Orthodox vs. Protestant belief differences?

[Ron Gurley]

Q: What is "orthodox"?
A:
orthodox (adjective)
1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.
2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.
3. Orthodox
a. Of or relating to any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
b. Of or relating to Orthodox Judaism.
4. Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional

REF: orthodox

 

[Ron Gurley]

OP: (EASTERN) Orthodox "church" vs. (NON-(EASTERN) Orthodox "church') ....belief (doctrinal) differences?

or

"traditional" "church" doctrines vs NON-"traditional" "church" doctrines

or

RCC ...vs... EASTERN Orthodox "church" vs.
Biblical "CHURCH" DOCTRINES

 

[FenderTL5]

RCC ...vs... EASTERN Orthodox "church" vs.
Biblical "CHURCH" DOCTRINES

or
doctrine based on the deposit of Faith - which includes the Bible - handed down, literally, by the laying on of hands from the Apostles to the Church, further taught by the Ancient Fathers and confirmed in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.. vs.. (apparently) anyone with a partial Bible, searchable concordance and a dictionary (concordance and dictionary optional).

btw, the Orthodox Church is not Roman Catholic nor does the OP reference the RCC.

 

[Ron Gurley]

oops..How did I get in here...Denomination-specific Theology

 

[Christina C]

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.

Anglicanism is not "my religion" as you put it. I am a Christian. I was baptised in the Church of England as a baby and I now attend an Anglican Church to worship. I would like to join the EO Church, but need to find one I can get to. I was just stating that Anglicanism today is varied - that is just a fact. Different Anglicans will I am sure answer differently to questions you ask. I would answer more like the EO. Some Anglicans would answer more like evangelicals, some more like the RC, some more like Calvinists, some more like Lutherans, some more like Methodists etc etc. Depends what topic you are talking to them about as well. But I would think that all Anglicans would believe in the Nicean Creed - though they might understand the words in different ways!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Anglicanism is not "my religion" as you put it. I am a Christian. I was baptised in the Church of England as a baby and I now attend an Anglican Church to worship. I would like to join the EO Church, but need to find one I can get to. I was just stating that Anglicanism today is varied - that is just a fact. Different Anglicans will I am sure answer differently to questions you ask. I would answer more like the EO. Some Anglicans would answer more like evangelicals, some more like the RC, some more like Calvinists, some more like Lutherans, some more like Methodists etc etc. Depends what topic you are talking to them about as well. But I would think that all Anglicans would believe in the Nicean Creed - though that might understand the words in different ways!

That is certainly my observation as a non-Anglican.

 

[Christina C]

Prodromos,
I thought Orthodox Church would be better as it gets into the history and basic theology of Orthodoxy. I dont think Dodgers can handle the Orthodox Way.

I've decided to delete my account here on CF after trying to be helpful to Protestants here and getting slapped in the face over and over again. It is no longer beneficial for me to participate here as it simply gets me upset.

I've posted a good bye in TAW.

Not all Protestants will do that. Some of us are keen to learn and understand! Why not stick to posting in TAW.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not all Protestants will do that. Some of us are keen to learn and understand! Why not stick to posting in TAW.

Quite true. I have appreciated visiting TAW and learning.

 

[Silmarien]

But I would think that all Anglicans would believe in the Nicean Creed - though they might understand the words in different ways!

I don't know, there's some pretty wild Episcopalian stuff out there. Though I kind of think that the Evangelicals and liberal Protestants in the US just keep on passing the hot potato back and forth, each getting more reactionary against the other, until the whole thing descends into madness.

 

[Christina C]

I don't know, there's some pretty wild Episcopalian stuff out there. Though I kind of think that the Evangelicals and liberal Protestants in the US just keep on passing the hot potato back and forth, each getting more reactionary against the other, until the whole thing descends into madness.

I think thing are probably a bit madder in the US than in the UK! But no doubt the madness will make it over here too. We don't have quite the same Anglican landscape over here at the moment.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think thing are probably a bit madder in the US than in the UK! But no doubt the madness will make it over here too. We don't have quite the same Anglican landscape over here at the moment.

Quite true. I sometimes wonder why that is. When I was young the Episcopal Church in the Unites States was a bastion of propriety and dignity. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

 

[Christina C]

Quite true. I sometimes wonder why that is. When I was young the Episcopal Church in the Unites States was a bastion of propriety and dignity. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

Well that's a difficult question and one I haven't given a lot of thought to. In the UK liberal thinking seems to gradually be taking hold within the C of E. At the moment there are very few continuing or breakaway Anglican Churches in the UK and when you say Anglican in the UK most people would assume you mean the C of E. However liberalisation might lead to more breakaway Anglicans - as there seem to be in the US, I get very confused about the many Anglican Churches in the US that have broken away from TEC - some in communion with each other and others not! On many things we seem to reach the same place as the US eventually!

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Quite true. I sometimes wonder why that is. When I was young the Episcopal Church in the Unites States was a bastion of propriety and dignity. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

The Episcopal Church is all about trying to have both Christ and the world. So if the world is "proper and dignified", so will the Episcopal Church be. If the world is another way, so will the Episcopal Church be.

Yes, propriety and dignity can end up being very worldly. That's why you need people like Saint Basil the Fool.

 

[ladodgers6]

Anglicanism is wishy-washy because it was trying to placate bloodthirsty Christians on both the Catholic and Protestant side.

Wow, bloodthirsty Christians, really? This proves my point that people do not understand Classical Reformed Calvinism. But get unset when people talk about EOC position.

