Eastern Orthodoxy - how far?

[py3ak]

How relatively distant is Eastern Orthodoxy from the Reformed? For instance, I think we can recognize that confessional Lutherans are substantially closer to us than Roman Catholicism, which in turn is substantially closer to us than Islam.

Where on that spectrum does Eastern Orthodoxy lie? Starting from a center of the Reformed confessions, how many rings separate them from us?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

From what I have studied concerning Eastern Orthodoxy in many ways I think they are further from us than Roman Catholicism. Especially on some Trinitarian issues including the filioque and Theosis.

 

[J. Dean]

At the risk of oversimplification, they are essentially the same with Rome on many issues and practices, save that they do not believe in the authority of the Pope over their churches, and they do not forbid marriage.

They do not believe in original sin.. or at least they do not believe in it in the same way that is understood by Rome and the Reformers. The patriarch that explained this to me made it sound almost Pelagian, but he was quick to insist that grace was necessary and not optional. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

They do not use the book of Revelation for two reasons 1.) It is not necessary to understand the book of Revelation in order to be saved (true but not necessarily a good reason), and 2.) because its acceptance into the canon is questionable. (The priest added his own third reason: he essentially said that you can get ten pastors in a room and get ten different opinions about Revelation).

They break bread from a common loaf (I actually like this practice. Aside from the more literal use of breaking bread, it tastes so much better than those styrofoam wafers). The take on the elements is that of transubstantiation, but they nuance it in a way that is slightly different from Rome's understanding.

Until recently, they did not preach sermons. The service consisted of a sermonless liturgy, singing songs, responsive reading, and corporate prayers.

So they're at least as far away from Protestant Christianity as Rome, if not farther in some respects.

But I'll say this... they make a heck of a lot of great meals, and have Uzzo too!

 

[py3ak]

Yes, we certainly are Catholic rather than Orthodox. But their opposition to the Pope, which might seem to put them rather on our side in that affair, is insufficient to make us co-belligerents. I'm sure at times it's difficult for an Orthodox person to choose between (from their perspective) the relative evils of Protestantism and Romanism, although ultimately they have more points of contact with Rome.

 

[bookslover]

Don't they also have some doctrine that asserts that human beings (or, at least, Christians) can actually attain to deity?

 

[Philip]

Part of the trouble (even in the early church) in conversing with the Eastern Orthodox is the lack of a common terminology and theological language. The debates that we have with Rome are easy, in many ways, because we have a common theological language. We all know what the other means when we debate. However, even historically, this has not been the case with regard to the eastern churches. Western terminology is rooted in Latin whereas the Eastern terminology is all Greek. Swimming the Tiber entails a shift in position, while the swim across the Bosporous entails a shift in language.

---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 PM ----------

Don't they also have some doctrine that asserts that human beings (or, at least, Christians) can actually attain to deity?

Sort of. "Theosis" entails humans taking part in the eternal fellowship of the Trinity through union with Christ. We hear the term and think metaphysics, whereas the Eastern Church thinks of it in terms of fellowship.

Theosis in Eastern Orthodox Theology

 

[Rufus]

Some of the problems between us and them is that the Western and Eastern churches developed differently as well as the West experiencing both the Renaissance and the Reformation.

 

[J. Dean]

I do recommend reading John of Damascus if you can get any of his works, Ruben. Like Augustine, you have to spit out a little bit of bone, but he does have some good meat.

 

[Sviata Nich]

Far from being an expert on the matter, I think it is hard to place Eastern Orthodoxy on a spectrum. As Protestants we would make many of the same criticisms towards EO that we would towards Catholicism, however EO differs as - I think - they tend to focus or put more emphasis on the incarnation itself rather than the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. And not that they embrace contradiction, but I think they are much more comfortable with the mysterious than us in the West.

One interesting read on the subject is Letham Robert's Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy A Reformed Perspective.

 

[John Bunyan]

Theology Network - World Religions - Eastern Orthodoxy After hearing this (it's a good introduction to eastern orthodoxy both historically and theologically) I would say they're closer to us on some aspects (like having no pope, but autocephalous churches in communion to each other, haven Christ only as their common superior), and closer to catholics on others (their position on icons and saints, for example). Also they're unique in some senses, with their apophatic theoly and concepts such as the distinction of God's essence from his energies.

