# Eastern Orthodoxy ...



## amishrockstar (Oct 11, 2007)

*Anyone know of any "definitive" works on the Eastern Orthodox Church???

I'm curious what the main "stumbling block" for them is; what I mean is that when we talk with J.W.'s we tend to talk about the deity of Christ, so what is the main "brick(s)" that need to be focused on while witnessing to Eastern Orthodox people (I've noticed that they can be very proud about their history going back to the Apostles, but is that the best place to offer an apologetical refutation)?

THANKS*


----------



## Guido's Brother (Oct 11, 2007)

I recently read Robert Letham's Through Western Eyes. It's a fairly good overview of the important EO teachings, but is a bit too sympathetic in my opinion. For instance, Letham doesn't want to evaluate EO in terms of true/false church.


----------



## amishrockstar (Oct 11, 2007)

*Since the E.O. churches accept the doctrine of the Trinity--unlike JW's-- do you have any thoughts on what would be the best way to witness to them?*


----------



## Guido's Brother (Oct 11, 2007)

I would question whether EO believes the doctrine of the Trinity as laid out in the Athanasian Creed. They deny the procession of the Spirit from the Father _and the Son_. According to the Athanasian Creed, the "Filioque" is part of the faith which, if a man is to be saved, is to be kept "in its entirety inviolate." Additionally, EO teaches a synergistic view of salvation. According to EO, salvation involves God and man cooperating. Letham: "The point is that man plays a part; the effects of sin are not so far-reaching as to prevent him responding to God in faith, although he needs some help to do this. The famous sentence in Revelation 3:20 is held to teach that God knocks at the door but it is up to man to open it." (245) So, I think besides discussing the Trinity, we also need to discuss the way of salvation.


----------



## JM (Oct 12, 2007)

Justification is a biggie. I attended a Greek Orthodox Church off and on for 2 years, they have not idea of what justification is, it's all ritual.


----------



## elnwood (Oct 12, 2007)

I studied the Filioque from an Eastern Orthodox professor, and I don't get how one can be dogmatic either way or why one would want to.

I read Timothy Ware on the Orthodox Church. I think the major divisions between Eastern Orthodox and Evangelicalism is a) Holy Tradition vs. Sola Scriptura, b) Salvation by choice vs. Penal Substitution (which they deny), c) the elements becoming Christ in the Eucharist, and d) their claim to be the only true church.


----------



## amishrockstar (Oct 12, 2007)

Hey everyone, thanks for all the info. ...
It really does sound like they need to hear about who the *'real'* Christ is and what He's *accomplished* on the cross. Hopefully I'll be able to interact with some of the local E.O. members soon because they are planning on starting a campus outreach at my college (Oct.17 will be their first meeting --pizza and all). I saw an article on their churches plans to get involved on campus in our school paper --it took up about half the page!
*Thanks again,*
Matthew


----------



## Timothy William (Oct 12, 2007)

My impressions from interacting, mainly online, with EO:

Very Arminian, frequently outright Pelagian, far more so than the Church of Rome. There is a view among them that Pelagius was correct, or at least harshly treated, and that Augustine introduced false "Western" philosophy into the church. They will relate Penal Substitutionary Atonement to the Roman legal system, as a foreign addition to early pure Christianity, while happily combining Greek philosophy with Scripture and the Church fathers, and never see a contradiction. 

They believe that the original Council of Nicea did not include the filioque, and that Western churches are heretical, or at least acting outside their authority, for adding it. They believe that Western Christianity has marginalised and misunderstood the Holy Spirit, and will blame the addition of the filioque for everything from, as they see it, RC errors to Calvinist barrenness to the excesses of Pentecostalism.


----------



## yeutter (Oct 12, 2007)

*The orthodoxy of the Orthodox.*

They are orthodox in as much as they:
The cannonical Eastern Orthodox Churches indeed have the original version of the Nicene Creed. 
The Eastern Orthodox Churches do not accept the Athanasian Creed. It is solely a Western Church Creed. They do accept the Chalcedon Creed.
The Eastern Orthodox have not formally rejected the doctrine of justification soley by faith.

