# The Reformation & the Eastern Church



## zsmcd

What affect did the Protestant Reformation have on the Eastern Church? Any at all?

i.e. are there any examples/stories of the theology of the Reformation making its way into the East, or of any significant churches/teachers in the East taking on the Protestant positions?


----------



## RamistThomist

Early Lutherans met with the Patriarch but nothing came of it. One Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris, was an anti-Filioque Calvinist who was later condemned by the East. As a general rule there wasn't much interaction really until Thomas Torrance. Greek and Slavic lands outside Russia were under Ottoman slavery (usually propped up by Britain) and it wasn't until 1918 did they get any breathing room.

When Russian emigres came to America after communism in the 50s and Greeks in the 60s, there was some dialogue, but usually between liberal Reformed and the Greeks (who are also militantly liberal politically, and probably Freemasons as well; the Phanariot is sick and rotten).

There was a local council in Jerusalem in the 1670s or 80s under Peter Moghila (I think I got the timeline right) that formally condemned Calvinism.

Now, when the Satanist Peter the Great came to power, he modeled his state after the Lutheran state church, but that is quite anti-Reformed.


----------



## Dachaser

The eastern church looks at the Incarnation and the Atonement in different ways still, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> The eastern church looks at the Incarnation and the Atonement in different ways still, correct?



More so atonement than Incarnation. They will say that Logos assumed the universal of human nature and Jesus died for human nature and not for an individual human.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

ReformedReidian said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> The eastern church looks at the Incarnation and the Atonement in different ways still, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More so atonement than Incarnation. They will say that Logos assumed the universal of human nature and Jesus died for human nature and not for an individual human.
Click to expand...


They would also view the incarnation as very transformative in nature. for example, I have heard many EO's argue that images of God are now permitted because God became man.


----------



## Dachaser

They deny Penal Substitionary atonement then, correct?
And their views on His humanity different, as elevation of humanity now?


----------



## MichaelNZ

The Eastern Orthodox deny the penal substitution theory of the Atonement and believe rather that Christ died to destroy death and heal humanity. They shy away from the legal metaphor (Christ died to pay our debt) and instead use a medical metaphor (Christ came to heal humanity).

The Eastern Orthodox church has never had a Reformation and as far as I know has no decree of any Ecumenical Council officially stating that salvation is not by faith alone (although that is what they believe and teach).


----------



## Warren

Right. Salvation is by faith and works. Not by faith alone. That's what they'd say, at least.


----------



## arapahoepark

MichaelNZ said:


> The Eastern Orthodox deny the penal substitution theory of the Atonement and believe rather that Christ died to destroy death and heal humanity. They shy away from the legal metaphor (Christ died to pay our debt) and instead use a medical metaphor (Christ came to heal humanity).
> 
> The Eastern Orthodox church has never had a Reformation and as far as I know has no decree of any Ecumenical Council officially stating that salvation is not by faith alone (although that is what they believe and teach).



Well Cyril Lucarius was deposed and I believe there were councils convened shortly thereafter repudiating his theology.


----------



## Dachaser

So they would be closer to Catholic views than Reformed?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They deny Penal Substitionary atonement then, correct?
> And their views on His humanity different, as elevation of humanity now?



Yes. As to "how" they view the deified humanity, that's tricky. They are very clear that you don't become the uncreated deity. On the other hand, I am not sure how their view is an advance on glorification as we understand it.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> So they would be closer to Catholic views than Reformed?



Depends on what issue. We are closer to Rome on doctrine of God than they are. Yet, we can appreciate some of their criticisms of the papacy. I recommend Robert Letham's _Through Western Eyes._


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> The eastern church looks at the Incarnation and the Atonement in different ways still, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More so atonement than Incarnation. They will say that Logos assumed the universal of human nature and Jesus died for human nature and not for an individual human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They would also view the incarnation as very transformative in nature. for example, I have heard many EO's argue that images of God are now permitted because God became man.
Click to expand...


Images of _Jesus_ are permitted on their gloss, not God the Father/Holy Spirit.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Dachaser said:


> 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.


