The Reformation & the Eastern Church

[Bill The Baptist]

John Calvin held to the Substitutionary view though, as did the majority of the reformers, correct?

Yes. The Western church has long held this view, especially since the time of Anselm. Of course, we would argue that this is the clear biblical position as outlined in Romans, Hebrews, and the rest of Scripture.

 

[Dachaser]

Would it be correct to see the Atonement as having many different ways to view it as acceptable, bu tthe most bilical and best way is as Substitutionary ?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Would it be correct to see the Atonement as having many different ways to view it as acceptable, bu tthe most bilical and best way is as Substitutionary ?

Yes, there are many facets to the atonement. The trouble with most of the other views is they tend to specifically deny the substitutionary nature of Christ's sacrifice.

 

[RamistThomist]

John Calvin held to the Substitutionary view though, as did the majority of the reformers, correct?

Yes. The Western church has long held this view, especially since the time of Anselm. Of course, we would argue that this is the clear biblical position as outlined in Romans, Hebrews, and the rest of Scripture.

We need to be more specific (the above is true). A sharp EO apologist will say, "Yes, we believe in a substitution of sorts." That could be any form of representation (Jesus for Israel, for the Church, etc). The crux of the matter is penal substitution.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

John Calvin held to the Substitutionary view though, as did the majority of the reformers, correct?

Yes. The Western church has long held this view, especially since the time of Anselm. Of course, we would argue that this is the clear biblical position as outlined in Romans, Hebrews, and the rest of Scripture.

We need to be more specific (the above is true). A sharp EO apologist will say, "Yes, we believe in a substitution of sorts." That could be any form of representation (Jesus for Israel, for the Church, etc). The crux of the matter is penal substitution.

I would agree that we need to be very specific. EO theology tends to be vague and undefined, with a good deal of appeal to "mystery." They also tend to use theological terms differently than we would, and so precision is crucial.

 

[Dachaser]

So would they hold then to the true Gospel, or do they have a false one, like the Church of Romes holds with?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

So would they hold then to the true Gospel, or do they have a false one, like the Church of Romes holds with?

Yes, the EO church teaches and believes a false gospel. In some ways their view of the gospel is even worse than the RCC because they have a seriously deficient view of sin.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Some of the particulars of EO are better than Romanism, but at its heart it is further from the truth (you've mentioned EO views of sin, the Fall, the atonement, etc). Romanism answers the right questions wrong; EO asks the wrong questions.

 

[py3ak]

By the way, did I use the right type of affect vs effect in the OP?

I'm afraid not. At least, the replies have been concentrating on what effect the Reformation had on EO, and the overall answer appears to be, "far too little."

 

[Dachaser]

They would view that in Christ, humanity now shares in some fashion his Humanity, so not really sinners as we would see it as to our natures?

 

[RamistThomist]

They would view that in Christ, humanity now shares in some fashion his Humanity, so not really sinners as we would see it as to our natures?

They would say that Logos took to himself human nature. The reverse doesn't necessarily hold. They are very clear that those outside the Orthodox church do not share in Christ.

 

[Dachaser]

So they would hold like the Church of Rome that they are the true Church?

 

[KGP]

Would it be correct to see the Atonement as having many different ways to view it as acceptable, bu tthe most bilical and best way is as Substitutionary ?

Yes, there are many facets to the atonement. The trouble with most of the other views is they tend to specifically deny the substitutionary nature of Christ's sacrifice.

Whenever this discussion comes up; I make note that all the major views on the atonement are made possible because of the reality of penal substitution. Penal Substitution is the foundation for all other valid atonement theories. We can speak of them as overlapping and relating to one another but only if we start with penal substitution. My 2c.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dachaser]

Good point, and any that would deny that asa the primary meaning, such as the GOC, or those holding to Armianin theology, would have suspect message..

 

[RamistThomist]

So they would hold like the Church of Rome that they are the true Church?

Yes. And by true they also mean only. But they also reject that Rome is a church.

 

[Warren]

How many times have Rome and the East excommunicated each other's patriarchs?

 

[RamistThomist]

How many times have Rome and the East excommunicated each other's patriarchs?

Only takes once. There was some false rapproachment in the 1400s when the Emperor of Constantinople signed onto the Filioque in hopes of gaining Western troops to repel the Turk. Didn't work.

Of course, in the 20 Century the liberal popes and the liberal Patriarchs of Constantinople hugged and said all's cool.

 

[RamistThomist]

I blogged through some of these issues abuot three years ago on an old blog. I don't "go after EO" anymore. I was getting notes together for a book on it, but I put that on hold. Despite some triumphalist rhetoric among the convertskii, there just isn't a lot of folks jumping ship.

https://bayouhuguenot.wordpress.com/category/eastern-orthodoxy/

 

[ZackF]

So they would be closer to Catholic views than Reformed?

