Orthodox vs. Protestant belief differences?

[prodromos]

Have I called you psycho? Have I labeled you with ANY mental disease? No, I have not. Why do you feel it is important to insult me? I have not called you a single name.

I am not labelling you personally, but the communion to which you belong.

1) I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches.

2) I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as first among equals according to the limits recognized by the Greek Fathers in the first millenium before the separation.

The Orthodox Church teaches that Rome is both in schism and heresy, hence the above statements coming across as scizophrenic.

 

[Vicomte13]

Christians are a quarrelsome lot.

 

[Theo Book]

Trying to figure out which one I align more with, Orthodox or Protestant.

If anyone of sufficient knowledge can point out the salient differences.

Much obliged!

God bless~

If you will do a word-search on "Doctrine(s)" and "Straight" you will find the basis for truth is tied to scripture, not doctrines and creeds.

"Orthodoxy" is a word that was purloined in the fourth century, and used to declare "Trinity Doctrine" to be the basic teaching of scripture. The problem was, it was not found "in scripture" but only after adopting words from outside of scripture, and "Explaining" what God meant to say but forgot to write, developed Trinity doctrine over a period of several hundred years, only declaring it "Orthodoxy" in the council of Chalcedon in 451 a.d.

One year later, the Bishop of Chalcedon turned the discipline of the church over to the Political rulers, and God gave the world a sign of His displeasure, by introducing a 1000 year judgment upon the church, which we know as "The dark ages" from 452 to 1452, when the first English bibles came off the printing presses and were given to the "laity" rather than to the clergy, and the church never looked back with any desire to return to
"Orthodoxy."

"Orthodoxy" is not "Truth." It is doctrines and creeds. And those who build upon doctrines and creeds will tell you, "Only we have the truth." They will then proceed to refuse to "... sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"(I Pet 3:15)

 

[Vicomte13]

"The dark ages" from 452 to 1452, when the first English bibles came off the printing presses and were given to the "laity" rather than to the clergy,

The Gutenberg Bible was in English?

 

[Silmarien]

One year later, the Bishop of Chalcedon turned the discipline of the church over to the Political rulers, and God gave the world a sign of His displeasure, by introducing a 1000 year judgment upon the church, which we know as "The dark ages" from 452 to 1452, when the first English bibles came off the printing presses and were given to the "laity" rather than to the clergy, and the church never looked back with any desire to return to
"Orthodoxy."

I'm not sure why in a thread about Eastern Orthodoxy, you've ignored the fact that the Eastern Roman Empire did not experience the Dark Ages in the same way that the West did. There was no judgment for Byzantium in 452. The beginning of the end didn't happen until the Sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, and ironically, it wasn't until 1453, a year after you've decided that God's judgment was finally lifted, that the Byzantines were conquered by the Ottomans.

 

[ladodgers6]

Did you just change your faith status? I can't imagine not having noticed that you were a Calvinist before now, haha. I can see where the problems are coming from, though. Other forms of Protestantism may be more or less compatible with EO, but Calvinism... not so much, obviously. I think every point of TULIP's a dead end for Orthodoxy.

No, Protestant Calvinism derived in 16th century. So I am a convinced Protestant Reformed Calvinist. Yes Calvinism also believe in infant baptism. Let me ask you this. If you are engaging a people on the street, how would you preach to them?

 

[ladodgers6]

Propitiation or Expiation?

Propitiation or Expiation? Did Christ “Change God’s Attitude?”

Expiation, Blood and Atonement · Journey To Orthodoxy

Christ Propitiated the righteous wrath of God in our stead. This is one difference in our theologies. Because the EOC position does not believe in the "WRATH" of God. Nor does it need to be propitiated.

This means the turning away of wrath by an offering. It is similar to expiation, but expiation does not carry the nuances involving wrath. For the Christian the propitiation was the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. It turned away the wrath of God so that He could pass "over the sins previously committed," (Rom. 3:25). It was the Father who sent the Son to be the propitiation (1 John 4:10) for all (1 John 2:2).

• "Propitiation properly signifies the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift," (The New Bible Dictionary).
• "Propitiation signifies the turning away of wrath by an offering," (Baker's Dictionary of theology, p. 424).
• The act of appeasing the wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person, (dictionary.com).
• "The act of appeasing the wrath," (Webster's dictionary, 1828).

 

[ladodgers6]

He didn't have to, he did it out of love.

Okay, so in the EOC position, did Christ have to fulfill the Law requirements to save sinners?

 

[ladodgers6]

Christ is both the source and object of our transformation.

We don't believe God killed himself.

How is a sinner transformed? What steps does the sinner take in order to be transformed?

 

[ladodgers6]

Satan gained control over the world with the fall, thus all are in bondage to him. He is the prince of this world. Christ came to liberate us and to transform us into God, since Christ is God and we are called to be his body.

