When were these? And what makes you unwilling to resort to demonic expkenations?
"Protestant apologist" Quick pivots to EO
- Thread starter Corey Powell
- Start date
- Status
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
That's a wild assertion. Though given the Ligonier survey of doctrinal positions held, that doesn't really surprise me if that is what he's found to be the case.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Saints in heaven are praying (Rev 6), though the context is far different from what EO/RCCs are saying.
JvMill
Puritan Board Sophomore
Then to have the gall to ask the Father for their prayers for us… just odd.
That could be due to the "mediating" theology of modern Protestantism. This is what we are up against. In fact the gospel is a message to believe, not to experience. Salvation comes by receiving an alien righteousness. Whatever one thinks about union, regeneration, sanctification, etc., none of it is possible without justification by faith as the fundamental doctrine of Christianity. Death enters the world through sin. We die because we are sinners and sin is not imputed where there is no law. Salvation is fundamentally juridical, not ontological, although there are ontological consequences; but those consequences are tied to the juridical nature of salvation.
Reformed theology has both because it begins with the apostle Paul's delineation of law and gospel in Romans and Galatians. If someone starts with the ontological, the message of these books is reinterpreted and the law/gospel distinction is lost.
Post automatically merged:
Well put.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Hello Matthew,
I will be pardoned, I believe, if I look at my own conversion, and how it lines up with Scripture. The gospel message of the Lord dying for sinners on the cross was preached, and the Holy Spirit bore witness to that by revealing Christ to my heart and mind – my very being.
Romans 6:3,4, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
Although I did not appreciate the doctrinal aspects of what happened, i.e., because of the juridical application of Christ’s death and resurrection on my behalf, whereupon I was united with Him, in His death and resurrection – thus able to “walk in newness of life”.
At that instant of Christ being revealed to me I became “dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 6:11). I was theologically ignorant but ontologically alive to God, a new creature.
So yes, the juridical aspect was initial – and causative – but the application of it to me was in that instant ontologic, affecting all my being, my very nature and consciousness.
How does this align – if it does – with your view?
I will be pardoned, I believe, if I look at my own conversion, and how it lines up with Scripture. The gospel message of the Lord dying for sinners on the cross was preached, and the Holy Spirit bore witness to that by revealing Christ to my heart and mind – my very being.
Romans 6:3,4, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
Although I did not appreciate the doctrinal aspects of what happened, i.e., because of the juridical application of Christ’s death and resurrection on my behalf, whereupon I was united with Him, in His death and resurrection – thus able to “walk in newness of life”.
At that instant of Christ being revealed to me I became “dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 6:11). I was theologically ignorant but ontologically alive to God, a new creature.
So yes, the juridical aspect was initial – and causative – but the application of it to me was in that instant ontologic, affecting all my being, my very nature and consciousness.
How does this align – if it does – with your view?
Last edited:
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
In contemporary times. Are you willing to declare that a church, even though seriously erring, is demonic? And their asking God to heal the sick, results in demons doing the healing?
"The Lord dying for sinners on the cross" might be interpreted a number of ways. I assume you mean the penal substitutionary view then Christ died in the place of sinners before the law and justice of God. Only if Christ has died FOR a sinner in this sense can it be said in any meaningful way that sinners have died WITH Him. That is, they are accounted as dead WITH Him before the law and justice of God because He did FOR them. In no other way could you reckon yourself to be dead indeed unto sin but alive unto God. If one attempts to make this something other than juridical it becomes salvation by participation.
I am certainly not willing to disregard the possibility when that church is teaching such a false gospel. But I admit this is not something I gave that much consideration to.
Wouldn't accepting it make obe accept Marian appearances and eucharistic miracles on the same principle? Or is there a fundemental diffrence in every single example of that?
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Thanks, Matthew. Yes, though I thought the penal substitutionary atonement view would be understood in my case, despite my ignorance of those doctrines at the time. Which is why I said, “At that instant of Christ being revealed to me I became ‘dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord’.” (Rom 6:11). I was theologically ignorant but ontologically alive to God, a new creature.”
