Orthodox Questions - Reformed Answers

[ArmyMatt]

Hey Matt, I believe I said more than just I'm right because I'm right. lol I actually pointed to scripture, offered other scripture to give further explanation.

yes, but you are not showing that you are reading or cross checking Scripture properly.

 

[Light of the East]

Not much to disagree with Light, I would just point out that when I read the passage I do not see the Roman or Byzantine State Church, I see a simple gathering of believers that increase in number over time. This passage doesn't point to any specific hierarchy or ecclesiastical body.

The passage doesn't point to a specific hierarchy or ecclesiastical body, but you should be willing to admit that from the time the Church was formed in the desert with Moses, it has always pointed to a specific people, a specific worship location, and specific rubrics of worship.

The word "church" (Anglo-Saxon or English as we know it) comes from the Hebrew "edah" in the OT and the Greek "eklessia" in the NT. In both cases, it means "congregation" or "gathering." When spoken of in the Bible, it refers to a visible, organized body, not some "invisible church" which was made up by the Reformers to deny the reality of the earthly Church and Her authority.

Furthermore, you comment above appears to deny the reality of authority on earth. Bishop Ray Sutton, writing as a Reformed Episcopalian in his book THAT YOU MAY PROSPER says of this "if God does not have visible authority on earth, then God does not rule." This is a Calvinist admitting to the reality of both hierarchy and authority on earth.

I do not deny the real presence...I am Reformed after all. It is true we have differing views and would offer this overview of John Crysostom's view here.

Yours in the Lord,

j

I'm sorry, sir, but NO REFORMED PERSON admits that the Eucharist is in substance the very Body and Blood of our Lord. Please don't try to peddle such stuff to an X - Calvinist.

 

[Light of the East]

Hey Matt, I believe I said more than just I'm right because I'm right. lol I actually pointed to scripture, offered other scripture to give further explanation. Light of the East and you seem to have a differing perspectives. I'm sure you share "Orthodox" worship styles but he is definitely taking a different point of view.

But, I understand time is an issue, for us all.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

That is because I am slowly learning to reject Western heterodoxy for Eastern Orthodoxy. It is a process.

 

[hedrick]

When spoken of in the Bible, it refers to a visible, organized body, not some "invisible church" which was made up by the Reformers to deny the reality of the earthly Church and Her authority.

It’s worth clarifying the business about visible and invisible churches. Perhaps some Protestants use “invisible” to refer to the collection of churches, under the assumption that their unity isn’t visible or we can’t tell which ones or true churches, or something like that. But that’s certainly not the way the term is used in the Reformed tradition.

The definition in the Institutes makes a distinction that in the Catholic tradition goes back at least to Augustine. The visible Church is mixed, with some people who aren’t actually God’s people present in it. (Calvin calls them “hypocrites.”) And at least currently Catholics acknowledge that there are some that God will recognize as his people outside the visible Church. Hence the invisible Church are those who are actually believers, while the visible Church is the institutional Church (not the ideal term, but since we're defining "visible," I can't use that word), which preaches the Gospel, administers sacraments, and conducts Church discipline.

Calvin believed in a visible Church. It is distinguished by preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments. (He said that the Church should conduct discipline, but didn’t include judgement of how well it does that as one of the marks that distinguish a truth Church.) Calvin believed that the Catholic Church didn’t meet those criteria, and thus were not part of the visible Church. However he acknowledged that many of its members were certainly followers of Jesus, and thus were parts of the invisible Church. But he certainly believed that there was a visible Church.

Westminster says the same. It speaks of a visible Church, which has “ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God.” Nor does it make a black and white distinction, as if only perfect churches were part of the visible Church. “And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.”

However it’s possible for a visible Church to become “so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.”

My branch of the Reformed tradition would include the Catholic or Orthodox churches in the visible Church, though we would consider that they preach the Gospel and perform the sacraments less purely than we do. (Obviously, or we’d be Catholics or Orthodox.) Indeed we have mutual agreements with the RCC committing both of us to the position that we're both visible churches. Many might say that Westminster's judgement on the Pope was, however, valid in the 16th Cent.

