# Eastern Orthodox Soteriology



## JM

Anyone know much about Eastern Orthodox soteriology?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

As far as I know, it is largely the same as Roman Catholic soteriology. Baptismal regeneration, state of grace, etc., but I could be wrong.


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by Hard Knox_
> Anyone know much about Eastern Orthodox soteriology?



I highly recommend spending some time reading some Eastern Orthodox literature rather than simply going by our judgments of what they think. I find their treatment far different than western church, so I don't believe it is a simply, "You see, here they say x, y, and z", because their terms may be loaded with different meaning.

One Orthodox fellow that I love is Father Henry Reardon. He was a baptist minister until about 15 years ago. His magazine, Touchstone, can be found on the web, and you can peruse the content. In my experience, I have found the Protestants, like Reardon, turned Orthodox to be extremely attractive. They possess a richness of faith, tradition, and liturgy that is missing from most Protestant churches. 

openairboy


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by Hard Knox_
> Anyone know much about Eastern Orthodox soteriology?


The Eastern Orthodox do not think in western terms on the issue of soteriology. The emphasis is on what they describe as "theosis," or man becoming god. A good introduction to read would be John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983). Here are some quotes to give you a taste of how this question is approached from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.

*Meyendorff:* Also, if one understands the ultimate destiny of man, and therefore also his "œsalvation," in terms of theosis, or "œdeification," rather than as justification from sin and guilt, the Church will necessarily be viewed primarily as a communion of free sons of God and only secondarily as an institution endowed with authority to govern and judge. John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 226.

*Meyendorff:* Byzantine theology did not produce any significant elaboration of the Pauline doctrine of justification expressed in Romans and Galatians. The Greek patristic commentaries on such passages as Galatians 3:13 ("œChrist redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us") generally interpret the idea of redemption by substitution in the wider context of victory over death and of satisfaction. They never develop the idea in the direction of an Anselmian theory of "œsatisfaction." John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 160.

*Meyendorff:* In the east, the cross is envisaged not so much as the punishment of the just one, which "œsatisfies" a transcendant justice requiring retribution for man's sins. John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 161.

*Meyendorff:* The point was not to satisfy a legal requirement, but to vanquish the frightful cosmic reality of death, which held humanity under its usurped control and pushed it into a vicious circle of sin and corruption. John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 161.

*Meyendorff:* Just as original sin did not consist in an inherited guilt, so redemption was not primarily a justification, but a victory over death. John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 161.

As you can see, the imputation of guilt does not figure in their doctrine of original sin. But the concept of theosis is central to the soteriology of Eastern Orthodoxy. It involves at least three interrelated meanings as underscored by Daniel B. Clendenin..."It is the mystical union with God whereby believers are transformed; the movement from death, mortality, and corruption to life, immortality, and corruption; and the ascent from the image of God (posessed by all people) to his very likeness (given to those who cooperate with divine transforming grace)." See Daniel B. Clendenin, _Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), p. 157.

Like Roman Catholic converts, many converts to "Orthodoxy" testify that they needed something more that they felt was not to be found in Protestantism, and believe they have found that "something more" in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> As you can see, the imputation of guilt does not figure in their doctrine of original sin. But the concept of theosis is central to the soteriology of Eastern Orthodoxy. It involves at least three interrelated meanings as underscored by Daniel B. Clendenin..."It is the mystical union with God whereby believers are transformed; the movement from death, mortality, and corruption to life, immortality, and corruption; and the ascent from the image of God (posessed by all people) to his very likeness (given to those who cooperate with divine transforming grace)." See Daniel B. Clendenin, _Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), p. 157.


I'm just curious how this works. Would they define cooperating with "divine transforming grace" as faithful participation in the Church and it's sacraments? Like Rome?


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I'm just curious how this works. Would they define cooperating with "divine transforming grace" as faithful participation in the Church and it's sacraments? Like Rome?


Yes, that would surely be part of it. As Meyendorff notes...

*Meyendorff:* The Byzantines did not see the substance of the bread somehow changed in the Eucharistic mystery into another substance"”the Body of Christ"”but viewed this bread as the "œtype" of humanity changed into the transfigured humanity of Christ. John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 205.

*Meyendorff:* The last word on the Eucharist, in Byzantine theology, is thus an anthropological and soteriological understanding of the mystery. "œIn approaching the Eucharist, the Byzantines began not with bread _qua_ bread, but with bread _qua_ man." Bread and wine are offered only because the Logos has assumed humanity, and they are being _changed_ and deified by the operation of the Spirit because Christ´s humanity has been transformed into glory through the cross and Resurrection. John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 205.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## JM

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Hard Knox_
> Anyone know much about Eastern Orthodox soteriology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I highly recommend spending some time reading some Eastern Orthodox literature rather than simply going by our judgments of what they think. I find their treatment far different than western church, so I don't believe it is a simply, "You see, here they say x, y, and z", because their terms may be loaded with different meaning.
> 
> One Orthodox fellow that I love is Father Henry Reardon. He was a baptist minister until about 15 years ago. His magazine, Touchstone, can be found on the web, and you can peruse the content. In my experience, I have found the Protestants, like Reardon, turned Orthodox to be extremely attractive. They possess a richness of faith, tradition, and liturgy that is missing from most Protestant churches.
> 
> openairboy
Click to expand...


