when He came.


  9. I guess, only because they believe it (hell) and the priest gave Bible passages where some come from the OT.



  10. Do you believe that God, who includes the person of Christ, sent all non-believers in Yahweh during the time period of the Old Testament to an eternal place of torment, hell?


  11. Exactly.

    If hell is eternal torture, why then didnt this happen?

    God: Dont eat of the tree in the midst of the garden.

    Adam: Why God? Why? Why?

    Eve: Yeh why? It looks so good! Please can we eat it God! Please! Come on!

    Adam: Yeh don't be such a meanie!

    God: Because if you do, there will be dire consequences.

    Adam: Like what?

    Eve: What could be worse than not eating the delicious fruit!

    God: See that over there?

    Adam: What on earth?

    Eve: Goodness me!

    God: That is my torture chamber. If you disobey, I will bind you and throw you into it and there I will roast you and keep you alive for eternity. Got it?

    Adam: yes.

    Eve: *Faints*

    If Hell is eternal torture, then how come God didn't warn Adam and Eve first thing?


  12. Here's what you fail to see in this deriding you have about Christianity and its teachings.

    For the believer when Adam and Eve disobeyed God which is called sin, man lost personal fellowship with his Creator at that time. The loss of communication with God in the sense from being obedient and good and holy at one time and the next time standing before God as rebellious, sinful, and evil is another condition that is so outside the state at which God wants man to be with him

    These were his first two human contacts he created so it was not some ordinary situation. For Adam and Eve to lose this connection was hell. There was no other feeling they ever felt before to feel so seperated from his presence..

    We thousands of years later have never had physical contact with him. And besides that the teaching of the consequence for hell as a place for punishment would come later. As Matthew says that hell was not originally made for human beings but the satan and his fallen angels. But later it was but this is only a holding place for all that are disobedient and rebellious before God.


  13. I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand though. The topic is that you are insinuating that hell must not be real since the books of the OT you are willing to accept do not teach it clearly. Are we off into what I believe now or are we discussing your assertions still? If you are conceding the point then we can move on and discuss what I believe. Until then I am debating what you assert.


  14. Gary, how can you — a mortal, sinful human — determine what is “just” since you can't conceive of holiness and eternity?



  15. The assertion of this article is that there is no mention of a place of eternal suffering (hell) in much of the first part of the OT. So can you now answer my question?


  16. “The assertion of this article is that there is no mention of a place of eternal suffering (hell) in much of the first part of the OT.”

    Correct, and this is what I am debating.

    “So can you now answer my question?”

    Again, this has zero to do with the topic being debated. Concede the debate and we will move on to this but until then I'm not being sidetracked.


  17. Hey,

    Btw, I'm the same guy who posted yesterday about “liberal Christianity” and whatnot. Brace yourself, this is going to be a long one.

    First off, I'm gonna come out: Eastern Orthodox here (albeit with some doubts, like most everyone, I think) and.. I really think there's NOTHING inherently liberal or wishy-washy about Orthodoxy. If anything, we're one of the most “hardcore” denominations out there when it comes to how we're supposed to practice Christianity; albeit, much like the Catholic Church, we also cater to a large flock of not-very-practicing faithful (of which I admit being a member most of the time).

    Again, you're coming from a very specific branch of Christianity. Most mainline Christian denominations don't hold the Bible as inerrant. Orthodoxy and Catholicism in particular, because of their history and (opposing )claims of being the One, True Church, teach it to be more or less on par with Church tradition; which makes sense, since the Bible was voted upon by church councils anyway (at least that's the view we stand by) and also because it's a bit arbitrary to say “God gave humanity the Bible over a thousand years but then decided to stay silent forever and just let us go with it”. A proper reading of the Bible reveals that it's both not “inerrant”, at least as fundamentalist protestants define it, and that, of course, God reveals Himself over time, so that it would be absurd to not accept anything beyond the Bible, at least in our view.