Seems to me that there are, also, some minor reform movements (or rather, reforming bishops) withing orthodox churches thar might be even closer to protestants on doctrine, but when I say "minor", I really mean it. We also have some protestant churches wich look a lot like orthodox ones, becaus it is hard to orthodox christians to even listen to protestants if they don't dress up "churchy" (the major example would be the Evangelical Baptist Church of Georgia)

 

[kvanlaan]

Interesting factoid: I have a good friend who is Coptic and he actually told some friends of his who were moving away (to a place that had no Coptic church) that they should attend a conservative reformed church because it is the closest thing to a Coptic church as it gets. No smells and bells (and we're way too light on the 'mystery' for them), but lots of church fathers and church history.

 

[John Bunyan]

Interesting factoid: I have a good friend who is Coptic and he actually told some friends of his who were moving away (to a place that had no Coptic church) that they should attend a conservative reformed church because it is the closest thing to a Coptic church as it gets. No smells and bells (and we're way too light on the 'mystery' for them), but lots of church fathers and church history.

weird , I would never think like that, seems to me that they should go to an epicospal church (like some anglican high-church) - copts are not eastern orthodox, though

 

[Philip]

There are some excellent theologians in the Eastern Tradition---Gregory of Nazianzus, in my estimation, is a better Trinitarian theologian than Augustine.

 

[JM]

I attended a Greek Orthodox church for well over a year when I first became a believer...still have my icons and prayer rope from Mt. Athos.

Priests can marry but if you want to become a Bishop, which are chosen from the monastic community, you cannot take a wife. For the Orthodox everything is in the practice of religious ceremonies. I would attend orthos and after the Divine Liturgy and pretty much just stand their while people walked around and talked, greeted one another, kiss the Icon at the front, light candles, etc. For them it was a matter of being in the presence of the rites as they were being performed. Gazing at the Icons as "windows to heaven" was more important then understanding the Priest or even listening to him perform his witchcraft, I mean...liturgy. It was common to bring a prayer rope and just pray it. Don't even think of what you are saying, just pray it. When I would use the rope it often felt as if something else was praying the rope, saying the Jesus Prayer (in breath = Lord Jesus Christ Son of God out breath = have mercy on me a sinner) over and over and over and over. All while standing! Never kneel on Sunday, don't sit down either and Easter, man, they stand for hours during some services. They told me pews were a Protestant invention. When the sermon became the center of worship pews were introduced. They claimed Rome was the first Protestant group and therefore heterodox. If a Prot or RC wants to become Orthodox they have to be baptized EO unless a dispensation is given. The EO also claim "the Latins" were infected by scholasticism resulting in a man centered religion. The RC's lack sacramental form because of it.

The first service I attended was the Triumph of Orthodoxy service. The church had been fighting over use of images for a couple hundreds years at this point and "Orthodoxy" won so they take the Icons off the wall and walk around for everyone to see them, kiss them, touch'em, whatever. You just couldn't turn your back on them it was considered disrespectful.

To understand the core of their spiritual practices consider reading Evagrius of Pontus, the Philokalia, the Desert Fathers and for theology especially the writings of John Cassian who the Orthodox considered the final word on the Pelagian/Augustine controversy. If you ask me Cassian sided with Pelagius in that man is a blank slate or neutral...but I could be wrong and often am.

The Coptic church was in seclusion from the rest of the Orthodox world for hundreds of years because the wording of the Council of Chalcedon and the Islamic occupation which continues today. I believe their was a joint statement made by the Orthodox and Romanists not too long ago that cleared up the mess. (it was political anyway and not theological)

To see how EO's view the RC's here you go: Orthodoxy and Western Christianity: For Roman Catholics

---------- Post added at 06:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:03 AM ----------

A few more points to add about John Cassian from Wiki.

- He taught that "man can come to God without the intervention of divine grace first" which ran contrary to the Council of Orange

- "Pope Celestine called for Cassian's teachings to be silenced" (see Cassian's Conference 13)

- "Pope Celestine handled the matter by writing to the bishops of southeastern Gaul. He praised the zeal of Prosper and Hilary and asked the bishops to silence those presbyters causing trouble with their 'novel' ideas. The letter concludes with a plea to respect the memory of the recently deceased Augustine. No doctrines are specified, no names or places given. The letter must have been something of a disappointment to Prosper and Hilary. Nonetheless Prosper pressed ahead, publishing in 432 his critique of Conference 13"

- "salvation is achieved through the divinisation of man"

- "Neither Cassian nor any of his teachings have ever been directly or indirectly called into question or condemned by Eastern Orthodox, as they are considered a witness to the Orthodox position."​

That sounds like the Orthodoxy I remember.

