Reformed persons going Eastern Orthodox

Status
Not open for further replies.
Solparvus

Solparvus

Puritan Board Senior
Last year a Reformed family I knew went Eastern Orthodox. I recently learned of another Reformed family in my circle going the same way. It seems to be the mysticism and the supposed historicity of the EO church. In both cases they just dump their old theology. Both are now anti-Calvinistic, and one of the men rejects justification by faith alone.

Also, in both cases they do their own private study for months of time, tell no one, then just exit.

Have any of you witnessed this? What is it that draws people out of Reformed circles to the EO? I know that families isn't a big pool of samples, but I am wondering if this happens with some regularity elsewhere.
 
It's just a different variation of the same phenomenon that leads to Canterbury or Rome. You can usually identify some buzzwords such as "tradition" and "love" and "aversion to modernity", all spouted while embracing a brand of liberal modernist pluralistic individualism totally incompatible with the teachings of any brand of Christianity, orthodox or deviant, until very modern times.
 
I used to see a lot of it around 2008. People go for different reasons. For some, it is apostolic succession. Others, it is theosis-envy. I was tempted on the doctrine of God (no Filioque). Sometimes it catches people off guard because many of our arguments against Rome do not always work against EO.

What I learned is that many are simply overreacting to the YRR nonsense, or even worse, "conference Calvinism." When I started to work through Turretin, line by line, I found that the Reformed faith held up very well.

Not as many are converting today as they were a decade ago. It might seem like a lot, but it is not. Honest EOs know that the church in America is in trouble and there are many times more EO leaving the church than joining it.
 
Solparvus said:
@LittleFaith could you explain a little? You've put a lot in a few sentences.
Click to expand...

I don't presume to speak for him, but some join EO because they hate Evangelicalism because Evangelicals sold out for Trump or didn't vote for Biden. They think EO is "more liberal" (The Greek Archdiocese is; the Russian is not). What they don't realize is EOs are far more strict on your personal life (diet, sex, remarriage, fasting) than evangelicals in all their goofiness ever were.

Something similar is in Anglicanism. Take Wheaton college, for example. From what I've heard, there is a strong anglican presence there, yet many of the faculty are woke.

There are times I wanted to become historic Anglican, but I wouldn't have been welcome at Wheaton.
 
RamistThomist said:
When I started to work through Turretin, line by line, I found that the Reformed faith held up very well.
Click to expand...

If this was done with your thoughts going back and forth on each line one at a time, it would be an amazing book.






Yet ....



as amazing as your Nephilim/dinosaur/ante-diluvian epic you have hinted at? The world may never know hahaha
 
What is it that draws people out of Reformed circles to the EO?
Click to expand...

1. Ecclesiastically, EO is less centralized than Rome yet still has a hierarchy, so there isn't as much of a barrier to entry.

2. Because it is less centralized (and, in the U.S., less prominent that even Jehovah's witnesses; there are ~700,000 EO according to the U.S. census Bureau), it is less apparent to outsiders how the inside truly looks or operates, warts and all. This is all the more true when I hear of EO congregations which experience functional segregation due to the distinctive cultural background of said congregants (read: Galatians 2).

Further, Rome's councils and popes are constantly in the news as going the way of modernism. I don't read much news, but from what I see, EO isn't as exposed. Former insiders to EO (e.g. Joshua Schooping; see his free ebook here) are relatively unknown - at least, unknown prior to conversions to EO - after which some might think it is too late to turn back (let the rationalizations begin).

3. EO apologists and theologians largely stake their position on appeals to ecumenical councils - or theologians whose theology is said to ground statements by ecumenical councils (Cyril, Maximus, John of Damascus, and Palamas being most prominent, if I am not mistaken).

Examples of fallacies to watch out for in their apologetic: because they are called ecumenical councils, they must be biblical councils! Equally fallacious: because some ecumenical councils are biblically grounded, one must accept that all others are too.

On the point of tradition, church history, etc., one final point: just like anyone else, people who claim to be Reformed can fall suspect to attempts to rationalize prior ignorance, e.g. "church history is not in monolithic support of Reformed theology; I must have been ignorant/tricked - there must be a true monolith that is different from my prior (Protestant) conception." This is a non sequitur, but more importantly, the reason the fallacy occurs in the first place is because people have a false, a priori impression of how church history is supposed to look (monolithic). This assumption is the root of the problem; the symptom is to elevate historical theology above exegetical theology.