    Again, I think I see where you're coming from (though I say this with some reserve, as my experience with Christianity was diametrically opposite to yours), but non-“Sola Scriptura” Christians aren't a fringe of liberals, these are very real and very historic and very deeply-rooted traditions in the church. If anything, from a Catholic or Orthodox background, the Evangelicals kind of seem like a crazy (or, at least, misguided) cult to us. And of course, that's without counting the actual liberal protestants, who read the Bible in a non-compulsive fashion.


  18. Here's a quote on how a lot of us view the Bible fundies, at least from a conservative Catholic/Orthodox perspective:

    “. . . I find it very difficult to take some of the Protestant propositions even seriously. What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”

    Sorry for the rant, mate… peace, and God bless


  19. Abby: How can you continue to believe in Yahweh and all his baloney when I have shown you that he is nothing more than an ancient Canaanite imaginary deity, no different from Ra, Baal, or Zeus??

    If Yahweh is God, then everything you say is true. I=But if Yahweh is an ancient middle eastern superstition, then all your beliefs are silly, superstitious nonsense.

    Prove to me first that Yahweh is the Creator God before you ask me theological questions based on a non-existent deity.


  20. Ok, here I'll let you have your way.

    I assert that hell does not exist, because Yahweh does not exist, and since Jesus believed he was one and the same with Yahweh, Jesus was not God. Therefore the entire orthodox/conservative Christian religion is built on nothing but superstition and a mistaken messiah.


  21. St. Paul said, if the resurrection is not true — then go be a hedonist. Since you believe the resurrection is not true, you can be a hedonist.
    “(one's personal) … pleasure is the highest good.” No consequences or cost to anyone else. No rules.

    There is no justice in hedonism. It doesn't need to exist.



  22. Did you not come to the conclusion, on another post, that the Bible is a credible historic book? What do you mean by that exactly?



  23. Dear Anon: I believe that the OCA is considered a liberal branch of the EOC. I am not labeling all EOC or even all OCA as liberals.

    Conservative Protestants base their beliefs on a Book. Conservative Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox base their beliefs on a Book…as interpreted by Church authorities.

    It still all comes down to believing that a book, which is a collection of separate books, written by men, many of whom are anonymous, was written under the inspiration of the Creator God.

    I have shown several times in recent posts that Jesus and the god of the OT CANNOT be one and the same.


  24. The Bible is an historical book. Period. I never said it is credible in what it says.

    The Iliad is an historical book. But that doesn't mean that I believe in the existence of Cyclops'.


  25. Abby: So because a life of hedonism is bad, that proves the Jesus is God??

    You are not making sense.

    Without Jesus, many cultures do just fine. You don't need a belief in Jesus to have a stable, safe, well-functioning culture. Please prove to me that Jesus of Nazareth was God…and then preach the Bible to me. Until you do so, you might as well be reading the Koran or some other religion's holy book to me.


  26. Ok, so what do you want me or anyone else to do about that? I thought this was a debate, what you just did was make a dogmatic negative assertion. You are doing exactly what most atheists would never do and actually assert a negative as fact. You cannot assert that which you do not believe to be true or factual. To assert something you must believe it or find it to be factual, you cannot assert that which you do not believe. It's impossible. This is like me asserting atheism is 100% correct or Darwinian evolution is a fact! I can't do it because I do not believe either to be true or factual.


  27. To Orthodox Anonymous: Thank you for your perspective. I have the highest respect for Orthodoxy. Concerning the inerrancy issue — I asked an EO priest about it. He told me that Scripture is both human and Divine. It is Wisdom. He also said Bart Ehrman “is a clown.” I have attended many EO services. All of their services are replete with Scripture. All of the elements used in worship are replete with Christ. I refer to them often because I view them as the historic church that goes all the way back to the Apostles. I was also told at the Orthodox church that they are much closer to LCMS Lutherans than they are to the Roman Catholics. From my experience they don't look down on Martin Luther that much. Somewhat mistaken, yes. But our view of the Sacraments are acceptable by them. (At least the ones I am familiar with. Antiochian.) Our baptisms are considered as legitimate as a Christian baptism. They do like to convert Lutherans though. 🙂



  28. “You are not making sense.” That is very probable. I wish I was infinitely more intelligent. I really do. I wish I was smarter and had more experience than Ehrman. Then maybe my words would be of more help to you.