 

[Reformed Philosopher]

I've had some great discussions with EO believers, and the impressions I've gotten are similar to what has already been posted here. They're much more comfortable with mystery (laughing at both protestants and RCs for trying to figure out transubstantiation). They have a lot of ritual involved in their services, but we got sermons too when I went, and it was much more normal than Jason described. Although they're comfortable with mystery, I would say their theology is extremely well thought-out and should not be regarded with disrespect. The insights I received from our conversations were always interesting and sometimes pretty critical: one told me that protestants have no problem with the idea of a pope, we just all want to be the pope.

 

[Somerset]

One thing which does impress me about EO is the idea, shared with us, that God is in control and must be worshipped in awe - whereas many RCs seem to use God like a puppet, lost your keys? pray to St Key Finder and they will be found.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

The ESV study bible has a section on EO in the back, that implies EO is closer to evangelical protestism than RC in many ways. I have no idea if that is accurate.

 

[Jake]

I found this on another thread on the Puritanboard a while ago. I will reproduce it below as I find it very interesting:

A Calvinist Looks at Orthodoxy
by Jack D. Kinneer

During my studies at St. Vladimir´s Orthodox Theological Seminary, I was often asked by students, "Are you Orthodox?" It always felt awkward to be asked such a question. I thought of myself as doctrinally orthodox. I was a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. So I thought I could claim the word orthodox.

But I did not belong to the communion of churches often called Eastern Orthodox, but more properly called simply Orthodox. I was not Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, or Antiochian Orthodox. As far as the Orthodox at St. Vladimir´s were concerned, I was not Orthodox, regardless of my agreement with them on various doctrines.

My studies at St. Vladimir´s allowed me to become acquainted with Orthodoxy and to become friends with a number of Orthodox professors, priests, and seminarians. My diploma was even signed by Metropolitan Theodosius, the head of the Orthodox Church in America. From the Metropolitan to the seminarians, I was received kindly and treated with respect and friendliness.

I am not the only Calvinist to have become acquainted with Orthodoxy in recent years. Sadly, a number have not only made the acquaintance, but also left the Reformed faith for Orthodoxy. What is Orthodoxy and what is its appeal to some in the Reformed churches?

The Appeal of Orthodoxy

Since the days of the apostles, there have been Christian communities in such ancient cities as Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, and Corinth in Greece. In such places, the Christian church grew, endured the tribulation of Roman persecution, and ultimately prevailed when the Roman Empire was officially converted to Christianity. But, unlike Christians in the western half of the Roman Empire, the eastern Christians did not submit to the claims of the bishop of Rome to be the earthly head of the entire church. And why should they have done so? The centers of Orthodox Christianity were as old as, or even older than, the church in Rome. All the great ecumenical councils took place in the East and were attended overwhelmingly by Christian leaders from the East, with only a smattering of representatives from the West. Indeed, most of the great theologians and writers of the ancient church (commonly called the Church Fathers) were Greek-speaking Christians in the East.

The Orthodox churches have descended in an unbroken succession of generations from these ancient roots. As the Orthodox see it, the Western church followed the bishop of Rome into schism (in part by adding a phrase to the Nicene Creed). So, from their perspective, we Protestants are the product of a schism off a schism. The Orthodox believe that they have continued unbroken the churches founded by the apostles. They allow that we Reformed may be Christians, but our churches are not part of the true church, our ordinations are not valid, and our sacraments are no sacraments at all.

The apparently apostolic roots of Orthodoxy provide much of its appeal for some evangelical Protestants. Furthermore, it is not burdened with such later Roman Catholic developments as the Papacy, purgatory, indulgences, the immaculate conception of Mary, and her assumption into heaven. Orthodoxy is ancient; it is unified in a way that Protestantism is not; it lacks most of the medieval doctrines and practices that gave rise to the Reformation. This gives it for many a fascinating appeal.

