Orthodox vs. Protestant belief differences?

[Christina C]

Sounds to confusing.

Anglicanism is varied - I will say that.

 

[Christina C]

Not me, I'm looking to Christ Alone!

You asked my what I believed - by that I assumed you were asking generally about my beliefs and I responded as such - that I am seriously looking at the beliefs of the Orthodox Church. Same as you have declared yourself a Calvinist.

 

[Silmarien]

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 really have no idea how you could look at my post and come to the conclusion that I "knock learning and using our minds to think" simply because I have serious concerns about the specific direction that Western Christianity went intellectually. I'm a former atheist, so I challenge everything. It's very hard to take Augustinian theology seriously when you read Genesis 2-3 allegorically and don't believe that Adam and Eve were historical figures.

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.

Orthodox beliefs are in written form. Everything is in print. Nothing is hidden. Interpretation is possible within the boundaries of the consensus of the Church Fathers; it's not just a free-for-all.

That said, I'm not Orthodox. I have never claimed to be Orthodox, so I'm not sure why you persist in acting as if I am. If I'm anything right now, it'd be Episcopalian (i.e., Anglican), but not confirmed or anything. And I really don't know why you're convinced that I don't know anything about Calvinism, simply because I reject it.

So what's the difference between Orthodox and Gnostic?

I've never seen the Orthodox claim to have special knowledge given only to them, nor do they seem to believe that the physical world is evil. Nor do they use strange gospels that they made up out of thin air and insist that knowledge alone will save you. Aside from the fact that both Orthodoxy and Gnosticism are extremely mystical, I don't see many similarities.

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

How am I judging you? If you specifically ask me why I prefer the Orthodox approach to the Calvinist one, my answer isn't a judgment. You are convinced that Calvinism is correct and I'm convinced that it's not. It's as simple as that.

I'm not qualified to answer these questions because I can't speak for the Orthodox Church. I could give you my personal stances on them, but it would really be muddying the water.

 

[Christina C]

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?

Of course the EO have the Bible!

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

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?

You must remember that in Orthodoxy, operation is ontological (this is very important to our mysticism, since we believe you can become ontologically one with God in energies--that is, operations--but not in essence). So we affirm that we have a second nature, a sinful nature--that our energies are impaired by the fall (nature can be used to mean exclusively essence, or being inclusive of operations, in Orthodoxy). But we do reject the Augustinian position of sinful essence, and always have. Augustine is recognized as a saint by us, a very great one, but his works are not Scripture, and we recognize that no one but God is infallible, and we feel that Augustine's speculation (and he made it clear a lot of his theology was speculation susceptible to error, not dogmatic preaching) here, is not consistent with the early Church's position. That we reject the notion of sinful essence, does not mean we believe we can achieve salvation without God--that's not even a coherent statement.

You might try these podcasts, which explain how Saint Augustine's position is not consistent with the other fathers:

The Rise of Anthropological Pessimism in the West I - Paradise and Utopia | Ancient Faith Ministries

The Rise of Anthropological Pessimism in the West II - Paradise and Utopia | Ancient Faith Ministries

The Rise of Anthropological Pessimism III - Paradise and Utopia | Ancient Faith Ministries

The Rise of Anthropological Pessimism IV - Paradise and Utopia | Ancient Faith Ministries

The Rise of Anthropological Pessimism V - Paradise and Utopia | Ancient Faith Ministries

The Rise of Anthropological Pessimism in the West VI - Paradise and Utopia | Ancient Faith Ministries

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!

You should probably read On the Incarnation, by Saint Athanasius. In case you do not know who he is (I am presuming you do), he is the principle architect of the clause in the Nicene Creed that says the Son is in essence the same as the Father. However, I think you know exactly what we have faith in and how Christ saves us from bondage, since I've already stated all that exhaustively. At this point it seems like you're trying to look for issues where there are none. There are numerous theological differences between Calvinism and Orthodoxy, and it would make more sense for you to honestly confront those, than it would for you to strawman us.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

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!

Paul is talking about works of the law, like circumcision. That is distinct from works as general obedience to God, which is the sort of works Saint James the Brother of the Lord discusses in his epistle.

