Orthodox vs. Protestant belief differences?

[ladodgers6]

I literally mean where it says "Calvinist" on the site here, under your name, right beneath the numbers and above your marital status. I didn't notice that before. I'm culturally Protestant, so familiar with the denominational breakdown.

Its always said that.

 

[Silmarien]

Sorry, but people have only evil habits? We are evil to the bone! This evil people need to hear the Law that condemns evil people. Too expose their cravings of lust and evil deeds, because they seek it and LOVE the darkness and HATE the light. Not unless God saves us from this evil fallen condition first, we will not walk in holiness! Trying to do so is just foolish. Because no flesh will be justified through the works of the Law. The Law drives sinners to Christ, because that the only place we find Mercy for such evil people.

Yeah, this is my problem with Calvinism. Constant insistence on sin as manifesting as lust and evil deeds while ignoring the more insidious form it can take: despair. What happens when someone loves the light but for some reason or another doesn't believe it's meant for them? What happens when this approach backfires completely because constantly pointing out how wretched and worthless humanity is will only drive a person further into despair?

There are situations that Calvinism is frankly not equiped to handle, and if it's an inadequate approach to human nature, it really needs some tweaking. Especially given that rather lopsided interpretation of Scripture.

So God in your theology does not punish the wicked? Not using analogy here. God hates sin. And has condemn the ungodly for it. Look at the flood for example?

I'd like to ask about the flood too.

Guys, is this normal for Orthodoxy or an example of someone on the fringe? St Spyridon - Australia

If the Flood narrative is understood literalistically then we are confronted with a vengeful, wrathful, merciless and incompetent tyrant of a god who destroys the whole world in a fit of pique, expressing sorrow for having created humanity and the animals in the first place; even if, at the end of the story, he does redeem himself to some extent by repenting of his monstrous act of carnage and making a covenant with humanity and the animals, of which the rainbow is the sign. But how can such a god be reconciled with the God of love revealed in Christ in the New Testament?

Most biblical scholars believe that the Flood narrative was composed -- whether by reworking Mesopotamian Flood myths or by reworking a Jewish tradition (or, of course, a combination of the two) -- during the Babylonian Exile of the Jews (6th century BC). If this is so, literally (as opposed to literalistically) interpreted the story was most likely intended as an allegory of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, the ending of the Davidic line of kings and the exile of the people to Babylon. In the Ancient world, cataclysmic floods are often used as metaphors or symbols for great social calamities. Noah and his family would, then, represent the righteous remnant of the Jewish people.

That the destruction of Jerusalem and the Exile were indeed likened to the destruction of cosmic order and a return to primordial chaos is confirmed by the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 4:23-26). And here one must recall that prior to God’s first act of creation, ‘Let there be light’ (Genesis 1:3), ‘The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters’ (Genesis 1:2).

So interpreted, the Flood narrative is an allegory of hope, which tells of God’s loving protection of His people, despite the appalling calamity which has befallen them. It is an allegory designed to reassure and bring comfort to the people, as they ‘lay down and wept’ by the waters of Babylon (Psalm 137:1 / 136 LXX), that out of the chaos to which their world has been reduced God would create a new order. It was at this very period of Jewish history, scholars have pointed out, that the Jews ceased to think of their God, Yahweh, as one amongst many gods, even if the most powerful, and proclaimed Him as the one and only, omniscient and all-merciful, God.

I view much of the Old Testament as mythology, which I'd assumed was going to be a serious problem if I were ever inclined to join the Orthodox Church. I know it claims to hold some form of inerrancy, but if this sort of approach is acceptable, I'm not really sure what's meant by "inerrancy" anymore.

 

[Christina C]

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).

I know/understand the differences in EO and Calvinistic belief/understanding. I also understand the difference between propitiation andexpiation. I was pointing out that the same Greek word has been translated as both propitiation and expiation - which have different meanings. The articles I referenced point this out.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

All of these "catholics" fighting. The irony. . .

 

[prodromos]

Guys, is this normal for Orthodoxy or an example of someone on the fringe? St Spyridon - Australia

Apparently he was a long standing lecturer at St Andrews Theological college here in Sydney. I honestly don't know what to make of his lecture.

 

[Vicomte13]

Thanks for your comments. I will share this with you. People have a misconception of "OMNIPOTENCE" of God. God "CANNOT" lie, die, or sin. He cannot not be God. He cannot change any of his attributes. The comment that you have quoted from my post is Biblical. Playing down a sinner condition before a Holy God; also plays down what Grace really is. Yes sinners have a free-will. But their free-will is in bondage to it. Eph. 2-3

I can lie. God can lie. That he DOES not, does not mean he CANNOT. If he CANNOT, he's not God.