Part of that appeal is the rich liturgical heritage of Orthodoxy, with its elaborate liturgies, its glorious garbing of the clergy, and its gestures, symbols, and icons. If it is true that the distinctive mark of Reformed worship is simplicity, then even more so is glory the distinctive mark of Orthodox worship. Another appealing aspect of Orthodox worship is its otherness. It is mysterious, sensual, and, as the Orthodox see it, heavenly. Orthodox worship at its best makes you feel like you have been transported into one of the worship scenes in the book of Revelation. Of course, if the priest chants off-key or the choir sings poorly, it is not quite so wonderful.

There are many other things that could be mentioned, but I´ve mentioned the things that have particularly struck me. These are also the things that converts from Protestantism say attracted them.

The Shortcomings of Orthodoxy

So then, is this Orthodox Presbyterian about to drop the "Presbyterian" and become simply Orthodox? No! In my estimation, the shortcomings of Orthodoxy outweigh its many fascinations. A comparison of the Reformed faith with the Orthodox faith would be a massive undertaking, made all the more difficult because Orthodoxy has no doctrinal statement comparable to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Orthodoxy is the consensus of faith arising from the ancient Fathers and the ecumenical councils. This includes the forty-nine volumes of the Ante- and Post-Nicene Fathers, plus the writings of the hermits and monastics known collectively as the Desert Fathers! It would take an entire issue of New Horizons just to outline the topics to be covered in a comparison of Orthodoxy and Reformed Christianity. So the following comments are selective rather than systematic.

First, in my experience, the Orthodox do not understand justification by faith. Some reject it. Others tolerate it, but no one I met or read seemed to really understand it. Just as Protestants can make justification the whole (rather than the beginning) of the gospel, so the Orthodox tend to make sanctification (which they call "theosis" or deification) the whole gospel. In my estimation, this is a serious defect. It weakens the Orthodox understanding of the nature of saving faith.

Orthodoxy also has a real problem with nominal members. Many Orthodox Christians have a very inadequate understanding of the gospel as Orthodoxy understands it. Their religion is often so intertwined with their ethnicity that being Russian or Greek becomes almost synonymous with being Orthodox. This is, by the way, a critique I heard from the lips of Orthodox leaders themselves. This is not nearly as serious a problem in Reformed churches because our preaching continually stresses the necessity for a personal, intimate trusting, receiving, and resting upon Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Such an emphasis is blurred among the Orthodox.

Second, the Orthodox have a very inadequate understanding of sovereign grace. It is not fair to say that they are Pelagians. (Pelagius was a Western Christian who denied original sin and taught that man´s will is free to choose good.) But they are definitely not Augustinians (Calvinists) on sin and grace. In a conversation with professors and doctoral students about the nature of salvation, I quoted Ezekiel 36:26"“27 as showing that there is a grace of God that precedes faith and enables that human response. One professor said in response, "I never thought of that verse in that way before." The Orthodox have not thought a lot about sin, regeneration, election, and so forth. Their view of original sin (a term which they avoid) falls far short of the teaching of Paul. Correspondingly, their understanding of Christ´s atonement and God´s calling is weak as well. Their views could best be described as undeveloped. If you want to see this for yourself, read Chrysostom on John 6:44"“45, and then read Calvin on the same passage.

Third, the Orthodox are passionately committed to the use of icons (flat images of Christ, Mary, or a saint) in worship. Indeed, the annual Feast of Orthodoxy celebrates the restoration of icons to the churches at the end of the Iconoclast controversy (in a.d. 843). For the Orthodox, the making and venerating of icons is the mark of Orthodoxy"”showing that one really believes that God the Son, who is consubstantial with the Father, became also truly human. Since I did not venerate icons, I was repeatedly asked whether or not I really believed in the Incarnation. The Orthodox are deeply offended at the suggestion that their veneration of icons is a violation of the second commandment. But after listening patiently to their justifications, I am convinced that whatever their intentions may be, their practice is not biblical. However, our dialogue on the subject sent me back to the Bible to study the issue in a way that I had not done before. The critique I would offer now is considerably different than the traditional Reformed critique of the practice.

Finally, many of the Orthodox tend to have a lower view of the Bible than the ancient Fathers had. At least at St. Vladimir´s, Orthodox scholars have been significantly influenced by higher-critical views of Scripture, especially as such views have developed in contemporary Roman Catholic scholarship. This is, however, a point of controversy among the Orthodox, just as it is among Catholics and Protestants. Orthodoxy also has its divisions between liberals and conservatives. But even those who are untainted by higher-critical views rarely accord to Scripture the authority that it claims for itself or which was accorded to it by the Fathers. The voice of Scripture is largely limited to the interpretations of Scripture found in the Fathers.

