"Protestant apologist" Quick pivots to EO

[Corey Powell]

In recent months a YouTube account called "Cleave to Antiquity" has been gaining a lot of traction. His stated reason for the channel was the noted shortage of protestant apologetics as opposed to Catholics and Orthodox who apparently can afford to pay full-time influencers.
This man, until today, was a youth pastor at a non-denominational church, but his views, know by the church, seemed very Anglo-Catholic to me (baptismal regeneration, REALLY Real Presence, Mariology, etc).

Today he announced, moments ago, on an Orthodox YouTube channel, that he has decided to become EO.

His reasons:
1) A protestant told him they ask God to ask the saints to pray for him, so he decided to pray directly to Mary instead and he smelled incense (I suspect demons) which confirmed its validity.
2) obviously, only the EO can have valid sacraments because of apostolic succession
3) Sola Scriptura requires cherry picking the Fathers (A non-sequitur)
4) Catholics have gone liberal and too ecumenical, the ACNA ordains women, and all protestants drift liberal and he wants an "unchanging church."

It is sad to see, but the few videos of his i had watched, something seemed very off about him and knew he would likely go this way or at least Lutheran. His decision seems based in experience, bad research, and giving in to unsubstantiated claims because of his particular desires

And they way he spoke it seems his non-demon church is giving him a gentle send off with no discipline, letting him "resign" to attend an EO church.

Pray that he doesn't lead his many followers to apostacy, which he stated he plans to do to with his current platform.

On a similar note, this is part of a concerning trend to treat EO and Papists as another "denomination" of Christianity. Just yesterday, Gavin Ortlund did a video with and EO about collaboration, and he will be speaking at one of their marriage conferences. Giving people the idea that its is a legitimate expression tells them that swimming over is not apostacy. Lord, please keep young men from being deceived.

 

[Corey Powell]

Apologies for the 2CV in the thumbnail, i just posted the link to the video and it the post added it in

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

An associate pastor at a non-denominational church seems hardly qualified to run a Reformed apologetics YouTube channel, but controversy will earn anyone clicks. I feel this is going to be hugely blown out of proportion.

Interestingly, he states that he studied the Early Church Fathers, but ultimately it was after praying to the Theotokos, feeling a burning sensation in his chest, and smelling incense that really sealed the deal.

 

[Corey Powell]

An associate pastor at a non-denominational church seems hardly qualified to run a Reformed apologetics YouTube channel, but controversy will earn anyone clicks. I feel this is going to be hugely blown out of proportion.

Notably not Reformed, just "protestant" - he called himself a "Classical Arminian"

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

One can be a sincere Christian and non-denominational, but I question every day whether it's possible to be an intelligent, thinking Christian and non-denominational.

Accordingly, they often get one-shotted by the first serious apologist they run into of any tradition.

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

Notably not Reformed, just "protestant" - he called himself a "Classical Arminian"

I stand corrected. I pray he finds the comfort and truth he is searching for in confessional Reformed tradition.

 

[Theoretical]

One can be a sincere Christian and non-denomination, but I question every day whether it's possible to be an intelligent, thinking Christian and non-denominational.

Accordingly, they often get one-shotted by the first serious apologist they run into of any tradition.

I think that's a memorable way to put it. A couple of the RC converts from this board tried to convince me to join them, and with the certainty of converts, I was definitely pretty vulnerable, though I'd been confessional settings (Lutheran and Presbyterian) since becoming an adult. Just because someone can out-argue you does not make them right.

On a similar note, this is part of a concerning trend to treat EO and Papists as another "denomination" of Christianity. Just yesterday, Gavin Ortlund did a video with and EO about collaboration, and he will be speaking at one of their marriage conferences. Giving people the idea that its is a legitimate expression tells them that swimming over is not apostacy. Lord, please keep young men from being deceived.

Yeah, I think this comes down to a debate among Protestants lately.

If you view the Creeds as 1A issues and the Reformation as a 1B or even a level 2 issue in terms of the Christian faith, then this position makes a lot more sense. If you view them as 1A insofar as it's at least a legitimate debate re: re-baptizing Catholic or Orthodox baptized in a way that it's completely inapplicable re: a Mormon, JW, or Oneness Pentecostal "Baptism", but that the Reformation understanding of those creeds, as expounded confessionally, is critical to whether a church is a true church or not, then you'll see it differently.