Thank you for the suggestion, I've spent two years in the Greek Orthodox Church, I'm none the wiser really.  They refuse to define anything! The EO is basicly RC theology packaged a little different. 

Ya know, the 'parish' I attended was KJV only and were more interested in being Greek then 'Orthodox.' One member (I'd say from my experiance normal Canadian born Greek Orthodox Church member), believes the EO is just like the RC Church...

I miss the Divine Liturgy...still.  Pray 4 me.

HK


----------



## JM

Ps: When speaking of salvation, I've yet to meet an Orthodox Church member that will speak of sanctification or justification, it's the samething.


----------



## turmeric

Try OPC, they tend to be quite a bit more liturgical than Baptist churches.


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by Hard Knox_
> Thank you for the suggestion, I've spent two years in the Greek Orthodox Church, I'm none the wiser really.  They refuse to define anything! The EO is basicly RC theology packaged a little different.
> 
> Ya know, the 'parish' I attended was KJV only and were more interested in being Greek then 'Orthodox.' One member (I'd say from my experiance normal Canadian born Greek Orthodox Church member), believes the EO is just like the RC Church...
> 
> I miss the Divine Liturgy...still.  Pray 4 me.
> 
> HK



Sorry, I saw this post after replying to the other one. 

Yes, the lack of definition, I believe, is one of the biggest differences in the two traditions (Eastern vs. Western). My friend never really nails anything down, especially when I push on questions of the Church and Sacraments.

Yes, they are unfortunately much more culturally driven. My Greek friends love being Greek and Greek Orthodox, especially when it comes to the St Harlambos (sp) Festival. This, as you know, doesn't escape the Protestant Churches, it is just that we are much more 'integrated' (read American) in my context. They love being white or black, middle class, Republican or Democrat, and have their boundaries they just aren't as strictly ethnic. The fathers I have spoken with, which are all protestant turned EO, are trying and thinking through how to remedy this particular problem.

The liturgy is beautiful. I'm can't really develop the issue, but as I spend more time in Revelation I see where they are coming from. The liturgy is beautiful, especially leaving our often bland Protestant churches which are either driven by "dudes" wearing hawaiian shirts or an attorny presenting a case. The EO church I attended seemed to have richness, drama, and romance involved. The movements were very "heavenly". Their worship, I believed, captures Chalcedonian theology better than Protestant churches.

openairboy

[Edited on 4-25-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## bill c.

I know what you mean about the Greek EO's being more interested in being Greek than being EO. The Antiochians are more interested in being EO. As a matter of fact Rev Reardon is Antiochian.

If you're interested in reading more Meyendorff is good but is looked at as being liberal by some in EOxy. Kallistos Ware (more middle of the road) has two good books "The Orthodox Church" and "The Orthodox Way". You'll get few clear definitions though some of the EO churches put out catechisms like Rome does. In the EO church the sacraments are called mysteries which says alot.

There was a Patriarch of Constantinople who was called the "Calvinist Patriarch" he's mentioned in Ware's books. He came very close to understanding salvation as the Reformers did.

I know what you mean about missing the Divine Liturgy. It really means more when you read Revelation. It is however easy to turn the DL into an idol of a sort. I was EO and at my parish (Antiochian) there were some very Godly people but there were more who were there for the "smells and bells".

I'll keep you in my prayers. 

bill c.


----------



## Puritanhead

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/EasternOrthodoxy.html

Beyond that doctrine of theosis (i.e. man becoming God), they also share the Romanist view of baptismal regeneration (i.e. baptist requisite for regeneration and salvation.) 

Other than that, the Orthodox allure quite a few evangelicals who are taken in by the pomp and pagentry of some of their Orthodox masses... Their icons are really extraordinary pieces of art, which adds to the allure as does their claim to be the unbroken apostolic church. They "venerate" icons and holy relics, and they're careful to draw a distinction between worshipping them and venerating them. Some Orthodox hymns I admit are very soothing and appealing to the ear.

[Edited on 4-26-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/EasternOrthodoxy.html
> 
> Beyond that doctrine of theosis (i.e. man becoming God), they also share the Romanist view of baptismal regeneration (i.e. baptist requisite for regeneration and salvation.)
> 
> Other than that, the Orthodox allure quite a few evangelicals who are taken in by the pomp and pagentry of some of their Orthodox masses... Their icons are really extraordinary pieces of art, which hads to the allure as does their claim to be the unbroken apostolic church. They "venerate" icons and holy relics, and draw they're careful to make a distinction between worshipping them and venerating them. Some Orthodox hymns I admit are very soothing and appealing to the ear.



John of Damascus defines theosis: "man becoming deified in the way of participating in the divine glory, and not in that of a change into a divine being". Peter describes participating in the divine nature, which, I believe, all the EO is driving at. They lay a much greater emphasis on immortality and the resurrection than the west does, so much of this is foreign to our ears. They maintain in theosis that the divine and human maintain their unique characteristics. Also, all Nicean Christians hold to "one baptism for the remission of sins", which many have traditionally seen as an aspect of 'baptismal regeneration', so this position of "baptismal regeneration", which is much, much different than the Church of Christ doctrine, should not be of a grave concern either. Finally, the Seventh Ecumenical Council makes it explict that icons are for "veneration & honor, but not of real worship, which is reserved for Him who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature."