There is much else to be said. Orthodoxy is passionately committed to monasticism. Its liturgy includes prayers to Mary. And the Divine Liturgy, for all its antiquity, is the product of a long historical process. If you want to follow the "liturgy" that is unquestionably apostolic, then partake of the Lord´s Supper, pray the Lord´s Prayer, sing "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs," and say "amen," "hallelujah," and "maranatha." Almost everything else in any liturgy is a later adaptation and development.

A Concluding Assessment

But these criticisms do not mean that we have nothing to learn from Orthodoxy. Just as the Orthodox have not thought a lot about matters that have consumed us (such as justification, the nature of Scripture, sovereign grace, and Christ´s work on the cross), so we have not thought a lot about what have been their consuming passions: the Incarnation, the meaning of worship, the soul´s perfection in the communicable attributes of God (which they call the energies of God), and the disciplines by which we grow in grace. Let us have the maturity to keep the faith as we know it, and to learn from others where we need to learn.

Orthodoxy in many ways fascinates me, but it does not claim my heart nor stir my soul as does the Reformed faith. My firsthand exposure to Orthodoxy has left me all the more convinced that on the essential matters of human sin, divine forgiveness, and Christ´s atoning sacrifice, the Reformed faith is the biblical faith. I would love to see my Orthodox friends embrace a more biblical understanding of these matters. And I am grieved when Reformed friends sacrifice this greater good for the considerable but lesser goods of Orthodox liturgy and piety.

Dr. Kinneer is the director of Echo Hill Christian Study Center in Indian Head, Pa. This article originally appeared in New Horizons, the official publication of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

 

[thbslawson]

We lived in Russia for four years and daily encountered Russian Orthodoxy. What others have written above is a good assessment of their beliefs, so I won't repeat all of it. At the end of the day they are generally as far from the Reformed faith as Roman Catholicism. But there does seem to be one aspect that distinguishes them from Catholics both historically and in the present era, and that is an emphasis upon the laity reading Scripture. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 native Siberian people groups in Russia, and there is much historical evidence that as far back as 250-300 years ago Orthodox missionary priests labored to put parts of the Scriptures into these native tongues as well as help teach the people how to read them. Even presently there is a push within the Russian Orthodox Church to have people read the Bible. As a result, I've met more Orthodox Christians that I would say are genuinely converted than Roman Catholics, and in every case it was because they had been reading Scripture and had come to understand the true gospel, despite what the church teaches.

There are also a couple of bright spots within Orthodoxy. Google the name Alexander Men and try to find a few of his sermons in English. He was a Russian Orthodox priest who was assassinated during the later years of the Soviet Union. While he held to many traditional Orthodox beliefs that were unbiblical (i.e. icons, prayers to saints, transubstantiation, etc.) there are numerous examples of him clearly preaching "Christ alone" for salvation in his sermons. He also had a unique admiration for the Evangelical Christians of Russia.

 

[Pilgrim]

One thing which does impress me about EO is the idea, shared with us, that God is in control and must be worshipped in awe - whereas many RCs seem to use God like a puppet, lost your keys? pray to St Key Finder and they will be found.

That'd be St. Anthony. I didn't grow up Catholic but I wish I would have never heard that prayer in my RC High School because it occasionally comes to mind when I've lost something and need to find it quickly.

As for the EO's, I agree with much of what has been posted. In many respects they are further away than Rome and would regard Rome and Protestants as being excessively scholastic and rationalistic.

A while back for some reason I listened to Ancient Faith Radio for a few days. (This may have been because I have some acquaintances that moved from Reformed to EO. That would include about 5-6 people who used to be members here, with some having been frequent posters.) With things like their denial of penal substitution some of their teaching comes off as little different than the mainline liberalism that I grew up with. I used to wonder why the various EO churches were involved in the World Council of Churches and National Council of Churches if they're supposed to be "conservative," the true apostolic church, etc. since the other member organizations are in various stages of apostasy and have been since the time those ecumenical organizations were founded. But with their relatively "high" view of man and emphasis of God's love and a corresponding de-emphasis on God as righteous Judge, there seems to be more in common with the liberals than one might at first imagine. That is, until issues regarding sexual ethics came to the fore. (I know that at least one of the American autocephalous churches has pulled out and another has considered it. They are also the two that are the most mission minded and least ethnic--OCA and Antiochians.)