The former view may view Catholic and EO as deeply aberrant but either still true churches or trueish churches and the members within it as more in deep error than presumptively not saved. The latter view says the churches are outright false and anyone who's actually a believer in one of those churches is such despite the teachings and practices of their false church.

 

[RamistThomist]

I made a comment this summer where it is better to be grounded in a few foundational issues than to be an internet apologist/influencer. The above is why I said that.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

This does bring up once again the issue brought up not too long ago on this board of the apparently softening attitude of many evangelicals toward RC and EO. I don't think it's a healthy thing. Beyond even the question of whether it is right, practically it appears to me that this attitude tends to feed into a kind of general squishy evangelicalism with cherry-picked "historical" emphases because of an affinity for smells and bells and old stuff rather than actually leading people to dive into historic Protestant theology and practice.

 

[John Nyberg]

This video makes me even more thankful for reformed confessionalism and sola scriptura.

 

[MW]

There is an inherent weakness in a form of Protestantism that is ahistorical. Certain types take up apologetics with an idea that the church jumped from the book of Acts to the Reformation. They are confronted by Orthodox claims of "apostolicity" or Romanist claims of a "magisterium" offering a sense of historical continuity. What is an apologist going to do? He is meant to have all the answers but he has gaps in his theology. The bubble bursts. What then?

Then there is the generational crave for "authenticity." It beats a rock concert or the TED-talk model of evangelical worship. One wants a lived experience of the thing they are talking about, not a cold intellectual presentation. And there is a "living tradition" that offers something that appears to provide an authentic historical experience that puts a person in touch with deeper currents of religious thought.

Add to this the environment of youtube, which is all image-based content. Apologists want everything united together in a harmonious presentation. The aesthetic matters. No wonder if an ancient liturgy, incense, icons, councils, with a sense of mystery becomes appealing. The person already operates in a setting that is inimical to "word-based" ministry. "The message is in the medium."

Nor should we forget the apologist's dilemma. Protestantism's foundational principle of sola Scriptura seems to lead to endless denominational splits and interpretive disagreements. It is very hard to defend something that divides people, especially in an atmosphere where rhetoric blames disunity as inherently evil. "Holy tradition" provides a stable framework to end the cycle of disruption created by individualism.

There is a psychological advantage to Eastern Orthodox theology today. The introspective conscience of the West is looked down upon because of its heavy emphasis on guilt. Modern psychology has found ways to remove it from the conversation. A tradition that focuses on human nature as inherently weak fits within the broader culture's emphasis on brokenness and victimhood. Salvation by deification is all part of the post-modern experience of self-realisation, but now it has a traditional Christian twist.

I could go on. Take a look at the broader picture and one will see no reason to be surprised by such things. The Bible teaches a very clear doctrine of apostacy. The natural man looks for natural things to satisfy him. It is hard to sustain the Bible's spiritual, heavenly message when one has no spiritual, heavenly principle abiding within him.

 

[omniavanitas]

I liked his content. Sadly, he's decided to use his platform and turn on the very religion that gave him the platform in the first place. I came from EO and it's disheartening to see people willingly choose idolatry and anxiety over the Gospel and historical honesty.

Echoing what MW said, so many people have been force-fed this idea that Protestantism is just "rock concert and a TED talk" and "40,000 denominations" and they try to go to the East thinking it's this perfect and unified system. It's such a false unity that EO provides between its warring patriarchs and the fact that they have no actual theological system. They always say it's "the apostolic tradition passed down by the fathers," yet they vilify Augustine and wouldn't hesitate to call him a heretic if it didn't harm their "unbroken tradition." Yet they venerate Isaac the Syrian who was not in a canonical jurisdiction. Then they practice things that contradict early fathers, like iconography. They'll argue it's the "consensus of the fathers" but then they'll quote singular fathers after to justify something else unbiblical, like toll houses. Then they'll claim that's not dogma, which is correct because they don't have an actual systematic theology. Which they'll then argue is because it's not mystical, but then if you have a vision it's prelest. They believe in the ecumenical councils that don't even get recognized as ecumenical until later. I'll stop while I'm ahead because I can keep describing the insane circles they run in to justify a broken system that pushes extreme asceticism, scattered clericalism and ludicrous superstition.

I really wish I was more qualified to do apologetics because even if I could help stop a few people from that lunacy, it'd be worth whatever effort.

On the bright side, there are great channels like Rev. Don Baker, Biblical Understanding and Canon & Creed that are showing the Reformed faith is biblical, historic and apostolic.