How does Christ liberate sinners?

 

[ladodgers6]

Christ is both the source and object of our transformation.

We don't believe God killed himself.

See we believe that Christ came into this world to die for the ungodly. Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Works that required perfect obedience, but by One Act of disobedience; it broke this Covenant of Works that now serves as a curse for all sinners. We are in bondage to it, because of the demands of perfect obedience, which no sinner can fulfill. But the second Adam (Christ) came into this world born under the Law in the flesh. Not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it; because the Law is God's will. Christ also killed our sin in His flesh, so that we might receive the righteousness that is from God. Because without Perfect Righteousness no one will enter heaven. Even our works as believers are tainted with sin; in other words they are imperfect. They will not stand up in court. Only the righteous works of another; namely Christ Jesus can stand up in court. If Christ did not die for us, and Propitiate God's wrath. Then we are all lost.

 

[Silmarien]

No, Protestant Calvinism derived in 16th century. So I am a convinced Protestant Reformed Calvinist. Yes Calvinism also believe in infant baptism. Let me ask you this. If you are engaging a people on the street, how would you preach to them?

Your faith status on this site, I meant. I know what Calvinism is, but didn't notice that your status said "Calvinist" instead of "Christian" or "Protestant." Normally I notice what people's faith statuses say, so was wondering if you'd just had it changed.

I wouldn't preach on the street, as I find it obnoxious and more likely to do harm than good. I'm a new Christian myself, and frankly in too much need of proper guidance myself to worry about what anyone else believes. Again, I'm not actually Orthodox, but I will need to go to them eventually and see just how far they can push me.

 

[Vicomte13]

It turned away the wrath of God so that He could

A Catholic is always going to have a lot of problems that are predicated on the idea that something has to happen so that God "can" anything.

To the Catholic mind it is axiomatic: God is God, and therefore He CAN do anything. Whether he WILL or not is purely a matter of his own free will.

So in talking with Catholics, if one wants to get far along in the presentation of a view, one should try to avoid any statement like "...so God CAN", or "God MUST", or "God CANNOT..." because you've departed from the meaning of the word "God", to the Catholic, when you append a "so...can", or a "must" or a "cannot" to God. By definition, God CAN do anything, there is nothing that God cannot do, and God is not obligated or forced to do anything - there's no such thing as "God must."

It's not a small theological point. I have noticed over the years that many theologies have a limited God, who CANNOT do certain things. If a god CANNOT anything, then that god is not the same God as the Catholic God.

God can do anything. He is not obligated to do anything. He always chooses. He has free will just like we do, except that there is nothing impinges upon him to force his hand the way we are impinged upon. We make tradeoffs, and often we make them obliged by superior force. God is not limited by any superior force - his only limitations are his own views, his own opinions, what makes him happy.

He doesn't do things he doesn't like because he doesn't have to, and in general he likes his opinions (such as natural law) quite a bit. He can break natural law with a miracle any time he pleases, but it does not please him to do so all that often.

The "god who can't" isn't interesting, and to the Catholic, isn't God. The best that a Catholic could say, given our concepts of God, is that "God won't", but that's based on observations of the patterns of God's behavior, and does not constitute a natural law that is superior to God's sovereign will.

This is a sticking point between Catholics and traditional Jews and Muslims. The traditional Jewish and Muslim belief is that God CANNOT be anything other than a unique monad, God CANNOT have a son.

A philosophical Jew might modify that and say "God WOULD NOT have a Son", but the traditionalist, and the Muslim would assert that no, it is impossible, for unique one-ness is a fundamental essence of God that even God cannot transgress.

To the Catholic mind, that God WOULD indeed have a son is demonstrated by the fact that He DID, but to go further, the definitional stipulation that God CANNOT be anything but a unique monad means that such a God is not omnipotent, because he "cannot" something, and that is unacceptable to the Catholic mind. Omnipotence - Almightiness - is central to the definition of God - so it must always be said and believed that God CAN do anything. Whether he WILL or DOES or not is a factual question. That he COULD is essential to the status of being God.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

At the time I went, I was a Protestant, and I was minding my own business. Only catechumens were allowed inside the church.

That is the traditional way of doing things, most monasteries continue that tradition. And even Catechumens are expelled during the point that the Liturgy calls for that. That was how Christians did things in the first century, and some of us just never stopped doing things that way.

It is wrong of say there is an ethnic bar when that has nothing to do with an ethnic bar. If it were an ethnic bar, they certainly wouldn't be telling you had to convert, they would be saying you can't convert.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

How old do you think I am? Vatican I was back in 1869-1870. I am not 200 years old. I had NOTHING to do with Vatican I. Nobody asked me to sign it, or swear to it, or anything.