This is really very simple, and I feel you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Do you think that obeying God's will is both a choice and important? If you answer yes to both those points, that is our position as well, and that is all there is to it. "Works" like the Pharisees do, has zero to do with obeying God's will, it has nothing to do with the works James talks about, that has to do with the works Paul talks about. We do not believe anyone can become holy by themselves, we do not believe you can even EXIST by yourself, but only by God's continual grace. Obviously, works in the sense of obeying God's will, must come from faith (and these works in turn strength faith). We object to the term "faith alone" if it is used to mean that obeying God is unimportant, but that is all. If you don't mean it like that, then there isn't an issue.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

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?

No, we reject univocity of being. We believe you can only describe God analogously ("hand of God"), or apophatically, that is, by saying what God isn't (God is without limit, incorporeal, without emotion, immortal, timeless, and so on).

Of course we have a written Bible, although the Old Testament has a few more books than either yours or the Catholic one does. We also have our own translation we're working on, just finished with the NT and working on the OT. For our annotated study Bible in the mean time, we use a corrected NKJV.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I've never seen the Orthodox claim to have special knowledge given only to them, nor do they seem to believe that the physical world is evil. Nor do they use strange gospels that they made up out of thin air and insist that knowledge alone will save you. Aside from the fact that both Orthodoxy and Gnosticism are extremely mystical, I don't see many similarities.

In fact, while icons are often accused of being pagan, dogmatic affirmation of them in the Seventh Ecumenical Council was actually a reaction against pagan philosophy that had steeped in the Church. Pagan philosophy often sees the physical as evil, but the Orthodox position is that once God became physical himself, this made it quite possible for the physical to be holy (as was intended before the fall, but impaired with the fall). Veneration of icons was seen as affirmation of that position, whereas the rejection of icons was often more associated with the schools influenced by pagan philosophy. Icons were not dogmatically affirmed for themselves, but on the grounds that rejecting that the physical can be holy, is heresy against the Gospel.

Many Protestants seem to think Christ's sacrifice ended physical holiness, since they not only reject icons, but also altars, incense, and some even reject baptism or communion as holy, taking them only as "physical" things. For us, it is actually this position which seems Gnostic.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

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?

It should be noted, however, that our understanding of works is not the same as the Catholic one. For us, works means doing any action because God wills it, and that our obligation of works is to do only as God wills, nothing more or short of that, which means none of us lives up to it, though all are obligated to it (and even if we lived up to it, Christ said we would be no more than "unprofitable servants", just doing what our master asked). Celibacy is not seen as a "supererogatory" work, it is seen as something you are either "given", or not; if you are given it, it is a sin not to be celibate. If you are not given it, then it is unwise to try live without marriage.

It's also important to note Scripture did not become inspired because the Bride of Christ said it was. Scripture is inspired because the Holy Spirit inspired it, and the Bride of Christ recognized that inspiration because the Spirit of Truth revealed it to us. The Bride of Christ has no dogmatic authority, that is, the Church cannot make dogma; dogma is and only is what Christ taught to the Apostles. For instance, the ever-virginity of Mary is absolutely affirmed as the truth and taught as true in our Liturgy, but we also don't consider it dogma, properly speaking; correct, yes, and something all Orthodox are expected to believe, but not part of the deposit of dogma (Mary is dogmatically called "Theotokos" as a Christological affirmation, not a Marian Dogma per se; we believe Christ's flesh is God's flesh, and that is important to affirm). The Church does have the authority to make canons, that is, improvised rules, but these rules are subject to change; they make things work better, but should not be equated with Scripture.

 

[ladodgers6]

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.

Was this meant for me o are you making a general post?

 

[bbbbbbb]

It should be noted, however, that our understanding of works is not the same as the Catholic one. For us, works means doing any action because God wills it, and that our obligation of works is to do only as God wills, nothing more or short of that, which means none of us lives up to it, though all are obligated to it (and even if we lived up to it, Christ said we would be no more than "unprofitable servants", just doing what our master asked). Celibacy is not seen as a "supererogatory" work, it is seen as something you are either "given", or not; if you are given it, it is a sin not to be celibate. If you are not given it, then it is unwise to try live without marriage.

It's also important to note Scripture did not become inspired because the Bride of Christ said it was. Scripture is inspired because the Holy Spirit inspired it, and the Bride of Christ recognized that inspiration because the Spirit of Truth revealed it to us. The Bride of Christ has no dogmatic authority, that is, the Church cannot make dogma; dogma is and only is what Christ taught to the Apostles. For instance, the ever-virginity of Mary is absolutely affirmed as the truth and taught as true in our Liturgy, but we also don't consider it dogma, properly speaking; correct, yes, and something all Orthodox are expected to believe, but not part of the deposit of dogma. The Church does have the authority to make canons, that is, improvised rules, but these rules are subject to change; they make things work better, but should not be equated with Scripture.