They are heterodox in as much as they:
The Eastern Orthodox Churches do not accept the Augustinian understanding of original sin.
They are mystical.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Oct 12, 2007)

It has been my impression that EO holds out a "hope" of universalism (as opposed to a dogma). This is manifested quite clearly in the writings of, say, Vladamir Solovyov, and even by Timothy Ware: "Hell exists as a final possibility, but several of the Fathers have none the less believed that in the end all will be reconciled to God....we must not despair of anyone's salvation, but must long and pray for the reconciliation of all without exception. No one must be excluded from our loving intercession. 'What is a merciful heart?' asked Isaac the Syrian. 'It is a heart that burns with love for the whole of creation, for humans, for birds, for the beasts, for the demons, for all creatures.' Gregory of Nyssa said that Christians may legitimately hope even for the redemption of the devil." (The Orthodox Church, 1997 ed., p. 262)


----------



## SRoper (Oct 12, 2007)

Timothy William said:


> They believe that the original Council of Nicea did not include the filioque...



They are right about that one.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Oct 12, 2007)

elnwood said:


> I studied the Filioque from an Eastern Orthodox professor, and I don't get how one can be dogmatic either way or why one would want to.



Are you saying that the Athanasian Creed is incorrect in making the Filioque an indispensable part of the Catholic faith which "unless a man keeps it in its entirety inviolate, he will assuredly perish eternally"?


----------



## Timothy William (Oct 12, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Timothy William said:
> 
> 
> > They believe that the original Council of Nicea did not include the filioque...
> ...



They are. I once considered seriously whether or not they were correct regarding the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, and decided that I was not convinced by their arguments, though they did have stronger reasoning than I expected. 

I would have trouble saying that all those who held to eternal procession from the Father alone were eternally condemned; I suspect that many Christians would not know what they believe on the matter, while others only believe what they do because of the version of the Nicean creed they recite. Of course heresy does not stop being damning because good "Christian" people believe it or because it is followed blindly.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Oct 12, 2007)

Timothy William said:


> I would have trouble saying that all those who held to eternal procession from the Father alone were eternally condemned;



But yet that's what the Athanasian Creed says. According to the Forum Rules:

c. Historic Creeds: All members of this board hold to the basic creeds of the church: The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Athanasian Creed, and the Definitions of Chalcedon.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 12, 2007)

I'm living in what is considered among the Greek Orthodox as the country where the “purest Greek Orthodoxy” dwells: Cyprus. I went to a lot of difficulty getting my citizenship here (and by association in the EU as well) so that when I publicly speak and evangelize I cannot be deported.

My approach will be primarily regarding salvation – knowing the Lord Jesus personally. My first vehicle will be a lecture on the topic of “the Da Vinci Code vs. the Christian Faith (or the Bible), and which is left standing after the dust of the struggle settles” or something like that. I am aiming for English-speaking Greek Cypriots first and foremost, though other English-speaking foreign nationals as well. I first want to establish the primacy of the word of God, and its utter reliability. I do not wish to get involved in the comparative theologies, but to preach Christ crucified, resurrected, enthroned and governing the universe, present and available to all who will come to Him. Of course I will talk of Brown’s book, but only as a foil for the Gospel.

If the Lord wills, I would like to continue with other lectures (in a hotel hall, I prefer – and advertised in the English papers), and also do as Paul did in Ephesus, have a “school of theology” (Acts 19:9, 10) operating as a disseminating point for teaching “concerning the kingdom of God” (verse 8). In the space of about 2 years Paul (via his disciples) evangelized all of Asia Minor – giving birth to the seven churches we read of in Revelation.

My bedrock stance to opponents will be, Do you know the Lord? Are you in vital union with Him? On what basis do you so assert? I intend on taking the core of Reformed soteriology as my source of light in this dark religious land.

I am not sufficient for these things, but my Master is.