4. I have noticed recently that EO apologists are willing to copy, for example, Reformed presuppositionalism. Thus, they will appeal to the "have your cake (apologetic) and eat it too (monolithic church history)" audience.

5. Reformed theologians have - by and large - polemically ignored Eastern Orthodox theologians. Sure, there may be an article here or single chapter there that in a journal or book that gets lost in the mix of what the focus of the publication really is, but rarely have I seen a prominent Reformed theologian or pastor debate or engage in a book-length treatment of EO. Compare this to the many popular polemical works against Roman Catholicism.

Obviously, there is a history that somewhat dictates a larger interest in justifying our separation from Rome. On the other hand, in the next century, I could easily see it turn out that EO poses a bigger poaching threat to Reformed churches than Rome. In that respect, it would be better for our apologetics to look to future threats instead of looking back at old ones.

Then again, this is admittedly tricky. What you don't want to have happen is something like what happens in the 1880s-1890s with higher criticism, where The Princeton Review gave a platform to heretics to debate their false doctrines and thereby legitimate/popularize them. Of course, this is somewhat reductionistic - there were other reasons for the increase in popularity of higher criticism, e.g. that seminaries were sending candidates oversees to Germany for training in the first place - but I don't see any reason to invite a heretic to a debate on my home turf. The best that could be hoped for is that people become more confident or assured that Reformed theology can handle heretics (it can, but a verbal debate isn't the only mode of communication to show that, let alone the best mode).

Along these lines, it was wise of Bahnsen to debate Stein - in a secular university, when he was in the minority, and was able to ably defend his position. In that context, it's really only Bahnsen who could hope for the popularization of his view. So would it be wise of a Reformed theologian to debate an EO? It depends on the context.

Perhaps publications (or, less plausibly, conferences) are safer in terms of established ways of getting information out. In any case, resources on EO by Reformed Christians are scarcer to the layman than resources on most other heresies (even ones smaller in number). Again, this reduces the barrier to entry.

6. Finally, I think there are legitimate questions of Reformed worship that deserve legitimate answers. For example, the question of artistry in the church. Is it wrong to desire a beautified church? I don't think so. Was it wrong that the temple was beautified? Is there a typological case for a beautified church (consider: was Eden itself meant to be beautified)? Why not?

I'm not talking about venerating icons, whether images of Christ can be created, etc. I'm talking about whether the physical construction and layout of a church can be deliberately made attractive. I think this is a legitimate question, even if it is not a legitimate desire (I haven't heard a good reason why it is an illegitimate desire myself).

If a congregant has this question, how often is it that his pastor (who, let's say, thinks it is an illegitimate desire) is giving a good answer to this question? Is it a good answer to simply appeal to what Puritans thought without also expressing their reasons (let alone whether those reasons are biblical)? Is it a good answer to say that the purpose of a "simple" (read: unattractive) church layout is to avoid distractions? This sounds like if I were to tell my students I can't decorate my classroom because they would be too immature to handle it when I'm lecturing.

Just like EO apologists are becoming more aware of and willing to copy presuppositional arguments, they are also becoming more aware of Protestant resources on biblical theology - including but not limited to the rampant speculations of federal visionists - and pivoting the same arguments to the need for a "higher liturgy." Yes, we must avoid the errors of federal visionism, but we must also understand the motivations for the questions they raised before we throw out everything they say. That includes understanding the need for a developed hermeneutic of typology that avoids the extreme of Marsh's dictum on the one hand and runaway typology on the other. Does such exist? You tell me.

I could well be ignorant on this last point: perhaps many Reformed Christians may give good answers to these sorts of questions. Then again, that is sort of the point: if I'm ignorant, I can understand why others might be as well. Further, the principle of this point is that regarding some questions, I think we would do well to respond with a measure of pause and grace. If this so happens to be a question that has an obvious answer, there are still other questions and questioners which and who don't deserve a slam-dunk response. Most people don't like getting dunked on, even with the truth.

