Why didn't the reformation just side with the Orthodox Church?

Pethesedzao said:

He was referring to the Jews. Jesus spoke about earthly families where some would be opposed to the gospel

Click to expand...

The position the Jews were in that passage, is the same position the church is in now. So, it's an apt comparison.

Pethesedzao said:

Jesus said, I bring a sword

Click to expand...

Peter brought a sword then used it, Jesus said those who live by the sword will die by it.

Pethesedzao said:

There are several things that the Spirit is yearning to reveal to the Body of Christ today. We must never attempt to put God in a box...

Click to expand...

God in a box, sounds like some kind of sales item.

I agree God is going to reveal things to the body of Christ today, it's amazing what God teaches through people not yet knowing what they have.

Mainly because most of the doctrinal objections the protestants had where agreed on in a different perspective by the Orthodox.

Sorry if anyone already mentioned this, but Melancthon actually conversed with a visiting Orthodox priest. But back in those days, there was little opportunity for any of this. The Ecumenical Patriarch was trapped by the Ottomans and could only converse by letter.. which could take months or even years for each party to see each other's correspondence.

nonaeroterraqueous said:

The Orthodox don't seem to be in the business of reasoning together, for one. It's more a matter of letting them tell you what to believe, as the doctrines are more or less set in stone.

Click to expand...

The doctrines were set in stone from the time of the Apostles. The Orthodox are in the business of holding fast to what the Apostles taught by word or epistle.

JohnB445 said:

I find it a little strange.

Reformers: Can we have the Bible for our Church?
Orthodox Church: Sure here you go!
Reformers: Bye, have a great time!

But why not join together? And reason through the scriptures?

Click to expand...

The culmination of all that had entered the Western Church reached a climatic point that God used certain men, within the Roman Catholic Church, to bring about a Reformation from there (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, Knox, etc). But, even before that time there were men who came out and spoke about the doctrinal issues within the Church (Wycliffe, Hus, Waldo, etc). God didn't just use one man, but many as instruments in this divinely-led movement.

However, it is clear that they themselves had their own doctrinal differences, mainly secondary issues that deal with things like ecclesiology and certain soteriological points beyond the plain gospel message. But, what united these Protestants was the five solas, the bedrock on which the Christian faith must be built on. The Greek churches would have been very problematic with these truths, resembling themselves much like the Papists. It is argued, from what I have studied in the past, that Luther did seem to lean toward the EO from much of his beliefs. However, they are still distinguishable in the core principle I would say. But, there was other issues that divided Protestants from the Eastern Orthodox Church besides these five points.

What is amazing is that this wasn't something done in a corner, this wasn't something done by one man alone (although Luther is credited of having sparked it), this was something inevitably bound to happen and it happened on a massive scale (much like what happened after Pentecost). We were persecuted for it, and as a result we continued to increase by God's providential hand. I would say that Rome has changed since this event happened, ex. many Catholics today can possess their own copy of the Scriptures in their own vernacular. They don't want to admit that much good occurred on the account of this powerful movement.

What bothers me, as it did to my fathers centuries ago, is that those who defend Rome (for an example) appeal to tradition and everything other than Scripture. When they tackle Scripture, they have to fit it with their tradition, when they forget that all Christian tradition is built from Scripture alone.

Many have accused us of saying that the Church disappeared for a period in history. If one examines Church History, there have always been Christians, even in the midst of the Roman Catholic Church and the tension growing around the time of the Reformation. There have always been even "separatists," if I can call them that, who held to the same gospel principles, long before Luther arrived on the scene, who did distanced themselves from Rome. The Waldensians are one of the forgotten Christians who lived near the first millennium; they use to work as merchants in the public square and secretly discuss and converse their faith, evangelizing to the lost and to those held by the chains of Rome.

Anyways, it is coming to the point that Roman Catholics are beginning to find problems, especially ever since Vatican I & II, within their own tradition and how they see the current papal office. I do hope one day they dissolve from all that they have been ensnared in for so long that they come to see that the Reformation is still necessary today (semper reformanda), not only for Christians, but even for them.