1 Tim 1:15, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners . . .”
Though when I take what you have written above and apply it to the EO community at Mount Athos, I do not think they would pass the test. I think they would deny the juridical / forensic truth.
As Efraim supposes as possible, would the EO be teaching an utterly false gospel. Ought we say that? Or can we say that despite EO doctrines some there do savingly believe? We sometimes say that of the RC system, “some genuinely believe despite their false doctrine.” Some Arminian churches seriously err in their views, but do we apply the apostolic curse of Gal 1:6,7,8,9 to them?
Do I err when I say, “I am certainly not willing to say that these miraculous healings were demonic”? And, “It is quite possible they are more godly than I with my sounder doctrine”?
1 Tim 1:15, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners . . .”
Though when I take what you have written above and apply it to the EO community at Mount Athos, I do not think they would pass the test. I think they would deny the juridical / forensic truth.
As Efraim supposes as possible, would the EO be teaching an utterly false gospel. Ought we say that? Or can we say that despite EO doctrines some there do savingly believe? We sometimes say that of the RC system, “some genuinely believe despite their false doctrine.” Some Arminian churches seriously err in their views, but do we apply the apostolic curse of Gal 1:6,7,8,9 to them?
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Do I err when I say, “I am certainly not willing to say that these miraculous healings were demonic”? And, “It is quite possible they are more godly than I with my sounder doctrine”?
Wilhelmus à Broccoli
Puritan Board Freshman
This is the thing that scares me about modern evangelicalism. The emphasis is so heavily on personal experience that it leaves people prone to the apologetic tactics of the EOs - and worse, the Mormons.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
"Personal experience summed up in this"
Attachments
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
This is an issue that has long perplexed me. The saints are currently reigning with Christ, which includes reign over the earth, but exactly what does this entail? In any case, we certainly aren’t taught never told to pray to them.
Your charitable instincts are correct. There are people who believe the truth of the gospel despite the false system of teaching in which they find themselves. But we need to be very clear as to what the truth of the gospel is, and that is penal substitutionary atonement. On their view there would be no place for charity. If you did not participate the way they require you could not be saved. But because of the truth that Christ died in the sinner's place there is grace abounding towards a sinner, such that he can be saved despite his errors, as long as he still looks to the One lifted up in the preaching of the gospel. We can extend charity only because the truth itself is gracious.
Yes; so far as the false teachers are concerned, they are accursed. So far as the people being misled by them we call them to turn back to the truth of the gospel. If they have true faith they will hearken to the call.
The healings are "demonic" only because they are not healings. It is a false system, a lie, that accredits the healings. This is the "demonic" part of it.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
If you look at the pattern and purpose of healings in the Gospels and Acts, they are always done for the purpose of supporting the preaching of the true gospel and/or the person of Christ. If modern “healings” do not follow the same pattern and purpose, I would never assume they are from the Lord, regardless of the supposed character of those performing them or praying for them.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
It is true that the apostolic healings are done for those reasons. On the other hand, even on a cessationist view, when Paul is writing to local churches and noting some of the gift of powers, even assuming they stopped when the ink of Revelation was dry in 96AD, it isn't clear that those lay members in those churches were merely confirming the apostolic message. To be sure, no doubt they were done in conjunction with it, but the purpose of the "working of powers" (miracles) and healing was more likely just to heal the people.
Last edited:
Ploutos
Puritan Board Senior
Matthew Everhard recently released a response video which I thought was quite excellent. He goes through this influencer's reasons for converting and dissects them, also offering some helpful commentary on why he thinks people are drawn to the RC and EO churches to begin with.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
I second this video.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
I want to repeat a question I asked earlier: do we apply the apostolic curse of Galatians 1:6,7,8,9 to the Eastern Orthodox churches? Are they utterly apostate, without the benefit of the doubt we give to ardent Arminians, who "merely" err on significant doctrines?
Ploutos
Puritan Board Senior
First, does that anathema properly apply to an entire institution, or merely to persons? I have always understood that to be personally directed at anyone who preaches a false gospel.
Second, I would think that we would say much the same thing about EO that we would about RC. It's a false church with a remnant of true believers inside it. I forget which theologian - maybe Bavinck, or maybe Bavinck quoting someone else - but someone said that the Eastern Church is steeped in paganism and mysticism, and I hardly see how one can argue anything different.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Hello JP, it seems your second point refutes your first point!
