Eastern Orthodoxy

[Alchemist]

Fits nicely; the spiritually dead praying to the Dead (The Grateful Dead, that is). There is one Mediator. Any who try to enter in by any other way are thieves - RC, EO definitely fit that description. May as well pray to Garcia, would be just as effective as praying to any "co-redemptrix".

Actually, only Catholics believe that anyone is a "co-redemptrix"; we Orthodox think that's completely heretical. But if we really do worship a "pantheon of gods", I suspect this is the least we'll have to worry about!

 

[colinlindsay]

Rick - Of course you’re right about all expat ‘missionaries’ to some extent making their converts and the churches planted ‘in their own image’. “Whataboutism” isn’t what’s needed here (or probably anywhere). I’m just pointing out how this competitive and in another sense individualistic spirit originated in the protestant reformation. Now in one sense that’s been a jolly good thing (rejection of absolute secular authority, each man responsible for his own life, democracy, civil society etc etc)
And in the religious sphere, from where I am at the moment, it’s better than the hierarchical ecclesiastical alternatives (Catholicism and Orthodoxy). Indeed I’ve heard convincing arguments that the pattern and example of the latter in exercising authority and making decisions made it possible for monsters like Stalin to appear, whereas the English commonwealth once and for all destroyed any idea of divine right.
The bad side of this is shown up in a number of phenomena. Internet churches where people stop meeting together face to face, chat rooms replacing traditional fellowship, fruitless text-chopping, factionalism and a confused witness to the world.
Had an interesting example in church recently. Good sermon on individualism. I can guarantee that everyone thought that the word didn’t apply to them, even though like many western church members, they mostly only observe Sunday attendance with the option always there of driving miles to another church if things don’t work out. Because our church is very individualistic. People hate putting themselves on rotas or commit themselves in advance or seek to make house-group work. Then there’s the analysis of the bible message in the ‘fellowship-time’ after the service. How is it that Joe Higginbotham thinks that even after 2000 years of exegesis and dispute over an issue like predestination or the nature of Hell, he has been derogated by the Holy Spirit the right or opportunity to find the Answer. Saw Joe yesterday, with a long finger in the book of revelation, getting quite triumphalistic as he was delivering the final word on Hell to someone who’d actually asked a different question. Far better that he sign up for the baby-sitting or gardening rota for a family, where the father has a brain tumour. But of course, Joe doesn’t attend often enough. He also goes to a messianic meeting. The rest of the time he’s depressed in his bed-sit, lonely, because when he’s with people he monopolises the conversation. He doesn’t have a job. He knows that Christ has saved him and that his ultimately happiness rests in Him. However, he only has one weapon in his armoury of personal sanctification and joy and that’s in explaining the Bible. Yes, I believe Joe is an idolater. He worships his Bible. He has no concept of the body of Christ or of divine mysteries and wonder. He doesn’t long for the time when his mouth will be shut in the beatific vision. His ministry is competitive (to seek approval from others) and his drive is individualism.
What a ramble. Sorry. This man exists – not his real name. I’m not being judgemental here, I’m using him as a type. He is an extreme example but his religion is reflected in many of the evangelical congregations I’ve been in over 20 years. So why do I stay in my church? Because I do love most of them, even though I don’t want my non-Christian friends to meet them! Also, the church is doing a job of church-planting that I can help in.
Leaders can also be like Joe. They don’t like other Joes. They sap the life out of a church, especially when it comes to doing something corporately, and ultimately cause factions. So the pastor takes control. This is where the reformation turns against itself. He controls the material that is discussed in house-group. He guards the pulpit. He doesn’t encourage or advertise cooperation with other churches. And many effective evangelical churches do become unbiblical one-man ministries. Without liturgy or the witness of history or established revelation, the evangelical pastor becomes authoritarian and distant.
So the question I have for the orthodox here is – do your priests get on well with each other and with your bishops? What of the Pauline approval in 1 Cor 14:26 of the members bringing hymns, words of instruction, revelations, tongues or interpretations? Doesn’t the Divine Liturgy unbiblically obstruct these? Don’t you have Joes, or even a few oldballs? Or is the Liturgy an intelligent ecclesiastical ploy to discipline and constrain these individualists? Maybe they went off into the desert or the steppe as perennial pilgrims. And why do our authoritarian protestant pastors and ministers prevent these things, even without liturgy?
I’ve enjoyed this. I can get on with the ironing now. You see, I’m under authority in this house. I’m no individualist and I’ve tried competition.

