Which Protestant Body...

[CelticRebel]

would you say is closest to Orthodoxy, on the doctrines of God, man, sin, salvation, the atonement?

I thought this might be an interesting discussion.

 

[hedrick]

From a mainline Protestant point of view, your soteriology and concept of the atonement fit within views common to us. Your worship, while atypical for mainline Protestants, would probably be considered acceptable. However your ethics would be considered legalistic, and your theology overly metaphysical.

The groups to look at are probably Lutheran and Episcopal. They would be closer on worship and piety. Their conservative groups (since their main body is actually mainline) would agree with you on ethics and probably things like the Incarnation and Trinity. Conservative Lutherans would disagree on soteriology and probably the atonement. Episcopal allow more variations there, so some might be compatible with you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

conservative Anglicans are really close

 

[~Anastasia~]

I have nothing to add ... These two gentlemen know the topic at hand much better than I.

I'm curious though, Hedrick, why you say Eastern Orthodox ethics would be considered legalistic?

Maybe I'm missing something, but the application to the individual is often anything but legalistic, and take into account the circumstances. And our view of why we do things that we do is for the sake of spiritual health, not to avoid legal punishment?

Not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand from another perspective, and right now I'm failing.

Interesting response, I'm glad you posted!

 

[hedrick]

I'm curious though, Hedrick, why you say Eastern Orthodox ethics would be considered legalistic?

To my knowledge, EO are traditional in gender / sexual areas. Perhaps I should have said traditional rather than legalistic, though the latter term is used among us at times. I understand that in practice the approach is less legalistic than has often been the case among Catholics. In that regard it is probably similar to many traditional Protestants, which is what I noted (though there are certainly very legalistic Protestants).

 

[~Anastasia~]

To my knowledge, EO are traditional in gender / sexual areas. Perhaps I should have said traditional rather than legalistic, though the latter term is used among us at times. I understand that in practice the approach is less legalistic than has often been the case among Catholics. In that regard it is probably similar to many traditional Protestants, which is what I noted (though there are certainly very legalistic Protestants).

Ah, if you had said "traditional" instead of "legalistic" I wouldn't have questioned you at all.

Yes, the EO Church IS very traditional, in just about every area. I just wasn't seeing "legalistic". Thank you for the reply.

 

[xenia]

While it may seem on the surface that liturgical Protestant churches are the closest to Orthodoxy, most of them hold to some form of Calvinism or a Lutheran-flavored version of predestination, which is anathema to Orthodoxy. Methodism believes in free will and something that is similar to theosis, so I would say they are closer to Orthodoxy. Not the liberal Methodists, though.

 

[hedrick]

While it may seem on the surface that liturgical Protestant churches are the closest to Orthodoxy, most of them hold to some form of Calvinism or a Lutheran-flavored version of predestination, which is anathema to Orthodoxy. Methodism believes in free will and something that is similar to theosis, so I would say they are closer to Orthodoxy. Not the liberal Methodists, though.

For conservative Lutheran and Reformed churches you are right. Episcopal / Anglican are not so dogmatic about it, and mainline Lutheran and Reformed aren't either. The PCUSA (the largest Presbyterian church) maintains that we are elected by God, but not in the sense of double predestination. I don't think there'd be much issue with EO soteriology. Methodism, even conservatives, never held predestination.

 

[xenia]

I don't think there'd be much issue with EO soteriology.

There is a considerable difference in the soteriology of Eastern Orthodoxy and all forms of Protestantism. There would be much issue.

 

[E.C.]

I think only the more traditional Anglicans who have not compromised their theology.

 

[CelticRebel]

None of the Bodies mentioned traditionally held to early church views of the atonement the way Orthodoxy has -- those early views being Ransom/Recapitulation/Christus Victor.

All Protestant groups have held to Penal Substitution, some variety of Rome's Satisfaction theory, or to Hugo Grotius's Governmental Theory. Certainly, the early church views I listed have been allowed, and some individuals have held them, but they have been a small minority view. The exception would be some Anabaptists and early Quakers.

 

[Wryetui]

Well, after all, those who are most close to us are the Oriental-Orthodox, then the Eastern-Catholics, then the Roman-Catholics and so on... But, referring to protestantism, I would say maybe Lutheranism?

 

[CelticRebel]

Well, after all, those who are most close to us are the Oriental-Orthodox, then the Eastern-Catholics, then the Roman-Catholics and so on... But, referring to protestantism, I would say maybe Lutheranism?

I don't think so. Doctrines of man, sin, and salvation are considerably different.

 

[CelticRebel]

There is a considerable difference in the soteriology of Eastern Orthodoxy and all forms of Protestantism. There would be much issue.

I think you are essentially correct. One might say that the Methodists were close to Orthodoxy; Wesley was influenced by Eastern Christianity; that can be seen in such doctrines as prevenient grace and sanctification. However, Wesley believed in total depravity, and his atonement views were decidedly Western.

As hard as it might be to believe on first hearing, the Anabaptists and Quakers had mostly Eastern views on man, sin, and salvation. Of course the differences would be on the sacraments and the ministry, among other things.

 

[CelticRebel]

conservative Anglicans are really close

Except conservative Anglicans range from High Church to Low Church, from Calvinist to Arminian to Lutheran-leaning, to charismatic.

Anglicanism, whether conservative or liberal, contains probably the most diverse doctrines in Christendom.