I suppose by definition God cannot sin, since a "sin" is by definition an offense against God, so if God does it, it's not a sin - he's not offending himself. Though again, I do things that offend myself, so God can too, if he wants to. If I set off a mudslide that drowns a Filipino orphanage, I'm a mass murderer and a sinner. When God does the same thing, it's an "act of God", and not a sin, because when God does it we don't define it as sin.

Being God, he could destroy himself if he chose to, so of course he could "die" - along with the rest of the universe and everything. That he won't do that is predictable. Why would he? Boredom?

God CAN do any of the things that you say he can't do.

 

[Silmarien]

Apparently he was a long standing lecturer at St Andrews Theological college here in Sydney. I honestly don't know what to make of his lecture.

Yeah, it's a level of theological liberalism I really wasn't expecting. Unless there's more leeway with how you read the Old Testament than the New Testament? The folk over at Ancient Faith Ministries seem pretty comfortable with biblical scholarship, but I've never seen them do this with it before.

On the other hand, how would you reconcile the Wrath of God as love experienced differently with the flood story? There's a level of angry intent there that's difficult to allegorize away.

 

[ladodgers6]

Yeah, this is my problem with Calvinism. Constant insistence on sin as manifesting as lust and evil deeds while ignoring the more insidious form it can take: despair. What happens when someone loves the light but for some reason or another doesn't believe it's meant for them? What happens when this approach backfires completely because constantly pointing out how wretched and worthless humanity is will only drive a person further into despair?

How can someone who LOVES the darkness; find despair? Even you stated that we are in bondage to Satan. So not until we are saved and freed from that bondage. Can we start Loving the Light. And this act is a Divine Act of God in Christ to the ungodly. And I beg to differ about pointing out sin. Because without the Law, we have no knowledge of sin and the need of a Savior! If this evil condition is not highlighted in our lives, we will not run to Christ who is OUR redemption, justification, and sanctification.

There are situations that Calvinism is frankly not equiped to handle, and if it's an inadequate approach to human nature, it really needs some tweaking. Especially given that rather lopsided interpretation of Scripture.

For the record the 5 points is not Calvinism. People tend too sum up Calvinism in these 5 points. When there is so much more to learn about the doctrines of Grace that Calvinism teaches. Yea, I once thought as you do. Until I researched it for myself. People tend to dislike what they do not want to hear.

I'd like to ask about the flood too.

Guys, is this normal for Orthodoxy or an example of someone on the fringe? St Spyridon - Australia

Okay ask about the flood.

I view much of the Old Testament as mythology, which I'd assumed was going to be a serious problem if I were ever inclined to join the Orthodox Church. I know it claims to hold some form of inerrancy, but if this sort of approach is acceptable, I'm not really sure what's meant by "inerrancy" anymore.

Look I am not trying to argue with you. I ask questions to get a better grip on what the EOC teaches that's all. In the Protestant View the OT is the unfolding of the Redemption Promise made in Christ. This plan is unfolding in time and history until it is revealed in the Promised Seed that came to save His people from their sins. If you are unsure about the light, remember as Luther was being accused by Satan when He continued to sin. You are a damned sinner because you sin, said Satan. Luther replied, yes I am a sinner, but Christ came to save sinners like me. So then my friend remember that Christ also came to save sinners like you and me! That's the good news!

 

[ladodgers6]

I know/understand the differences in EO and Calvinistic belief/understanding. I also understand the difference between propitiation andexpiation. I was pointing out that the same Greek word has been translated as both propitiation and expiation - which have different meanings. The articles I referenced point this out.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[Christina C]

Yeah, it's a level of theological liberalism I really wasn't expecting. Unless there's more leeway with how you read the Old Testament than the New Testament? The folk over at Ancient Faith Ministries seem pretty comfortable with biblical scholarship, but I've never seen them do this with it before.

On the other hand, how would you reconcile the Wrath of God as love experienced differently with the flood story? There's a level of angry intent there that's difficult to allegorize away.

Fr Thomas Hopko did a couple of podcasts on the wrath of God. I found it a little difficult to follow all his thoughts, but they were interesting.
The Wrath of God - Speaking the Truth in Love | Ancient Faith Ministries
The Wrath of God - Part 2 - Speaking the Truth in Love | Ancient Faith Ministries

 

[ladodgers6]

I can lie. God can lie. That he DOES not, does not mean he CANNOT. If he CANNOT, he's not God.

I suppose by definition God cannot sin, since a "sin" is by definition an offense against God, so if God does it, it's not a sin - he's not offending himself. Though again, I do things that offend myself, so God can too, if he wants to. If I set off a mudslide that drowns a Filipino orphanage, I'm a mass murderer and a sinner. When God does the same thing, it's an "act of God", and not a sin, because when God does it we don't define it as sin.