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
This is a more formidable EO site than "Ben's" Cleave to Antiquity:
Orthodox-Reformed Bridge, Robert Arakaki, A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians
There are plenty of 2CVs on his site, but what else would one expect. I study his arguments and views. I think the judgment, "steeped in paganism and mysticism" might stick, but Arakaki is sharp, and comes from a Reformed seminarian background.
Jeff Riddle reviewed a book by Joshua Schooping, Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church, a man who flipped twice. I'll attach that below.
Orthodox-Reformed Bridge, Robert Arakaki, A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians
There are plenty of 2CVs on his site, but what else would one expect. I study his arguments and views. I think the judgment, "steeped in paganism and mysticism" might stick, but Arakaki is sharp, and comes from a Reformed seminarian background.
Jeff Riddle reviewed a book by Joshua Schooping, Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church, a man who flipped twice. I'll attach that below.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
This is a more formidable EO site than "Ben's" Cleave to Antiquity:
Orthodox-Reformed Bridge, Robert Arakaki, A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians
There are plenty of 2CVs on his site, but what else would one expect. I study his arguments and views. I think the judgment, "steeped in paganism and mysticism" might stick, but Arakaki is sharp, and comes from a Reformed seminarian background.
Jeff Riddle reviewed a book by Joshua Schooping, Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church, a man who flipped twice. I'll attach that below.
Reformed Orthodox Bridge is an intellectual joke. While they want to give the impression of dialogue, they censor any Reformed comment that doesn't agree with their articles. I engaged in a quasi-formal debate with them 12 years ago. They stopped interacting and then later blocked me. I had actually forgotten about that until some Protestant scholastic channel found my arguments.
orthodox bridge – Logos and Kingship
Posts about orthodox bridge written by J. B. Aitken
tentsofshem.wordpress.com
Even funnier, the world's EO apologist, Perry Robinson, also took them to task.
Hank Hanegraaff – Energetic Procession
Posts about Hank Hanegraaff written by Perry Robinson
energeticprocession.wordpress.com
Ploutos
Puritan Board Senior
Hi Steve,
My first point was that I don't think Galatians 1:6-9 can apply as a blanket statement to an entire denomination/church/institution. It is a personally directed anathema at any person or persons who teaches another gospel.
As regards the EO church - as an institution, with stated beliefs - I believe it is a false church that buries the true gospel under a myriad of distortions and illusions so thickly layered that one can scarcely find his way to salvation through the maze. While I would reserve the right to assess particular persons on a case-by-case basis, in general, I would say of anyone who knowingly and wilfully propagates the tenets of Eastern Orthodoxy in place or in opposition to the gospel: to such a person, I would warn them of Paul's anathema in Galatians 1. This is particularly true of those who have tasted of the truth of Biblical doctrine found in the Reformed faith and have wilfully rejected it.
I have not yet watched the video that sparked this thread. Dr. Everhard pointed out that there is little to no mention of Christ in the video and that Christ does not figure into this man's reason for converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. Consequently, I must at least suspect that it is not Christ that this young man is following, but another - and I fear that he may be inviting Paul's anathema upon himself. When I am able to watch the video, I may be better able to judge for myself whether he is revealing himself to be no true friend of Christ.
Back to the EO church as a whole - because its distortions and falsehoods are layered on top of the gospel: though these lies may stand contrary to the gospel and though they may keep people from it, yet they do indeed lie on top of those saving truths so necessary to our souls. And so, however hard it may be to find, the true gospel is still there, for those who are able by the Spirit to find it. The pearl of great price, though almost totally obscured and tarnished by accreted and hardened pollution and slime, remains nonetheless a pearl. Steve, you yourself have spoken to me in our offline conversations of the presence of believers in the EO church, albeit few in number and possessed of a very simple faith. It is for this reason that I distinguish, as I do with Roman Catholicism, between the institution and the adherent, and why I would not apply Paul's anathema as a blanket aspersion directed against the entire institution.