In some ways yes, in other ways no. The Orthodox deny things like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of Mary, but also have some odd views on the atonement and sin. Overall, they are much closer to the RC than to the reformed.

But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.

This cannot be understated. Augustine isn't even canonized in the Eastern tradition. In their eyes Aquinas takes a close second place in everything that is wrong with Christianity in the West with his "rationalism" and all. Protestantism is seen as an even more bastardized form with only two sacraments instead of seven and so on.

 

[RamistThomist]

So they would be closer to Catholic views than Reformed?

In some ways yes, in other ways no. The Orthodox deny things like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of Mary, but also have some odd views on the atonement and sin. Overall, they are much closer to the RC than to the reformed.

But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.

This cannot be understated. Augustine isn't even canonized in the Eastern tradition. In their eyes Aquinas takes a close second place in everything that is wrong with Christianity in the West with his "rationalism" and all. Protestantism is seen as an even more bastardized form with only two sacraments instead of seven and so on.

It gets stickier. The 5th Ecumenical Council, which they consider infallible, lists Augustine as "a Father." So there. The book Orthodox Readings of Augustine documents (and tries to correct) some of this phobia. But the list of bad guys goes like this:

1. Augustine
2. Anselm
3. Aquinas
4. John of the Cross
5. All of Protestantism.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

So they would be closer to Catholic views than Reformed?

In some ways yes, in other ways no. The Orthodox deny things like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of Mary, but also have some odd views on the atonement and sin. Overall, they are much closer to the RC than to the reformed.

But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.

This cannot be understated. Augustine isn't even canonized in the Eastern tradition. In their eyes Aquinas takes a close second place in everything that is wrong with Christianity in the West with his "rationalism" and all. Protestantism is seen as an even more bastardized form with only two sacraments instead of seven and so on.

It gets stickier. The 5th Ecumenical Council, which they consider infallible, lists Augustine as "a Father." So there. The book Orthodox Readings of Augustine documents (and tries to correct) some of this phobia. But the list of bad guys goes like this:

1. Augustine
2. Anselm
3. Aquinas
4. John of the Cross
5. All of Protestantism.

I understand Augustine (predestination and election), Anselm (Substitutionary atonement), and Aquinas (rationalism), but what did John of the Cross do to end up on the EO bad guy list?

 

[RamistThomist]

So they would be closer to Catholic views than Reformed?

In some ways yes, in other ways no. The Orthodox deny things like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of Mary, but also have some odd views on the atonement and sin. Overall, they are much closer to the RC than to the reformed.

But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.

This cannot be understated. Augustine isn't even canonized in the Eastern tradition. In their eyes Aquinas takes a close second place in everything that is wrong with Christianity in the West with his "rationalism" and all. Protestantism is seen as an even more bastardized form with only two sacraments instead of seven and so on.

It gets stickier. The 5th Ecumenical Council, which they consider infallible, lists Augustine as "a Father." So there. The book Orthodox Readings of Augustine documents (and tries to correct) some of this phobia. But the list of bad guys goes like this:

1. Augustine
2. Anselm
3. Aquinas
4. John of the Cross
5. All of Protestantism.

I understand Augustine (predestination and election), Anselm (Substitutionary atonement), and Aquinas (rationalism), but what did John of the Cross do to end up on the EO bad guy list?

He has a hyper-introspective view of spirituality. Admittedly, I kind of understand their reticence on him.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

So they would be closer to Catholic views than Reformed?

In some ways yes, in other ways no. The Orthodox deny things like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of Mary, but also have some odd views on the atonement and sin. Overall, they are much closer to the RC than to the reformed.

But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.

This cannot be understated. Augustine isn't even canonized in the Eastern tradition. In their eyes Aquinas takes a close second place in everything that is wrong with Christianity in the West with his "rationalism" and all. Protestantism is seen as an even more bastardized form with only two sacraments instead of seven and so on.

It gets stickier. The 5th Ecumenical Council, which they consider infallible, lists Augustine as "a Father." So there. The book Orthodox Readings of Augustine documents (and tries to correct) some of this phobia. But the list of bad guys goes like this:

1. Augustine
2. Anselm
3. Aquinas
4. John of the Cross
5. All of Protestantism.

I understand Augustine (predestination and election), Anselm (Substitutionary atonement), and Aquinas (rationalism), but what did John of the Cross do to end up on the EO bad guy list?

He has a hyper-introspective view of spirituality. Admittedly, I kind of understand their reticence on him.

Interesting. I guess I thought they might appreciate his mysticism, but I guess it was the wrong kind. Actually I've read quite a bit of Anselm, and ironically enough, he was generally very gracious towards the EO and would often seek to reconcile their beliefs with those of the west.