  29. Also, I have been trying to be “good,” according to your rules — by not quoting the Bible to you. I certainly would not be using the Koran. (They also believe in heaven and hell.)



  30. “Many cultures do just fine.” I don't know of any culture that does not kill its own members for domination for one reason or another. You refer to Native Americans often — tribal wars?



  31. Abby,

    Please answer the question: How do you know that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead and that he is God, Creator and Lord of the Universe?


  32. As I asked Abby: Based on what…do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and is the Creator God, Lord of the Universe?


  33. This is not what we are debating Gary. We are debating the when/where/why concept of hell being taught in the bible. No one cares why I believe, no one is debating what I believe. This is going nowhere quick, a debate needs to remain on topic. The bible teaches heaven and hell, maybe not in the time-frame you'd prefer or in a manner in which you prefer but it is clearly taught. Christ teaches it, Christ claims He and the Father are one. Christianity is not Christianity without Christ, you are saying that you disagree with the “hell” of Christianity and want someone to prove you wrong but only using the first 5 books of the bible.

    You permit only these books because the teaching of hell is not clearly taught in them, thus you proclaim the “hell” of Christianity is false all while refusing to hear from the founder of Christianity (Christ) His teachings on hell. If you only allow the 5 books then you're not debating Christianity or the hell of Christianity because Christianity is not known in the 5 books you allow. Christ is but not yet as a submissive sacrifice and without a submissive sacrificial Christ there is no Christianity. You are not debating the hell of Christianity, you are debating the “no hell” of the 5 books of the OT. Why not debate the “no Christ” of the 5 books since He Himself is not clearly seen yet in those books. Merely a shadow of the light (Christ) to come. When the light comes it makes visible things which were not seen/known.


  34. Gary, you were a Christian long enough. You know the answer to that question. You also know there is no proof against the resurrection. None.

    At the very beginning the antagonists to Christianity could have produced Jesus' dead body. They could not/did not do it. They could have killed Christianity from the beginning. They had opportunity and proximity and timing (like immediately). Instead, all they could do was imprison or torture the Apostle's for continuing to preach the resurrection. They could do NOTHING other than that — because they could not prove it did not happen. And the historic church, since the Apostle's, have passed down the teachings of Christ as the truth.

    So, if you can produce the dead body of Jesus — or some historic evidence of it — Christianity will be dead. Otherwise, not.



  35. No friend, the problem is you are trying to avoid any discussion that might prove your Faith wrong. You want to assert that the Christian God, Yahweh, otherwise known as God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost has always taught that there is a Hell where sinners go to be eternally punished.

    What I am saying is that the concept of an afterlife/heaven/hell has not always been the teaching of the Christian god. It developed first in the Babylonian captivity, grew under the occupation of the Greeks who brought with them the ancient Egyptian concept of Hades and the Lake of Fire, and then grew more under the Early Church as they used the fear of Hell to manipulate the ignorant masses.

    Now, hopefully you can find something in there to debate.


  36. That is down right ridiculous. I can't prove to you that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny do not exist either. Does that mean that they really do exist? Please answer the question yourself instead of referring me to links.


  37. If I am trying to avoid any discussion then I am failing miserably by participating in one. What I was wishing to do was to keep the debate on topic with the post I responded to which seems to be entirely impossible.

    Good day Gary!