But this forum is largely used by more conservative Reformed. Most of them may well exclude at least the Catholic Church, in accordance with Westminster.

 

[Light of the East]

But it’s worth clarifying the business about visible and invisible churches. Perhaps some Protestants use “invisible” to refer to the collection of churches, under the assumption that their unity isn’t visible or we can’t tell which ones or true churches, or something like that. But that’s certainly not the way the term is used in the Reformed tradition.

There was a very limited idea of the "visible church" in the Early Fathers. They knew that "wherever you find the bishop, you find the Church." I came out of the Reformed heresy and I am quite familiar with the Westminster Confession of Faith. They are quite clear in defining the true Church as "the invisible assembly of true believers." That is a load of bunk, not only theologically, but scripturally as well. Jesus defined the Kingdom as the place where the wheat and tares, the good fish and bad fish would grow until the end of the age.

The definition in the Institutes makes a distinction that in the Catholic tradition goes back at least to Augustine. The visible Church is mixed, with some people who aren’t actually God’s people present in it. (Calvin calls them “hypocrites.”) And at least currently Catholics acknowledge that there are some that God will recognize as his people outside the visible Church. Something the Early Fathers would have no truck with. You were either orthodox in faith and hence a member of the Church, or you were heretical and had divorced yourself from the Body of Christ. There was no inbetween with them. Hence the invisible Church are those who are actually believers, while the visible Church is the institutional Church (not the ideal term, but since we're defining "visible," I can't use that word), which preaches the Gospel, administers sacraments, and conducts Church discipline. Since Calvinists have thrown out the Sacraments and deny the efficacy of the two they profess to recognize, they are not members of the Church.

Calvin believed in a visible Church. It is distinguished by preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments. (He said that the Church should conduct discipline, but didn’t include judgement of how well it does that as one of the marks that distinguish a truth Church.) As I said, once Calvin redefined the Sacraments and disputed their efficacy, he was no longer a member of the Church. I do not see salvation as being outside the Church. Calvin believed that the Catholic Church didn’t meet those criteria, (well, he was wrong) and thus were not part of the visible Church. However he acknowledged that many of its members were certainly followers of Jesus, and thus were parts of the invisible Church. But he certainly believed that there was a visible Church. Of which he was not a part. Look, you cannot redefine Scripture to suit your theological tastes. Calvin divorced himself from the Church, he divorced himself from the teaching of the Early Fathers by denying the Eucharist, and yet he claims to be part of the Church. That is like a Jew in Israel setting up his own worship and assembly and claiming to be "the congregation (church or edah) of God." Ask Dathan and Abihu how well that worked out for them. Korah also.

Westminster says the same. It speaks of a visible Church, which has “ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God.” Nor does it make a black and white distinction, as if only perfect churches were part of the visible Church. “And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.”

Well, this is utterly hypocritical. Don't you see the fault in this. The Reformers left the Church because it was not pure and then turn around and claim that the members of the "true church" can be "more or less pure." Wonder if they got fries with that large order of hypocrisy. The real issue wasn't doctrinal purity or behavior at all -- it was loving anyone and everyone who was an anti-Catholic bigot.

However it’s possible for a visible Church to become “so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.”

So Jesus lied in Matthew 16, right? Again, you cannot have it both ways. Either Jesus promised to protect the Church or He didn't. And sola scriptura types must either believe the Scriptures or not. Don't try to have your cake and eat it too.

My branch of the Reformed tradition would include the Catholic or Orthodox churches in the visible Church, though we would consider that they preach the Gospel and perform the sacraments less purely than we do. (Obviously, or we’d be Catholics or Orthodox.) You should convert. Only the Orthodox Church has practice and Sacraments which go all the way back to the Apostles. Why in the world would you trust your soul to the teaching of men who were rebels when God said that rebellion is a stench in his nostrils and worse than the sin of witchcraft? Indeed we have mutual agreements with the RCC committing both of us to the position that we're both visible churches.
Which is why I am praying for an exit door from Rome. I've had more than enough of their shananigans in Warm and Fuzzy Eccumenical World. The Early Fathers are probably spinning in their graves over some of the most recent pronouncements from Rome. It is becoming obvious to me that Rome is not the Church of the 1st century.