 

[jckstraw72]

having gone from a Protestant Church to the Orthodox Church, it cracks me up that a Prot would call us spiritually dead.

 

[Rick Otto]

You brilliantly illustrate a facet of the problem.
And I suspect it is a problem quite like dirty dishes - daily recurrent. The tension between Self & Other, The Individual & The Establishment, prioritizing needs & executing their fulfillment... it is a scene in constant flux.
I've had years of active service. I am enjoying a hiatis & deeper, more informative conversations here than I found in the "face-to-face" situations in general.
It is encouraging to hear your incisive thoughts on these matters. I suspect they deal with the most important issues The Body has to deal with currently, & even more so in the future.

 

[bradfordl]

having gone from a Protestant Church to the Orthodox Church, it cracks me up that a Prot would call us spiritually dead.

Understandable. The dead can't stand the aroma of the living, the aroma of Christ, and eventually trundle back into the grave. Attending a protestant church is by no means any proof of life.

 

[jckstraw72]

i like how you're so quick to judge a Church you've never been in

 

[bradfordl]

i like how you're so quick to judge a Church you've never been in

Never been in a mosque, either, but have enough understanding to know all that is taught there is a lie. Never been in a hindu temple... a unitarian church... a zoroastrian assembly... a jehovah's witnesses kingdom hall... a temple of dagon... well, you get the picture.

 

[Alchemist]

Brad, I truly am saddened by your comments. You have accused us of polytheism with no basis, called us pagan for placing icons in our churches, despite it being completely Biblical, mocked our saints, including St. Mary, the Mother of God, who dedicated her entire life to serving God and bore Christ himself, called us spiritually dead because we refuse to accept your rationalistic worship practices, and continue, despite us providing Biblical support for everything we do, to bear false witness against those who seek only to love and serve the Lord the best we can through your blatant lies about what we believe.

We are not polytheists. We are not pagans who worship a "pantheon of gods". We don't believe the Theotokos is our co-redemptrix. We don't accept purgatory. We reject papal infallibility, we don't bow down to our priests and bishops, and never will. We are not thieves for asking for intercession which the Bible commands. We do not put tradition above the Bible. We worship God alone, asking the saints for intercession only because we uphold the Biblical truth that those in Christ are alive, not dead, and reject your legalistic, "atonement"-based theology not because of postmodern liberal garbage, but because it is a tradition of man borne of corrupted pseudo-Catholic teachings, which the Bible itself commands us to reject; sola scriptura we reject for the same reason.

If you don't accept our theology, that is fine. Posting in a Reformed congregational forum, I expect that like most others you wouldn't! But there is difference between rejection of what we believe and callous, arrogant misrepresentation of it. It is truly sad that in your passion for defending what you believe to be the truth you seem unable to come up with anything but the latter.

God bless,
Nick

 

[wnwall]

and reject your legalistic, "atonement"-based theology not because of postmodern liberal garbage, but because it is a tradition of man borne of corrupted pseudo-Catholic teachings

Forgive me, I haven't been keeping up with this thread, and it's gotten pretty big, so I don't know where to look for what you're referring to here. What did you mean by this? Could you expound?

 

[Alchemist]

Forgive me, I haven't been keeping up with this thread, and it's gotten pretty big, so I don't know where to look for what you're referring to here. What did you mean by this? Could you expound?

Hi wnwall,

Basically, the Orthodox Church rejects the substitutionary atonement model of salvation held by most Reformed and most Evangelical Protestant churches, which though common in the West (being essentially a modified version of Roman Catholic soteriology), has never been held by Eastern Christians, even before we were excommunicated by the Roman Catholic church for rejecting papal supremacy and refusing to acknowledge their (we believe, heretical) revised version of the Nicene Creed in 1054.

I say "legalistic", because to us, substitutionary atonement is that; the concept that someone must be punished to atone for our sins is completely foreign to Orthodox thought; when Scripture makes it pretty clear that God forgives our sins, we don't accept that He needs anything other than our repentance to do so - justice is what God does, not what He need do. I don't say "tradition of man" spitefully, but as I explained above, despite having roots in Roman Catholicism the dogma of substitutionary atonement as it is taught in Protestant churches today was nonetheless made up 1500 years after Pentecost, before which it had never been taught in the history of the Church.

