Orthodox vs. Protestant belief differences?

[Christina C]

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.



About 15 of them, no?

I find the idea of anything terrible that happens being sent by God as a difficult concept. In the UK a prisoner recently died who tortured and then murdered children and buried their bodies on a moor. He recorded a 10 year old girl pleading for her life. I find it difficult to reconcile his argument to a situation like that.

 

[Christina C]

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

Some would say that Anglican beliefs are summed up in the 39 articles. Others would say that the 39 articles were of their time and of less relevance now. Some may never even have heard of them - even if confirmed in the Church. Some of the articles themselves have been interpreted in different ways. Some Anglicans believe that the bread and wine of Holy Communion are just symbols, others that they are the real presence of Christ, but there are different understandings of what that means and those different understandings are acceptable within Anglicanism. I would say that the only confession of belief we've probably all agree on is the Nicean Creed.

 

[Christina C]

So what do you believe?

Me personally? Seriously looking at the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Meowzltov]

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~

Protestants believe the solas: faith alone and Bible alone. The Orthodox are Catholic in their orientation -- one must respond to grace with good works. And the Church has authority as well as the Bible -- indeed the canon of the NT only exists because of Church authority. How do you stand on these two issues?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Sorry for my ignorance. Please clarify for me what is "The grace-filled Christian life"? This language sound a lot like N.T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul. The thing I see missing again is Christ fulfilling even the sanctification part of redemption for the ungodly. In Protestantism Christ is also "OUR" sanctification/holiness which is given freely to the ungodly. God did just save us from sin, to leave us stranded halfway to fin for ourselves.



So much focus on OUR doing, instead of what God did in Christ for the ungodly!



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.

But we should not place our comfort or confidence on OUR doing. Like repentance or any evangelical obedience; but only on the Mercy and Grace of God who justifies the ungodly apart from works. Once this is done by God. Then being free from the curse of the Law that condemns sin. We can walk free in the Grace of God, and perform good works. Because of His Grace, not our doing!

This sounds a lot like Arminianism. Its all base on our Choice; though they do not have it at first?
This last part sounds a lot like Catholicism. A process of gaining more and more Grace through our works.

"Grace". in Orthodoxy, is synonymous with God's operations.

No, we reject the Augustinian theology that we are "evil to the bone". We do not believe there is an evil essence that you are guilty of. We are all sinners in operation, but not in essence.

We don't believe in works of the Law, like circumcision or eating kosher. We do believe in obeying God's will. But I have an Orthodox prayer book that says, in the morning prayers, "If then, faith in Thee saveth the desperate, behold, I believe, save me, for thou art my God and Creator. Let faith instead of works be imputed to me, O my God, for Thou wilt find no works which could justify me. But may my faith suffice instead of all works, may it answer for, may it acquit me, may it make a partaker of Thine eternal glory." You see, none of this was ever a controversy for us, and to us it is like splitting hairs. You might as well say, "Faith comes from grace, so we are saved by grace, not faith!"

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

In Protestantism the Covenant of Works was made with the first Adam with sanctions and blessings. If he broke this Covenant of Works he would die and be condemned. If he were to fulfill this Covenant of Works. He would earn the Tree of Life and live forever. But when Adam broke that Covenant of Works, he bought death and condemnation on us all. That's why the second Adam (Christ) came into the world to fulfill not abolish the Law of God for US/the ungodly. This is the good news. Not that we have to DO this or that. Because no one of us can do it! And why Christ died to pay the penalty of the broken Covenant of works, so that we can receive the righteousness of God and live forever with Him. This is the Gospel that Paul preached; a crucified Christ!



Yes believers must perform good deeds. But they perform them because they are already saved! Christ has done everything for us. Christ's final words on the Cross to God, "IT IS FINISHED". The Last fulfilled what He came to do, that the first Adam failed to do.

I forgot the Methodist preacher I was reading about. Anyway, he was sharing a story of a man who killed his son. After struggling and wrestling with it. He prayed to God to help him understand it. After reading the Gospel in the Bible, he forgive him for killing his son. And had this convicted killer come to live with him in his home. A couple of years past and this killer was converted and married, this Methodist's daughter. And this Methodist married them in his church. When I read that it melted my heart, because there is enough evil in this world. To be honest I don't know if I could do that. Being honest here.

You see, none of the Reformation Theologians are ours. So when you throw around terms like "law" and "works," remember that our understanding of these terms is more in line with De incarnatione than Reformation thinkers or post-schism Catholic thinkers.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

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?