But this forum is largely used by more conservative Reformed. Most of them may well exclude at least the Catholic Church, in accordance with Westminster.

Which would make them at least consistent in their praxis and treatment of the Roman Church.

 

[hedrick]

All I can say is yikes! Why bother to participate in discussions with Reformed then?

 

[Light of the East]

All I can say is yikes! Why bother to participate in discussions with Reformed then?

For the same reason that they engaged with discussions with me when I was Reformed - to show them the truth of the Church and how the Reformers erred in leaving the Church and creating doctrines which had been unknown for 1500 years. I would love nothing better than to hear that you have investigated the Orthodox Church and are being chrismated into Her.

 

[JM]

That is because I am slowly learning to reject Western heterodoxy for Eastern Orthodoxy. It is a process.

Heterodoxy is defined by your chosen former State church and not scripture so I'm good with that. You're still using pomp, appeals to human authority and tradition to make claims for the Eastern Orthodox denomination.

It's not convincing.

 

[JM]

yes, but you are not showing that you are reading or cross checking Scripture properly.

Ah, the "original church" founded on eisegesis accusing someone else of the same practice. Rich. haha

 

[JM]

The passage doesn't point to a specific hierarchy or ecclesiastical body...

My point proven. Thank you.

The passage doesn't point to a specific hierarchy or ecclesiastical body...

You agree with my point. Thank you.

I'm sorry, sir, but NO REFORMED PERSON admits that the Eucharist is in substance the very Body and Blood of our Lord. Please don't try to peddle such stuff to an X - Calvinist.

If you took time to actually read what I posted instead of running for the cover of your Traditions of Men, maybe read the article?, you would see that isn't the position I was taking.

You were not really a Calvinist and have demonstrated you had very little knowledge of Reformed doctrine by misrepresenting the biblical idea of total inability. You are presenting false information and claiming to be "formerly one of you, but now I know better" when you can't even get the simplest of doctrines correct.

You are misrepresenting yourself and Reformed thinking.

jm

 

[JM]

A question I was asked:

JM – do you think they (icons and images) can be helpful for the faithful to enter into more pious prayer?

My answer:

The only aspiration for the Christian should be to exalt the Gospel, the free grace of God in salvation and declare this salvation through Jesus Christ alone. This was the practice of the early church before the so-called ‘Triumph of Orthodoxy.’ To enter into ‘more pious prayer’ we need to recognize our sinfulness and hopelessness for it is here that we experience God’s forgiveness and mercy. When we understand our helplessness in all our trials and earthly trouble we find Jesus Christ sweet, altogether lovely and our prayer is most pious (devout, dutiful, etc).

The better question is why not allow the revealed word of God to direct our worship? Baptists believe the Bible should dictate how Christians are to worship. When we deviate from scripture we invite superstition and idolatry into our church practices. Sacred and profane history has taught us that man manufactures idols out of the desires of his heart all of the time. The righteous man will make an idol of his righteousness and the religionist crafts an idol of his ceremony. To be pious and devout requires us to look to Christ and Him alone for all things.

I hope that helps.

More on Icons:

The Eastern Orthodox Church is a former State Church and functioned at the whim of the ruler. The Iconoclast Controversy or the Controversy Over Images that took place between 680 and 850ad is a prime example of that. For almost 200 years the Greek State church argued over the use of images, specifically Icons and their purpose in the church…if they had any purpose at all. Many Western Christians are not familiar with this debate, at least not in detail, so I hope to give a very brief outline highlighting a few of the more interesting facts. Make no bones about it, I am unable to find any scriptural reason for the use of images, so the best I can try to do is be honest with the particulars as I have come to understand them. The debate took place between what modern historians call Iconoclasts and Iconophiles or those who rejected religious images often resulting in their destruction and those who believe religious images have a place in the Christian religion. This debate seemed bound to happen as the revelation of God in scripture came into contact with Greek culture and religion. The former rejects the use of images of the Divine and the latter wholeheartedly encourages images, statues and the like. Some Christians in both the East and West believed it was acceptable to create representations of Christ and the Trinity but there was also a group of Christians that denied any need for them. The Iconophiles believed icons were useful and even essential to worship while the Iconoclasts believed it was against the second commandment to do so. William R. Cannon points out, “A custom which primitive Christianity looked upon as idolatry was common practice in the eight century. Consequently what in ancient times had been an innovation was considered during this period as tradition.” (page 105) Diarmaid MacCulloch calls this rub of Hebrew and Greek culture the “fault line” for the old covenant forbids images of God in any sense while Greek paganism encouraged it. A similar debate can be found in the history of the Western church but it has not had the same impact on history as it had in the East. Some historians have suggested the numbering of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) might have contributed to the use of statues by Roman Catholics who, following Augustine of Hippo neatly tuck the First and Second Commandment into one and separated the Tenth into Nine and Ten. Lutherans use Augustine’s numbering of the Decalogue and take no issue with images either. I’m not sure if this really effects the views expressed by each group considering the Eastern Orthodox use the same numbering system as Judaism and Protestantism but it was mentioned a few times by different authors so I mention it here. When you take a closer look at the details of the “controversy” it soon becomes apparent that matters of theology were passed from the Byzantine Emperor to the Patriarch of Constantinople. If the verdict was contrary to the wishes of the Emperor it was likely the Patriarch would be replaced. This happened more than a few times over the course of Byzantine history. From my reading on the subject it seems Leo (III) the Isaurian, Byzantine Emperor (717 – 741), saw a growing devotion and power ascribed to religious images. He believed this was mere superstition and tried to rid the empire of religious iconography with a series of edicts (726 – 729) forbidding the use of images in worship. Leo the III was not immune to superstition. It seems likely that Leo, having fought Islamic armies, believed that removing of images might lead to military victories. Whatever the reason behind the Controversy and it was always a political issue.

(Hagia Eirene Church, Iconoclast. Notice the lack of adornment.)



The Iconophiles found a champion in John of Damascus (645/676 – 749) who offered a polemic for the use of images. Cannon describes John as one of the few strong theologians of the 8th century, not in the same class as Augustine of Hippo, but without equal in the West for the time period. Using a philosophical framework of categories and causes borrowed from Aristotle John of Damascus argued the Second Commandment was abrogated by the Incarnation of Christ. “If one accepted this vocabulary and Aristotelian framework, then devotion to visual images in Christianity was safe.” (MacCulloch, page 448) The Greek church essentially changed the language which framed the debate over images from art to theology. Skipping ahead the matter came to close as Irene of Athens, former regent and now Empress after having her sons blinded and imprisoned, assumed the throne. She was in favour of Icons and had a layman who was also in favour of Icons consecrated Patriarch. Patriarch Tarasios, with help from the State, held what was deemed an “Ecumenical Conclave” in 787 or what is often called the Second Council of Nicaea which effectively restored the use of images in worship. Some further political proclamations against Icons were made but Empress Theodora (843) restored again the use of images in worship. This last proclamation of the State church “effectively closed down the possibility of alternative forms of worship in Orthodox tradition.” (McCulloch, page 452) It soon becomes apparent the debate was heated and very political. Icons and other images had a cult following that garnered the support of the State. Ultimately it wasn’t the Bible that settled the issue for the church but two Empresses backing the Iconophiles. The idea that you could reach God through images is foreign to scripture. God “calls us back and withdraws us from petty carnal observances, which our stupid minds, crassly conceiving of God, are wont to devise.” (Calvin) Some are quick to point to the Second Council of Nicaea as a historical point of reference but we cannot forget the polemics against the use of images that predate the Reformation such as the works of Claudius of Turin, the Council of Frankfurt and Libri Carolini. With the Reformers cry of “scripture alone” and “all of scripture” the debate was reopened in the West during the Reformation. John Calvin is masterful in the Institutes on this subject and I have quoted pertinent sections below for your further reading. He rightly calls Empress Irene “a wicked Proserpine named Irene” in his French edition.