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

I made a comment this summer where it is better to be grounded in a few foundational issues than to be an internet apologist/influencer. The above is why I said that.

Yes you did. And I've taken it to heart. Been trying to ground myself in the Trinity ever since

 

[RamistThomist]

Yes you did. And I've taken it to heart. Been trying to ground myself in the Trinity ever since

You wouldn't happen to remember which thread that was, would you?

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

You wouldn't happen to remember which thread that was, would you?

I can try. It'll take some time

 

[Logan]

You wouldn't happen to remember which thread that was, would you?

Maybe this one?

https://puritanboard.com/threads/lo...is-an-anglican-now.116528/page-2#post-1396193

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

I can try. It'll take some time

It's either the one Logan just posted or this quote from a thread that is titled, "Another in the Reformed ranks has fallen"

This is the quote:
"I wrote the following in response to various online apologetics, but it applies to celebrity theologians (and those that follow them). It has an apologetic (or anti-apologetic ministry) bent, but you can adjust it accordingly.

Very few--and there are a few--have spent decades reading, and sometimes suffering, over primary historical and philosophical sources. 99/100 internet apologists--Prot, Orthobro, Trad, doesn't matter--give cliche answers to surface questions. They simply *cannot* think. Very few could even summarize Mortimer Adler's arguments in How to Read a Book. At best--and only at best--they might copy and paste a response from James White or Catholic Answers. A few orthobros might try to copy Perry Robinson, but his arguments are too sophisticated for Twitter soundbites. Conclusion: spend 10 years reading the sources first. You won't be shaken by idiots (debate me, brother!)."

 

[RamistThomist]

It was around the end of May, beginning of June
[automerge]1758131264[/automerge]

Post in thread 'Another in the reformed ranks has fallen!! :-('

May 29, 2025

I wrote the following in response to various online apologetics, but it applies to celebrity theologians (and those that follow them). It has an apologetic (or anti-apologetic ministry) bent, but you can adjust it accordingly.

Very few--and there are a few--have spent decades reading, and sometimes suffering, over primary historical and philosophical sources. 99/100 internet apologists--Prot, Orthobro, Trad, doesn't matter--give cliche answers to surface questions. They simply *cannot* think. Very few could even summarize Mortimer Adler's arguments in How to Read a Book. At best--and...

• RamistThomist

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

It was around the end of May, beginning of June

Post in thread 'Another in the reformed ranks has fallen!! :-('

May 29, 2025

I wrote the following in response to various online apologetics, but it applies to celebrity theologians (and those that follow them). It has an apologetic (or anti-apologetic ministry) bent, but you can adjust it accordingly.

Very few--and there are a few--have spent decades reading, and sometimes suffering, over primary historical and philosophical sources. 99/100 internet apologists--Prot, Orthobro, Trad, doesn't matter--give cliche answers to surface questions. They simply *cannot* think. Very few could even summarize Mortimer Adler's arguments in How to Read a Book. At best--and...

• RamistThomist

This seems to fit the criteria
[automerge]1758131317[/automerge]
It's where I got the quote from

Post in thread 'Another in the reformed ranks has fallen!! :-('

May 29, 2025

I wrote the following in response to various online apologetics, but it applies to celebrity theologians (and those that follow them). It has an apologetic (or anti-apologetic ministry) bent, but you can adjust it accordingly.

Very few--and there are a few--have spent decades reading, and sometimes suffering, over primary historical and philosophical sources. 99/100 internet apologists--Prot, Orthobro, Trad, doesn't matter--give cliche answers to surface questions. They simply *cannot* think. Very few could even summarize Mortimer Adler's arguments in How to Read a Book. At best--and...

• RamistThomist

This seems to fit the criteria

 

[SojourningSøren]

As somebody who almost joined an EO parish in my area four years ago, I’m very thankful that didn’t happen. Reformed theology (and a few written articles by Gavin Ortlund) is actually what pushed me to really start digging deeper into history and theology in general. It’s why I’m seriously considering an mDiv in the next year or so. For me it was absolutely about the aesthetics and the mystical takes behind some of their ideas in worship that drew me. I’m not surprised it’s affected others. It’s attractive in an artistic sense. But the theology is just so different from what we accept on several levels; I can’t unsee that now

 

[LanceJ]

An associate pastor at a non-denominational church seems hardly qualified to run a Reformed apologetics YouTube channel, but controversy will earn anyone clicks. I feel this is going to be hugely blown out of proportion.