Being God, he could destroy himself if he chose to, so of course he could "die" - along with the rest of the universe and everything. That he won't do that is predictable. Why would he? Boredom?

God CAN do any of the things that you say he can't do.

That's your opinion. But its not Biblical teaching. God swears in His word that He cannot Lie! The devil is the father of lies. God cannot be evil. When God bought the great flood, it was because evil was great in the land. God's judgement against it is justified because they were unrepentant and living vile lives before God as mocking him. But God also gave them a chance to repent and enter the ark. But they laughed at Noah, until it was too late.

 

[ladodgers6]

Fr Thomas Hopko did a couple of podcasts on the wrath of God. I found it a little difficult to follow all his thoughts, but they were interesting.
The Wrath of God - Speaking the Truth in Love | Ancient Faith Ministries
The Wrath of God - Part 2 - Speaking the Truth in Love | Ancient Faith Ministries

Where did Anglican originate from?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Where did Anglican originate from?

England. Anglia is another word for England. An Anglican is an Englishman. The Anglican Church is the Church of England.

 

[Christina C]

Where did Anglican originate from?

Depends upon what you are asking by that question! As bbbbbbb says, originally from England. The Church in England became known as the Anglican Church. As I am sure you know, it started when Henry's VIII set himself up as head of the Church in England instead of the Pope as the Pope wouldn't grant him a divorce. At that time the Church was, however, basically still RC in its core beliefs, but was gradually influenced by ideas from the Reformation on the continent of Europe. Today, being Anglican could mean that you belong to a Church in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, or it could mean that you belong to one of many Churches that have broken away from Canterbury for one reason or another but who still call themselves Anglicans. Many of those Churches subscribe to the 39 Articles. Basically, Anglicans today hold a variety of beliefs and worship in a variety of ways. Ask 10 Anglicans the same question about doctrine or belief and you will likely get a variety of different answers.

 

[Christina C]

Where did Anglican originate from?

Anglican doctrine - Wikipedia

theoldjamestownchurch - Blog - Is Traditional Anglicanism Calvinist or Arminian?

 

[Christina C]

Where did Anglican originate from?

And you might find this interesting/amusing

Predestanation and Free Will

 

[Silmarien]

Fr Thomas Hopko did a couple of podcasts on the wrath of God. I found it a little difficult to follow all his thoughts, but they were interesting.
The Wrath of God - Speaking the Truth in Love | Ancient Faith Ministries
The Wrath of God - Part 2 - Speaking the Truth in Love | Ancient Faith Ministries

You know, my takeaway from this is that theological unity within Orthodoxy is a little bit overstated. That, and that sometimes it's easy to tell who's a convert and who's not, since a lot of Western converts do seem to like to downplay certain harsher interpretations.

Now, I'm not thrilled with the idea he puts forward that anything terrible that ever happens was sent by God... people abuse that horrifically and then suddenly we have hurricanes because God's angry about secularism. Which is a wildly problematic way of looking at things. But at the same time, if God wanted a universe where natural disasters didn't occur, he presumably could have created it that way, and then there's the question of why didn't he? And then this line of thought--that it's instructive and rehabilitative--becomes interesting. Though I'm still not comfortable with the word "wrath." Too many problems and too much potential anthropomorphism.

Ask 10 Anglicans the same question about doctrine or belief and you will likely get a variety of different answers.

About 15 of them, no?

 

[ladodgers6]

England. Anglia is another word for England. An Anglican is an Englishman. The Anglican Church is the Church of England.

Are they not close to what Arminius taught?

 

[ladodgers6]

Depends upon what you are asking by that question! As bbbbbbb says, originally from England. The Church in England became known as the Anglican Church. As I am sure you know, it started when Henry's VIII set himself up as head of the Church in England instead of the Pope as the Pope wouldn't grant him a divorce. At that time the Church was, however, basically still RC in its core beliefs, but was gradually influenced by ideas from the Reformation on the continent of Europe. Today, being Anglican could mean that you belong to a Church in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, or it could mean that you belong to one of many Churches that have broken away from Canterbury for one reason or another but who still call themselves Anglicans. Many of those Churches subscribe to the 39 Articles. Basically, Anglicans today hold a variety of beliefs and worship in a variety of ways. Ask 10 Anglicans the same question about doctrine or belief and you will likely get a variety of different answers.

So what do you believe?

 

[ladodgers6]

Anglican doctrine - Wikipedia

theoldjamestownchurch - Blog - Is Traditional Anglicanism Calvinist or Arminian?

So you guys do not have Confessions of beliefs per se?