Semper Reformanda,

jm

from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1:

14. Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject, were I not in a manner arrested by the Council of Nice; not the celebrated Council which Constantine the Great assembled, but one which was held eight hundred years ago by the orders and under the auspices of the Empress Irene. This Council decreed not only that images were to be used in churches, but also that they were to be worshipped. Every thing, therefore, that I have said, is in danger of suffering great prejudice from the authority of this Synod. To confess the truth, however, I am not so much moved by this consideration, as by a wish to make my readers aware of the lengths to which the infatuation has been carried by those who had a greater fondness for images than became Christians. But let us first dispose of this matter. Those who defend the use of images appeal to that Synod for support. But there is a refutation extant which bears the name of Charlemagne, and which is proved by its style to be a production of that period. It gives the opinions delivered by the bishops who were present, and the arguments by which they supported them. John, deputy of the Eastern Churches, said, “God created man in his own image,” and thence inferred that images ought to be used. He also thought there was a recommendation of images in the following passage, “Show me thy face, for it is beautiful.” Another, in order to prove that images ought to be placed on altars, quoted the passage, “No man, when he has lighted a candle, putteth it under a bushel.” Another, to show the utility of looking at images, quoted a verse of the Psalms “The light of thy countenance, O Lord, has shone upon us.” Another laid hold of this similitude: As the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, so ought Christians to use the images of saints instead of the idols of the Gentiles. They also twisted to the same effect the words, “Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house.” But the most ingenious interpretation was the following, “As we have heard, so also have we seen;” therefore, God is known not merely by the hearing of the word, but also by the seeing of images. Bishop Theodore was equally acute: “God,” says he, “is to be admired in his saints;” and it is elsewhere said, “To the saints who are on earth;” therefore this must refer to images. In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them.

15. When they treat of adoration, great stress is laid on the worship of Pharaoh, the staff of Joseph, and the inscription which Jacob set up. In this last case they not only pervert the meaning of Scripture, but quote what is nowhere to be found. Then the passages, “Worship at his footstool”—“Worship in his holy mountain”—“The rulers of the people will worship before thy face,” seem to them very solid and apposite proofs. Were one, with the view of turning the defenders of images into ridicule, to put words into their mouths, could they be made to utter greater and grosser absurdities? But to put an end to all doubt on the subject of images, Theodosius Bishop of Mira confirms the propriety of worshipping them by the dreams of his archdeacon, which he adduces with as much gravity as if he were in possession of a response from heaven. Let the patrons of images now go and urge us with the decree of this Synod, as if the venerable Fathers did not bring themselves into utter discredit by handling Scripture so childishly, or wresting it so shamefully and profanely. 16. I come now to monstrous impieties, which it is strange they ventured to utter, and twice strange that all men did not protest against with the utmost detestation. It is right to expose this frantic and flagitious extravagance, and thereby deprive the worship of images of that gloss of antiquity in which Papists seek to deck it. Theodosius Bishop of Amora fires oft an anathema at all who object to the worship of images. Another attributes all the calamities of Greece and the East to the crime of not having worshipped them. Of what punishment then are the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs worthy, in whose day no images existed? They afterwards add, that if the statue of the Emperor is met with odours and incense, much more are the images of saints entitled to the honour. Constantius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, professes to embrace images with reverence, and declares that he will pay them the respect which is due to the ever blessed Trinity: every person refusing to do the same thing he anathematises and classes with Marcionites and Manichees. Lest you should think this the private opinion of an individual, they all assent. Nay, John the Eastern legate, carried still farther by his zeal, declares it would be better to allow a city to be filled with brothels than be denied the worship of images. At last it is resolved with one consent that the Samaritans are the worst of all heretics, and that the enemies of images are worse than the Samaritans. But that the play may not pass off without the accustomed Plaudite, the whole thus concludes, “Rejoice and exult, ye who, having the image of Christ, offer sacrifice to it.” Where is now the distinction of λατρια and δυλια with which they would throw dust in all eyes, human and divine? The Council unreservedly relies as much on images as on the living God.