The drawing in of evangelicals isn't due to "pomp" and "pagentry" or the "added allure" of icons, but the idea of Apostolic succession and consistency is of great appeal. When one considers that there are about 70 different baptist denominations, the idea of consistency and unity is appealing. Not to mention that many of these churches are constantly changing with every Barna poll that comes out. "Oh, you mean people don't want sacraments? O.k., no sacraments, except for 'special services'." "UH? Oh, people do want sacraments, b/c it is postmodern; yes, we are very sacramental." While Protestant churches are blown around by every wind and poll, the EO just keep on, keepin' on.

openairboy


----------



## bill c.

{The drawing in of evangelicals isn't due to "pomp" and "pagentry" or the "added allure" of icons, but the idea of Apostolic succession and consistency is of great appeal. When one considers that there are about 70 different baptist denominations, the idea of consistency and unity is appealing. Not to mention that many of these churches are constantly changing with every Barna poll that comes out. "Oh, you mean people don't want sacraments? O.k., no sacraments, except for 'special services'." "UH? Oh, people do want sacraments, b/c it is postmodern; yes, we are very sacramental." While Protestant churches are blown around by every wind and poll, the EO just keep on, keepin' on.}

You must admit that some are drawn in by the "pomp" and "pagentry". When I was EO we had a lot of evangelical converts and maybe 30% were drawn by the icons and ritual the rest by the continuity. 

I don't agree about Protestant churches being driven by every wind and poll. I think there are churches that change their manner of worship but stay true to the essentials. A recent Newsweek poll inidcated that something like 20% of people who identify themselves as Christians don't believe in the Resurrection. I haven't heard of any churches deleting belief in the Resurrection from their credo. I think that people see a Protestant church or denomination change their form of worship and people think that it implies a change in their belief. I think the Moravians had it right when they call for unity in the essentials but accept diversity in all else.

I agree that we are very sacramental but you can't define a sacrament too narrowly. Events in everyday life can be sacramental. We have to be careful that we don't interpret the idea of a sacrament as the Scholastics did.

bill c.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by bill c._
> I agree that we are very sacramental but you can't define a sacrament too narrowly. Events in everyday life can be sacramental. We have to be careful that we don't interpret the idea of a sacrament as the Scholastics did.



Huh???


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by bill c._
> {The drawing in of evangelicals isn't due to "pomp" and "pagentry" or the "added allure" of icons, but the idea of Apostolic succession and consistency is of great appeal. When one considers that there are about 70 different baptist denominations, the idea of consistency and unity is appealing. Not to mention that many of these churches are constantly changing with every Barna poll that comes out. "Oh, you mean people don't want sacraments? O.k., no sacraments, except for 'special services'." "UH? Oh, people do want sacraments, b/c it is postmodern; yes, we are very sacramental." While Protestant churches are blown around by every wind and poll, the EO just keep on, keepin' on.}
> 
> You must admit that some are drawn in by the "pomp" and "pagentry". When I was EO we had a lot of evangelical converts and maybe 30% were drawn by the icons and ritual the rest by the continuity.
> 
> I don't agree about Protestant churches being driven by every wind and poll. I think there are churches that change their manner of worship but stay true to the essentials. A recent Newsweek poll inidcated that something like 20% of people who identify themselves as Christians don't believe in the Resurrection. I haven't heard of any churches deleting belief in the Resurrection from their credo. I think that people see a Protestant church or denomination change their form of worship and people think that it implies a change in their belief. I think the Moravians had it right when they call for unity in the essentials but accept diversity in all else.
> 
> I agree that we are very sacramental but you can't define a sacrament too narrowly. Events in everyday life can be sacramental. We have to be careful that we don't interpret the idea of a sacrament as the Scholastics did.
> 
> bill c.



Of the small handful of converts that I know, none of them converted to EO due to "pomp" and "pagentry". That doesn't negate the idea that they were attracted to the "divine liturgy", but, I believe, that isn't "pomp" & "pagentry" per se. 

The Protestant churches are smart enough, for the most part, not to flat out delete a doctrine from their creed. They simply redefine the doctrine of the resurrection, the atonement, the deity of Jesus, hence the PCA, Westminster East, etc., and many other Protestant denominations & a few schools. I would tie worship much more directly to ones beliefs. The fact that every year or two a new book comes (at least that get popular. i am sure there are plenty more books) out on how your church can be more influential, have more purpose, etc., shows the changing tide of the church. Very few have thorough convictions saying, "No, this is our beliefs, we believe this is spelled out in the Bible, so our focus is going to be on preaching the word as the primary means to convict and convert sinners." Many non-denom churches won't state it explicity, but few have that type of conviction and giving into worldly measures. They know better than to deny the Bible, but their practice denies. So, I see the continually changing worship styles as a change in beliefs. Not to mention changes on moral and doctrinal issues (women, sacraments, Church, etc.). 

No, I don't think every day life can be "sacramental". The WCF teaches that there are two.

openairboy


----------



## bill c.

Leaving aside the "sacrament" comment I made which I heard in seminary and have to think more about....I'd like to ask about worship.

{The Protestant churches are smart enough, for the most part, not to flat out delete a doctrine from their creed. They simply redefine the doctrine of the resurrection, the atonement, the deity of Jesus, hence the PCA, Westminster East, etc., and many other Protestant denominations & a few schools.}

Could you explain this more. I don't think PCA has, due to the way the wind is blowing, redefined the Resurrection. Have they? If this is so then where is the pure church? Our Lord said the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against it surely a poll is a little less powerful than the forces of hell.