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO ME! But anyway, STOP CALLING ME A LIAR!

It was signed by the Melkite Catholic bishops.

 

[Monk Brendan]

The Orthodox Church teaches that Rome is both in schism and heresy, hence the above statements coming across as scizophrenic.

Then the Orthodox Church is wrong about that! BTW, where do you get such statements? I have read The Orthodox Way and The Orthodox Church, and while the Council of Florence was discussed, and I am outraged at the injustice done to Orthodox Clergy during this Council, didn't St. Photios tell us that it doesn't matter what the name is over the door, Christ is worshiped inside.

On charges of Heresy: If you are looking at "filioque," that is a dead issue. John Paul II did not use filioque in the Creed when liturgizing with Eastern clergy.

The Patriarch's participation in the Eucharistic liturgy at which the Pope presided followed the programme of the past visits of Patriarch Dimitrios (1987) and Bartholomew I himself (1995): full participation in the Liturgy of the Word, joint proclamation by the Pope and by the Patriarch of the profession of faith according to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in Greek and as the conclusion, the final Blessing imparted by both the Pope and the Patriarch at the Altar of the Confessio.

This celebration emphasized that prayer is the true heart of all ecumenical research and that in prayer we can find the strength to continue to do God's will in the search for full communion, which will be marked by the full concelebration of the Eucharist.

The Pope also invited Patriarch Bartholomew to Rome to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the first meeting of rapprochement of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in Jerusalem (January 1964) after so many centuries. This meeting paved the way to direct relations, giving rise to increasingly fraternal relations between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, a spirit that gradually extended to other Orthodox Churches.

The same spirit also enlivened the meeting between John Paul II and Bartholomew I. In the Common Declaration that concluded the visit, the Pope and the Patriarch said: "Our meeting in Rome today also enables us to face certain problems and misunderstandings that have recently surfaced. The long experience of the 'dialogue of charity' comes to our aid precisely in these circumstances, so that difficulties can be faced serenely without slowing or clouding our progress on the journey we have undertaken towards full communion in Christ" (Common Declaration, 1 July, n. 8; ORE, 7 July 2004, p. 9).

As far as Schismatics, aren't we all? Did Rome break from Constantinople, or the other way around. I am just as outraged as you at the actions of Cardinal Humbert in 1054, but to label Catholics as schismatics without painting yourselves just as black is simply impossible.

As far as the Pope wanting control over the Orthodox Church, that is silly. Don't go off half cocked. It may have been true at one time, but it is not, now, and hasn't been since Paul VI visited Jerusalem and met Athenagoras in 1964. We simply can't tell much of John Paul I, but John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis have done all they could to heal that wound. So have Athenagoras and Bartholomew. The one that stuck out as recalcitrant was Patriarch Kirill. HE refused to see John Paul II at all.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

As a matter of fact, the Melkite bishops LEFT Rome before the vote was taken. When they, including their patriarch Gregory Yussef, were later forced to sign the decree, they added a caveat: "Provided the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs and bishops are respected, and without prejudice against or diminution of these rights."

Did you know that, Constantine?

Christ is risen!

I know that Patriarch Gregory had to let the Pope place his foot on his head in penitence for that clause.

 

[Monk Brendan]

That is the traditional way of doing things, most monasteries continue that tradition. And even Catechumens are expelled during the point that the Liturgy calls for that. That was how Christians did things in the first century, and some of us just never stopped doing things that way.

It was during a Greek fest, and they were giving tours of the church! Don't tell me I'm wrong, I was there, and YOU were not!

 

[Monk Brendan]

I know that Patriarch Gregory had to let the Pope place his foot on his head in penitence for that clause.

About Gregory II. Pope Pius IX was a megalomaniac, who, upon losing the Papal States to Italy, called Vatican I to try to keep his sense of POWER. He began as a liberal Pope, and well liked, but frankly, in his old age, he became a tyrannic old fool.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Okay, so in the EOC position, did Christ have to fulfill the Law requirements to save sinners?

God could theoretically have simply repealed death, but this comes with several issues.

1. God warned man he would surely die with the fall. God is consistent and isn't going to flip flop on a warning like that.

2. Immortality without transformation is a problem. God could have let man eat from the tree of life, but he said no. This is for our own sake: if we had eaten from the tree of life in a fallen orientation, we probably would have become as demons.

3. Even if man were contrite (since God is shown very willing to forgive in the OT), and God forgives him on those grounds, man would, as Saint Athanasius points out, fall again...and again...and again...and thus incur mortality again...and again...and again.

With all that in mind, man cannot simply be forgiven or death abolished through fiat, without a repeat of the issue. Thus Christ does not simply restore us to our pre-fall being, but actually transforms us into something altogether beyond that (1 Corinthians 15:47).