Interestingly, he states that he studied the Early Church Fathers, but ultimately it was after praying to the Theotokos, feeling a burning sensation in his chest, and smelling incense that really sealed the deal.

Probably heart burn and indigestion. Shame.

 

[DrJack]

There is an inherent weakness in a form of Protestantism that is ahistorical. Certain types take up apologetics with an idea that the church jumped from the book of Acts to the Reformation. They are confronted by Orthodox claims of "apostolicity" or Romanist claims of a "magisterium" offering a sense of historical continuity. What is an apologist going to do? He is meant to have all the answers but he has gaps in his theology. The bubble bursts. What then?

Then there is the generational crave for "authenticity." It beats a rock concert or the TED-talk model of evangelical worship. One wants a lived experience of the thing they are talking about, not a cold intellectual presentation. And there is a "living tradition" that offers something that appears to provide an authentic historical experience that puts a person in touch with deeper currents of religious thought.

Add to this the environment of youtube, which is all image-based content. Apologists want everything united together in a harmonious presentation. The aesthetic matters. No wonder if an ancient liturgy, incense, icons, councils, with a sense of mystery becomes appealing. The person already operates in a setting that is inimical to "word-based" ministry. "The message is in the medium."

Nor should we forget the apologist's dilemma. Protestantism's foundational principle of sola Scriptura seems to lead to endless denominational splits and interpretive disagreements. It is very hard to defend something that divides people, especially in an atmosphere where rhetoric blames disunity as inherently evil. "Holy tradition" provides a stable framework to end the cycle of disruption created by individualism.

There is a psychological advantage to Eastern Orthodox theology today. The introspective conscience of the West is looked down upon because of its heavy emphasis on guilt. Modern psychology has found ways to remove it from the conversation. A tradition that focuses on human nature as inherently weak fits within the broader culture's emphasis on brokenness and victimhood. Salvation by deification is all part of the post-modern experience of self-realisation, but now it has a traditional Christian twist.

I could go on. Take a look at the broader picture and one will see no reason to be surprised by such things. The Bible teaches a very clear doctrine of apostacy. The natural man looks for natural things to satisfy him. It is hard to sustain the Bible's spiritual, heavenly message when one has no spiritual, heavenly principle abiding within him.

You cite many important elements. When I first embraced the Gospel, I loved the "rock concert" worship because of the emotional aspects. Many years before I explored Eastern mysticism & meditative practices for a time. While if was useful in calming my hyperactive mind, I never really had any spiritual sense of it. Early exposure to a charismatic/Pentecostal house church turned me utterly away from "tongues" & such. Exposure (probably for the first time) to biblical preaching @ Briarwood w/ Harry Reeder had an effect, and I clearly understood how far Rome had deviated from the Word.

I took a number of seminary classes in Apologetics (as well as basic OT, NT, Systematics) which pushed me even further away from "woo-woo." So when I had new neighbors who became Greek Ortho, I tried to understand their theology.

Q: What IS their theology?! It strikes me it is simply about mysticism & ritual, that is somehow seen as "true worship" due to claims of centuries of practice. It would seem to me someone going there is looking for a mystical experience, something COMPLETELY OPPOSED to what apologetics generally addresses! I don't get such a shift AT ALL!

Sadly my only sibling is part of the Cult of Rome as I refer to them. I have repeatedly tried to engage in a discussion of Scripture - no go. I am told to read something by Benedict - Ratzinger. We have not spoken in months.

As I have sincerely asked people who hold to original Westminster standards: once you SEE these truths, how do you UNSEE? I find that pastors who helped me come to believe Exclusive Psalmody is commanded (through writings or sermons online) no longer believe or practice it. Such things make little sense other than "fallen sinners do (think) stupid things." I do not mean to denigrate non-EP folks, I refer to those who believed it and sought to convince others, but later denied this truth. While I realize people change their minds on many issues, I suppose I want to believe that Holy Spirit conviction of truth is not subject to human frailty. Spiritual naivete, I suppose

 

[Theoretical]

As I have sincerely asked people who hold to original Westminster standards: once you SEE these truths, how do you UNSEE? I find that pastors who helped me come to believe Exclusive Psalmody is commanded (through writings or sermons online) no longer believe or practice it. Such things make little sense other than "fallen sinners do (think) stupid things." I do not mean to denigrate non-EP folks, I refer to those who believed it and sought to convince others, but later denied this truth. While I realize people change their minds on many issues, I suppose I want to believe that Holy Spirit conviction of truth is not subject to human frailty. Spiritual naivete, I suppose