7. A final point that dovetails with what I just said: it's okay not to have all the answers at the time these questions are raised. Answers to questions often are discovered over time. Scripture is materially and formally sufficient to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, sola fide, etc., but until such heresies arise that require sharper focus in how we answer them, it is often the case that questions that go unasked also go unanswered.

These considerations are not all equally easy to see or deal with. Until people are settled enough in their assurance of Reformed theology to believe that - and to tactfully, humbly, and truthfully project that confidence in the presence of others who are not - it is objectively unsurprising (if personally unsettling) that the whiff of a new wind of a new doctrine or question might carry some away from the faith.
 
Solparvus said:
Also, in both cases they do their own private study for months of time, tell no one, then just exit.
Click to expand...
I think this is often a pattern when people depart, no matter where they are departing to. It could reflect a lack of depth in relationships, or a lack of confidence in the people they know to engage with questions fully; but it can also indicate that they are not willing to be challenged on their ideas. In other words, their choice has been made before their reasons have been articulated.
 
Knowing one of the men of whom you speak as a close personal friend, I have not yet spoken to him and cannot speak to his reasons. Indeed, it is hard to identify all the particular reasons why people go the EO route. It's put within me a recognition that I need to actually know what the EO teaches and, beyond that, to identify what about it holds out some attraction. What resonates. It's easy to move directly to "this is how they are wrong", which indeed they are. But that does little to address the root cause without first understanding what resonates with a particular person.
 
RamistThomist said:
No. Nephilim still better book.
Click to expand...

I read some of Godawa's fiction and I was severely disappointed. I couldn't get into it.

I guess I hoped the dialogue and narration would feel more antiquated and less modern. I wanted something more like I was reading Milton or Homer or Dante and less like any modern-day conversational tone all the authors use today.

But that is probably my own hang-up.
 
I think sometimes they are just puffed up with knowledge. They have done more reading on EO than anyone they know, including their pastor. They may only have a superficial understanding of it, but it's enough to make them feel like they have grasped something major that none of their acquaintances understand. Drunk with pride and a sense of superiority, they leave.

In such cases, it's usually the same thing that lead them into a Reformed church to begin with.
 
MarrowMan said:
Knowing one of the men of whom you speak as a close personal friend, I have not yet spoken to him and cannot speak to his reasons. Indeed, it is hard to identify all the particular reasons why people go the EO route. It's put within me a recognition that I need to actually know what the EO teaches and, beyond that, to identify what about it holds out some attraction. What resonates. It's easy to move directly to "this is how they are wrong", which indeed they are. But that does little to address the root cause without first understanding what resonates with a particular person.
Click to expand...

As someone who really wanted to become EO for a number of years, here is my honest take:

1) There is no silver bullet argument for or against. Different people have different reasons, or maybe they have a lot of reasons of varying strength. For me, it was apostolic succession and doctrine of God. Theosis, by contrast, figured low on the list.

2) It depends on parish life. If you have a parish, say OCA, with a number of young families, that can be a powerful draw. Church growth rule 101: young families flock to young families. On the other hand, as was the case with me, if the parish is ethnic with only a handful of attendants, that will be a BIG turn off.

3) WHen I realized the Fathers were not always saying what the convertskii were saying they were saying, I started to lose interest. Athanasius and Cyril, for example, seemed to be affirming the Filioque. Epiphanius may have rejected icons, though that text is highly disputed. Even worse, the whole East starts with the persons and West with the essence dichotomy is false. Both start with the unity of the one God.

4) I was newly wed and like many newly weds, I believed married sex is good. Some EO fathers and monks will say you need to live in angelic celibacy.

From Methodius of Olympus's writings

Methodius of Olympus is a transitional period from the Origenist polemics to the Nicene debates All citations taken from Schaff’s Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 6 Pros of Methodius His prose often exquisite and always lyrical. He occasionally approaches the talent of Gregory Nazianzus, the...
puritanboard.com puritanboard.com
 
TylerRay said:
I think sometimes they are just puffed up with knowledge. They have done more reading on EO than anyone they know, including their pastor. They may only have a superficial understanding of it, but it's enough to make them feel like they have grasped something major that none of their acquaintances understand. Drunk with pride and a sense of superiority, they leave.

In such cases, it's usually the same thing that lead them into a Reformed church to begin with.
Click to expand...