As for the post-modern thing, it's really just referring to the fact that despite us rejecting what are considered "traditional" doctrines by Protestants, it's not because we are pragmatists or liberal in our doctrine, it's because we are conservative - to us the things that many Protestants consider to be traditional teachings are about 1600 years too new!

But anyway, hi

Peace,
Nick

 

[wnwall]

Basically, the Orthodox Church rejects the substitutionary atonement model of salvation held by most Reformed and most Evangelical Protestant churches, which though common in the West (being essentially a modified version of Roman Catholic soteriology), has never been held by Eastern Christians . . .

I say "legalistic", because to us, substitutionary atonement is that; the concept that someone must be punished to atone for our sins is completely foreign to Orthodox thought; when Scripture makes it pretty clear that God forgives our sins, we don't accept that He needs anything other than our repentance to do so

Then why did Jesus die?

 

[Kvikklunsj]

Then why did Jesus die?

Check out this article called "Christ's Death: A Rescue Mission, Not a Payment for Sins" - Frederica Mathewes-Green does a good job of explaining the Orthodox view on it.
http://www.frederica.com/writings/christs-death-a-rescue-mission-not-a-payment-for-sins.html

 

[colinlindsay]

Well, you Orthodox posters, welcome to the bear-pit. Although there are disputationalists and polemicists and those eager to pronounce anathemas within all denominations, protestantism seems to have a general predeliction for heresy-hunting. It's very difficult for people like Bradfordl to exercise grace. For him it's all a matter of crossing the t's and dotting the i's. It's a Bolshevik aesthetic imperative. It's sapping a lot more spiritual energy than they realise when instead of spawning more churches, they should be building a unity visible to the world. One thing that attracts me to Orthodoxy is my prseent understanding (I hope I'm not wrong) that they can live with mystery and propositionally tension as did the early Church until it had to define things to counteract arians and gnostics. (you know, like with the Trinity).
After all there will ALWAYS be someone more biblically orthodox than Rick or Bradfordl. Those people may well be utterly lacking in grace and humility towards Calvinist error. You could consider www.moriel.org. I don't relish anyone getting into personal dispute with Jacob Prasch or Mike Oppenheimer (pro-Israel dispensationalists)
There is an Israel debate going on at present on this board. It's only resolvable once you identify each others presuppositions about key verses and passages and their own hermeneutical straightjacket. (Gallatin's point).

 

[bradfordl]

It's a Bolshevik aesthetic imperative.

Yeah, what he said.

*Tension* ("propositionally" or otherwise) and *mystery* do not overthrow truth, regardless of your fondness for them.

 

[Alchemist]

Well, you Orthodox posters, welcome to the bear-pit.

Oh, I always thought that was the Creation / Evolution was the bear pit .

One thing that attracts me to Orthodoxy is my prseent understanding (I hope I'm not wrong) that they can live with mystery and propositionally tension as did the early Church until it had to define things to counteract arians and gnostics. (you know, like with the Trinity).

You are correct in a sense; we accept that there are things that only God can know, and don't attempt to scholastically explain things such as the "transformation" of the Eucharist, as the RCC does; it's a sort of philosophical agnosticism, I suppose. Likewise, for traditions of worship and the like, it is left up to individual congregations - for instance, most Russian churches have polyphonic hymns like many Protestants, while Greek and Antiochian churches usually have monophonic chant, some Oriental Orthodox churches use percussion instruments, and there are many Western Rite churches around who use an "Orthodoxised" version of the Book of Common Prayer, yet all are Orthodox despite their differences.

After all there will ALWAYS be someone more biblically orthodox than Rick or Bradfordl. Those people may well be utterly lacking in grace and humility towards Calvinist error.

Well, certainly they are Calvinists, as far as I can tell, and they wouldn't be very good Calvinists if they were not willing to defend their doctrine! But yeah, we all lack grace at times; let us all pray we can be more humble in Christ.

You could consider www.moriel.org. I don't relish anyone getting into personal dispute with Jacob Prasch or Mike Oppenheimer (pro-Israel dispensationalists)

Ooh, dispensationalism; my favorite!

There is an Israel debate going on at present on this board. It's only resolvable once you identify each others presuppositions about key verses and passages and their own hermeneutical straightjacket. (Gallatin's point).