Sources:

A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years Diarmaid MacCulloch Penguin (2009) ISBN-13: 978-0141021898

History of Christianity in the Middle ages; From the Fall of Rome to the Fall of Constantinople William R. Cannon Abingdon Press (1960) ISBN: n/a

 

[JM]

I enjoy the convo folks but not sure when I'll be back. The weather is too nice to be chained to a computer typing up replies.

Enjoy your life in the Lord,

jm

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ah, the "original church" founded on eisegesis accusing someone else of the same practice. Rich. haha

that does not confirm that you are reading stuff right. that is just a snarky comment

 

[Light of the East]

Heterodoxy is defined by your chosen former State church and not scripture so I'm good with that. You're still using pomp, appeals to human authority and tradition to make claims for the Eastern Orthodox denomination.

It's not convincing.

And what are you using? The very same thing. You are following the interpretations of a man in the 16th century - i.e., human authority. You have chosen your authority just as we have chosen ours. Ours is the men in the Church. Yours is the men outside the Church. Christ gave authority to the Church through Her leaders. He did not do the same for anyone outside the Church.

 

[Light of the East]

My point proven. Thank you.


You agree with my point. Thank you.



If you took time to actually read what I posted instead of running for the cover of your Traditions of Men, maybe read the article?, you would see that isn't the position I was taking.

You were not really a Calvinist and have demonstrated you had very little knowledge of Reformed doctrine by misrepresenting the biblical idea of total inability. You are presenting false information and claiming to be "formerly one of you, but now I know better" when you can't even get the simplest of doctrines correct.

You are misrepresenting yourself and Reformed thinking.

jm

I find it most amusing to see Calvinists taking someone who has left Calvinism and saying "You were not really a Calvinist." As if you know my heart, my intellect, and the depth of my understanding. Perhaps the real issue is that I took covenant theology as presented by Ray Sutton and applied its principles and found that they didn't fit Calvinism at all.

So Calvinism taught me Covenant Theology and Covenant Theology led me out of Calvinism.

I know it is hard to believe that someone could actually leave Calvinism, but many have and many more will as they find out what a false system it is.

 

[JM]

Light, I understand. The draw of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is real and tangible. It allows one to feel, in this relativistic world, that we are apart of something greater. I don't doubt you were a member of a Reformed church but your understanding of total inability was off and it didn't seem as if you understood the Reformed view.

Next question....

​

Recently I was asked, “why do you refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church as a denomination and former State Church?”

When I refer to the Eastern Orthodox denomination as such I honestly mean no disrespect. I am trying to deal honestly with history as I have come to understand it and help others to understand the development of the denomination over time. One simply has to look at the Russian or Greek Orthodox Churches to find evidence of this. Both Eastern Orthodox Church bodies were tied to the secular State and influenced by the State.

Unfortunately, faith in a Church hierarchy can create blinders to the truth and many Orthodox Christians fail to see what seems obvious to others. In Philip Jenkins book on the First World War titled The Great and Holy War he explains;

“The Orthodox church operated in intimate alliance with the imperial authorities, from which it drew its power and wealth. From the time of Peter the Great, in the 1700’s, the church’s ancient patriarchate ceased to function, leaving the church as a virtual arm of the government. It was supervised by a Holy Synod appointed by the Tsar and under the authority of a cabinet-level imperial official.”

“For many Orthodox thinkers, moreover, rival Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant, were only in the most technical sense fellow believers or brothers, and as such they deserved little more political consideration than did Muslims or Jews.”

“The causes of the monarchy, empire, and church were all one, and they merged into a messianic vision of the Tsarists regime…”

Many examples can be found throughout history where the Eastern Orthodox Church worked hand in hand with the State to accomplish the States goals. I have already detailed how that played out in the Controversy Over Images. The State continuously waged a war for the use of Icons until the Church relented and this happened only after murdering their opponents and replacing the Patriarch with a layman.