That was I. I knew no one could answer what I was saying. Fortunately, I was too shy to really be a jerk about it. I knew something was off, though, and God was merciful to me.
 
RamistThomist said:
As someone who really wanted to become EO for a number of years, here is my honest take:

1) There is no silver bullet argument for or against. Different people have different reasons, or maybe they have a lot of reasons of varying strength. For me, it was apostolic succession and doctrine of God. Theosis, by contrast, figured low on the list.

2) It depends on parish life. If you have a parish, say OCA, with a number of young families, that can be a powerful draw. Church growth rule 101: young families flock to young families. On the other hand, as was the case with me, if the parish is ethnic with only a handful of attendants, that will be a BIG turn off.

3) WHen I realized the Fathers were not always saying what the convertskii were saying they were saying, I started to lose interest. Athanasius and Cyril, for example, seemed to be affirming the Filioque. Epiphanius may have rejected icons, though that text is highly disputed. Even worse, the whole East starts with the persons and West with the essence dichotomy is false. Both start with the unity of the one God.

4) I was newly wed and like many newly weds, I believed married sex is good. Some EO fathers and monks will say you need to live in angelic celibacy.

From Methodius of Olympus's writings

Methodius of Olympus is a transitional period from the Origenist polemics to the Nicene debates All citations taken from Schaff’s Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 6 Pros of Methodius His prose often exquisite and always lyrical. He occasionally approaches the talent of Gregory Nazianzus, the...
puritanboard.com puritanboard.com
Click to expand...
Would you say that discussing how EO has changed under the influence of Palamism would go a long way for a lot of folks? It seems to me that it would undercut the claim of continuity with the early church. Under Palamism, the EO church has gone semi-gnostic.
 
TylerRay said:
Would you say that discussing how EO has changed under the influence of Palamism would go a long way for a lot of folks? It seems to me that it would undercut the claim of continuity with the early church. Under Palamism, the EO church has gone semi-gnostic.
Click to expand...

I do think the essence/energies model, pace Michael Horton, whom I hold in highest regard, is flawed. E/e is an explosive topic in EO studies, made even more convoluted by better translations of Palamas. In some places, Palamas on simplicity sounds word-for-word like Augustine. On the other hand, it is not clear if the energies are always tied to God's economy, in which case that would make his system pantheistic (as the energies are also God himself).

The change came in 19th century Russia/Paris. EO scholars started to promote the "Western Captivity of the Church," meaning EO writers had been sounding too Western. That was probably the case because of the explosive borders EO countries shared with Austria and Poland. As a response, EO wanted to emphasize the Eastern and personal nature of the philosophy.
 
Knight said:
1. Ecclesiastically, EO is less centralized than Rome yet still has a hierarchy, so there isn't as much of a barrier to entry.

2. Because it is less centralized (and, in the U.S., less prominent that even Jehovah's witnesses; there are ~700,000 EO according to the U.S. census Bureau), it is less apparent to outsiders how the inside truly looks or operates, warts and all. This is all the more true when I hear of EO congregations which experience functional segregation due to the distinctive cultural background of said congregants (read: Galatians 2).

Further, Rome's councils and popes are constantly in the news as going the way of modernism. I don't read much news, but from what I see, EO isn't as exposed. Former insiders to EO (e.g. Joshua Schooping; see his free ebook here) are relatively unknown - at least, unknown prior to conversions to EO - after which some might think it is too late to turn back (let the rationalizations begin).

3. EO apologists and theologians largely stake their position on appeals to ecumenical councils - or theologians whose theology is said to ground statements by ecumenical councils (Cyril, Maximus, John of Damascus, and Palamas being most prominent, if I am not mistaken).

Examples of fallacies to watch out for in their apologetic: because they are called ecumenical councils, they must be biblical councils! Equally fallacious: because some ecumenical councils are biblically grounded, one must accept that all others are too.

On the point of tradition, church history, etc., one final point: just like anyone else, people who claim to be Reformed can fall suspect to attempts to rationalize prior ignorance, e.g. "church history is not in monolithic support of Reformed theology; I must have been ignorant/tricked - there must be a true monolith that is different from my prior (Protestant) conception." This is a non sequitur, but more importantly, the reason the fallacy occurs in the first place is because people have a false, a priori impression of how church history is supposed to look (monolithic). This assumption is the root of the problem; the symptom is to elevate historical theology above exegetical theology.