I thought it was pretty clear when Christ said that his Kingdom was not of this earth, but as you say...

Peace,
Nick

 

[Alchemist]

*Tension* ("propositionally" or otherwise) and *mystery* do not overthrow truth

Very true, Brad. I guess the point is that some people get overly dogmatic over trivial issues which really aren't important in the greater scheme of things, and instead of trying to work through their differences, they simply go and found a new church based on their own theology. This is fair enough, but the question must be asked, is this really based on truth, as they would claim, or tension? There are several thousand Protestant denominations worldwide, all teaching mutually exclusive things, but there is only one truth, not several thousand; that division is not the Holy Spirit's doing, however much the people who founded the churches believed they were "filled by the Holy Spirit", "doing God's will", or "proclaiming the Biblical word of God".

No, there is one God, one Christ, one church, one truth. Only when we as Christians stop with the Bible-exposition contests and denominational paranoia, sit down, and actually listen to one another, free of prejudice and blatantly false accusations about what others believe (whether we want them to or not) can we come any closer to true Christian unity, for anything else - whatever theological gymnastics we exercise to justify our disunity - is but based on the traditions of men.

Peace,
Nick

 

[Rick Otto]

LOL, I almost feel outnumbered & surrounded with only bradford at my back, here in the "Debate With A CALVINIST" Forum!
Poor bradford. I only hold to Calvin's soteriology. I part with St. John Calvin on ecclesiology, especialy in the area of church discipline.
But the good thing about being surrounded is that you can advance in any direction & engage the enemy, eh brad?
Where did wnwall go?

 

[wnwall]

Check out this article called "Christ's Death: A Rescue Mission, Not a Payment for Sins" - Frederica Mathewes-Green does a good job of explaining the Orthodox view on it.
http://www.frederica.com/writings/christs-death-a-rescue-mission-not-a-payment-for-sins.html

That doesn't answer my question. The example given is the example of a fireman who is burned trying to rescue a child, but firemen don't have to get burned to rescue children. Firemen can rescue children without getting burned. Is the position of the Orthodox Church that Christ could have saved us without dying? If so, then why did he die? Christ came to die, but firemen don't enter burning buildings to get burned. What part of a rescue mission requires death other than a rescue mission that involves dying in the place of another?

Or another way to ask the question: What did we need to be rescued from if not the wrath of God and how did Christ's death accomplish it?

 

[Kvikklunsj]

That doesn't answer my question. The example given is the example of a fireman who is burned trying to rescue a child, but firemen don't have to get burned to rescue children. Firemen can rescue children without getting burned. Is the position of the Orthodox Church that Christ could have saved us without dying? If so, then why did he die? Christ came to die, but firemen don't enter burning buildings to get burned. What part of a rescue mission requires death other than a rescue mission that involves dying in the place of another?

Or another way to ask the question: What did we need to be rescued from if not the wrath of God and how did Christ's death accomplish it?

I'm not sure where you're getting those ideas from that analogy at all. The point is that getting burned is something they willingly suffer when they accomplish the greater goal of rescuing someone - there's no deal going on behind the scenes where the fireman is following through on some ransom that demands he get burned while saving the child. It doesn't work in the sense of a deal, like the idea of Jesus dying in order to appease his angry Father on our behalf.

So what did we need to be rescued from if not the wrath of God? The problem here isn't an angry God who needs to be appeased, it's sin (and by extension, death) and its effects - on our lives and relationship with God. The Western understanding of the purpose of the incarnation and resurrection really limits itself by using an idea with this angry God on the one hand and Jesus on the other, who came to earth solely to appease his Father who requires some sort of payment.

I think everyone agrees that sin creates separation between us and God, since the perfect relationship we were originally meant to have with him has been ruined by our infection with sin. Is sin just breaking a law or behavioral code, though? I suppose on some level it is...but even more so, isn't it really a rejection of God's love and the life he offers us? Sin is a disease we all have - and diseases don't require payment, they require healing. Through Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection, he gave us a way that that relationship could be healed and we could be partakers of the divine nature - it's not a matter of appeasement.

 

[Alchemist]

LOL, I almost feel outnumbered & surrounded with only bradford at my back, here in the "Debate With A CALVINIST" Forum!

Haha it's OK, Rick, I'm not here to eat you