So I am only addressing this by way of example and NOT getting into the nuts and bolts of this issue or debating it, but it provides a similar framework for other issues. In addition, this is based on the maximum charity to those individuals, which can be similarly applied to the other issues. The strength of arguments inherently wax and wane as one continues to grow in the faith and the emotional satisfaction of a really compelling argument has waned. Arguments that were once obvious can be on a weaker framework when challenged by better or different arguments. Even "gold standard" or ironclad arguments to one man may be question begging to another, so it's not simply a need to find the "best" arguments.

 

[mpinckard]

As I have sincerely asked people who hold to original Westminster standards: once you SEE these truths, how do you UNSEE? I find that pastors who helped me come to believe Exclusive Psalmody is commanded (through writings or sermons online) no longer believe or practice it. Such things make little sense other than "fallen sinners do (think) stupid things." I do not mean to denigrate non-EP folks, I refer to those who believed it and sought to convince others, but later denied this truth. While I realize people change their minds on many issues, I suppose I want to believe that Holy Spirit conviction of truth is not subject to human frailty. Spiritual naivete, I suppose

As a PCA minister, I'm not EP, and I don't subscribe to the original Standards, so perhaps I'm not the best person to answer your question. Obviously, I'm not personally troubled by people turning from an EP position.

But even if I was EP, I don't think I would find it troubling in the way you do. Thing is, people change their minds in both directions with regard to most doctrines, from foundational doctrines like the Trinity, sola Scriptura, and sola fide to secondary and tertiary issues of all kinds. Obviously, those who abandon the primary truths are apostates without the work of the Spirit--that's easy enough to explain. But it would be quite the extreme position (which I don't believe anyone here would take) to say that everyone who shifts from a right understanding of any given point to a wrong understanding must necessarily be apostate. It's evident that the Spirit does not work in everyone in such a way that he guarantees they only ever move toward more accurate interpretations of Scripture, and there's no promise in Scripture that he will work in that way, however much we might desire it.

 

[Ploutos]

@Jerusalem Blade is someone who lives and works in a primarily EO country. He might be able to speak to something of the essence and appeal of its ethos.

 

[MW]

Q: What IS their theology?! It strikes me it is simply about mysticism & ritual, that is somehow seen as "true worship" due to claims of centuries of practice. It would seem to me someone going there is looking for a mystical experience, something COMPLETELY OPPOSED to what apologetics generally addresses! I don't get such a shift AT ALL!

We are used to a juridical approach to salvation. The main issue is that sin is transgression against the law of God. Salvation is justification in legal terms. The truth of the gospel is propositional, not only requiring assent but also trust.

The Orthodox view is rooted in an ontological model. The issue is death and corruption brought into the world by sin. Sin is a sickness. Salvation is healing, deification, and victory over death through Christ's resurrection. Truth is not just a proposition but the Person is to be experienced and communed with.
Their view of mystical is about participating in the divine energies. The ritual is seen as a participatory re-presentation of reality. Icons are regarded as windows into heaven.

There are certain attractions for people in the West who are tired of propositional truth and are craving something "experiential" that is more "embodied." And they are trained to think therapeutically about life's problems so there is a cultural mindset that Orthodoxy can appeal to.

There is a "theology" of transcendence underlying this. But the church provides a medium to enable people to experience it at their own level. You asked about churches from the Westminster tradition "unseeing" the truths of the Confession. Well, this is basically how it happens. The church is given to "mediating" the theology rather than "ministering" it. There is very little interface with the propositional truth of the Westminster Standards. Instead there is a surface level "experience" of congregational life that shields people from the whole truth.

 

[Ploutos]

We are used to a juridical approach to salvation. The main issue is that sin is transgression against the law of God. Salvation is justification in legal terms. The truth of the gospel is propositional, not only requiring assent but also trust.

The Orthodox view is rooted in an ontological model. The issue is death and corruption brought into the world by sin. Sin is a sickness. Salvation is healing, deification, and victory over death through Christ's resurrection. Truth is not just a proposition but the Person is to be experienced and communed with.
Their view of mystical is about participating in the divine energies. The ritual is seen as a participatory re-presentation of reality. Icons are regarded as windows into heaven.