As with Romanism, there also seems to be a general idea that to be really spiritual you have to be a monk. Perhaps its even more extreme in this case? I saw a YouTube video taken somewhere in the Balkans in which people (some priests and maybe others) were living in the woods spending all their time praying and meditating and subsisting on the food people brought them.

 

[py3ak]

Thanks to you all - it was good to hear of the experiences of others, though I wasn't so much looking for what the Orthodox believe but how far away from us they are. Perhaps a parallel with a different taxonomy will help.

In the OT, you had the temple worship; you had sacrifice being made in the high places; you had the worship of the golden calves; and you had Baal worship. Now Baal worship is clearly the worst thing - Jehu is raised up to put an end to it, and is commended and rewarded for that. But the worship of the golden calves was the persistent and ruinous sin that ultimately destroyed the northern kingdom. The offering on high places was not according to the due order, but it continued even under the reign of good kings. And then the temple worship was the proper and appropriate means. Now none of the defects should be taken lightly; but obviously there were differences of degree between them.

For the record, I should point out that even when the forms of worship were properly kept, there could still be personal religious declension: Asa's heart was perfect in that matter, but he rested on Syria and sought to the physicians rather than the Lord. In the same way, I take it that the Reformed churches would generally fall into the category of temple worship or worship in the high places: that is our doctrine and our liturgy is correct or more correct (though it may coexist at times with a great absence of the power of godliness, even when the form is possessed). Further out, where doctrine is squashy and practices are heinous we might locate the church of Thyatira and some of the errant brethren of our own times. And appallingly beyond even that would be the sort of paganism and blasphemy associated with the worship of Baal.

In that sort of taxonomy, where would one place EO? I am encouraged by Thomas' posts and it reminded me of godly, if fearful, Obadiah within Ahab's very palace. Given the glorying in arrant idolatry, it seems to me that for an evangelical to convert to EO is to apostasize, as much as turning to Rome is. As EO becomes more visible in the US, or as we come to have more contact with EO, it seems to me that it would be good to have a clear platform from which to call them to repentance.

But these criticisms do not mean that we have nothing to learn from Orthodoxy. Just as the Orthodox have not thought a lot about matters that have consumed us (such as justification, the nature of Scripture, sovereign grace, and Christ´s work on the cross), so we have not thought a lot about what have been their consuming passions: the Incarnation, the meaning of worship, the soul´s perfection in the communicable attributes of God (which they call the energies of God), and the disciplines by which we grow in grace. Let us have the maturity to keep the faith as we know it, and to learn from others where we need to learn.

This seems a little too weak to me. How exactly have we not thought much about these things? Perhaps in modern times that is somewhat true, but it's not like Western Christianity, or even the Reformed church itself has not thought about the incarnation. I think we should become more familiar with EO, and certainly with the Greek fathers from John of Damascus back; but we should also be willing to adopt the stance of the prophet who came out of Judah to rebuke Jeroboam for his golden calves.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Ruben,

I would say their disavowal of the significance of Paul's forensic theology – substitutionary atonement, propitiation, the satisfaction of the righteous wrath of God against sin, etc – puts them one ring out.

Their sacramental system of salvation – baptismal regeneration, receiving Christ through the mass, forgiveness/absolution of sins through a priest (mandatory), etc – puts them another ring out.

Their view that God is pleased by observance of rituals rather than simple faith from the heart in His sayings and teachings in the Bible adds another ring.

The emphasis on Incarnation to the almost complete exclusion of Atonement adds another.

The neglect of Original Sin – along with denial of the imputation of Adam's sin and the correlative imputation of Christ's righteousness – adds another.

The preference for the Church and its activities over the Scripture adds another.

The sheer superstition of so much of its beliefs, stories, practices, legends (I am most familiar with Greek Orthodoxy in Cyprus) adds another.

I could go on, but let me rest with seven rings out. Still and all, there are Greek Orthodox believers who are born again despite the false teachings of the church.

A very odd thing: during my 9 years living in Cyprus (even among family members – in-law relations) I was considered a heathen and a heretic, being a Presbyterian / Reformed Christian.

P.S. Though I will say some of our family there were converted to Christ – before they died.

 

[py3ak]

Thank you, Mr. Rafalsky - seven rings does seem like enough to lead us to call people to come out.