Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective

[ChristianTrader]

Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective by Robert Letham
>>
The culture of the Eastern Church is alien to our experience. Yet the more we familiarize ourselves with the Eastern Church the more we recognize, for all the differences, the family resemblances. The family has been parted for a very long time. But chances have arisen to meet again and get to know one another. In recent years, Eastern Orthodoxy has emerged vividly on the radar of Western Christians - hitherto, it was largely ignored. The separation has been due to the long-term historical disruption caused by differences in language, outlook and theology and eventually by the depredations of Islam. Because of these East and West went their separate ways. As a result, the respective theologies appear at times to inhabit parallel universes. However, this ignorance is changing. Eastern Orthodoxy is increasingly popular in the Anglo-Saxon world. It conveys a sense of mystery, of continuity with the past, of dignified worship at a time when evangelical Protestantism is increasingly cheapened and trivialized. This book examines the history and theology of Orthodoxy from a Reformed perspective. There are clear and significant areas of agreement - a common allegiance to the triune God; the person of Christ; the authority of Scripture and the truth of the gospel. At the same time there are many areas of disagreement, where it seems that Orthodoxy and Protestantism are at odds. However, there are also misunderstandings on both sides, where proponents of either position are not normally dealing accurately with what the other holds to be true. In drawing attention to the agreements and misunderstandings Robert Letham trusts that readers may come to a better understanding of exactly where the real differences lie. We can learn from Orthodoxy - if our assumption is that the most important thing is to grow in our knowledge of Christ.<<

http://www.christianfocus.com/item/show/1028/-

Due in March

 

[etexas]

Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective by Robert Letham
>>
The culture of the Eastern Church is alien to our experience. Yet the more we familiarize ourselves with the Eastern Church the more we recognize, for all the differences, the family resemblances. The family has been parted for a very long time. But chances have arisen to meet again and get to know one another. In recent years, Eastern Orthodoxy has emerged vividly on the radar of Western Christians - hitherto, it was largely ignored. The separation has been due to the long-term historical disruption caused by differences in language, outlook and theology and eventually by the depredations of Islam. Because of these East and West went their separate ways. As a result, the respective theologies appear at times to inhabit parallel universes. However, this ignorance is changing. Eastern Orthodoxy is increasingly popular in the Anglo-Saxon world. It conveys a sense of mystery, of continuity with the past, of dignified worship at a time when evangelical Protestantism is increasingly cheapened and trivialized. This book examines the history and theology of Orthodoxy from a Reformed perspective. There are clear and significant areas of agreement - a common allegiance to the triune God; the person of Christ; the authority of Scripture and the truth of the gospel. At the same time there are many areas of disagreement, where it seems that Orthodoxy and Protestantism are at odds. However, there are also misunderstandings on both sides, where proponents of either position are not normally dealing accurately with what the other holds to be true. In drawing attention to the agreements and misunderstandings Robert Letham trusts that readers may come to a better understanding of exactly where the real differences lie. We can learn from Orthodoxy - if our assumption is that the most important thing is to grow in our knowledge of Christ.<<

http://www.christianfocus.com/item/show/1028/-

Due in March

You ask some very good questions about a growing movement on the American Christian landscape. Scism over the Roman Primacy, but the have practice which any number of Reformed believers might be disturbed by. They do Marian devotions, they have sort of a pantheon of saints many of which we in the west have never heard of! And then......Icons.......idols not idols! They talk of a rather complex theology called Incarnational Theology to justify their use, I recomend reading Leonid Ouspensky, for the EO take on Iconography. You will find things you disagree with but thing to think about as well. Grace and Peace.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Finally more attention is given to the East.

The EOC is not Rome and must not be dismissed as if they were the same.

 

[Kevin]

That sounds very interesting. I will be looking for it.

 

[etexas]

Finally more attention is given to the East.

The EOC is not Rome and must not be dismissed as if they were the same.

Greetings Chris. Listen I wrote my post quickly.....typos were a hint. I never did intend that we dismiss the EOC. I only pointed out that they do use "smells bells and kiss Icons of Our Lady" I have been to an Orthodox service..you?

 

[Theoretical]

Greetings Chris. Listen I wrote my post quickly.....typos were a hint. I never did intend that we dismiss the EOC. I only pointed out that they do use "smells bells and kiss Icons of Our Lady" I have been to an Orthodox service..you?

Max, I don't think Chris was responding to your post. I think he was referring to the general tendency some have to lump Rome and Constantinople as basically two peas in the same pod, when they are thoroughly different.

 

[etexas]

they are not that different

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Greetings Chris. Listen I wrote my post quickly.....typos were a hint. I never did intend that we dismiss the EOC. I only pointed out that they do use "smells bells and kiss Icons of Our Lady" I have been to an Orthodox service..you?