Not much about the Eastern Orthodox Church in this post. Sorry, John, I mostly evaded the main question.

JohnB445 said:

Why didn't the reformation just side with the Orthodox Church?

Click to expand...

probably because there weren't any Orthodox churches in western Europe. the reformation was a contextual movement with a desire to worship in their own culture. the Orthodox church is not really about contextualization and there is no reasoning through the scriptures because they already figured it all out.

Jonaitis said:

The Greek churches would have been very problematic with these truths, resembling themselves much like the Papists.

Click to expand...

Probably. But they wouldn't have participated in the discussions in a way either would probably like. Focusing on soteriology is simply more of a Western thing, and isn't very explored in the East, at least directly. The East's most articulated form of theology is on the nature of Christ. Look at most of the early church: Every dispute was always about the nature of Christ. How one is saved follows from that first and takes care of itself. If he was less than human or less than divine, Christ could not help man. Only by being fully human and divine does he really become the hope for all of us. This is why it was so crucial to stop Arians and Gnostics and the like. They preached a different Christ who offered no real hope - and in fact, only rewarded human effort.. the very thing you accuse Catholics or Orthodox of (or in the case of Gnostics, only rewarded human "elites" who unlocked divine knowledge).

But with the right idea on the nature of Christ, it doesn't become about "us" at all. It becomes about Christ being bridge between God and man and who has cosmic impact on nature itself, especially for those who believe. When Christ is put in his proper place, it's easy to see that he literally renews us, and it's not about our "works", but Christ working in us. There's no need for this "faith vs works" debate, because it was always one and the same thing. Catholics know this too, but they get bogged down in the particulars, I think.

HTacianas said:

The Lutherans attempted to ally with the Eastern Churches but were rejected due to their beliefs, primarily their notion of faith without works. I'll try to find for you the correspondence between them.

Click to expand...

By the time contact was made with the Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran orthodoxy was already set down in the confessions. Also, the Patriarch of Constantinople was dominated by the Turks, who were enemies of central European powers like the Holy Roman Empire. Seeking a hasty unity with such a church, politically, would have been very problematic.

Luther actually did have contact with an Ethiopian Orthodox deacon who was visiting Germany, and he wrote a letter of commendation for him.

DamianWarS said:

probably because there weren't any Orthodox churches in western Europe. the reformation was a contextual movement wanting a desire to worship in their own culture. the Orthodox church is not really about contextualization and there is no reasoning through the scriptures because they already wrote all the instructions down and they can't be changed.

Click to expand...

This is really not true and is a mischaracterization. Orthodox worship in many languages, including the vernacular of various peoples.

Lutherans originally worshipped using the Latin Mass. Indeed, unlike the Reformed, there is nothing in the Lutheran confessions against worshiping in Latin, and in fact the Augsburg Confession was translated into Latin as well. Latin theological terms continued to be used in Lutheranism.

Luther's reformation was about doctrine, with nationalism being very much secondary. In the early years, there were Dutch Lutherans, French Lutherans, and even Spanish Lutherans (Casiodoro de Reina, the first to translate the Bible into modern Spanish), and various eastern European peoples (such as Czechs and Slovenians). It was not just a German nationalist movement.

straykat said:

Probably. But they wouldn't have participated in the discussions in a way either would probably like. Focusing on soteriology is simply more of a Western thing, and isn't very explored in the East, at least directly. The East's most articulated form of theology is on the nature of Christ. Look at most of the early church: Every dispute was always about the nature of Christ. How one is saved follows from that first and takes care of itself. If he was less than human or less than divine, Christ could not help man. Only by being fully human and divine does he really become the hope for all of us. This is why it was so crucial to stop Arians and Gnostics and the like. They preached a different Christ who offered no real hope - and in fact, only rewarded human effort.. the very thing you accuse Catholics or Orthodox of (or in the case of Gnostics, only rewarded human "elites" who unlocked divine knowledge).