 

[RamistThomist]

So they would be closer to Catholic views than Reformed?

In some ways yes, in other ways no. The Orthodox deny things like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of Mary, but also have some odd views on the atonement and sin. Overall, they are much closer to the RC than to the reformed.

But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.

This cannot be understated. Augustine isn't even canonized in the Eastern tradition. In their eyes Aquinas takes a close second place in everything that is wrong with Christianity in the West with his "rationalism" and all. Protestantism is seen as an even more bastardized form with only two sacraments instead of seven and so on.

It gets stickier. The 5th Ecumenical Council, which they consider infallible, lists Augustine as "a Father." So there. The book Orthodox Readings of Augustine documents (and tries to correct) some of this phobia. But the list of bad guys goes like this:

1. Augustine
2. Anselm
3. Aquinas
4. John of the Cross
5. All of Protestantism.

I understand Augustine (predestination and election), Anselm (Substitutionary atonement), and Aquinas (rationalism), but what did John of the Cross do to end up on the EO bad guy list?

He has a hyper-introspective view of spirituality. Admittedly, I kind of understand their reticence on him.

Interesting. I guess I thought they might appreciate his mysticism, but I guess it was the wrong kind. Actually I've read quite a bit of Anselm, and ironically enough, he was generally very gracious towards the EO and would often seek to reconcile their beliefs with those of the west.

In a nutshell, here is EO view on spirituality/prayer.

When you are communing with God, try to rid your mind of logidzomai and even better, thoughts in general. Stick to the prayer rule with a clear mind.

Obviously, introspection of John's sort is out. Yes, EO is mystical but not anything goes. I have big problems with them, but I think they saw where John's spirituality was leading and didn't want anything to do with it.

 

[ZackF]

So they would be closer to Catholic views than Reformed?

In some ways yes, in other ways no. The Orthodox deny things like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of Mary, but also have some odd views on the atonement and sin. Overall, they are much closer to the RC than to the reformed.

But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.

This cannot be understated. Augustine isn't even canonized in the Eastern tradition. In their eyes Aquinas takes a close second place in everything that is wrong with Christianity in the West with his "rationalism" and all. Protestantism is seen as an even more bastardized form with only two sacraments instead of seven and so on.

It gets stickier. The 5th Ecumenical Council, which they consider infallible, lists Augustine as "a Father." So there. The book Orthodox Readings of Augustine documents (and tries to correct) some of this phobia. But the list of bad guys goes like this:

1. Augustine
2. Anselm
3. Aquinas
4. John of the Cross
5. All of Protestantism.

Right. Augustine has a designation similar to the RC "Blessed" in the eyes of EO. I figured Anselm was a baddy on their list but Juan de la Cruz? A morbid life and the writings to match. However, like others have said, I figured the mysticism would get him some credit.

 

[Warren]

I'm reading "The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition," just to give my brain an aneurism. Point being, I see subtle differences between the mysticism of East and West, like that Jacob notes. Eastern mysticism seems manifested in the virtues, where Roman mysticism seems manifested in the intellect. For example, Asceticism in the Eastern tradition is more concerned with living a virtuous life, which shows forth the love of God. Roman mysticism is more intellectual, like a thought-journey for the soul, freeing one from physicality.

 

[KGP]

This thread has been very enlightening as I know very little about the EO. Is their anything unique about their doctrine of scripture? Do they view the Bible any differently than we do in the West?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MichaelNZ]

This thread has been very enlightening as I know very little about the EO. Is their anything unique about their doctrine of scripture? Do they view the Bible any differently than we do in the West?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They consider it to be a part of sacred tradition, not separate from tradition the way the Roman Catholics do. They also include the book of Third Maccabees in their canon, along with the rest of the apocrypha.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm reading "The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition," just to give my brain an aneurism. Point being, I see subtle differences between the mysticism of East and West, like that Jacob notes. Eastern mysticism seems manifested in the virtues, where Roman mysticism seems manifested in the intellect. For example, Asceticism in the Eastern tradition is more concerned with living a virtuous life, which shows forth the love of God. Roman mysticism is more intellectual, like a thought-journey for the soul, freeing one from physicality.

That's actually a really good and groundbreaking book in the field.

 

[RamistThomist]

This thread has been very enlightening as I know very little about the EO. Is their anything unique about their doctrine of scripture? Do they view the Bible any differently than we do in the West?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They consider it to be a part of sacred tradition, not separate from tradition the way the Roman Catholics do. They also include the book of Third Maccabees in their canon, along with the rest of the apocrypha.

True. For us Scripture is the norm that norms lesser norms. For EO it is part of "Tradition," albeit a big part.

If you read some Russian writers in the 18th and 18 century on Scripture (like Seraphim of Sarov and Tikhon Zadonskii) they have some very moving comments on Scripture that are quite good.