----------



## KMK (Oct 12, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I'm living in what is considered among the Greek Orthodox as the country where the “purest Greek Orthodoxy” dwells: Cyprus. I went to a lot of difficulty getting my citizenship here (and by association in the EU as well) so that when I publicly speak and evangelize I cannot be deported.
> 
> My approach will be primarily regarding salvation – knowing the Lord Jesus personally. My first vehicle will be a lecture on the topic of “the Da Vinci Code vs. the Christian Faith (or the Bible), and which is left standing after the dust of the struggle settles” or something like that. I am aiming for English-speaking Greek Cypriots first and foremost, though other English-speaking foreign nationals as well. I first want to establish the primacy of the word of God, and its utter reliability. I do not wish to get involved in the comparative theologies, but to preach Christ crucified, resurrected, enthroned and governing the universe, present and available to all who will come to Him. Of course I will talk of Brown’s book, but only as a foil for the Gospel.
> 
> ...



What kind of stand do you take on the continuation of spiritual gifts with Cypriots? I ask because from what I understand the pentacostals have many missions in that part of the world. I don't think the Orthodox church goers are much for them so it would seem to me that it might be kind of controversial.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 13, 2007)

Hi Ken,

We teach against them. You are right, there are many Pentecostal assemblies here, both English-speaking and indigenous. We are _surrounded_ by charismatics and Arminians! I will make clear, in an irenic manner – for I have friends among the Pentecostals here – that the revelational gifts have ceased since the apostles departed and the canon of Scripture completed. And yes, the Orthodox churchgoers do _not_ like the charismatic style – they find it raucous and irreverent. Such have given “evangelical” churches here a bad name. There is one church – and apostolic type – that repeatedly brings Benny Hinn over here. It was surprising how many “evangelicals” went to hear him earlier this year.

The pure gospel is light in the darkness.

Steve


----------



## Kevin (Oct 13, 2007)

God bless, brother. That sounds like a good work and I pray that God will bless it.


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 13, 2007)

I recently asked about this here and got some very good answers and references. I also read up on it on EO websites so that I wouldn't just have hearsay. I would cite their departure from Sola Scriptura as very foundational, leading them into a host of problems most importantly as regards their teaching on salvation (which is completely a mess with a denial of original sin, penal substitution -we're delivered from death not sin-, and salvation by works) and the doctrine of God. They also pray to saints and guardian angels and seem to have a whole theologies of how these things work obviously not derived from Scripture (odd that mystics are often presumptuous and pedagogical with the real mysteries) and prayers specifically ascribing good and power of blessing to Mary and the saints and angels. They not only have statements about salvation by works but that those works must be done in conjunction with the Eastern Orthodox church: in other words outside of the EO there is no salvation. They deny the uniqueness of all three persons of God - God the source of all good, Christ the mediator, and the Holy Spirit who regenerates and enlightens us to perceive the truth of God's word (they set the tradition of the church in illumination above that of the Holy Spirit). Their worship is obviously not along the lines of the regulative principle and reminds me of the place where Paul says that some people are seeking a sensual pleasure of the mind in formulating doctrines of supernatural beings etc. It's the same kind of lust as the physical but indulged in with the organ of the mind rather than of the body; and I do believe that is what leads some people into EO: they 'feel' like they are making contact with God, but it's a god of their own imagination and not the God of Scripture. 

They talk about being misunderstood and anathematized by the West but they have anathematized the West as well, and the different groups anathematize each other. Besides all the stuff about how we can't understand them because of the East/West difference in thought that goes back to language is ridiculous and sounds like the cheap fallacy of a Western mind: Greek is a Western language.

Wow Steve, I'll be praying for you.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 14, 2007)

Heidi,

Thanks, I can sure use your prayers, and anyone else who will! I had saved that thread you mentioned as it was so full of good resources. A good article, concise and incisive is one by Paul Negrut, "SEARCHING FOR THE TRUE APOSTOLIC CHURCH: What Evangelicals Should Know about Eastern Orthodoxy": 

DE177 - equip.org.