{I would tie worship much more directly to ones beliefs.}

I tend to agree. Lex orandi lex credendi.

{The fact that every year or two a new book comes (at least that get popular. i am sure there are plenty more books) out on how your church can be more influential, have more purpose, etc., shows the changing tide of the church.}

Ideas about how to reach more people for Christ are always good provided they don't compromise the Gospel. Could you give a few examples?

{So, I see the continually changing worship styles as a change in beliefs.}

So again I ask where is the pure church and what would you say is a Gospel true worship style? Luther retained the old Catholic mass and changed the language and the theological emphasis away from sacrifice. Calvin developed a more simplified liturgy that still involved an order of service but was not so much based on the mass. The Great Awakening led to an order of service that at times had no order.

The apostles met in somebody's spare dining room reading the Scriptures (OT), breaking bread and prayers. We've changed alot since then. Fir the worse or the better is the question

bill c.


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by bill c._
> 
> Could you explain this more. I don't think PCA has, due to the way the wind is blowing, redefined the Resurrection. Have they? If this is so then where is the pure church? Our Lord said the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against it surely a poll is a little less powerful than the forces of hell.



Sorry for not being clear. The PCA broke from the PCUS due to these issues. Westminster East broke from Princeton due to similar concerns. ONE of the many reasons we have different denominations is due to one group jettisoning basic beliefs and allowing the culture to define us. It used to be modernism (issues of deity, Trinity, resurrection, higher criticism, etc.) and now we are being redefined by postmodernism (epistemology, 'dogmatics', etc.).



> {I would tie worship much more directly to ones beliefs.}
> 
> I tend to agree. Lex orandi lex credendi.
> 
> {The fact that every year or two a new book comes (at least that get popular. i am sure there are plenty more books) out on how your church can be more influential, have more purpose, etc., shows the changing tide of the church.}
> 
> Ideas about how to reach more people for Christ are always good provided they don't compromise the Gospel. Could you give a few examples?



"Prayer of Jabez", "Purpose Driven Life", et al., "Contagious Church", "Becoming a Church of Infuence", etc. There may be valid points in each of these books, but, I believe, there is a general under current in people buying into the latest technique. I believe at the heart of these books is that the Gospel is insufficient in itself. What we really need is more 'entertainment', 'kids programs', a modified moral teachings, a cause, less 'churchy', less 'preaching', "A pastor that is 'real'", etc.. The difficulty is that I don't believe it is completely conscious. I think they believe they are attempting to reach more people and that is exactly the problem, I believe. The way to reach more people, as the WCF states, is through the reading and preaching of the Word. If you get a chance, go to one of the larger 'non-denom' churches in your area and listen to the preaching. Honestly, after sitting under good teaching and a solid pastor for a while, it is really sickening, and I don't say that for effect, to attend some of these churches. I went to Covenant Seminary and Bryan Chapell wrote 'Christ Centered Preaching', and this sermons are definitely not Christ-centered, aside from saying you need him for salvation. The rest is warmed over morality or Dr Phil. Follow the train from Hybels to McClaren. They are essentially of the same ilk and, I BELIEVE, and really allow the culture to dictate who they are. It is usually ends up in pragmatism. 



> {So, I see the continually changing worship styles as a change in beliefs.}
> 
> So again I ask where is the pure church and what would you say is a Gospel true worship style? Luther retained the old Catholic mass and changed the language and the theological emphasis away from sacrifice. Calvin developed a more simplified liturgy that still involved an order of service but was not so much based on the mass. The Great Awakening led to an order of service that at times had no order.
> 
> The apostles met in somebody's spare dining room reading the Scriptures (OT), breaking bread and prayers. We've changed alot since then. Fir the worse or the better is the question
> 
> bill c.



Well, I guess I see the Bride, which I count myself a part of, to still be spotted and wrinkled with the Lord purifying her. Personally, I hope to return to a greater liturgical service, which WILL manifest itself slightly differently in different cultures (No, the Puritans, despite all of their great contributions, is not the end all be all of worship). Yes, the culture is going to effect the way we go about things, but, I think, there is a difference between 'incarnational' ministry and allowing the culture to sway us too much. The Church in China isn't going to have much of a building to work with and will look differently in the US, but that doesn't negate a worship service centered around Word and Sacrament rather than centered on the pastor.

I don't know if that provides much of an answer, but is the direction I would like to see. The sinfulness and chaos of some of our current churches doesn't negate the fact that they are a part of the church. Corinth was in chaos and Paul was doing a work there. 

openairboy

[Edited on 4-26-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## bill c.

{Prayer of Jabez", "Purpose Driven Life", et al., "Contagious Church", "Becoming a Church of Infuence", etc. There may be valid points in each of these books, but, I believe, there is a general under current in people buying into the latest technique. I believe at the heart of these books is that the Gospel is insufficient in itself. What we really need is more 'entertainment', 'kids programs', a modified moral teachings, a cause, less 'churchy', less 'preaching', "A pastor that is 'real'", etc..}

There's abig difference between having a kids program and modified moral teachings.

{The difficulty is that I don't believe it is completely conscious. I think they believe they are attempting to reach more people and that is exactly the problem, I believe.}

Maybe they are actually just trying to reach more people. Sometimes what something is is actually what it is.

