Orthodox vs. Protestant belief differences?

[Constantine the Sinner]

Forgive me, but I have run in to them. At the Greek Orthodox Church here in town, during a Greek Fest, I tried walking in the door to see the church. I was told that unless I was serious about wanting to be a member of THEIR church, I was not allowed in. I could buy all the baklava I wanted, but the person at the door was unwilling to let me pass.

That has zero to do with ethnicity and it was mendacious of you to construe it as such. That has to do with you not being Orthodox. A small number of very traditional parishes don't permit non-Orthodox to participate, and dismiss Catechumens as well during the appropriate part of the liturgy. This practice is especially common in monastaries; it dates back to early Church, which was very secretive and did not share certain doctrines with outsiders.

 

[GillDouglas]

That has zero to do with ethnicity and it was mendacious of you to construe it as such. That has to do with you not being Orthodox.

And they determined this as he was walking up to the door, how exactly?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I am just as Orthodox as the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. However, I grew up Catholic, and I know the stability of the Catholic Church. I got turned on to Orthodoxy more than 20 years ago, but I found that the ethnic barrier here in Phoenix was too high a wall.

When I was growing up, I didn't even know about Eastern Catholicism. However, I found things about the Eastern Catholics that intrigued me, especially when I found out that in Lebanon, people don't worry if the Pope is memorialized or not. Eastern CHRISTIANS go to whatever church is nearest, they all go to the same Baptisms, Weddings, Funerals etc. And ALL of them that wish to partake are able to receive the Eucharist.

After I learned about that, I started looking around at Eastern Catholic Churches. There is a BC parish, a Ukrainian parish, and a Melkite parish. I finally settled in the Melkite Church, and the whole church loves me. The bishop knows me, a lot of the clergy in the eparchy know me. The Liturgy is the same, the Creed is exactly the same, and the Paschal greeting is done in three languages.

We have a Lebanese parishioner, and he is very resentful of Catholics over there because he says they focus on trying to convert Orthodox more than Muslims.

[Staff edit]. They didn't say you were the improper ethnicity, they said you had to convert, that was the real barrier you weren't prepared to cross.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

And they determined this as he was walking up to the door, how exactly?

They didn't unless they asked or he told them. If he told them he was Orthodox, they would have let him in

 

[ladodgers6]

Sola Scriptura, yes. Sola fide... I think Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox are just using different words to talk about the same thing here. Or at least I hope so, for the Protestants' sake.

The biggest differences I would say are that Orthodoxy has a somewhat different take on original sin that treats it more like an illness to be healed and generally approaches salvation more in terms of a journey towards becoming more like God (theosis). Sacraments are of utmost importance too. And if we're talking about Evangelical Protestantism, another difference is that Orthodoxy rejects substitutionary atonement and favors Christus Victor.

It'd be worthwhile to go ask in the Orthodox forum. Many of the people there are Protestant converts to Orthodoxy and will really be able to answer this question.

Thanks for this post. Great insight. I came across this topic of "THEOSIS" A few months ago, and as a Convinced Protestant, I disagree with Eastern Orthodoxy. There is no Complete Fall of all mankind in the first Adam. That which can LIVE a PERFECT godly LIFE now. That the person pursuing this Perfect godly glory join God in substance to where they become one, in a way. How a person gets to this place is not clear. Because as I researched this topic for months. I got different answer within their own circle. This "THEOSIS" topic they teach & preach strongly suggests "LEGALISM". They deny this conclusion.

I asked then the next obvious question. Then HOW is one saved? Or better yet WHY do they need to be saved IF they are not sinners under the Fall? And a very crucial piece I discovered from this "THEOSIS", there is no Christ. No mediator to intercede for us. So what they fail to see, is the great gap between us and God. And fill it with this "THEOSIS" to reach God. Now if this is not "LEGALISM", I don't know what is. They also teach about "ICONS". These ICONS are figurines that are placed one a table and in a sense worshipped. I am still doing my homework to be fair here. Because my intent is to not caricature what they believe & teach.

No mention of the Gospel for the ungodly. Only demands of Perfect Obedience! And this bondage of the Law for sinners if the curse of it. The ungodly cannot fulfill these demands. A Perfect Mediator is required here to fulfill these demands for us.

Protestant theology also teaches "THEOSIS", but I think its called Sanctification; being more Christ like. But the major difference is that in Protestant teaching, Sanctification is also included in the Gospel to the ungodly. Christ fulfilled His Father's Will completely. Christ has propitiated the wrath of God by His Perfect Obedience as He stood in our place so we can stand in His. (Double Imputation-Our sin to Christ; Christ's righteousness to us). So in Christ we stand completely blameless because of His blood. Christ's last words on earth is, "IT IS FINISH".