But with the right idea on the nature of Christ, it doesn't become about "us" at all. It becomes about Christ being bridge between God and man and who has cosmic impact on nature itself, especially for those who believe. When Christ is put in his proper place, it's easy to see that he literally renews us, and it's not about our "works", but Christ working in us. There's no need for this "faith vs works" debate, because it was always one and the same thing. Catholics know this too, but they get bogged down in the particulars, I think.

Click to expand...

I firmly believe that heresy by definition is the distortion of Christ's person and work, with all that connects to it, and we see this not only in the early days of the church, but with the very issues with the Reformation. It has always been about Christ, even in the Reformation, and I think people miss that. The debate with faith and works was putting the central issues on the table regarding Christ and his work. Whereas the Greek fathers fought against Arianism and Gnosticism, as you mentioned, we forget that faith and works was debated in the apostolic times on account of the influence of Judiazers.

I understand that "legal theology," as I call it, isn't so dogmatic and precise in the Eastern Churches, but I believe it has an important place in our personal knowledge of God for salvation.

Jonaitis said:

I firmly believe that heresy by definition is the distortion of Christ's person and work, with all that connects to it, and we see this not only in the early days of the church, but with the very issues with the Reformation. It has always been about Christ, even in the Reformation, and I think people miss that. The debate with faith and works was putting the central issues on the table regarding Christ and his work. Whereas the Greek fathers fought against Arianism and Gnosticism, as you mentioned, we forget that faith and works was debated in the apostolic times on account of the influence of Judiazers.

I understand that "legal theology," as I call it, isn't so dogmatic and precise in the Eastern Churches, but I believe it has an important place in our personal knowledge of God for salvation.

Click to expand...

They weren't debating mere faith and works with the Judaizers though. St. Paul, for example, is a main source for Protestant soteriology, but the big elephant in the room is that the bulk of his epistles were of an ethical focus. They're a treasure trove of all kinds of instruction for Christian living. Surely, you wouldn't deny that, right? He never diminished everyday types of morality. The specific "works" of Judaizers were those that separated Jews and Gentiles specifically (circumcision, diet, etc). Things that specifically got in the way of the new commonality and brotherhood through Christ.

And even then, some Torah laws remained. The first Council of Jerusalem loosened the issues of Jewish diet and circumcision, but drinking blood, forbidding idolatry, and forbidding fornication (which I'm going to assume is sexual sins of other types too) were all still binding. These are the highest laws in the church and still were not to be trifled with. They would surely lead to damnation. And Paul repeats the Council in his epistles. He teaches that sacrificing to idols is sacrificing to demons. Obviously you're damned if you invited the demonic into your life. Damned not only in the next life, but in this life too. And he even advised excommunication for a man who was sleeping with his stepmother. This is severe judgement for a sexual sin. The man was actually a Christian - not an outsider - and Paul still said to kick him out of the church. To think this guy was still saved is treating excommunication pretty lightly.

Paul, of course, still wanted the man to be saved, but only through an ordeal at least. He makes the cryptic statement to turn him over to Satan for "the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord". Whatever this means exactly, he was going to need to repent to be in the good graces of the Lord again.

straykat said:

They weren't debating mere faith and works with the Judaizers though. St. Paul, for example, is a main source for Protestant soteriology, but the big elephant in the room is that the bulk of his epistles were of an ethical focus. They're a treasure trove of all kinds of instruction for Christian living. Surely, you wouldn't deny that, right?

Click to expand...

I don't know why I would deny that, straykat. Protestants are portrayed from the outside as people fixating only on a belief in the person of Christ, and not on about practical issues. Rather, we stressed that all biblical and practical living must have a foundation, and this foundation is the relationship between the creature and his God. You cannot live the Christian life, unless you are a Christian period. And you're right, we focus on the apostle Paul a lot, because his epistles are the bulk of the New Testament document regarding faith and life. But, we recognize that Paul makes it clear repeatedly that ethical living must proceed from that positional and spiritual change of the sinner first. The ordo salutis must be properly understood. How does a sinner reconcile with a holy God? If you get the wiring wrong, you cannot expect anything to function. Your standing before God is chief important to any and all things of the Christian life, everything must proceed from that.

straykat said:

He never diminished everyday types of morality. The specific "works" of Judaizers were those that separated Jews and Gentiles specifically (circumcision, diet, etc). Things that specifically got in the way of the new commonality and brotherhood through Christ.