{The way to reach more people, as the WCF states, is through the reading and preaching of the Word.}

This can vary greatly in how it's done. I just looked at the WCF and there is, thankfully, no addendum outlining exactly how it's to be done.


{If you get a chance, go to one of the larger 'non-denom' churches in your area and listen to the preaching. Honestly, after sitting under good teaching and a solid pastor for a while, it is really sickening, and I don't say that for effect, to attend some of these churches. I went to Covenant Seminary and Bryan Chapell wrote 'Christ Centered Preaching', and this sermons are definitely not Christ-centered, aside from saying you need him for salvation. The rest is warmed over morality or Dr Phil. Follow the train from Hybels to McClaren. They are essentially of the same ilk and, I BELIEVE, and really allow the culture to dictate who they are. It is usually ends up in pragmatism.}

I can't help thinking that people were saying the same thing about Calvin, then about Whitfield, then Spurgeon.

bill c


----------



## turmeric

Not about those guys, but definitely about C. Finney!


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by bill c._
> 
> There's abig difference between having a kids program and modified moral teachings.



I don't care if people have a kids program...that's not my point.





> Maybe they are actually just trying to reach more people. Sometimes what something is is actually what it is.



They can try, try away. The content is still very, very poor. It's bearing very little fruit, except for maybe becoming a powerful 'voting block'. Yahoo for us. What it is is very bad theology and very bad praxology. That, I believe, is what it is. The theology of most mega-church pastors is very bad. Consider the Vineyards and most non-denom churches, like Calvary Chapel. They are Arminian to the core. But, hey, they are "reaching people".




> This can vary greatly in how it's done. I just looked at the WCF and there is, thankfully, no addendum outlining exactly how it's to be done.



O'well, everyone will do what they want. "Reading" and "preaching" really aren't too difficult to understand. When Paul tells Timothy to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture I am sure he started a play, having people act out various characters, and decided to change the lighting in the house, because want the feeling of intimacy. He then created three services to reach his different target markets. The Saturday nigh meeting was for the 20 something singles, early Sunday morning is 'traditional' for the old people, and Sunday afternoon is a "celebration", b/c that's what the kids want. No wonder there is so much confusion on worship, which is about our entertainment. But, hey, it is "reaching people".




> I can't help thinking that people were saying the same thing about Calvin, then about Whitfield, then Spurgeon.



Where were people saying that about Calvin, Spurgeon, & Whitefield? It is one thing that you "can't help thinking" and a whole other to demonstrate this. Please show exactly where people were saying this of them, and we will also look a the sources, and please compare the content of the two. And, consider the historical setting, even if people were. The Mass was celebrated in a language that people didn't know, so anybody defending such a stupid practice may 'protest' what Calvin was doing. 

I challenge you demonstrate continuity of CONTENT & MEANS between the works of Bill Hybels, McClaren, and Warren and that of the men you mentioned. How many survey's do you think Calvin put out in Geneva to see what they wanted in a Church? Calvin's idea of doing "street level" theology is writing the _Institutes_. If you think that is on par with "Becoming a Contagious Christian" or "Generous Orthodoxy", etc., then we simply view the world differently. 

I'm just glad the grass whithers and the flower fades, b/c Calvin, Whitefield, and Spurgeon are still bearing fruit, but much of our mega-church gurus and many others are already being assigned to the discount paperback bins and considered outdated by the latest newcomers. I'm going with the simplicity of preaching, reading of Scripture and sacraments. These are God's means. If you think plays, surveys, and polls are the way to do Church, then we just view the world differently.

Compare Calvin preaching through the "blessings and cursings" of Deut. during *weekdays* for over a year and most modern sermons. How many expositions of the 'blessing & cursings' of the covenant have you heard? How many times have you heard Amos applied to our setting? If you think "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is a similar sermon to what you hear from most pulpits today, then we just view the world differently. 

Whitefield, yes, and they are still saying it ('divine dramatist', etc.), but look at the content of his sermons compared to the average mega-church today. Again, I don't care if you have a program. That's not the point. 

Spurgeon. Well, you had some hyper-calvinists complaining. 

The difference between Whitefield, Spurgeon, and Calvin and many of today's preachers is night and day. We can chalk it up to reaching people...at the end of the day, that is the pragmatists boast. And, who can argue with results? The ends always justifies the means.

Turmeric mentioned Finney. He was terrible and we are still reeling from his poisonous "new measures". All he was doing, however, was "reaching people". Who could complain about the results Chuck was having? I mean, he was just "reaching people". It is what it is, right? The church still suffers from Finney's "new measures" and the Church will suffer for a long time due to current "new measures".

If you don't think there is a difference, then we just view the world differently. But we can justify anything if at the end of the day it is about "reaching people" and not the Glory of God.

openairboy


[Edited on 4-27-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## bill c.

{I don't care if people have a kids program...that's not my point.}

No your point seemed to be that churches that have kids programs and try new ways of bringing in the lost are compromising the Gospel. You weren't clear.