There are certain attractions for people in the West who are tired of propositional truth and are craving something "experiential" that is more "embodied." And they are trained to think therapeutically about life's problems so there is a cultural mindset that Orthodoxy can appeal to.

There is a "theology" of transcendence underlying this. But the church provides a medium to enable people to experience it at their own level. You asked about churches from the Westminster tradition "unseeing" the truths of the Confession. Well, this is basically how it happens. The church is given to "mediating" the theology rather than "ministering" it. There is very little interface with the propositional truth of the Westminster Standards. Instead there is a surface level "experience" of congregational life that shields people from the whole truth.

Is the issue merely juridical versus ontological, as if there is a dichotomy between the two? I've never thought of Reformed theology as being inimical to the idea of death and corruption brought into the world by sin, to the idea of salvation as healing and ultimately victory over death. I've never thought that the idea of truth as a proposition needs to be set against the idea of a person that we experience communion with. For people who are craving something experiential, I wouldn't turn them away from Reformed theology.

It's just that, within an ontological view of sin, or within a theology that conceives of communion with a person, I've never seen how Eastern Orthodoxy has the answers. It seems to me that Reformed theology has both. It offers you union with Christ, a real personal union. And if Calvin is right, then we really do feast with him at his table. And his Spirit lives inside of us and illumines the word for us. But Eastern Orthodoxy empties the faith of the propositional content that is so foundational to that experience, and so they turn to their idolatrous rituals to fill the void.

 

[JvMill]

Well, this is basically how it happens. The church is given to "mediating" the theology rather than "ministering" it. There is very little interface with the propositional truth of the Westminster Standards. Instead there is a surface level "experience" of congregational life that shields people from the whole truth.

This gets to something I’ve thought of before. If we try to make our times of worship about the ‘experience’ rather than what they’re meant to be about, the churches/traditions that excel at ‘experience’ will have us beat (most of the time).

In other words, we’re setting people up for failure when we move away from the things we are meant to do.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

A caveat: I’m no “expert” on Eastern Orthodoxy, while I have a keen interest in addressing folks who claim it is a superior path to communion with God, and who disparage the Reformed faith.

I’m presently reading a book, THE MOUNTAIN OF SILENCE: A Search for Orthodox Spirituality, by Kyriacos C. Markides, which has big-time been promoted by two of the top EO influencers, Rod Dreher and Paul Kingsnorth, both of whom I have interacted with online. Markides is highly suspect in my view as he has also written books on shaman types – who use psychedelics – and has held them up as genuine seers. He appears to hold to a basic equality between the Eastern (pagan) mystics, the shaman types, and Eastern Orthodox fathers, all of them supposedly drawing from the same essential divinity. As Markides spent years with a shaman, Strovolos (aka Daskalos) and his community in Cyprus it would seem natural to assume he also used the entheogens they used himself, though that has not at all been documented. Some of his books:

The Magus of Strovolos: The Extraordinary World of a Spiritual Healer (New York: Penguin Arkana, 1985); Homage to the Sun: The Wisdom Of Magus of Strovolos (New York: Penguin Arkana; Fire in the Heart: Healers, Sages, and Mystics (New York: Penguin Arkana, 1991).

Because Markides’ book, The Mountain of Silence, exclusively deals with the EO, especially the Mount Athos Greek enclave of monks and Fathers (“Athonites”), and his friendship / discipleship with a prominent Athonite elder and leader, Father Maximos, who was told by his superior to move to Cyprus and begin a work there, we have a lot of the sayings and teachings of Maximos. I will, initially, consider some of these, as his teaching is authoritative in the EO church.

On page 47 of Mountain, Markides and Maximos are having a conversation; Maximos says, “After the split of humans from God”, after the Fall, “the heart was invaded by illnesses, the real meaning of original sin. We as human beings, by virtue of our humanity, carry as our inheritance these illnesses that are an integral part of our human condition.” He then pointed out that “the Christian Church, the Ecclesia, must function and be seen as a spiritual hospital for curing the maladies of the heart that obstruct our vision of God. And the Ecclesia has as a proof of its therapeutic efficacy the experience and the life of saints, those human beings who have, through arduous efforts, purified their hearts and were therefore able to heal the split between themselves and God”. “The Bible,” Father Maximos claimed, “would be inadequate by itself to lead us toward God. Without the experience and the testimony of the saints about the reality of God, the Bible would be an ‘empty letter’.”