4. I have noticed recently that EO apologists are willing to copy, for example, Reformed presuppositionalism. Thus, they will appeal to the "have your cake (apologetic) and eat it too (monolithic church history)" audience.

5. Reformed theologians have - by and large - polemically ignored Eastern Orthodox theologians. Sure, there may be an article here or single chapter there that in a journal or book that gets lost in the mix of what the focus of the publication really is, but rarely have I seen a prominent Reformed theologian or pastor debate or engage in a book-length treatment of EO. Compare this to the many popular polemical works against Roman Catholicism.

Obviously, there is a history that somewhat dictates a larger interest in justifying our separation from Rome. On the other hand, in the next century, I could easily see it turn out that EO poses a bigger poaching threat to Reformed churches than Rome. In that respect, it would be better for our apologetics to look to future threats instead of looking back at old ones.

Then again, this is admittedly tricky. What you don't want to have happen is something like what happens in the 1880s-1890s with higher criticism, where The Princeton Review gave a platform to heretics to debate their false doctrines and thereby legitimate/popularize them. Of course, this is somewhat reductionistic - there were other reasons for the increase in popularity of higher criticism, e.g. that seminaries were sending candidates oversees to Germany for training in the first place - but I don't see any reason to invite a heretic to a debate on my home turf. The best that could be hoped for is that people become more confident or assured that Reformed theology can handle heretics (it can, but a verbal debate isn't the only mode of communication to show that, let alone the best mode).

Along these lines, it was wise of Bahnsen to debate Stein - in a secular university, when he was in the minority, and was able to ably defend his position. In that context, it's really only Bahnsen who could hope for the popularization of his view. So would it be wise of a Reformed theologian to debate an EO? It depends on the context.

Perhaps publications (or, less plausibly, conferences) are safer in terms of established ways of getting information out. In any case, resources on EO by Reformed Christians are scarcer to the layman than resources on most other heresies (even ones smaller in number). Again, this reduces the barrier to entry.

6. Finally, I think there are legitimate questions of Reformed worship that deserve legitimate answers. For example, the question of artistry in the church. Is it wrong to desire a beautified church? I don't think so. Was it wrong that the temple was beautified? Is there a typological case for a beautified church (consider: was Eden itself meant to be beautified)? Why not?

I'm not talking about venerating icons, whether images of Christ can be created, etc. I'm talking about whether the physical construction and layout of a church can be deliberately made attractive. I think this is a legitimate question, even if it is not a legitimate desire (I haven't heard a good reason why it is an illegitimate desire myself).

If a congregant has this question, how often is it that his pastor (who, let's say, thinks it is an illegitimate desire) is giving a good answer to this question? Is it a good answer to simply appeal to what Puritans thought without also expressing their reasons (let alone whether those reasons are biblical)? Is it a good answer to say that the purpose of a "simple" (read: unattractive) church layout is to avoid distractions? This sounds like if I were to tell my students I can't decorate my classroom because they would be too immature to handle it when I'm lecturing.

Just like EO apologists are becoming more aware of and willing to copy presuppositional arguments, they are also becoming more aware of Protestant resources on biblical theology - including but not limited to the rampant speculations of federal visionists - and pivoting the same arguments to the need for a "higher liturgy." Yes, we must avoid the errors of federal visionism, but we must also understand the motivations for the questions they raised before we throw out everything they say. That includes understanding the need for a developed hermeneutic of typology that avoids the extreme of Marsh's dictum on the one hand and runaway typology on the other. Does such exist? You tell me.

I could well be ignorant on this last point: perhaps many Reformed Christians may give good answers to these sorts of questions. Then again, that is sort of the point: if I'm ignorant, I can understand why others might be as well. Further, the principle of this point is that regarding some questions, I think we would do well to respond with a measure of pause and grace. If this so happens to be a question that has an obvious answer, there are still other questions and questioners which and who don't deserve a slam-dunk response. Most people don't like getting dunked on, even with the truth.