Even today Russian President Vladimir Putin is using the Eastern Orthodox Church to rally neo-nationalism while the Orthodox Church receives benefits from the government. After much reading on the matter, using secular and Christian sources, I have to concluded that Eastern Orthodoxy is a former State Church that carries a lot of historical baggage linked with Byzantine and other political intrigue. This often affected doctrine and relations even if the outward ritual and ceremony remained the same. If Putin has his way the Eastern Orthodox might become a State Church once again.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Light of the East]

Light, I understand. The draw of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is real and tangible. It allows one to feel, in this relativistic world, that we are apart of something greater. I don't doubt you were a member of a Reformed church but your understanding of total inability was off and it didn't seem as if you understood the Reformed view.

Next question....

​

Recently I was asked, “why do you refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church as a denomination and former State Church?”

When I refer to the Eastern Orthodox denomination as such I honestly mean no disrespect. I am trying to deal honestly with history as I have come to understand it and help others to understand the development of the denomination over time. One simply has to look at the Russian or Greek Orthodox Churches to find evidence of this. Both Eastern Orthodox Church bodies were tied to the secular State and influenced by the State.

Unfortunately, faith in a Church hierarchy can create blinders to the truth and many Orthodox Christians fail to see what seems obvious to others. In Philip Jenkins book on the First World War titled The Great and Holy War he explains;

“The Orthodox church operated in intimate alliance with the imperial authorities, from which it drew its power and wealth. From the time of Peter the Great, in the 1700’s, the church’s ancient patriarchate ceased to function, leaving the church as a virtual arm of the government. It was supervised by a Holy Synod appointed by the Tsar and under the authority of a cabinet-level imperial official.”

“For many Orthodox thinkers, moreover, rival Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant, were only in the most technical sense fellow believers or brothers, and as such they deserved little more political consideration than did Muslims or Jews.”

“The causes of the monarchy, empire, and church were all one, and they merged into a messianic vision of the Tsarists regime…”

Many examples can be found throughout history where the Eastern Orthodox Church worked hand in hand with the State to accomplish the States goals. I have already detailed how that played out in the Controversy Over Images. The State continuously waged a war for the use of Icons until the Church relented and this happened only after murdering their opponents and replacing the Patriarch with a layman.

Even today Russian President Vladimir Putin is using the Eastern Orthodox Church to rally neo-nationalism while the Orthodox Church receives benefits from the government. After much reading on the matter, using secular and Christian sources, I have to concluded that Eastern Orthodoxy is a former State Church that carries a lot of historical baggage linked with Byzantine and other political intrigue. This often affected doctrine and relations even if the outward ritual and ceremony remained the same. If Putin has his way the Eastern Orthodox might become a State Church once again.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

You make this sound like it is a terrible thing. The fact of the matter is that Jesus came to establish His Kingdom, which points to a Church which is closely linked to the State. I see the theocratic kingdom of national Israel as a precursor of what our Lord came to do.

I have absolutely no problem with the state defending the Church and the Church working with the State. Will there be corruptions and problems? Given human nature, which is fallen, most likely, but it is a far better system than anything else that is in the world at this time.

 

[Light of the East]

BTW - The "draw" of Orthodoxy is that it is in line with what the Apostles taught from the very beginning. Now you can deny it, obfuscate their teachings, and ignore them, but honest research shows that early worship was nothing like any branch of Evangelicalism, Calvinism, or Protestantism. This is why many Evangelicals have turned to Orthodoxy after coming to realize that they have been lied to for years (sometimes decades) by their teachers and pastors.

The idea that Calvinism or Baptistry was taught in the first century (and I have seen web sites that enthusiastically teach such) is laughable on the face of it. And most certainly neither historically accurate nor theologically correct. Calvin invented a new system of theology which had not existed for 1500 years. The idea that he would be correct and those who lived within a couple of generations of our Lord and the Apostles is not only insulting to them, their fidelity to the Gospel (being willing to die for it), and their knowledge (so Calvin was smarter than the men who defined the natures of Christ?) but it is hubris of breathtaking quality.

 

[JM]

You are correct if you mean Reformed theology was not systematized until the Reformation. I would agree with you, however, all of the elements of Reformed theology are found in the early church including credobaptism. Even the famous Reformed TULIP was preached in the early church.