Sinning doesn't affect God in Orthodoxy, no. If you made God angry, you'd be changing him; since God is not changeable, we reject that.

God has aims, to bring all things into his midst and be like him. But he does not, literally, experience pain, please, sorrow, anger or any of that, no. These terms are quite acceptable as analogies. Literally speaking, we don't even think God is a being, but is rather beyond being; that is, reality is to God as fiction is to reality, he transcends it utterly. That is why he is called the Truth, he is the foundation of all truth, all that subsists in him is true, and all that conflicts with him is lie, Satan being the father of lies.

 

[ladodgers6]

Me personally? Seriously looking at the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Not me, I'm looking to Christ Alone!

 

[ladodgers6]

Some would say that Anglican beliefs are summed up in the 39 articles. Others would say that the 39 articles were of their time and of less relevance now. Some may never even have heard of them - even if confirmed in the Church. Some of the articles themselves have been interpreted in different ways. Some Anglicans believe that the bread and wine of Holy Communion are just symbols, others that they are the real presence of Christ, but there are different understandings of what that means and those different understandings are acceptable within Anglicanism. I would say that the only confession of belief we've probably all agree on is the Nicean Creed.

Sounds to confusing.

 

[ladodgers6]

"Grace". in Orthodoxy, is synonymous with God's operations.

No, we reject the Augustinian theology that we are "evil to the bone". We do not believe there is an evil essence that you are guilty of. We are all sinners in operation, but not in essence.

And this is crucial piece and major difference between us. Please excuse me if I get too direct here. But we are discussing theology. I believe that we are completely sinful. Now some have misunderstood the Protestant view here. And think that we can be as bad as we want then. No! God forbid! But that we are totally depraved, not that just a part of us is broken. And with a little medicine we can cure ourselves. No! We are completely broken, unable to save ourselves. Because as you said we are in bondage to Satan. You never expounded on this point. And I know you do not mean that because we are in bondage to Satan, he forces us to sin, right? We sin willingly, because that is what we desire to do. Because we LOVE the darkness. In Romans 3, Paul states that no one is good, no one seeks after God.

Which is why its takes a Divine Act of God to save the ungodly! If we could free ourselves, then why do we need Christ?

We don't believe in works of the Law, like circumcision or eating kosher. We do believe in obeying God's will. But I have an Orthodox prayer book that says, in the morning prayers, "If then, faith in Thee saveth the desperate, behold, I believe, save me, for thou art my God and Creator. Let faith instead of works be imputed to me, O my God, for Thou wilt find no works which could justify me. But may my faith suffice instead of all works, may it answer for, may it acquit me, may it make a partaker of Thine eternal glory." You see, none of this was ever a controversy for us, and to us it is like splitting hairs. You might as well say, "Faith comes from grace, so we are saved by grace, not faith!"

Since I have been studying the EOC teaching. IMHO it seems vague at best. No detail of how man fell, or why he fell. No detail of how Christ saves us from this bondage. No mention of the person and works of what God did in Christ for us! Faith in what I ask? Faith in our faith? That old teaching? I am not trying to be mean. Please forgive me if I am offending you. But in your beliefs I find no peace of conscience or assurance of Life. Only that old hamster wheel that one earns their way into heaven because they have done enough to out weigh the bad. And that's not good news for the ungodly!

 

[ladodgers6]

You see, none of the Reformation Theologians are ours. So when you throw around terms like "law" and "works," remember that our understanding of these terms is more in line with De incarnatione than Reformation thinkers or post-schism Catholic thinkers.

I know what you are saying. I am familiar with these points in the EOC position. But are not these merits weighed against these believers? Are they not judged by them for salvation? Paul says in Galatians Salvation is by Grace or Works, but it cannot be both!

 

[ladodgers6]

Sinning doesn't affect God in Orthodoxy, no. If you made God angry, you'd be changing him; since God is not changeable, we reject that.

God has aims, to bring all things into his midst and be like him. But he does not, literally, experience pain, please, sorrow, anger or any of that, no. These terms are quite acceptable as analogies. Literally speaking, we don't even think God is a being, but is rather beyond being; that is, reality is to God as fiction is to reality, he transcends it utterly. That is why he is called the Truth, he is the foundation of all truth, all that subsists in him is true, and all that conflicts with him is lie, Satan being the father of lies.

Huh? You make God sound like a substance. God does have attributes: love, hate, grace, mercy sorrow, joy, happiness, anger, and so forth. God created us in His image, with attributes as well. I remember debating with another EOC member. And he said you guys do not have a written Bible. Is that correct? Please explain what documents you use in your religion? Or is it just word of mouth?