These are vital distinctions that should be borne in mind. Thank you for posting this.

 

[ladodgers6]

Anglicanism is varied - I will say that.

This is why people caricature your religion. Because people say different things to the questions I ask. Then people get upset with me, when I repeat what I was told.

 

[ladodgers6]

You asked my what I believed - by that I assumed you were asking generally about my beliefs and I responded as such - that I am seriously looking at the beliefs of the Orthodox Church. Same as you have declared yourself a Calvinist.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[FenderTL5]

Note: I changed one word in the quote to a blank space to establish a quasi rhetorical question.

It should be noted, however, that our understanding of _______ is not the same as the Catholic one.

How many other ways could we fill in that blank?

 

[ladodgers6]

No, we reject univocity of being. We believe you can only describe God analogously ("hand of God"), or apophatically, that is, by saying what God isn't (God is without limit, incorporeal, without emotion, immortal, timeless, and so on).

Yes I understand that God reveals himself through works not His essence. But God does how emotions, right. The biggest ones are Mercy, Grace, and Love. That's all I am saying.

Of course we have a written Bible, although the Old Testament has a few more books than either yours or the Catholic one does. We also have our own translation we're working on, just finished with the NT and working on the OT. For our annotated study Bible in the mean time, we use a corrected NKJV.

Now if my memory serves right. You guys believe that a person is in by Grace, and stays in by works. Is that fair to say?

 

[ladodgers6]

Paul is talking about works of the law, like circumcision. That is distinct from works as general obedience to God, which is the sort of works Saint James the Brother of the Lord discusses in his epistle.

So you are saying, that Paul isn't talking about the whole Law, but only the ceremonial Law?

This is really very simple, and I feel you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Do you think that obeying God's will is both a choice and important? If you answer yes to both those points, that is our position as well, and that is all there is to it. "Works" like the Pharisees do, has zero to do with obeying God's will, it has nothing to do with the works James talks about, that has to do with the works Paul talks about. We do not believe anyone can become holy by themselves, we do not believe you can even EXIST by yourself, but only by God's continual grace. Obviously, works in the sense of obeying God's will, must come from faith (and these works in turn strength faith). We object to the term "faith alone" if it is used to mean that obeying God is unimportant, but that is all. If you don't mean it like that, then there isn't an issue.

So that we are not going in circles. What works are you referring too. And what is God's will?

 

[ladodgers6]

You must remember that in Orthodoxy, operation is ontological (this is very important to our mysticism, since we believe you can become ontologically one with God in energies--that is, operations--but not in essence). So we affirm that we have a second nature, a sinful nature--that our energies are impaired by the fall (nature can be used to mean exclusively essence, or being inclusive of operations, in Orthodoxy). But we do reject the Augustinian position of sinful essence, and always have. Augustine is recognized as a saint by us, a very great one, but his works are not Scripture, and we recognize that no one but God is infallible, and we feel that Augustine's speculation (and he made it clear a lot of his theology was speculation susceptible to error, not dogmatic preaching) here, is not consistent with the early Church's position. That we reject the notion of sinful essence, does not mean we believe we can achieve salvation without God--that's not even a coherent statement.

Let me respond to this first. I asked other EOC members of what their meaning of "ONTOLOGICAL" means? Because I do not want to caricature what they say they believe. Now you guys have said that you don't have written doctrine or sharp lines. But then you guys criticize Augustine. So who determines what is right or wrong in your religion?

But you are missing the point. If people are not evil or have a sinful nature because of the Fall. Then why do they need Grace? Grace is free, given without earning it. This is what is confusing me. If people are in bondage to Satan; how are they in bondage? How did the Fall happen? It seems to me that everything is honky dory. Nothing to worry about. Why so much emphasis on works, when people are not evil or do not have a sinful nature? Please be specific and detailed.

 

[Ron Gurley]

POST#333: "You can't be IN Christ without being united to His "body", which is the Church"

MY post #340 contradicts that "theory". !!

 

[prodromos]

POST#333: "You can't be IN Christ without being united to His "body", which is the Church"

MY post #340 contradicts that "theory". !!

Naturally you would think that.

 

[Ron Gurley]

POST #359: "Naturally you would think that."

OOO...A MIND READER!

Naturally Scripture PROVES that!!

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.