Yes as believers we must walk in good deeds by taking every opportunity to do good. Because we are FREED from the curse of the Law that condemns all sinners. Being HIDDEN in Christ we can go and do good works (Col. 3)

So for me this is a very crucial point of difference. Because without Christ they MUST take the full weight of the Law on your back and strive to live the Perfect godly life on their OWN. Which is absolutely impossible for man. There is no peace of conscience here. There is assurance of the soul here, only misery & despair. That is not the good news.

 

[Mare Liberum]

In a confrontation with the Gnostics (distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis i.e. knowledge) of his day, Tertullian (160-230), a gifted Christian writer and apologist, defended his claim of the true Gospel this way,

“I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth, that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin. For, inasmuch as error is falsification of truth, it must needs be that truth therefore precede error. A thing must exist prior to its suffering any casualty; and an object must precede all rivalry to itself. Else how absurd it would be, that, when we have proved our position to be the older one, and Marcion's the later, ours should yet appear to be the false one, before it had even received from truth its objective existence….”

Our example of the Church is not Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Protestantism which are all later manmade perversions. Christ has told us in Revelations to go back and do our first works over again but today nothing ever go back beyond the fourth-century, but it is there we must look for truth. The first-century fathers had first-hand knowledge of what the Apostles received from the mouth of Christ.

Tertullian gave a particular apology, not a broad prescription. Antiquity isn't supreme nor to be considered alone, as our Faith's manuscripts have several regional origins which color the copyists, and what is most ancient may not be but what has lately survived. The scribes weren't inspired, the authors were.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Thanks for this post. Great insight. I came across this topic of "THEOSIS" A few months ago, and as a Convinced Protestant, I disagree with Eastern Orthodoxy. There is no Complete Fall of all mankind in the first Adam. That which can LIVE a PERFECT godly LIFE now. That the person pursuing this Perfect godly glory join God in substance to where they become one, in a way. How a person gets to this place is not clear. Because as I researched this topic for months. I got different answer within their own circle. This "THEOSIS" topic they teach & preach strongly suggests "LEGALISM". They deny this conclusion.

I asked then the next obvious question. Then HOW is one saved? Or better yet WHY do they need to be saved IF they are not sinners under the Fall? And a very crucial piece I discovered from this "THEOSIS", there is no Christ. No mediator to intercede for us. So what they fail to see, is the great gap between us and God. And fill it with this "THEOSIS" to reach God. Now if this is not "LEGALISM", I don't know what is. They also teach about "ICONS". These ICONS are figurines that are placed one a table and in a sense worshipped. I am still doing my homework to be fair here. Because my intent is to not caricature what they believe & teach.

No mention of the Gospel for the ungodly. Only demands of Perfect Obedience! And this bondage of the Law for sinners if the curse of it. The ungodly cannot fulfill these demands. A Perfect Mediator is required here to fulfill these demands for us.

Protestant theology also teaches "THEOSIS", but I think its called Sanctification; being more Christ like. But the major difference is that in Protestant teaching, Sanctification is also included in the Gospel to the ungodly. Christ fulfilled His Father's Will completely. Christ has propitiated the wrath of God by His Perfect Obedience as He stood in our place so we can stand in His. (Double Imputation-Our sin to Christ; Christ's righteousness to us). So in Christ we stand completely blameless because of His blood. Christ's last words on earth is, "IT IS FINISH".

Yes as believers we must walk in good deeds by taking every opportunity to do good. Because we are FREED from the curse of the Law that condemns all sinners. Being HIDDEN in Christ we can go and do good works (Col. 3)

So for me this is a very crucial point of difference. Because without Christ they MUST take the full weight of the Law on your back and strive to live the Perfect godly life on their OWN. Which is absolutely impossible for man. There is no peace of conscience here. There is assurance of the soul here, only misery & despair. That is not the good news.

Icons are painted pictures of Chirst and saints, which we honor. We honor them for the same reason we honor Crosses and the Bible, not because we think the wood and paint is a god.

 

[friend of]

Is masturbation a sin?

I demand an answer to this ^

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I demand an answer to this ^

Yes, it is a very serious sin.

 

[Silmarien]

Thanks for this post. Great insight. I came across this topic of "THEOSIS" A few months ago, and as a Convinced Protestant, I disagree with Eastern Orthodoxy. There is no Complete Fall of all mankind in the first Adam. That which can LIVE a PERFECT godly LIFE now. That the person pursuing this Perfect godly glory join God in substance to where they become one, in a way. How a person gets to this place is not clear. Because as I researched this topic for months. I got different answer within their own circle. This "THEOSIS" topic they teach & preach strongly suggests "LEGALISM". They deny this conclusion.