  38. To Abby,

    Just for the record, I (and the EO Communion) naturally do hold the Scriptures in the highest regard. As you sajd, the service is replete with it, and we are told to study it daily as mindfully and prayerfully as any Protestant. Perhaps this didn't come off in my original post because I was mostly trying to make a point that a non-“hardline”-inerrant Bible is a legitimate Christian view. Personally, I believe in “knock and you shall receive”. The Lord will not deceive if you seek Him, and this goes for fundies too. :p However, I find the literal inerrancy doctrine very dangerous… To me at least, Scripture simply does not stand literally on its own, and to push what seems (dare I say it?) like Bible idolatry as the only form of legitimate Christianity leads only to endless mental gymnastic, willful ignorance, or else a very easy victory for atheism and eventually a painfully broken faith. Literalists set up their own strawman on a tragically serious issue.

    As to inter-denominational dialogue, that's a whole nother can of worms, but I'll have to respectfully disagree about the EO churches being closer to Protestantism than Rome in doctrine. Politically and historically, perhaps, in an “enemy of my enemy”kind of way (how very unchristian that sadly sounds). And there's a lot of deep-seated vitriol against Catholicism amongst many Orthodox. But Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the only churches, I think, that can produce a tradition with a claim to validly temper “Sola Scriptura” (though they are by no means the only churches to eschew literal readings).

    Though it is true that (de facto not being a single, centralized organization) the EO church is more open to accepting the validity of other Christian groups.

    Personally, believe no sincere worship of the Lord is in vain, and I pray that God might show others their errors if we're right, and us our own if we're at fault.


  39. To Anon Orthodox: First of all let me say, I am not arguing with you. Just a couple more points for your consideration.

    “I find the literal inerrancy doctrine very dangerous…Bible idolatry as the only form of legitimate Christianity “

    This is what the LCMS does NOT do. It has been stated over and over on this website over the last few months — as many people have tried to explain the LCMS position to Gary. We do not worship the Bible. We worship Christ alone by Faith alone. We hold Scripture in high regard because it teaches this.

    “We hold that the opinion that Scripture contains errors is a violation of the sola scriptura, for it rests upon the acceptance of some norm or criterion of truth above the Scriptures. We recognize that there are apparent contradictions or discrepancies and problems which arise because of uncertainty over the original text.” LCMS position

    To me, this seems akin to what the Orthodox priest told me about the Bible being both “human and Divine.”

    Anyway, over 100 years ago my husband's grandfather came to the U.S. from Damascus, Syria. He packed his family up and moved here specifically fleeing from religious persecution by the Muslims where he lived. He became an Orthodox priest and began two churches in my area which are still thriving today. We were married in the church and I have studied, and still do read, about Orthodoxy since then. Both of the priests of these churches know me. And I am clear that we are not together on Justification. But, I believe, in the essentials of the faith, we are together. (Of course, that is my opinion.) [My husband did convert to LCMS Lutheran — and he loved it. Even to his dying day.]

    I recently read an article that some Orthodox (I think Russian) were in talks with a European Lutheran Church body (affiliated with Lutheran World Federation). The talks broke down over the liberal issues of those Lutherans: women clergy, same-sex marriage, etc. I was actually surprised to know that they had been trying to talk as official church bodies. The same with the Roman Catholics. They have been, and still are, talking with Lutherans in the LWF. The LCMS is not a member of the LWF because of the liberal issues. This is where I disagree with you about how one looks at the Bible. The liberal Lutherans have trounced “inerrancy” to the point that — on essential points of doctrine — the EO and RCC would never be able to reconcile those differences. We are talking about matters that, in addition to what I named above, also include the denial of the virgin birth, a “spiritual” as opposed to “physical” resurrection of Christ, abortion, and others. I've always wondered why the EO and RCC have never attempted to talk to us (LCMS) since we have not compromised essential doctrines. But — who am I?

    Someday, in heaven, the faithful will be together. And all of our “word” problems will be over. 🙂

    God's blessings to you,


  40. Anon Orthodox, I forgot to mention also that the reason it was told to me that the EO is closer to (LCMS) Lutherans than to RC is that — a few LCMS pastors have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. One of them I knew and he was leading a Bible study with some lay men of one the Orthodox church's in my area that I mentioned. I guess that assessment was coming from the Lutheran pastor/now Orthodox. And somehow he was communicating that to Orthodox members of his Bible class.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s