 

[prodromos]

Not me, I'm looking to Christ Alone!

You can't be in Christ without being united to His body, which is the Church

 

[Silmarien]

But we are discussing theology. I believe that we are completely sinful. Now some have misunderstood the Protestant view here. And think that we can be as bad as we want then. No! God forbid! But that we are totally depraved, not that just a part of us is broken.

Please don't equate the Calvinist view with the Protestant view.

Since I have been studying the EOC teaching. IMHO it seems vague at best.

It might be worthwhile to point out the difference between cataphatic and apophatic theology, i.e, positive vs. negative theology. Defining God by what he is, and defining God by what he is not.

Western Christianity has largely (though not entirely) lost the apophatic tradition, which is a shame, since it's chipped away considerably at the sense of mystery. Orthodoxy has always used both cataphatic and apophatic theology, however, which may be what comes across as vagueness to you. Compared to Reformed theology, there are certainly a lot less sharply drawn lines, but that's not a weakness.

But in your beliefs I find no peace of conscience or assurance of Life. Only that old hamster wheel that one earns their way into heaven because they have done enough to out weigh the bad. And that's not good news for the ungodly!

Where do you see works based salvation in the post you just quoted? That prayer is quite explicitly salvation by faith. Even if Orthodoxy were vague on the Atonement (which it really isn't), vagueness doesn't suddenly turn faith into works.

 

[ladodgers6]

You can't be in Christ without being united to His body, which is the Church

I beg to differ. I am united to Christ through Faith Alone!

 

[ladodgers6]

Please don't equate the Calvinist view with the Protestant view.

Calvinism , the theology advanced by John Calvin, a Protestant Reformer in the 16th century, and its development by his followers. The term also refers to doctrines and practices derived from the works of Calvin and his followers that are characteristic of the Reformed churches.

It might be worthwhile to point out the difference between cataphatic and apophatic theology, i.e, positive vs. negative theology. Defining God by what he is, and defining God by what he is not.

Western Christianity has largely (though not entirely) lost the apophatic tradition, which is a shame, since it's chipped away considerably at the sense of mystery. Orthodoxy has always used both cataphatic and apophatic theology, however, which may be what comes across as vagueness to you. Compared to Reformed theology, there are certainly a lot less sharply drawn lines, but that's not a weakness.

But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Why is there less sharply lines? Is that not a concern for you? It is for me. Because then it leaves it open for wolves to deceive and devour us. A Christian armed with Scripture is mightier than any Pope or so-called Prophet!



Where do you see works based salvation in the post you just quoted? That prayer is quite explicitly salvation by faith. Even if Orthodoxy were vague on the Atonement (which it really isn't), vagueness doesn't suddenly turn faith into works.[/QUOTE]

Faith into what exactly? Even this is vague in your posts. I am not trying to be difficult here. I am just seeking answers from you guys. And all I get are ambiguous or vague answers. Only thing I have understood so far.

1)The Fall, but no details to how the Fall happen or of any legal ramifications of the broken Covenant

2)People are not evil, but in bondage to Satan. Still no clarification on how people are in bondage and are they forced to sin against their wills; because they are not evil, so that means then that they are forced to sin.

3)No wrath because of the Fall which broke God's Holy Law

4)No Gospel that proclaims a Lamb sacrifice that shed His blood to save the ungodly.

5)Faith; but no explanation into what is Faith is.

6)No Justification of the sinner before a Holy God.

Can you expound on these points or are the lines not sharp enough to explain?

 

[Silmarien]

Why is there less sharply lines? Is that not a concern for you? It is for me. Because then it leaves it open for wolves to deceive and devour us. A Christian armed with Scripture is mightier than any Pope or so-called Prophet!

It's a relief to me, since the more lines you draw, the more you're trying to pull God out of the sky and pin him down somewhere, and at the end of the day, all I see is a god made in our own image. Sharply drawn lines amount to an insistence upon a specific interpretation of Scripture, and interpretations are always bound by cultural context and intellectual history. Calvinism would never have existed outside of the context of Augustinian and Anselmian theology, and the latter has got some feudal influences playing a part, so the whole thing becomes a house of cards built upon shaky foundations.

I find the Orthodox approach more holistic and less vulnerable to someone saying, "I don't accept Premise A, so the whole theology falls apart."

Can you expound on these points or are the lines not sharp enough to explain?

I'm not Orthodox and am not qualified to answer such specific questions. I still think your error is trying to force Orthodox theology into a Calvinist framework. That's obviously not going to end very well.