{O'well, everyone will do what they want. "Reading" and "preaching" really aren't too difficult to understand. When Paul tells Timothy to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture I am sure he started a play, having people act out various characters, and decided to change the lighting in the house, because want the feeling of intimacy. He then created three services to reach his different target markets. The Saturday nigh meeting was for the 20 something singles, early Sunday morning is 'traditional' for the old people, and Sunday afternoon is a "celebration", b/c that's what the kids want. No wonder there is so much confusion on worship, which is about our entertainment. But, hey, it is "reaching people".}

Yes everyone will do what they want. As long as it wins souls for Christ what does it matter if we sit in St Giles cathedral or a storefront with a worship band. You can win souls in both places or lose them. I don't like some forms of ministry such as dramatic re-enactments of Biblical scenes but if makes the difference between someone going to hell or heaven then I don't see a problem with it.

You said that the content is places that try new forms of ministry have poor content. Then you go on to ask me to cite examples of where people disparage Calvin, Whitfield or Spurgeon. For Calvin you can read RC histories of the Reformation, I would suggest Henri Daniel-Rops and Warren Carroll. As for Whitfield and SPurgeon I remember reading this in the 2 very good bio's of them by Dallimore. Now would you care to cite examples of poor content?

{I challenge you demonstrate continuity of CONTENT & MEANS between the works of Bill Hybels, McClaren, and Warren and that of the men you mentioned.}

I made no such comparison. I have not a clue as to who the first 2 are and have only read a small portion of the third's book.

{I'm going with the simplicity of preaching, reading of Scripture and sacraments. These are God's means. If you think plays, surveys, and polls are the way to do Church, then we just view the world differently.}

I think we do see the world differently. I have to ask again what church has this pure form of worship you speak of?

{I'm just glad the grass whithers and the flower fades, b/c Calvin, Whitefield, and Spurgeon are still bearing fruit}

I know we see the world differently but I think that the 3 men you mention would shiver if they heard this statement. Jesus Christ is still bearing fruit! At the end of the day it is all about the Glory of God but it can also still be about "reaching" people. Jesus gave us a commission to go forth and preach and baptize and bring people into the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. How we go about that, as long as it doesn't compromise the Gospel, is a matter of interpretation.

bill c.


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by bill c._
> 
> No your point seemed to be that churches that have kids programs and try new ways of bringing in the lost are compromising the Gospel. You weren't clear.



The point being, as even you suggest below, is that those things is what wins friends and influences people.



> Yes everyone will do what they want. As long as it wins souls for Christ what does it matter if we sit in St Giles cathedral or a storefront with a worship band. You can win souls in both places or lose them. I don't like some forms of ministry such as dramatic re-enactments of Biblical scenes but if makes the difference between someone going to hell or heaven then I don't see a problem with it.You can win souls in both places or lose them. I don't like some forms of ministry such as dramatic re-enactments of Biblical scenes but if makes the difference between someone going to hell or heaven then I don't see a problem with it.



The fact that this reviewer can view a U2 concert like church in any capacity shows what hard times we have fallen upon. The ends justifies the means is what I hear you saying? Honestly, this is basically pelagianism, which, I believe, is at the heart of all these techniques and "new measures". The mentality isn't that a sinner is totally depraved and we need God to intervene. Nope, all we need is the sinner to tap his foot, laugh a little, you know, let down his defense, then he will "accept Jesus". No mention of repentance. No mention of hell. Nope, life isn't fulfilling, is marriage tough, life got you down, then give Jesus a try. (Don't hear me saying we don't address those things, Bill.)



> You said that the content is places that try new forms of ministry have poor content. Then you go on to ask me to cite examples of where people disparage Calvin, Whitfield or Spurgeon. For Calvin you can read RC histories of the Reformation, I would suggest Henri Daniel-Rops and Warren Carroll. As for Whitfield and SPurgeon I remember reading this in the 2 very good bio's of them by Dallimore. Now would you care to cite examples of poor content?



Yes and no, respecting your paraphrase of me on content and those places. Basically it is this: ministry is an outflow of theology. As mentioned, these "new measures" basically reject the doctrine of total depravity, among numerous other doctrines, and see "winning souls" as the "right use of a means", a la Charles Finney. It's technique driven. Worship becomes an issue of efficiency, is it meeting certain man-centered ends, and entertainment.

Now to the criticisms of these men. I asked for specifics. It is like discussing Van Til and someone saying, "John Robbins says something against him." The fact that it is Robbins makes one say, o.k, let's take a look before we get too carried away. So, the fact that a couple RC criticized Calvin is in a similar vein. Lets look at what they said, any specifics? Saying John Robbins criticized Van Til without specifics is even more moot. So, to Spurgeon and Whitefield. I already addressed the common criticism levelled agains them in the previous post, so do you have specifics? When done, I will gladly give you some specifics.




> I made no such comparison. I have not a clue as to who the first 2 are and have only read a small portion of the third's book.



Give it a shot.



> I think we do see the world differently. I have to ask again what church has this pure form of worship you speak of?



Already addressed.




> I know we see the world differently but I think that the 3 men you mention would shiver if they heard this statement. Jesus Christ is still bearing fruit! At the end of the day it is all about the Glory of God but it can also still be about "reaching" people. Jesus gave us a commission to go forth and preach and baptize and bring people into the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. How we go about that, as long as it doesn't compromise the Gospel, is a matter of interpretation.



The ol' "humble card", Bill. This is a diversion from the issues. The humble card is regularly broke out in theological and "spiritual" discussions and is the ace up everyone's sleeve. We have no problem talking about ministries bearing fruit, Bill. The fact that these men have passed a couple hundred or so years ago doesn't negate the fact that their writings and ministries are still bearing much fruit. Yes, Jesus is using their ministry to bear fruit. That's not unspiritual to say, Bill. It is a double edged sword, however. 