[Markides continues:] When Father Maximos made these comments about the Bible, I realized how radically different his position about its value was from both religious fundamentalists as well as secular Bible scholars. . . . Furthermore, Father Maximos added, “the Bible by itself is not adequate as a guide to reach God. One must take into consideration the entire experience of the Ecclesia, the entire corpus of the spiritual tradition as articulated in the lives, aphorisms, homilies, spiritual methodologies, and written testimonies of the saints. And this tradition is being tested and retested by the experiences of the saints.”

Some of my (Steve’s) thoughts on this exchange. These “illnesses” reflect the view that man has been damaged, but not made dead spiritually, notably dead to God with a resultant total inability to initiate any communion with Him.

Thus the Ecclesia – the Church, and it appears Maximos is referring to the EO Church – is to be a “spiritual hospital . . . its therapeutic efficacy [demonstrated in] the experience and the life of saints, those human beings who have, through arduous efforts, purified their hearts and were therefore able to heal the split between themselves and God”.”

Maximos goes on to say, “Without the experience and the testimony of the saints about the reality of God, the Bible would be an ‘empty letter’. . . the Bible by itself is not adequate as a guide to reach God.”

This experience and testimony of the saints pertains not only to “the entire corpus of the [EO] spiritual tradition” but also to the Mount Athos community, to which both Dreher and Kingsnorth have visited.

The belief of these two aforementioned men is that by coming into proximity with saints “who have, through arduous efforts, purified their hearts and were therefore able to heal the split between themselves and God”, they too might be healed by the Spirit of God while in the presence of such saints.

I would call this salvation by “contact” with illumined saints. The EO community of Mount Athos is chosen as it is the purest expression of EO – along with the Cyprus work of Elder Maximos (now aged and frail) where he planted monasteries and convents.

Our Scriptures say, contrariwise, “the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor 1:18 KJV), and “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor 1:21 KJV).

It is by the Gospel proclaimed, and specifically the “cross work” of Jesus Christ – as a general rule – that the Spirit of God illumines His elect children. Not merely by being in a community of saints and getting a “contact” illumination through “human beings who have, through arduous efforts, purified their hearts”.

Now it is true that preaching does not always bring the presence of God to the gathered people in our churches. It is noteworthy that the Reformed and Presbyterian churches are often deprecated, along with Calvin and his influence on cultures up through the years. I have recently challenged Dreher on this. It is noteworthy, though, that the one sector of the Christian world that holds to sound doctrine should be singled out by some EO people. It is true, however, that we are sometimes more cerebral than “anointed” with the Lord’s Spirit and presence. Though that is not always the case.

And it is true that the Spirit of Christ moves through other denominations as well as ours. The preaching / witnessing of a simple country-woman to me, who was opposing her witness of Christ on the cross, nonetheless was a vehicle of the Lord’s glory and saving love to this wretched soul. She was not a Reformed person.

One thing I do not know about are the many documented healings that have taken place through the Mount Athos elders, men devoted to God, despite (what I consider) flawed teaching. I am certainly not willing to say that these miraculous healings were demonic. It is possible they are more godly than I with my sounder doctrine.

As regards Dreher and Kingsnorth, I cannot say with certainty they are born-again individuals. I observe them, and listen to what they say, to see if I can tell.

 

[omniavanitas]

I’m presently reading a book, THE MOUNTAIN OF SILENCE: A Search for Orthodox Spirituality, by Kyriacos C. Markides, which has big-time been promoted by two of the top EO influencers, Rod Dreher and Paul Kingsnorth, both of whom I have interacted with online. Markides is highly suspect in my view as he has also written books on shaman types – who use psychedelics – and has held them up as genuine seers.

This book was pivotal for me in realizing EO's soteriological issues. I'm not sure how far along you are, but Chapter 11, titled "Escape from Hell", is so incredibly problematic with the idea of praying people out of hell. Funny enough, my other issue (icons) was addressed by you on my first post here, Steve (MW as well). Infinitely thankful.

The feigned unity really shows when you bring up toll houses. Some will die on that hill, others will posit a sort of vague universalism, others will say they don't know, the list goes on. They'll cite individual fathers for this, as well as liturgical rubrics, then claim "we believe in the consensus of the fathers" when the consensus from the ecumenical councils don't go into eschatological detail other than affirming what the Nicene Creed says about the resurrection of the dead/life of the world to come, and rejecting Origenist ideas of the soul.