You are right on your take of the EO. (Though there are differing groups within the large fold, some more liberal toward believers outside them, though, as you say, some denying the validity of any church besides themselves.)

As you indicate, they say that the church is now in the place of God, He having given *it* all that pertains to salvation. They receive Christ into their lives through ingesting the bread and wine, and grace is meted out to them via the sacraments of the church. Their focus is on the Incarnation, asserting that the Fall did not utterly alienate them from God, but just distorted His image in them, and which can be repaired by an arduous adherence to emulating Christ's virtues. If you obey the priest and the dictates of the church you might be saved, provided you are virtuous enough. It is sad to see many -- especially the older folks -- keeping the rituals and fasts and feasts thinking these will please God, while their hearts are devoid of the Spirit of Christ, their lives barren of living faith and works born of grateful love. The younger folks, mostly those influenced by the West, have thrown off the "old religion" in lieu of New Age, or post modernism, or rank hedonism, and yet are still hungry and searching.

Little is known of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the _legal_ work that was accomplished by Christ in restoring us to our Father. Even less is known of such legal categories as imputed righteousness and imputed sin, such as is in Paul's Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. The approach to God is part wishful thinking and part delusional mysticism, and it is as tightly-wrapped a deception as the JWs or any other satanic construct. No doubt there are saved individuals in the EO system, who love and cleave to Christ _despite_ the system.

I like the Cypriots, and the Lord wants the Gospel to be published forth here.

The family is disintegrating rapidly in this nation, for the Greek Orthodox church has no (that I can see) teaching on godly family life, such as we have in abundance in the U.S. It is commonplace for husbands here to avail themselves of prostitutes, and women/wives are being lured into the quasi-feminist do-whatever-you-please style of life. The children are growing feral -- glamorous and savage. Yet there is an idealism and hopefulness in many, which may respond to the Spirit of Christ. Underneath the religious veneer of those who are religious is darkness and misery. Some real fanatics are buoyed up by self-righteous fervor -- and such are dangerous, as is the case with all brands of unregenerate religious people. They can easily think they are doing God a service by killing you. It is not only the Muslims who are dangerous.

But God has His elect here, yet uncalled. And He has put it on my heart to go fishing for them, with a big net. As when the Lord told Peter to cast his net out, and a great load filled it to almost sinking the boat, so I trust Him to bring into the net whomever He will, be it many or few.

Thanks for your interest.

Steve


----------



## elnwood (Oct 15, 2007)

Guido's Brother said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > I studied the Filioque from an Eastern Orthodox professor, and I don't get how one can be dogmatic either way or why one would want to.
> ...



From my discussion with an Eastern Orthodox professor and Timothy Ware's book on the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church is fine with saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. So they do uphold a procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son.

I am not convinced that the Orthodox view is damnable heresy, but I'm open to hearing the case. Guido's Brother, do you have any Scripture that clearly teaches procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, as opposed to from the Father through the Son? If we're going to declare a view to be heretical, we ought to be sure based on Scripture and not just a creed.


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 15, 2007)

Steve that is fascinating, and very sad. As you say I'm sure there are Christians despite not because of the teaching of that church; but how many millions they must be leading astray. What a mercy that God has you and others there in that country still. Thanks for the information and the link.


----------



## yeutter (Oct 15, 2007)

One mystical aspect of Eastern Orthodoxy that I find especially troubling is that they sometimes refer to sanctification as diefication and connect it with what westerners would call a beautific vision.


----------



## amishrockstar (Oct 19, 2007)

Ya, the whole 'deification' doctrine in the E.O. Church is strange; almost Mormon. 
Dr. Bob Morey (in his booklet Meeting the Challenge of Eastern Orthodoxy) quotes Constantine Cavarnos from Orthodoxy and Philosophy (pg.82) as stating *"'You will be like God,' says the serpent. He does not altogether deceive man: for the latter is called to deification."*


----------