You said, "*You can win souls in both places or lose them*. {_Honestly, that is a completely, completely surprising statement. Do you really think a sinners salvation is for us to win or lose. We may want to discuss this topic, because it is at the heart of our disagreement and why we view the world much, much differently_} I don't like some forms of ministry such as dramatic re-enactments of Biblical scenes but if *it* makes the difference between someone going to hell or heaven then I don't see a problem with it." Are you sure you want to say "you" can win souls and "it" can make the difference? Isn't it Jesus that saves souls, etc.? I think the humility card is actually played better in this instance, because what you point out is the basic pelagian mentality in the Church that Finney gave birth to and you seem to still buy into. He saw revival/conversion as the right use of a means, which is essentially what I hear you saying. It is the techniques that really makes the difference at the end of the day. I don't believe you are far away from this idea. The church really needs a new marketing campaign, a gym, an on fire youth ministry. It's the Field of Dreams sort of Church, "Build it and they will come." Hey, it is "reaching people". 

Finney's "new measures" has poisoned the church for well over a hundred years. It is time to get his out of the church. As long as the mentality is driven by pragmatism, we don't care that God didn't accept Nadab and Abihu's fire. God is much more 'gracious' in the New Testament. He doesn't care what we do, as long as we are winning friends and influencing people. As you say, "Yes, everyone will do what they want as long as it wins souls." Was Nadab and Abihu winning souls? What about the 7 churches in Asia Minor? 

Bill, I believe you have swallowed Finney whole. Finney's "new measures" is at its root no different than the "new measures" today. He played the evangelical trump card, it's reaching people, and the evanjellyfish still have it in their back pocket. It's the measure of all things, as you admit. I can see the history books now: "There was no king in the Church during those days, so everyman did what was right in his own eyes." But, hey, it is 'reaching people'. 

Bill, I believe you have basically jettisoned the ANY form of the regulative principle for anarchy. The only way to judge something is, Is it reaching people? The glory of God is not preeminent, but man and his "soul" is. Or, and possibley worse, we think the chief end of God is the saving of souls. Finney gave us this nonsense, and we continue to dine on it. 

Calvin, Whitefield, Spurgeon, and Finney are still bearing much fruit. As we used to sing growing up, "One of these kids is doing his own thing, one of these kids doesn't belong." I'll let you take a guess. I will also let you guess who has won the day.

openairboy

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## Myshkin

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> I went to Covenant Seminary and Bryan Chapell wrote 'Christ Centered Preaching', and this sermons are definitely not Christ-centered, aside from saying you need him for salvation. The rest is warmed over morality or Dr Phil.



 wow.

As an aside from your conversation with bill c., please explain this comment. 

In other posts, he is too much into sonship which is considered antinomian, but now he is considered moralistic (legalism). I am confused as to which one it is.

I am asking myself why is it that his preaching helped me and a friend of mine out of a doctrinally legalistic church that never focused on Christ. His preaching is the complete opposite of the moralism I received in all those psuedo-evangelical churches of my past. And since his sermons are "definitely" not Christ-centered, please tell me what Christ-centered means then? Other issues with him aside, I think this is one criticism that far from sticks. Better tell the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals to quit selling his book, because apparently he isn't practicing what he writes. Is it personal for you, or have I been listening to a different guy with the same name?

I'm asking all this as a brother in Christ, I'm not offended


----------



## bill c.

{I will also let you guess who has won the day.}

You needn't admit defeat quite so easily.

I think in the end it's Jesus who wins the day.

I don't think I'm a Pelagian. I realize that it's God's grace that saves. Many people think that our supposedly Judeo-Christian culture is shot through with the Gospel. Therefore we can simply set up our church plant and sit back and wait for folks to show up. I like to think that we need to go out into the byways and forcibly bring people into the banquet. There are many who have really never heard the Gospel; some who have never entered a church and some who have been occupying a pew all their lives. I think we disagree in our outlook on evangelism. But then again I attend a Arminian mega-church.  

bill c.

ps. never heard the term "humble card" used I'll have to use it now. I'll also have to read about Finney. Sounds like a nice guy.


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> I went to Covenant Seminary and Bryan Chapell wrote 'Christ Centered Preaching', and this sermons are definitely not Christ-centered, aside from saying you need him for salvation. The rest is warmed over morality or Dr Phil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow.
> 
> As an aside from your conversation with bill c., please explain this comment.
> 
> In other posts, he is too much into sonship which is considered antinomian, but now he is considered moralistic (legalism). I am confused as to which one it is.
> 
> I am asking myself why is it that his preaching helped me and a friend of mine out of a doctrinally legalistic church that never focused on Christ. His preaching is the complete opposite of the moralism I received in all those psuedo-evangelical churches of my past. And since his sermons are "definitely" not Christ-centered, please tell me what Christ-centered means then? Other issues with him aside, I think this is one criticism that far from sticks. Better tell the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals to quit selling his book, because apparently he isn't practicing what he writes. Is it personal for you, or have I been listening to a different guy with the same name?
> 
> I'm asking all this as a brother in Christ, I'm not offended
Click to expand...