7. A final point that dovetails with what I just said: it's okay not to have all the answers at the time these questions are raised. Answers to questions often are discovered over time. Scripture is materially and formally sufficient to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, sola fide, etc., but until such heresies arise that require sharper focus in how we answer them, it is often the case that questions that go unasked also go unanswered.

These considerations are not all equally easy to see or deal with. Until people are settled enough in their assurance of Reformed theology to believe that - and to tactfully, humbly, and truthfully project that confidence in the presence of others who are not - it is objectively unsurprising (if personally unsettling) that the whiff of a new wind of a new doctrine or question might carry some away from the faith.
Click to expand...
Thank you and @RamistThomist for providing good insight. I've seen the movement toward EO by two men I know. They both seemed to want to be convinced and were quick to find faults with the Reformed faith (doctrine or practice).

It looks like Joshua Schooping wrote four books. I picked up the one for Kindle you mentioned here. Do you know anything about the other works he did? He has the title of "Reverend" and seems to still be in ministry, but in an Evangelical context. Do you know where he landed after leaving EO? I haven't found much on it.
 
J.L. Allen said:
Thank you and @RamistThomist for providing good insight. I've seen the movement toward EO by two men I know. They both seemed to want to be convinced and were quick to find faults with the Reformed faith (doctrine or practice).

It looks like Joshua Schooping wrote four books. I picked up the one for Kindle you mentioned here. Do you know anything about the other works he did? He has the title of "Reverend" and seems to still be in ministry, but in an Evangelical context. Do you know where he landed after leaving EO? I haven't found much on it.
Click to expand...

I don't know much. I recall watching the following interview between Gavin Ortlund and himself some time ago:


I have his books on penal substitution and Orthodox apologetic methodology, both of which I believe were written while he still identified as EO. He used to have a blog (and still might) that had a bunch of posts from which he drew most of his book material on penal substitution - if you look around, you might find it.
 
One reason they are attracted is the EO claims of Church history. They see competing interpretations of Scripture in Protestantism and so they think that the earlier you get to the apostles, the more likely they are representing the correct interpretation of Scripture. They see that having a Pope is definitely wrong, so they look to the EO claim to have the earliest tradition.

Of course, as noted, church history--at least the representations that we have of it and have survived--is hardly a uniform doctrine and is very underdeveloped in many ways, allowing for various developed systems of doctrine to come from it.

However, there is a deeper problem at root with even finding this idea attractive: they do not trust the Lord enough to let Scripture interpret Scripture and be confident that they can know the Scriptures on the main things.

Also, if they searched the Scriptures, they would see that even in the period of the New Testament various errors and heresies arose that claimed authenticity (Judaizers, super-apostles, Gnostics, twisting the Scriptures that Paul wrote, the spirit of Antichrist in various antichrists as precursor to the Antichrist) that were leading people astray even during the time of the apostles. It should be no surprise that these errors only continued and developed: earlier is not always better or more authentic in the history of doctrine. We must go to Scripture first to be able to evaluate the various claims in church history. But why all these errors, even when apostles were around to correct them? Because true doctrine is not merely a matter of knowledge but of the Spirit's revelation to those who fear the Lord. This is another fundamental point that is missed that makes the EO claim of Church history attractive.
 
EO's claim to "worshipping like the apostles did," while problematic, is at least more plausible than Rome's claim. They can point to Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. Rome can point to Novus Ordo services. Moreover, Cyprian and Hippolytus do list offices like exorcist, reader, subdeacon, etc.

Smart EO apologists are also attuned to the fact that we interpret the bible. I do believe that Scripture interprets Scripture, but I also acknowledge that I am choosing which Scriptures interpret which Scriptures. We have to be careful not to overreact and presume some Lockean tabla rasa in hermeneutics.

I no longer debate EO guys online. Very few have done the requisite reading in Reformed circles to move beyond tired cliches. (Admittedly, I know some Calvinists whose understanding of Reformed theology is as deep as the latest celebrity/TGC/G3 conference. Many of my criticisms apply to them as well).

In terms of responding to EO, this is the best site on the internet.
thereformedninja.blogspot.com

The Reformed Ninja

thereformedninja.blogspot.com thereformedninja.blogspot.com
 
On the bare surface from my outsider perspective, Eastern Orthodoxy can look like an authentic innocent body of Christians...
They don’t have the same violent history of the papacy; they can trace their lineage back to the early church; I don’t hear of the same kind of sexual scandals of Rome and much of Protestantism; they seem to keep themselves to themselves and don’t get embroiled in political affairs; they have nice looking and sounding churches and traditional chanting, etc, etc.