Max, I was not responding at all to your post nor did I read it before I posted. I was responding to Hermonta's post regarding a publication that addresses the East head on rather than simply lumping them in with Rome.

East and west split around 1054 AD. The protestant reformation protested against what the west became. The EOC actually sees our protest as just in many ways (they side with us against indulgences and the papacy for example), but simply think that all western ordinations after the 1054 schism are unlawful and these non-ministers of an apostate church simply reformed a church that was apostate for centuries already.

So essentially they see our protesting as an effort in futility being that we are not truly home until we go back East and submit to the one true and seamless apostolic church.

Rome’s churches are similar to the EOC just as the Lutheran, Methodists, Baptist, and all the broad evangelical churches are similar to the original Protestant Reformed churches. An EOC apologist may think he is adequately refuting the protestants by only addressing, say modern Lutheranism, but in reality he is not even addressing the reformed protestant church even though we are “not that different” from their perspective.

 

[etexas]

Max, I was not responding at all to your post nor did I read it before I posted. I was responding to Hermonta's post regarding a publication that addresses the East head on rather than simply lumping them in with Rome.

East and west split around 1054 AD. The protestant reformation protested against what the west became. The EOC actually sees our protest as just in many ways (they side with us against indulgences and the papacy for example), but simply think that all western ordinations after the 1054 schism are unlawful and these non-ministers of an apostate church simply reformed a church that was apostate for centuries already.

So essentially they see our protesting as an effort in futility being that we are not truly home until we go back East and submit to the one true and seamless apostolic church
Rome’s churches are similar to the EOC just as the Lutheran, Methodists, Baptist, and all the broad evangelical churches are similar to the original Protestant Reformed churches. An EOC apologist may think he is adequately refuting the protestants by only addressing, say modern Lutheranism, but in reality he is not even addressing the reformed protestant church even though we are “not that different” from their perspective.

IN A NUTSHELL BROTHER! Sorry about the confusion in my prior post! IT CAN GET CONFUSING ABOUT WHO IS RESPONDING TO WHOS POST.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

IN A NUTSHELL BROTHER! Sorry about the confusion in my prior post! IT CAN GET CONFUSING ABOUT WHO IS RESPONDING TO WHOS POST.

 

[etexas]

Also glad you see the DEEP theological problems in the Orthodox Church. Most or for lack of a better term semi-Pelagian, they deny that.......saying Pelagius was western..........and therefore our problem. Pretzel logic?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think that the biggest area of agreement between RC & EO is...

Both are "irreformable." The present EO mindset is "We've never changed; we never will change." But the truth of course is far different. From the post-Chalcedonian councils (especially II Nicaea, establishing iconodoulia, which reversed a previous Council that condemned it), to the thorough politicization of the church, to what Hughes Oliphant Old calls the "conventionalization" or "iconic" preaching--the Eastern churches became incorigible proably no later than 787 (II Nic.) or else the political deposition of Photius, the preaching Bishop of Constantinople in 886.

The Western or Roman Church, as we well know, endured all kinds of difficulties, exacerbated by the ambitions of the Bishops of Rome. But in the absence of a political center the church continued to function largely independent of the State (but not from local hegemony), and even regionally separate from Rome. We tend to think that the early Medieval papacy was exactly the same as the later Medieval papacy, when there were all sorts of developments going on. Not so. Recall the days of the popes and anti-popes. The French monarchy sought the same kind of control over its church as the Byzantines had over theirs, and so for a while some (anti)popes reigned in Avingnon. Ultimately the church maintained its independence. But with things in such flux, hardening could not take place as quickly.

And so the Reformation came--a Reformation that never came to the East. (But sometime read the story of "Cyril Lucarius, [who] was born in what is now Greece in 1572. Although rising to the position of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Lucaris was heavily influenced by 16th century Calvinism. As a result, in the spirit of the Protestant Reformation and in strong opposition to Roman Catholicism, he attempted to reform Orthodoxy in the direction of Calvinism." He was politically murdered. Same old story.)

But after the Reformation, Rome declared that it was impossible that so perfect an institution as she was could ever be reformed. So, neither of these churches is capable (humanly speaking) of an internal reform. God is greater than we are, of course. And if there could be a revival of learned preaching, and a devotion to the Scriptures Alone, in either one of these institutions, then preaching could bring that church to life again. But the same battle fought before would be fought again--and in the end, the faithful would probably "lose" the institution. Because those who are committed to the "institution" are already in control of its machinery.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Regarding Cyril Lucaris, see this post from DTK:

I don't know of one. But there is one rather notable example of Cyril Lucaris (1572-1638), sometime patriarch of Constantinople who became something of a Calvinist. His views came under attack by others in his communion. You can read his Confession at the following web site.

http://www.cresourcei.org/creedcyril.html

There is an interesting article which treats his views and something of the conflict he faced as a result of his teachings in the Trinity Journal, 3:1 (Spring 1982), titled "Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Reformation and the Eastern Orthodox Church" by Randall H. Balmer.