Last edited:
Ploutos
Puritan Board Senior
I haven't yet watched the video linked in the OP, but I did watch the shorter video to which Matthew Everhard was responding.
It's kind of weird how shallow his reasons are for the switch. I might make a similar video if I was transitioning from Presbyterian to Baptist or from one Presbyterian denomination to another. Maybe that reflects that he doesn't think the differences between Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are all that primary. But I have a suspicion that he's going to argue that the things that he gets from Eastern Orthodoxy are critical, and that's where Dr Everhard's comments about the absence of Jesus come into play. And the whole thing about the intercession of the dead saints is weird. Something more is going on here. I'd like to know why that's so important to him. All he needed to do was read a few pages in Berkhof on the heavenly session. We have an intercessor in heaven - one, and one than whom none better is needed.
It's kind of weird how shallow his reasons are for the switch. I might make a similar video if I was transitioning from Presbyterian to Baptist or from one Presbyterian denomination to another. Maybe that reflects that he doesn't think the differences between Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are all that primary. But I have a suspicion that he's going to argue that the things that he gets from Eastern Orthodoxy are critical, and that's where Dr Everhard's comments about the absence of Jesus come into play. And the whole thing about the intercession of the dead saints is weird. Something more is going on here. I'd like to know why that's so important to him. All he needed to do was read a few pages in Berkhof on the heavenly session. We have an intercessor in heaven - one, and one than whom none better is needed.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
I was glad that Dr. Everhard mentioned that part. It's a huge reason I don't buy into RC or EO or the people who convert to those systems.
Whatever draws people to RC or EO, it never seems to be about Jesus Christ, His active and passive obedience, His death, His burial, His resurrection, His ascension, His righteousness imputed onto us, etc. Those converts usually are more focused on other things like how "beautiful" their worship is, the subjective experience ("the incense made me feel something") or the alleged continuing tradition from the Apostles.
It always amazes me how it never seems that people who convert to RC or EO never do so with Jesus Christ and His Gospel being the center of their conviction. The more I see this, the more I stay away from RC or EO.
darrellmaurina
Puritan Board Junior
The best argument that can be made for Eastern Orthodoxy, contra modern American evangelicalism, is that the Eastern Orthodox want to be deeply rooted in the historic Christian church and don't think we can (or should) re-invent everything with every new generation.
That is a huge problem with American evangelicalism.
The solution is confessional Protestantism, not American megachurches that focus on personal experience.
When I hear people telling me that they have become Eastern Orthodox because of its historical rootage, or that they have become Roman Catholic because the Mass is available in virtually every modern language, my response is sometimes to give them the Genevan Psalter and say, "This psalter, and with some variations the liturgy accompanying it, were available in French, German, Dutch, Italian, Hungarian, and except for England, every other major language of Europe that had a Reformed church in Calvin's era and the next generation. Today, it's available in English, the world's most widely spoken language, Chinese, which is the second, Spanish, Portuguese, Korean, Japanese and Indonesian. Tell me again about why your church is universal and cross-cultural and historically rooted. It sounds to me like your problem is with Finney and Moody and the Second Great Awakening, not with Protestantism."
I think many of the people moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy are reachable for the Reformed faith because their real problem is not with Protestants but with revivalism and its anti-historical emphasis on personal experience.
Now obviously we need to emphasize personal conversion. I'm not downplaying that.
What we need to do is to recognize that churches and individuals go seriously off the track when they try to look at their Bibles without any effort to see where people have made previous mistakes in understanding it.
That's why we need creeds and confessions. It's also, historically speaking, why Reformed people said we need a common psalter and a common liturgy. I won't make those latter two arguments, but they were historically made by Reformed people, and that surprises a lot of Roman Catholics who truly do NOT understand that Reformed people have a whole theology of worship, with some regional variations, and when they take a REAL look at our own history, they say, "Well, it looks like for you, the Dutch Reformed and the Swiss Reformed are sort of like our different rites with variations in worship within a commonly shared doctrinal consensus."
That hits the nail on the head, and it's why the Synod of Dort could be an international council of Reformed churches that shared a common consensus of doctrine and (mostly) similar though not identical worship derived from the same basic principles.