If you’re having a tough time in a Protestant even reformed church, whatever the reason may be, then in looking out for a better place to call home, Eastern Orthodoxy might look like a highly appealing escape.


But upon closer inspection they commit the same idolatries as Rome. They have only escaped the doctrinal debate because their doctrine is vague and undefined. And so they keep the laity from any clear understanding of the gospel and therefore deprive them of any genuine assurance of salvation. And upon digging deeper, their history is not a rosy lineage of godliness anymore than Rome’s is. They claim a “one true church” in the same way that every false church does. And behind the appearance of long vestments, beards, and pietistic rituals with all their icons, I don’t know what is really there of Christian substance.
 
Last edited:
The simplest way I would describe it is a sophisticated form of cosplay for some.

I say that because it represents the personality type of the kind of people attracted to a certain kind of studied passion but they are then "dressing up" as they imagine an EO person would be and not really finding places that would truly be as they imagine.

I think that's true, in general, of the auto-didact learners who passionately come to their own studied opinions about theology and move from one psotion to another looking for a platonic ideal that never quite exists in reality.

Let's face it, Reformed theology is great as a topic of study, but because it exists in the real world, it has a lot of real Churches that don't at all look like what one would hope for if you're carrying out a perfectly calibrated tool that measures a Church's adherence to a particular Confession. Oh, one might find a Church somewhere but what about the Presbytery as a whole or the whole thing?

Maybe, then, you're tired of the departures and disagreements within the Reformed faith. Your spirit is sort of like Arthur Pink where nobody quite measures up and you're dealing with modernity and all its insanity. Adding insult to injury, you see PCA Churches hosting Revoice in the name of being "Missional" and, after all, wouldn't it be nice if we just had something that was definitive and never changed?

And so you look for a place where you can cosplay Church History.

Now, in saying this, I'm not stating that the person or the imagined Church doesn't formally hold to certain ideas that one might convince themselves of. I'm not even saying that sticking with Reformed Churches isn't challenging.

What I'm saying is that many people cannot stand the gap between what they perceive the Church should be and the reality of the Church they find. I think it's better to imagine that, since the liturgy is ancient and they grow a ZZ-top beard that they've escaped the problem that we all face.

the reality is that they're worshipping mostly nominal Christians who are EO because that's what it is to be Russian or Greek.

By the way, one of the coolest things for me is that my dentist's mother is from Iraq and speaks neo-Aramaic. I heard they existed but when I was speaking with my dentist and found out her Mom was from that region I flipped out There's a congregation of them in Northern VA.
 
Here is another line of argument effective around 2008: unless you presuppose the continuity of an apostolic tradition, how can you trust which canon or church is correct?

I eventually learned to reject transcendental arguments and that argument lost force. Once I embraced Thomas Reid, I was on much surer footing.
heidelblog.net

How Thomas Reid Saved My Sanity - The Heidelblog

In 2007, I returned home after a few years at seminary thinking I knew the basics of apologetics and theology, so I decided to put my knowledge to use. What I soon found out, however, was that I had bought into the narrative of postmodernity without realizing it. No one…
heidelblog.net heidelblog.net

That's part of my story.
 
RamistThomist said:
Here is another line of argument effective around 2008: unless you presuppose the continuity of an apostolic tradition, how can you trust which canon or church is correct?

I eventually learned to reject transcendental arguments and that argument lost force. Once I embraced Thomas Reid, I was on much surer footing.
heidelblog.net

How Thomas Reid Saved My Sanity - The Heidelblog

In 2007, I returned home after a few years at seminary thinking I knew the basics of apologetics and theology, so I decided to put my knowledge to use. What I soon found out, however, was that I had bought into the narrative of postmodernity without realizing it. No one…
heidelblog.net heidelblog.net

That's part of my story.
Click to expand...
Can you explain in layman's terms what theosis is? The more I read the more I see it defined in theological phrases and buzzwords that are, themselves, never explained or defined. I understand it is the deification of the human nature. I know it is supposed to become like Christ and to become by grace what God is by nature. But what does that mean?
 