Cheers,
DTK

 

[etexas]

I think that the biggest area of agreement between RC & EO is...

Both are "irreformable." The present EO mindset is "We've never changed; we never will change." But the truth of course is far different. From the post-Chalcedonian councils (especially II Nicaea, establishing iconodoulia, which reversed a previous Council that condemned it), to the thorough politicization of the church, to what Hughes Oliphant Old calls the "conventionalization" or "iconic" preaching--the Eastern churches became incorigible proably no later than 787 (II Nic.) or else the political deposition of Photius, the preaching Bishop of Constantinople in 886.

The Western or Roman Church, as we well know, endured all kinds of difficulties, exacerbated by the ambitions of the Bishops of Rome. But in the absence of a political center the church continued to function largely independent of the State (but not from local hegemony), and even regionally separate from Rome. We tend to think that the early Medieval papacy was exactly the same as the later Medieval papacy, when there were all sorts of developments going on. Recall the days of the popes and anti-popes. The French monarchy sought the same kind of control over its church as the Byzantines had over theirs, and so for a while some (anti)popes reigned in Avingnon. Ultimately the church maintained its independence, but with things in such flux, hardening could not take place as quickly.

And so the Reformation came--a Reformation that never came to the East. (But sometime read the story of "Cyril Lucarius, [who] was born in what is now Greece in 1572. Although rising to the position of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Lucaris was heavily influenced by 16th century Calvinism. As a result, in the spirit of the Protestant Reformation and in strong opposition to Roman Catholicism, he attempted to reform Orthodoxy in the direction of Calvinism." He was politically murdered. Same old story.)

But after the Reformation, Rome declared that it was impossible that so perfect an institution as she was could ever be reformed. So, neither of these churches is capable (humanly speaking) of an internal reform. God is greater than we are, of course. And if there could be a revival of learned preaching, and a devotion to the Scriptures Alone, in either one of these institutions, then preaching could bring that church to life again. But the same battle fought before would be fought again--and in the end, the faithful would probably "lose" the institution. Because those who are committed to the "institution" are already in control of its machinery.

That is good stuff Bruce. Also the Metropolitan Patriarchs are like little Popes in their own sphere. Talk to anyone who has come out of that system. It is good to know what problems exists because they are doing a lot of North American Missions, and it is working.they are growing and strangely.....they are the darlings of the New-Evangelicals! I think their "flagship" magazine Christianity Today had a cover......calling it the Orthodox century.......refering to the 21st!?!?!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Theodore Beza, Questionum et Responsionum Christianarum, pars Altera, Quae est de Sacramentis (1577):

132. Question:

But do you see how miserably it has been defiled, whether you [consider] the doctrine itself, or its characteristic note of baptism?

Answer:

One may admit that it is so defiled that it may not be recognized by any but the most skillful, nevertheless, it appears in that mark of Jesus Christ, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

Question:

What do you gather from this?

Answer:

I infer that, Popery is by no means Christianity, but rather, it is such a great aberration, that the one who embraces and abides in it actually falls from Christianity. I say the same about Greek Orthodoxy, which also itself is such a great deviation from Christianity that no man today may truly be a Christian and Greek Orthodox [at the same time]. I say however, that the Gentiles (who now are generally comprehended in these same two factions and are inclined to that same excision of which Paul manifestly foretold) are not, for all that, to be considered as cut off, as long as the outward note of baptism should endure there; and further I say that the Church is gathered out of the midst, and in the midst, of Popery.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

George A. Hadjiantoniou, Protestant patriarch: The life of Cyril Lucaris, 1572-1638, Patriarch of Constantinople

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Orthodox Articles Directed to Reformed Protestants

 

[RamistThomist]

I have Schmemann's *Life of the World* that I have been intending to finish.

 

[Staphlobob]

You ask some very good questions about a growing movement on the American Christian landscape. Scism over the Roman Primacy, but the have practice which any number of Reformed believers might be disturbed by. They do Marian devotions, they have sort of a pantheon of saints many of which we in the west have never heard of! And then......Icons.......idols not idols! They talk of a rather complex theology called Incarnational Theology to justify their use ...

One of the primary reasons Rome and the EO split was over the "filioque." Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father alone (EO), or from the Father AND the Son (Rome/western)? If I'm not mistaken, the problem for the EO was more the fact that the pope, single-handedly, changed the creed to say, "...and the Son."

"Theosis" is another significant theological point with the EO. (It's found in one of Peter's letters, but I'm not yet awake enough to look it up.)

But the worship of Mary, the saints, and the icons is one of the more obvious aspects of the EO. When I was Roman I once attended a Ruthenian liturgy (Ruthenians are EO who are in communion with the pope - and use "with the Son" in the creed). Lots of "smells 'n bells." But also much grovelling at an icon or two.