I've made the argument to Catholics that the Synod of Dort might be, for us, what the Ecumenical Councils are to them.
That is a huge problem with American evangelicalism.
The solution is confessional Protestantism, not American megachurches that focus on personal experience.
When I hear people telling me that they have become Eastern Orthodox because of its historical rootage, or that they have become Roman Catholic because the Mass is available in virtually every modern language, my response is sometimes to give them the Genevan Psalter and say, "This psalter, and with some variations the liturgy accompanying it, were available in French, German, Dutch, Italian, Hungarian, and except for England, every other major language of Europe that had a Reformed church in Calvin's era and the next generation. Today, it's available in English, the world's most widely spoken language, Chinese, which is the second, Spanish, Portuguese, Korean, Japanese and Indonesian. Tell me again about why your church is universal and cross-cultural and historically rooted. It sounds to me like your problem is with Finney and Moody and the Second Great Awakening, not with Protestantism."
I think many of the people moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy are reachable for the Reformed faith because their real problem is not with Protestants but with revivalism and its anti-historical emphasis on personal experience.
Now obviously we need to emphasize personal conversion. I'm not downplaying that.
What we need to do is to recognize that churches and individuals go seriously off the track when they try to look at their Bibles without any effort to see where people have made previous mistakes in understanding it.
That's why we need creeds and confessions. It's also, historically speaking, why Reformed people said we need a common psalter and a common liturgy. I won't make those latter two arguments, but they were historically made by Reformed people, and that surprises a lot of Roman Catholics who truly do NOT understand that Reformed people have a whole theology of worship, with some regional variations, and when they take a REAL look at our own history, they say, "Well, it looks like for you, the Dutch Reformed and the Swiss Reformed are sort of like our different rites with variations in worship within a commonly shared doctrinal consensus."
That hits the nail on the head, and it's why the Synod of Dort could be an international council of Reformed churches that shared a common consensus of doctrine and (mostly) similar though not identical worship derived from the same basic principles.
I've made the argument to Catholics that the Synod of Dort might be, for us, what the Ecumenical Councils are to them.
Last edited:
Ploutos
Puritan Board Senior
That's why I made the comparison to switching denominations. If I made a video about why I was leaving the PCA for the RCUS, it probably wouldn't focus heavily on Jesus, because I wouldn't be switching over essentials of the faith. Maybe I would be switching because I moved to CA and was dazzled by Ruben's charms. Maybe I would be switching because I liked the polity better and found it more Biblically faithful. Maybe I would be switching because my concerns over the endemic struggles within the PCA had reached a breaking point, and the RCUS was the best next option. But I wouldn't be talking as if I had found the gospel of Jesus Christ or true Christianity for the first time.
In that light, it wouldn't be inherently problematic to talk about a church switch without speaking much of Jesus. Except, here, for three things: 1) Protestantism to EO is not a mere denominational switch - it's a serious paradigm shift. So to speak of it in language appropriate for a denominational shift is, well, not appropriate. 2) Even for a denominational switch, these are dumb and suspect reasons. Incense? Intercession of the saints? Radical experiential subjectivism? Red flags all. 3) Disingenuity. A bait and switch. I see this all the time with false religions. The JWs, back when they came to my door, tried to smooth talk how they believe the same things and the differences really aren't that great. Same here. He's focusing on what should be secondary issues but I suspect we're going to see talk about how Protestantism is fundamentally flawed and the truth, the true core of faith, is only found in the Orthodox Church. If I'm not mistaken, he's already started to say some of those things. And in that case, either his stated reasons for leaving are not the real ones, or he has in fact elevated those reasons to the position of central importance. And in that case, Everhard's criticism has to stand. He's leaving behind the gospel of Jesus Christ for a dyspeptic taco.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
I like everything you said. More to what's quoted here: It's interesting that EO wants to be rooted in historical Christianity, yet they have things like Toll Houses that don't have anything to do with Christianity. They have a lot of pagan practices for being the "One True Church". I think someone on PB a couple years ago even made a thread about the EO doing some nonsensical practice of using magical water to ward of spirits.
EO is anything but historic Christianity
Post automatically merged:
And too bad it is not a taco from Bajas. Might taste better.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