 

[Ron Gurley]

RCC => 3 legged stool = Scripture + Tradition + Magisterium

Non-RCC => Scriptura Suprema

RCC => 7 sacraments, 5 of which deal with SIN.

Non-RCC => 2 ordinances: A> "Lord's supper: Do this in remembrance of Me" + B> symbolic ritual water baptism/spiritual baptism FOR saved believers / Dedication of Infants.

RCC=> Purgatory, Limbo, Mary had no other kids, Assumption, Mary as Co-intervenor/redeemor, prayer through/veneration of "saints"

Non RCC => all the above not clearly supported by Bible

RCC => "confession"/penance through clergy for forgiveness of sins

Non-RCC => confession (agreeing directly with God) for cleansing and forgiveness of sin / returning to fellowship: 1 John 1

RCC => loss of salvation by sinning

Non-RCC => Eternal Security of believer's salvation EVENT (Spiritual POSITION) + SANCTIFICATION (Spiritual PROCESS)

RCC => Faith without "works" is "dead"

Non-RCC => Faith-Works go hand in hand

RCC => "church" = "1 true church"

Non-RCC => "CHURCH"= collective Body of Believers

 

[ladodgers6]

It's a relief to me, since the more lines you draw, the more you're trying to pull God out of the sky and pin him down somewhere, and at the end of the day, all I see is a god made in our own image. Sharply drawn lines amount to an insistence upon a specific interpretation of Scripture, and interpretations are always bound by cultural context and intellectual history. Calvinism would never have existed outside of the context of Augustinian and Anselmian theology, and the latter has got some feudal influences playing a part, so the whole thing becomes a house of cards built upon shaky foundations.

I once thought as you do. Now I challenge everything. I don't take things at face value. A lot of people get deceived because they do not do their homework. You knock learning and using our minds to think. And for your information, there are early church fathers who help Augustine to come to his conclusions. Why is it that when questions get tough people automatically get upset? Then on the flip side of that, you want people to take a leap of faith? Into the unknown?

I want the truth. Not gray area, where the lines are blurred. I do not take offense to your comments here. Its your right to believe what you will. Because leaving your beliefs to open interpretation because there is nothing in print, leaves me breathless. If your beliefs are correct, then why hide it? Why can't it be in written form? These truths need to be sharped because people need them and to give glory to God? What am I stating here that is unfair? And I will bet that you do not know Classical Reformed Calvinism without wiki it. Not trying to pick a fight, that's been the common caricature, I have been facing.

I find the Orthodox approach more holistic and less vulnerable to someone saying, "I don't accept Premise A, so the whole theology falls apart."

So what's the difference between Orthodox and Gnostic?

I'm not Orthodox and am not qualified to answer such specific questions. I still think your error is trying to force Orthodox theology into a Calvinist framework. That's obviously not going to end very well.

If you not qualified to answer such SPECIFIC questions, then why do you assume to judge me?

 

[Ron Gurley]

The "CHURCH" ("The Living Church?") is the collective "Body" of BELIEVERS,
the members of the "Body of Christ"
who are permanently indwelt by
God the Holy Spirit at the time of their Salvation EVENT.
The "Head" and the "Corner Stone" is God the Son, the historical person of :
Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, The Messiah, The God-Man. He is the "Bridegroom".
Revelations 22: 17 The (God the Holy) Spirit and the "bride" (CHURCH) say, "Come "
Its "building blocks" are the "Grace through Faith" good news which guides the estranged to become a saved BODY + SOUL + SPIRIT.

Ephesians 4: 2-6; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 22:16; Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 28:16;
Matthew 21: 42-45

Revelation 21:9...PROPHECY for the FUTURE
“Come here, I will show you the "Bride" (CHURCH), the wife of the Lamb.” (Jesus the Divine Christ)

Matthew 25 (NASB)...The "Bridegroom" is Jesus...The virgins are the "CHURCH"...Parable of Ten Virgins
1 “Then the "kingdom of heaven" will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the "Bridegroom".
13 Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.( when Jesus comes back for His "CHURCH" )

Psalm 118:22
The stone (Jesus) which the builders (Israel) rejected has become the chief corner stone.(of the Church)

Isaiah 28:16
Therefore thus says the Lord GOD,
" Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone
for the foundation, firmly placed.
He who believes in it will not be disturbed.

Matthew 21...
42 Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures,
'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone;
THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD,
AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES'?

43 "Therefore I say to you (Hebrew Nation) , the kingdom of God will be taken away from you
and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.
44 "And he who falls on (trips over) this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust."
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.