John Gill gives us a warning about the church fathers; "The school at Alexandria, from whence came several of the Christian doctors, as Panta-nus, Clemens, Origen, &c served very much to corrupt the simplicity of the gospel; for though mended the Platonic philosophy, it marred the Christian doctrine; and laid the foundation for Arianism and Pelagianism, which in after-times to greatly disturbed the church of God. As many of the fathers of the Christian church were originally Pagans, they were better skilled in demolishing Paganism, than in building up Christianity ; and indeed they set themselves more to destroy the one, than to illustrate and confirm the other: there was a purity in their lives, but a want of clearness, accuracy, and consistence in their doctrines : it would be endless to relate how much the Christian doctrine was obscured by the heretics that rose up in the latter part of the first century, and in the second, as well as after by Sabed lians, Photinians, Samosatenians, Arians, Eutychians, Nestorians, Macedonians, Pelagians, &c. though God was pleased to raise up instruments to stop their progress, and preserve the truth, and sometimes very eminent ones; as Athanasius against the Arians, and Austin against the Pelagians. The gospel in its simplicity, through the power of divine grace attending it, made its way into the gentile world, in these first centuries, with great success; and paganism decreased before it; and which in the times of Constantine received a fatal blow in the Roman Empire; and yet by degrees pagan rites and ceremonies were introduced into the Christian church ; and what with them, and error in doctrine, and other things concurring, made way for the man of sin to appear; and that mystery of iniquity, which had been secretly working from the times of the apostles, to shew its head openly; and brought in the darkness of popery upon almost all that bore the Christian name."

That all stated it should be noted that the earliest record, the Bible, is monergistic. When Jesus said, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day” it was a monergistic statement. All those drawn WILL BE raised up. The context is everlasting life and salvation in Christ.

Other food for thought:

Total Inability: “The soul cannot rise nor fly, nor be lifted up above the things that are on high, without special grace.” Clement of Alexandria (190)

Unconditional Election: “Let us therefore approach Him in holiness of soul, lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him, with love towards our gentle and compassionate Father because He made us an elect portion unto Himself…Seeing then that we are the special elect portion of a Holy God, let us do all things that pertain unto holiness…There was given a declaration of blessedness upon them that have been elected by God through Jesus Christ our Lord…Jesus Christ is the hope of the elect…” Clement of Rome ( 69)

Limited Atonement/Effectual Atonement: “He endured the sufferings for those men whose souls are [actually] purified from all iniquity…As Jacob served Laban for the cattle that were spotted, and of carious forms, so Christ served even to the cross for men of every kind, of many and various shapes, procuring them by His blood and the mystery of the cross.” Justin Martyr (150) (it’s similar to the passages from Hebrews)

Irresistible Grace: “Whatsoever is grateful is to be ascribed not to man’s power, but to God’s gift. It is God’s, I say, all is God’s that we can do. Yea, that in nothing must we glory, since nothing is ours.” Cyprian (250)

Perseverance of the Saints: “It is the will of God that all whom He loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent. He has established it by His almighty will. But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is His almighty will? And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of His?” Clement of Rome (69)

"before the profane Pelagius, presumed that there was such a power in free will, as to think the grace of God unnecessary to help it through every act in things what are good? Who before his prodigious disciple Caelestius denied, that all mankind are guilty of Adam's transgression?" - Vincentius Lirinensis for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heretics

"being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." – Clement

Out of time. Peace.

jm

 

[Light of the East]

"before the profane Pelagius, presumed that there was such a power in free will, as to think the grace of God unnecessary to help it through every act in things what are good? Who before his prodigious disciple Caelestius denied, that all mankind are guilty of Adam's transgression?" - Vincentius Lirinensis

I looked up Vencentius Lirinensis. He died in 450 AD, which means that as a Western monk, he was infected by the heresy of Augustine that all men are partakers of Adam's sin. Before Augustine came up with this novel idea, it was unknown to the Church and the Christian faith.

The Western Church has been plagued with the thoughts of men who allowed their personal evil and licentiousness to dictate their theological feelings once they had repented. Augustine and Luther are the two most prominent examples.