Click to expand...

I firmly believe that we are obligated to obey God, straykat, as do Protestants. The issue with Judaizers was chiefly about justification, not just ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. Read Galatians 2:15-3:29, it is all about justification. His point isn't just Old Testament laws being obeyed for justification, but that faith is what saves. "The righteous shall live by faith" (Gal. 3:11). This is one of the clearest passages:

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it - the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." - Romans 3:21-26

Faith unites us to Christ, then fruit-bearing obedience follows:

"Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the [demands of the] law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the [demands of the] law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." - Romans 7:4-6

It is clearly Paul's point, especially above, that your position and standing before God is before your living "ethically." You need to be right with God first, and there is only one way to do that. We stressed the order, and the particulars, because the apostles did the same.

straykat said:

And even then, some Torah laws remained. The first Council of Jerusalem loosened the issues of Jewish diet and circumcision, but drinking blood, forbidding idolatry, and forbidding fornication (which I'm going to assume is sexual sins of other types too) were all still binding. These are the highest laws in the church and still were not to be trifled with. They would surely lead to damnation. And Paul repeats the Council in his epistles. He teaches that sacrificing to idols is sacrificing to demons. Obviously you're damned if you invited the demonic into your life. Damned not only in the next life, but in this life too. And he even advised excommunication for a man who was sleeping with his stepmother. This is severe judgement for a sexual sin. The man was actually a Christian - not an outsider - and Paul still said to kick him out of the church. To think this guy was still saved is treating excommunication pretty lightly.

Click to expand...

This is for another discussion, because I agree that moral equity of the Law of Moses is still applicable to the Christian. The rest, such as the ceremonial and civil laws strictly speaking, are done away with for other reasons than you are suggesting. It deals with covenants, something I hardly ever hear the Eastern Churches discuss, when they are the framework of Scriptures and redemptive history. But, again, this is for another discussion. I firmly believe the law still has a place in Scriptures, the Reformers held to this view. It is a more recent invention of what is called Dispensationalism that suggests otherwise.

straykat said:

Paul, of course, still wanted the man to be saved, but only through an ordeal at least. He makes the cryptic statement to turn him over to Satan for "the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord". Whatever this means exactly, he was going to need to repent to be in the good graces of the Lord again.

Click to expand...

It isn't so cryptic as you make it, straykat. It does sound strange with a theology that conflates and confuses justification with sanctification. If you read the second letter, this man repented with tears. The excommunication was for the destruction of his flesh, so that he would would repent and remain saved for that day.

Sonny J. Reeves said:

How many "rocks" are we to build?
Is that latter day revelations?
Please explain your metaphor with scripture

Click to expand...

The rocks are the gifts of the Spirit which build up the Church. Simon Peter used one of them when he confessed Jesus was the Christ...

HTacianas said:

Is it revelation knowledge that tells the Baptists that women cannot be preachers and then tells the methodists they can?

After two thousand years of Christian teaching that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and universal consistency in that belief from the apostles through the sub apostolic fathers through the Church fathers down to modern times, is it revelation knowledge that now says it isn't?

Click to expand...

ALL women are qualified to preach the gospel to every creature. However, wives are to submit to their husbands. The bread and wine are symbolic of the body and blood of Christ Jesus.

Michael Collum said:

Peter brought a sword then used it, Jesus said those who live by the sword will die by it.

Click to expand...

Peter did not live by the sword

Michael Collum said:

don't mind the concept personally, just pointing out a contradiction that's all. Bless.

Click to expand...

All nine Gifts of the Spirit are available to the Body of Christ Jesus today, let's get on and move in them. Have you been baptized with the Holy Spirit?

GingerBeer said:

Gnostic?

Click to expand...

Without Epignosis no one will really know the will of God.