I asked then the next obvious question. Then HOW is one saved? Or better yet WHY do they need to be saved IF they are not sinners under the Fall? And a very crucial piece I discovered from this "THEOSIS", there is no Christ. No mediator to intercede for us. So what they fail to see, is the great gap between us and God. And fill it with this "THEOSIS" to reach God. Now if this is not "LEGALISM", I don't know what is. They also teach about "ICONS". These ICONS are figurines that are placed one a table and in a sense worshipped. I am still doing my homework to be fair here. Because my intent is to not caricature what they believe & teach.

No mention of the Gospel for the ungodly. Only demands of Perfect Obedience! And this bondage of the Law for sinners if the curse of it. The ungodly cannot fulfill these demands. A Perfect Mediator is required here to fulfill these demands for us.

Protestant theology also teaches "THEOSIS", but I think its called Sanctification; being more Christ like. But the major difference is that in Protestant teaching, Sanctification is also included in the Gospel to the ungodly. Christ fulfilled His Father's Will completely. Christ has propitiated the wrath of God by His Perfect Obedience as He stood in our place so we can stand in His. (Double Imputation-Our sin to Christ; Christ's righteousness to us). So in Christ we stand completely blameless because of His blood. Christ's last words on earth is, "IT IS FINISH".

Yes as believers we must walk in good deeds by taking every opportunity to do good. Because we are FREED from the curse of the Law that condemns all sinners. Being HIDDEN in Christ we can go and do good works (Col. 3)

So for me this is a very crucial point of difference. Because without Christ they MUST take the full weight of the Law on your back and strive to live the Perfect godly life on their OWN. Which is absolutely impossible for man. There is no peace of conscience here. There is assurance of the soul here, only misery & despair. That is not the good news.

You might be using the word "legalism" to mean two different things. When I hear the word, I think of language like "conviction of sin," penal substitution, a focus on God's justice, often at the expense of God's love, and other courtroom related metaphors. I don't believe that EO rejects that approach entirely, but it's definitely not sufficient in and of itself. So if you toss around the word "legalism" in EO circles, that may be what people think you mean. And obviously in that sense, theosis is the opposite of legalistic.

You seem to be using "legalism" in the context of works of the law, though. I'm not convinced that that's really what's going on in Eastern Orthodoxy, though. None of it seems to be an attempt to put oneself right with God, so to speak. I linked this article earlier, which does deal specifically with this topic: Salvation Is Indeed By Grace

Eastern Orthodoxy approaches the Atonement differently than the Reformed tradition, but it's incorrect to say that Christ is missing. The work of Christ is a victory over the powers that hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, decay, etc. As I understand it, it's more a matter of setting human nature right so that we can be at one with God than satisfying God's wrath. I find it an insanely powerful statement, and a much more profound way of approaching the whole Passion, up to that final "It is finished." Christ is definitely not missing, though.

Someone has previously recommended Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Way, which I think would help clear up some of your concerns, since he does touch upon a number of these issues. Because Eastern Orthodoxy is very much aware of the distance between humanity and God. There's a huge emphasis on sin and repentance, despite the fact that their approach to the Fall is different than Augustine's.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The Orthodox don't believe God was venting his wrath on Christ because of our sins. That makes us very diffrrent from all other Christians in our understanding of atonement, even though we affirm Christ died to fulfill (satisfy) the law. We participate in his death, so that we may participate in his bodily Resurrection in communion.

 

[FenderTL5]

For instance, a man named Aboud (Arab Christian) won't get the same reception as a man named Nikopolis when coming to a Greek Orthodox Church.

Arabic is one of the languages for the Our Father in our Greek parish. I'm wondering if you are attributing a unique event universally?
Also, during festival, our parish is open for tours.

 

[FenderTL5]

Thanks for this post. Great insight. I came across this topic of "THEOSIS" A few months ago, and as a Convinced Protestant, I disagree with Eastern Orthodoxy. There is no Complete Fall of all mankind in the first Adam. That which can LIVE a PERFECT godly LIFE now. That the person pursuing this Perfect godly glory join God in substance to where they become one, in a way. How a person gets to this place is not clear. Because as I researched this topic for months. I got different answer within their own circle. This "THEOSIS" topic they teach & preach strongly suggests "LEGALISM". They deny this conclusion.

I asked then the next obvious question. Then HOW is one saved? Or better yet WHY do they need to be saved IF they are not sinners under the Fall? And a very crucial piece I discovered from this "THEOSIS", there is no Christ. No mediator to intercede for us. So what they fail to see, is the great gap between us and God. And fill it with this "THEOSIS" to reach God. Now if this is not "LEGALISM", I don't know what is. They also teach about "ICONS". These ICONS are figurines that are placed one a table and in a sense worshipped. I am still doing my homework to be fair here. Because my intent is to not caricature what they believe & teach.