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Bill The Baptist

ReformedReidian said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> The eastern church looks at the Incarnation and the Atonement in different ways still, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More so atonement than Incarnation. They will say that Logos assumed the universal of human nature and Jesus died for human nature and not for an individual human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They would also view the incarnation as very transformative in nature. for example, I have heard many EO's argue that images of God are now permitted because God became man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Images of _Jesus_ are permitted on their gloss, not God the Father/Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...


Correct. I should have been more clear. I'm not sure you could have a meaningful image of God the father or the Holy Spirit anyway.


----------



## Stope

MichaelNZ said:


> The Eastern Orthodox ... shy away from the legal metaphor (Christ died to pay our debt) and instead use a medical metaphor (Christ came to heal humanity).



Kind of sounds like N.T. Wright's (and Time Keller's variation of) "putting things to right" (which I actually agree is PART of the goal)


----------



## RamistThomist

Stope said:


> MichaelNZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Eastern Orthodox ... shy away from the legal metaphor (Christ died to pay our debt) and instead use a medical metaphor (Christ came to heal humanity).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of sounds like N.T. Wright's (and Time Keller's variation of) "putting things to right" (which I actually agree is PART of the goal)
Click to expand...


Sort of. The more astute EO apologists pull back on Wright. They think he is too Western on things like "glory" and "righteousness."


----------



## zsmcd

ReformedReidian said:


> One Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris, was an anti-Filioque Calvinist who was later condemned by the East.



Very interesting, I was not aware of this. Are there any works of his or biographies on him that are worth the read? 

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


----------



## Warren

There was a systematic theology in a confession attributed to him.


----------



## arapahoepark

zsmcd said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris, was an anti-Filioque Calvinist who was later condemned by the East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting, I was not aware of this. Are there any works of his or biographies on him that are worth the read?
> 
> By the way, did I use the right type of affect vs effect in the OP?
Click to expand...


One is called The Protestant Patriarch.


----------



## Dachaser

Do they see us now having our own humanity glorified and risen as Jesus'?


----------



## Dachaser

They still have a Sacramental system of salvation though, so would not hold toReformed views of faith alone Grace alone?


----------



## Dachaser

They would then have another wayto get saved, apart from grace alone/faithalone?
And they have their own version of the Pope, correct?


----------



## Dachaser

As do many other who do not hold to the views of Calvinists/Reformed!


----------



## Dachaser

They would hold to the Christ is Victor over forces of evil, that He now has overcome the Curse etc?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They would hold to the Christ is Victor over forces of evil, that He now has overcome the Curse etc?



Most fathers would. Some parallels with Luther.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> And they have their own version of the Pope, correct?



No. Each jurisdiction is ultimately headed by a "Patriarch." The bishop of Rome used to be a Patriarch of sorts. The Patriarch has zero official political power (whereas the pope is a literal head of state). He is not infallible (nor does he pretend to be). The pyramid sort of looks like this:

Patriarch; traditionally, there were five (head of a large region; for example, the Patriarch of Constantinople is head of the Greek-speaking churches)
Metropolitan (theoretically, head of a smaller region, but this got complicated when everyone came to America)
Archbishop
Bishop
Priest


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Do they see us now having our own humanity glorified and risen as Jesus'?



They would say that is what you should aim for. They make a difference between the "image of God" and the likeness of God, whereas I believe the Hebrew sees them synonymously. They would say we are all created in the image of God but we have to realize the likeness via the sacraments, asceticism, etc.


----------



## Dachaser

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


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Dachaser said:


> 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

Dachaser said:


> 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

Bill The Baptist said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

ReformedReidian said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Dachaser said:


> 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

zsmcd said:


> 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

Dachaser said:


> 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

Bill The Baptist said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Dachaser said:


> 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

Warren said:


> 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

ReformedReidian said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.
Click to expand...


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

ZackF said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

ReformedReidian said:


> ZackF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Bill The Baptist said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ZackF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Bill The Baptist

ReformedReidian said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ZackF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He has a hyper-introspective view of spirituality. Admittedly, I kind of understand their reticence on him.
Click to expand...