It's easy for you to sit back and say they should be more definitive, but just putting rails around the altars was one of the major reasons the English Civil War started (and Calvinists absolutely did not tolerate any form of Christianity but theirs, which they made the state form when they took power). I'm not saying any of that justifies their ludicrously liberal stance today, but maybe you should keep that in mind when asking why things aren't more definitive with them.

You just can't say. I do not have the answers to your questions. Instead suggest that seeking the answers to my questions is not important. Because the questions I am asking is about YOUR religion, not mine.

 

[ladodgers6]

God's mercy and grace and love are experientially distinct from his wrath, but ontologically they are the same thing. That is, the light from Christ in his transfiguration, is ontologically the same as hellfire.

Here is an article on Saint Isaac the Syrian (7th Century) explaining it: St Isaac the Syrian: Hell and the Scourge of Divine Love

I think I have asked this question already, but did not get a response. What do you mean by "ONTOLOGICALLY". Because I want to understand it, not caricature it. Have I caricature anything so far? And if you do not want to explain it, please be courtesy and say you do not too. Instead of bashing me, can we do that?

 

[ladodgers6]

I am saying Paul is talking about the Law of death, the law we came under with the fall, the law applied to the condemned. When we're in prison, we were subject to a particular code of behavior; but Christ freed us from that prison, so the rules convicts are expected to follow no longer apply to us, and there is nothing beneficial in following them; in fact, by following them, you are ignoring what Christ did.

Well there are works like Paul talks about, that is, following the rules the condemned are ordered to follow. Then there are the works that James talks about, which is following God's will in general.

God's will is that all be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. God's will is that we have faith. God's will is that treat the least of these as Christ. God's will is that we do not ask for money owed us. And so on. God has a particular plan for everyone everywhere, though; it was God's will that John the Baptist no touch wine, for instance, whereas it was his will that Christ drink wine.

And this is suppose to be clear enough that people in the EOC, understand it? Because I am confused with this post. I have too many questions to ask. For the record Paul & James are not at odds in relation to works.

 

[ladodgers6]

Ontological means pertaining to "on", the Greek word for "being". "Being" in Orthodoxy is comprised of essence and energies (there is essential being, and then there is being as in "to do is to be"; God, for instance, is ontologically the Creator in energies, but not in essence).

So then one can believe that no will die or go to hell, correct? If they believe this.

We have sharp lines where Christ drew them, and which are witnessed by the consensus of saints. We don't agree with Saint Augustine because he is not in accord with Patristic consensus.

Who is or was in the Patristic consensus?

People have a sinful nature if by "nature" you mean energies. They don't if you mean essence. Man is essentially good, because he is made in the image of God. To say the image of God is essentially evil, does not make sense.

Well if you are using this philosophy, then it must apply to all, correct? God created Lucifer/Satan, so is he then essentially good? A serial killer or child molester is then essentially good? That I am sorry does not make any sense. We do what we are. So people who are evil do evil acts. And vice versa.

People are in bondage to Satan because his the prince of this world, which he became with the fall. And, of course, we cannot do good without God willing it (and never could, since good is precisely doing what God wills). Humanity is not "naturally" immortal, only God is--humanity is actually "naturally" mortal. But humanity can partake of immortality when in communion with God; however, with the fall, we ceased to share that communion, and therefore came under the law of death, and Satan is the master of death.

Explain the Fall and how Satan is the prince? And if people cannot do good without God. What do they do without God?

I think the issue here is that you seem to see humanity as naturally immortal, and death as a punishment God metes out to everyone who inherits Adam's guilt. We don't really see it that way. God composes man, but without God, man naturally decomposes. If God makes his energies manifest in you, and you are not pure (harmonious with the energies), these energies feel like tormenting fire. That is why it is stressed so much in the NT to NOT take communion except with a "clean conscience," otherwise it will be extremely harmful to you. If God kept us from death in an impure state, we would end up either as demons, or as the subjects of constant agony in hellfire.

What you explain "ENERGIES"? And how does this not sound like Gnostic teaching? A special revelation by experiencing energies?

 

[ladodgers6]

though they might understand the words in different ways!

And that's the problem.

 

[Silmarien]

The Episcopal Church is all about trying to have both Christ and the world. So if the world is "proper and dignified", so will the Episcopal Church be. If the world is another way, so will the Episcopal Church be.

Yes, propriety and dignity can end up being very worldly. That's why you need people like Saint Basil the Fool.

Eh, I don't think that's entirely fair. If the Episcopal Church is worldly, it's no more so than any other branch of Western Christianity, liberal or conservative, as they all tend to define themselves in relation to modern secular society, either positively or negatively. Being in a constant state of reactionary rage seems by far the more dangerous of the two options.

It's some of the pop scholarship that I'm less thrilled with. Too much of a tendency to fabricate theories out of nothing and then declare them "clearly what actually happened."

Wow, bloodthirsty Christians, really? This proves my point that people do not understand Classical Reformed Calvinism. But get unset when people talk about EOC position.

Plenty of bloodthirsty Christians during the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. The amount of violence during the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in that time period was immense.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Wow, bloodthirsty Christians, really? This proves my point that people do not understand Classical Reformed Calvinism. But get unset when people talk about EOC position.



You just can't say. I do not have the answers to your questions. Instead suggest that seeking the answers to my questions is not important. Because the questions I am asking is about YOUR religion, not mine.

If being bloodthirsty disqualifies from a Christian, then Orthodox theologians are saints, whereas Luther and Calvin are heathens.