 

[hedrick]

None of the Bodies mentioned traditionally held to early church views of the atonement the way Orthodoxy has -- those early views being Ransom/Recapitulation/Christus Victor.

All Protestant groups have held to Penal Substitution, some variety of Rome's Satisfaction theory, or to Hugo Grotius's Governmental Theory. Certainly, the early church views I listed have been allowed, and some individuals have held them, but they have been a small minority view. The exception would be some Anabaptists and early Quakers.

No, the mainline no longer mandates penal substitution, and I think it's rare among theologians. There's a lot of interest in the earlier theories. The same concern is present among the more liberal end of evangelicalism and much of the anabaptist tradition. The same groups are also not so committed to Augustine's view of original sin. CF participants are primarily conservative, and in fact the CF rules don't permit a full exposition of current mainline Protestant theology. Thus you don't tend to see a real presentation of the theology of groups such as the PCUSA, ELCA, Methodists, American Baptists, etc.

Here are the most recent credal statements by the Presbyterian Church (USA) on the atonement:

"God's reconciling act in Jesus Christ is a mystery which the Scriptures describe in various ways. It is called the sacrifice of a lamb, a shepherd's life given for his sheep, atonement by a priest; again it is ransom of a slave, payment of a debt, vicarious satisfaction of a legal penalty, and victory over the powers of evil. These are expressions of a truth which remains beyond the reach of all theory in the depths of God's love for man. They reveal the gravity, cost, and sure achievement of God's reconciling work.

"The risen Christ is the savior for all men. Those joined to him by faith are set right with God and commissioned to serve as his reconciling community. Christ is head of this community, the church, which began with the apostles and continues through all generations.

"The same Jesus Christ is the judge of all men. His judgment discloses the ultimate seriousness of life and gives promise of God's final victory over the power of sin and death. To receive life from the risen Lord is to have life eternal; to refuse life from him is to choose the death which is separation from God. All who put their trust in Christ face divine judgment without fear, for the judge is their redeemer."

(Confession of 1967)

and

"Unjustly condemned for blasphemy and sedition,
Jesus was crucified,
suffering the depths of human pain
and giving his life for the sins of the world.
God raised Jesus from the dead,
vindicating his sinless life,
breaking the power of sin and evil,
delivering us from death to life eternal."

(Brief statement of the Reformed Faith, 1983)

C67 was to some extent a compromise. You'll see all the theories there. The Brief Statement moves away from satisfaction completely.

Most other mainline churches don't have updated confessions. Their beliefs have changed since the 16th Cent, but it's hard to document them. But I believe they are similar.

 

[Wryetui]

But Orthodoxy holds a unique view of atonement, of sin and of soteriology.

 

[All4Christ]

I think you are essentially correct. One might say that the Methodists were close to Orthodoxy; Wesley was influenced by Eastern Christianity; that can be seen in such doctrines as prevenient grace and sanctification. However, Wesley believed in total depravity, and his atonement views were decidedly Western.

As hard as it might be to believe on first hearing, the Anabaptists and Quakers had mostly Eastern views on man, sin, and salvation. Of course the differences would be on the sacraments and the ministry, among other things.

I actually would agree on the salvation similarities between the original Anabaptists (traditional, not modern) and Orthodoxy (albeit there are many differences in other areas of belief). Many modern shoots off the Anabaptists started to add in penal substitution and minimize the concept of working out our salvation within their soteriology beliefs.

Case in point, look at Article 8 in this link to the Mennonite USA's statement of faith: http://mennoniteusa.org/confession-of-faith/salvation/

It combines the three views of salvation including substitutionary atonement. It really is quite similar to most Protestant viewpoints on salvation. The Church of the Brethren (at least my aunt and uncle's church) doesn't teach anything similar to the Orthodox view of salvation. They teach a viewpoint very similar to what we were taught when I was a Pentecostal.

 

[hedrick]

I actually would agree on the salvation similarities between the original Anabaptists (traditional, not modern) and Orthodoxy (albeit there are many differences in other areas of belief). Many modern shoots off the Anabaptists started to add in penal substitution and minimize the concept of working out our salvation within their soteriology beliefs.

Case in point, look at Article 8 in this link to the Mennonite USA's statement of faith: http://mennoniteusa.org/confession-of-faith/salvation/

It combines the three views of salvation including substitutionary atonement. It really is quite similar to most Protestant viewpoints on salvation. The Church of the Brethren (at least my aunt and uncle's church) doesn't teach anything similar to the Orthodox view of salvation. They teach a viewpoint very similar to what we were taught when I was a Pentecostal.

Here's the text from that web page:

"1 God so loved the world that, in the fullness of time, God sent his Son, whose faithfulness unto death on the cross has provided the way of salvation for all people.2 By his blood shed for us, Christ inaugurated the new covenant.3 He heals us, forgives our sins, and delivers us from the bondage of evil and from those who do evil against us.4 By his death and resurrection, he breaks the powers of sin and death,5 cancels our debt of sin,6 and opens the way to new life.7 We are saved by God’s grace, not by our own merits.8"

I'm just about as hostile to penal substitution as anyone, but I don't see it here. What specific part of this would orthodox object to? They've mostly strung together many of the Biblical terms used to refer to Christ's death.

 

[Wryetui]

So which one is the closer to Orthodoxy after all? Anabaptists?