MarrowMan said:
Can you explain in layman's terms what theosis is? The more I read the more I see it defined in theological phrases and buzzwords that are, themselves, never explained or defined. I understand it is the deification of the human nature. I know it is supposed to become like Christ and to become by grace what God is by nature. But what does that mean?
Click to expand...
Ultimately, it is glorification. EO like to shock with claims that it is "becoming God," but when you read what they are actually saying, they aren't saying we become the divine nature.

It goes back to their view on the image of God. They say, and this is found in some fathers, that we are created in God's image, but not his likeness. We become his likeness by grace throughout our lives. After Palamas, it meant something closer to "participating in the uncreated energies of God."
 
One big problem with the EO is an aversion to clear definitions. Stating things clearly is rationalistic (allegedly), and they're mystical. Any clarity is an affront to the mysteries.
Thus, getting them to define in what manner the bread and wine are or are not transubstantiated, in what manner Christ's atonement saves us, in what way we are justified, etc is often quite difficult.
Roman Catholicism has the Catholic Catechism, Roman Catechism, Bellarmine's Catechism, the Baltimore Catechism, etc. They're quite happy to define their system. The system itself is confusing and difficult to follow, for sure, but it abounds in definitions.
By contrast, there is no single eastern orthodox catechism; no equivalent of Thomas's Summa, etc. Where they do have catechisms, it tends to be the product of Russia in the 17th-18th centuries, which was more rational than run of the mill eastern mysticism.
 
RamistThomist said:
Ultimately, it is glorification. EO like to shock with claims that it is "becoming God," but when you read what they are actually saying, they aren't saying we become the divine nature.

It goes back to their view on the image of God. They say, and this is found in some fathers, that we are created in God's image, but not his likeness. We become his likeness by grace throughout our lives. After Palamas, it meant something closer to "participating in the uncreated energies of God."
Click to expand...
Glorification as we Reformed would understand glorification?

I've been reading and have a handle on the essence/energy distinction. If understand correctly between what I've read (Kallistos Ware and John of Damascus) and what you're saying, it's basically sanctification ending in glorification with some mystical gobbledygook terminology thrown in?
 
MarrowMan said:
. If understand correctly between what I've read (Kallistos Ware and John of Damascus) and what you're saying, it's basically sanctification ending in glorification with some mystical gobbledygook terminology thrown in?
Click to expand...

Kind of.

Palamas, as is the case with the West, asserts the divine essence to be completely simple and there is no way we can participate in it. If we did, either a) we would be part of God or b) the essence isn't really simple. Palamas solves this problem by adding a third category: energies or activity. By itself that is a completely legitimate, even biblical category. An energy is an activation of the essence. So far, so good.

Activity (energein) is always “activity produced by the power (dunamis) of an existent”. Activity presupposes power. Therefore, a hypostatized nature’s dunamis produces the energia.

EO goes further. It seems like--and at times scholars like David Bradshaw use this language--that the energies are tied to the economy, which is pantheistic.

One more point: we physically see the energies, God's glory. Moses saw God's glory with his eyes. Western writers would say that Moses only saw a mystical replica of God's glory. Eastern writers say it was a bodily vision. For example, on the Mt of Transfiguration, did the disciples see the glory around Jesus or did they see a spiritual replica of the glory? I actually think the East is closer to the point on this one. I never bought the mystical replica idea.

The problem is they say we attain the likeness of God by a life of good works. They really don't make a distinction between justification and salvation (and at times Super Reformed can be guilty of this as well).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

arapahoepark
  • Locked
Eastern Orthodox v. Protestantism
Replies
3
Views
2K
Mushroom
Mushroom
M
  • Locked
Doctrine of Eastern Orthodox Church
Replies
16
Views
9K
Puritanhead
P
Marrow Man
  • Locked
Eastern Orthodox and the Athanasian Creed
Replies
3
Views
4K
yeutter
Y
P
  • Locked
Eastern Orthodox Critique of Calvin on Icons
Replies
28
Views
6K
Jan Ziska
Jan Ziska
Prufrock
  • Locked
Neo-Orthodox/Reformed Views of Scripture
Replies
10
Views
4K
MW
M
Back
Top