My bad. Bryan's book is excellent. The sermons at 'these' (the preceding couple of sentences) (I wrote 'this') churches are definitely not Christ-centered. What I learned from Dr. Chappel respecting preaching is for the most part top-notch, especially in contrast to most evangelicalism.

Thanks for pointing that out, because that is definitely not a criticism of the man. Aside from the sonshippy stuff, I think he is worthy of great respect and doing a fine job running CTS. No, that doesn't mean I agree w/ everything there, but aside from maybe one other school, I wouldn't want to go anywhere else.

Sorry for writing such an unclear sentence and thanks for asking for clarification in a gracious manner. My apologies.

No, I have no personal vendetta with the man.

openairboy

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by bill c._
> {I will also let you guess who has won the day.}
> 
> You needn't admit defeat quite so easily.
> 
> I think in the end it's Jesus who wins the day.
> 
> I don't think I'm a Pelagian. I realize that it's God's grace that saves. Many people think that our supposedly Judeo-Christian culture is shot through with the Gospel. Therefore we can simply set up our church plant and sit back and wait for folks to show up. I like to think that we need to go out into the byways and forcibly bring people into the banquet. There are many who have really never heard the Gospel; some who have never entered a church and some who have been occupying a pew all their lives. I think we disagree in our outlook on evangelism. But then again I attend a Arminian mega-church.
> 
> bill c.
> 
> ps. never heard the term "humble card" used I'll have to use it now. I'll also have to read about Finney. Sounds like a nice guy.



I'll take this as your out, but your context lets me know where you are coming from. Please read Finney and let me know what you think. If you think it is good, then we need to discuss the stuff more thoroughly.

I'm all for going into the highways and biways to compell people to come in. My moniker is, after all, 'openairboy'. Compelling people to come in is a far cry from all the crazy "new measures" we employ. Evangelism isn't the chief end of man.

Cheers,
openairboy

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## openairboy

O.k., I am posting this with all sorts of caveats. Basically, this is what I am trying to say by posting this: No, I don't agree with everything. No, I don't side with him necessarily historically. Yes, I find the subtitle unnecessary. Yes, I find it helpful. Make sense?

Hyper-Evangelism: Another Gospel


----------



## turmeric

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> O.k., I am posting this with all sorts of caveats. Basically, this is what I am trying to say by posting this: No, I don't agree with everything. No, I don't side with him necessarily historically. Yes, I find the subtitle unnecessary. Yes, I find it helpful. Make sense?
> 
> Hyper-Evangelism: Another Gospel



Excellent link - I enjoyed it immensely - he even gives an excellent phenomenological description of the evanjellyfish! It explained a lot that I have observed in my sojourn of the evangelical tidepool.


----------



## Myshkin

openairboy-

my sincere apologies also; your typo made it seem as if you were referring to Chapell, but with the correction I see you were using him as a reference/comparison to your point about the lack of Christ centered preaching in eastern orthodoxy. Thanks for clearing it up, and I apologize for misunderstanding.


----------



## Scott

Here is a Russian Orthodox Catechism, which as I understand is the most important of Eastern Orthodox catechisms:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.vi.iii.i.html

Here is an excerpt relevant to this original question:



> 3. What is necessary in order to please God and to save one's own soul?
> 
> In the first place, a knowledge of the true God, and a right faith in him; in the second place, a life according to faith, and good works.
> 
> 4. Why is faith necessary in the first place?
> 
> Because, as the Word of God testifies, Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6.
> 
> 5. Why must a life according to faith, and good works, be inseparable from this faith?
> 
> Because, as the Word of God testifies, Faith without works is dead. James ii. 20.
> 
> 446
> 6. What is faith?
> 
> According to the definition of St. Paul, Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb. xi. 1); that is, a trust in the unseen as though it were seen, in that which is hoped and waited for as if it were present.
> 
> 7. What is the difference between knowledge and faith?
> 
> Knowledge has for its object things visible and comprehensible; faith, things which are invisible, and even incomprehensible. Knowledge is founded on experience, on examination of its object; but faith on belief of testimony to truth. Knowledge belongs properly to the intellect, although it may also act on the heart; faith belongs principally to the heart, although it is imparted through the intellect.
> 
> 8. Why is faith, and not knowledge only, necessary in religious instruction?
> 
> Because the chief object of this instruction is God invisible and incomprehensible, and the wisdom of God hidden in a mystery; consequently, many parts of this learning can not be embraced by knowledge, but may be received by faith.
> 
> Faith, says St. Cyril of Jerusalem, is the eye which enlighteneth every man's conscience; it giveth man knowledge. For, as the prophet says, If ye will not believe, ye shall not understand. Isa. vii. 9; Cyr. Cat. v.
> 
> 9. Can you illustrate further the necessity of faith?
> 
> St. Cyril thus illustrates it: It is not only amongst us, who hear the name of Christ, that faith is made so great a thing; but every thing which is done in the world, even by men who are unconnected with the Church, is done by faith. Agriculture is founded on faith; for no one who did not believe that he should gather in the increase of the fruits of the earth would undertake the labor of husbandry. Mariners are guided by faith when they intrust their fate to a slight plank, and prefer the agitation of the unstable waters to the more stable element of the earth. They give themselves up to uncertain expectations, and retain for themselves nothing but faith, to which they trust more than to any anchors. Cyr. Cat. v.


----------