No mention of the Gospel for the ungodly. Only demands of Perfect Obedience! And this bondage of the Law for sinners if the curse of it. The ungodly cannot fulfill these demands. A Perfect Mediator is required here to fulfill these demands for us.

Protestant theology also teaches "THEOSIS", but I think its called Sanctification; being more Christ like. But the major difference is that in Protestant teaching, Sanctification is also included in the Gospel to the ungodly. Christ fulfilled His Father's Will completely. Christ has propitiated the wrath of God by His Perfect Obedience as He stood in our place so we can stand in His. (Double Imputation-Our sin to Christ; Christ's righteousness to us). So in Christ we stand completely blameless because of His blood. Christ's last words on earth is, "IT IS FINISH".

Yes as believers we must walk in good deeds by taking every opportunity to do good. Because we are FREED from the curse of the Law that condemns all sinners. Being HIDDEN in Christ we can go and do good works (Col. 3)

So for me this is a very crucial point of difference. Because without Christ they MUST take the full weight of the Law on your back and strive to live the Perfect godly life on their OWN. Which is absolutely impossible for man. There is no peace of conscience here. There is assurance of the soul here, only misery & despair. That is not the good news.

Well, you used some words I recognize. Your description doesn't sound like Orthodoxy.

 

[Jack Isaacks]

The sacraments are of "utmost importance" in Orthodoxy. Basically everything centers around it.

The sacraments in Orthodoxy are nothing more (or less) than faith, grace, and even prophecy made tangible to our earthly senses.

Someone else posted something to the effect Orthodoxy concentrates on Christus Victor and rejects the substitutionary atonement.

If you read the Holy Week services, the Feasts of the Holy Cross (14 September, 1 August, and 3rd Sunday in Lent), you will see this is noT true.

Also read the texts for Vespers and Matins from the Octoechos for Tuesday evening, Wednesday Morning, Thursday Evening, and Friday Morning, which should also make it plain that it is false to say we don't believe in Christ's Atonement.

Christ is risen!

 

[Jack Isaacks]

It can happen in some parishes, and it shouldn't ever happen, but it used to be a common response in Catholic parishes as well. In another generation the situation will be completely different.
Personally, I was warmly welcomed into the Greek parish my family attends, and I'm an Anglo-Scottish/Swedish Australian mutt.

Some time ago, my late father decided to visit the local parish of another jurisdiction. One of his childhood friends said, "Isaacks, what are you doing here? You're not _____" (ethnicity deliberately omitted).

Dad (Chrismation name Vladimir) replied, "Neither was Jesus Christ. Would you let Him in?"

Fortunately, this attitude is dying out.

Christ is risen!

 

[Jack Isaacks]

And so they corrected them with murder, which would be a heresy against the 6th commandment, no?

Please give ONE example, giving date and place.

Christ is risen!

 

[Jack Isaacks]

I don't believe such Orthodox exist.

Alas, I've seen it with my own eyes. See my anecdote about my Father.

Christ is risen.

 

[Silmarien]

Someone else posted something to the effect Orthodoxy concentrates on Christus Victor and rejects the substitutionary atonement.

If you read the Holy Week services, the Feasts of the Holy Cross (14 September, 1 August, and 3rd Sunday in Lent), you will see this is noT true.

Wait, really? I thought penal substitution was pretty much incompatible.

 

[Tangible]

Are Christians permitted to divorce and remarry?
Are Christians permitted to use artificial contraception?
Is abortion ever permissible?
Is the death penalty as a punishment for crime ever warranted?
May Christians participate in offensive war?
May Christians ever participate in a violent revolution?
May Christians ever participate in a tax revolt?
Are Christians required to keep any of the food laws or Sabbath laws or feast laws of the Torah?
Is baptism in water required to pass final judgement?
Are people judged by God on their beliefs or their deeds?

Yes, many of these questions are answerable and answered in the Holy Scriptures when the scriptures are read in context of the entire witness of scripture, with the proper distinction of law and gospel applied.

Other questions are not answered, and with these God expects us to listen to our consciences, informed by the scriptures, to employ our freedom in Christ responsibly.

Doctrines and dogma may be produced regarding the first type, recommendations may be produced regarding the second. Consciences may be bound regarding the first type, but must not be bound regarding the second.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Then I suppose Orthodoxy doesn't suit me.

One reason for holding such a view; the sacrament of marriage can be invalidated by 1 Corinthians 7:32-35

Could the other sacraments be open to similar scriptural vulnerabilities?

"Sacrament" is just the word Latins chose to translate "mystery," which Paul does indeed say marriage is. Orthodox generally call things like baptism "holy mysteries". We sometimes casually use the term "sacrament" to make it easier for people in the West, but in worship the term is always "mystery".