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

Bill The Baptist said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ZackF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He has a hyper-introspective view of spirituality. Admittedly, I kind of understand their reticence on him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

ReformedReidian said:


> ZackF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if you ever debate converts to EO you will notice that many blame everything on Augustine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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

KGP said:


> 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

Warren said:


> 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

MichaelNZ said:


> KGP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## RamistThomist

A word of advice if you get into discussions with EO:

1. Don't let yourself get bogged down in canonical debates. They are important but they won't be solved by you in those 15 minutes.
2. If you share bible verses with them, they will say you are interpreting them incorrectly outside of tradition. Then ask is it possible for you to interpret tradition correctly. How so, if both constitute the same tradition?
3. Just keep asking for evidence on a lot of their liturgy. Some of it is quite old, but it's hard even then to prove it's apostolic. In fact, the only way to prove that is to assert the consequent. I know the prayer to Mary ("Ever Blessed and most pure...") dates from the 9th century, which they even admit.


----------



## Dachaser

So they would hold church traditions equal to the Bible as Chruch of Rome does?

Amd they have extra biblical books outside of the 66 canon ones, so do they get their theology from those "false books?"


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> So they would hold church traditions equal to the Bible as Chruch of Rome does?



Sort of. Technically speaking, there is only one overall tradition, of which Scripture forms a large part. Rome holds, depending on how you read the Council of Trent, to two parallel sources.



> Amd they have extra biblical books outside of the 66 canon ones, so do they get their theology from those "false books?"



Many in the Reformed tradition appreciated the apocrypha as good literature, so calling them "false books" might be a bit much. They get praying for the dead from Macabees, but that's all I can think of.


----------



## yeutter

Warren said:


> Right. Salvation is by faith and works. Not by faith alone. That's what they'd say, at least.


Some will say that this is not a settled point of doctrine. They will say that the Roman Church erred when Trent set forth the position they asserted regarding faith and works as a matter of settled doctrine..


----------



## yeutter

Dachaser said:


> So they would hold church traditions equal to the Bible as Chruch of Rome does?
> 
> Amd they have extra biblical books outside of the 66 canon ones, so do they get their theology from those "false books?"


Yes they even have material that the Church of Rome does not include in their Bible.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

yeutter said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they would hold church traditions equal to the Bible as Chruch of Rome does?
> 
> Amd they have extra biblical books outside of the 66 canon ones, so do they get their theology from those "false books?"
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they even have material that the Church of Rome does not include in their Bible.
Click to expand...


They also exclusively use the Septuagint for the Old Testament, which is frequently odd in places.


----------



## Dachaser

I would be using the term as saying that one could read them for historical events history, but that non of them are to be seen as inspired and have no doctrines/practices to be gained from them...

So "false" as in the sense of not inspired by God...


----------



## Dachaser

So when does a sinner pass over from spiritual being dead to now alive in Christ in their theology?


----------



## Dachaser

Do they use those books to "prove" any of their doctrines, as Church of Rome does in extra added books?


----------



## Timmay

Dachaser said:


> So when does a sinner pass over from spiritual being dead to now alive in Christ in their theology?



They view soteriology more as a process. You can go in and out of salvation technically, if you don't continue in grace. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Do they use those books to "prove" any of their doctrines, as Church of Rome does in extra added books?



No, though, like Rome, they would appeal to 2 Maccabees on prayers for the dead. You might see them quote, say, Wisdom of Solomon to illustrate a point, but not necessarily to prove a doctrine.


----------



## Timmay

ReformedReidian said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they use those books to "prove" any of their doctrines, as Church of Rome does in extra added books?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, though, like Rome, they would appeal to 2 Maccabees on prayers for the dead. You might see them quote, say, Wisdom of Solomon to illustrate a point, but not necessarily to prove a doctrine.
Click to expand...


And they like to quote the Councils a lot. Those are quite authoritative to them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yeutter

Timmay said:


> And they like to quote the Councils a lot. Those are quite authoritative to them.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



They believe the Seven OEcumenical Councils are authoritative interpretations of tradition and Scripture.


----------

