Against Sola Scriptura: "A must read for a Protestant"

[Archlute]

Mark,

You should probably explain what you mean by the Reformed dropping the ball "big time" with the EO, and what exactly has been dropped.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Archlute
Mark,

You should probably explain what you mean by the Reformed dropping the ball "big time" with the EO, and what exactly has been dropped.

Mark, exactly what do you mean?

 

[Pilgrim]

For reasons enumerated in this thread and others, until recently EO has not been on the radar screen for most, and rightfully so since the various EO churches are not missionary minded and most (other than converts) are not aggressive in criticizing Reformed beliefs, etc. There seems to be a few places where there are exceptions, but they are few and far between.

Even on the internet, I can only remember once coming across an aggressive EO apologist, and as you might guess, he was a convert. Aggressive RC apologists are ubiquitous.

 

[tellville]

Originally posted by Archlute
Mark,

You should probably explain what you mean by the Reformed dropping the ball "big time" with the EO, and what exactly has been dropped.

I´ll just say what I have said in other threads:

Reformed people think our apologetics against Roman Catholicism is good enough to refute Eastern Orthodoxy. This couldn't be farther from the truth. We NEED to start writing literature that deals with Eastern Orthodoxy in the same way Reformers wrote literature to deal with Roman Catholicism. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholcism are NOT the same thing.

There was a debate here in Edmonton between a Reformed univeristy Chaplain (Dutch Reformed) and an Eastern Orthodox monk. Needless to say, the Reformer got his touche handed to him on a platter.

Listen to James White's debates against Roman Catholicism. Almost all of his points don't apply to the Eastern Orthodox.

*In response to someone asking if I had read "œThree Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism"* Yeah, I own it. It's not really the best book there is. But then again, I got it the day it came out and at that time I was still struggling with Reformed theology. So maybe Horton's essay really wasn't as bad as I thought it was back then. Maybe it's good. I should read it again.

The really crappy thing about the book is that Bradley Nassif writes the best essay, except he thinks we are compatible.

On the positive note, at least somebody got off there touche and realized we needed a book like it!

*in response to the tug of Eastern Orthodoxy* This is probably one of the reasons why I wish there was more from a Reformed perspective on this topic. There is still a tug because while the Reformed make the most positive case (it is cleary the most Biblical and the most consistent with the Gospel) it has dropped the ball and has made no real effort to make a negative case for the EO. Thus, the EO gets to make its case without any opposition and one is left with that unfortunate tug.

And my favourite phrase so far:
Reading Reformed people on the RCC I'd have to be a complete unregenerate moron to leave Reformation theology and go to Rome. Reading Reformed people on the EO I'd just have to be unregenerate *clarification: to go to Constantinople*

 

[tellville]

Alberta is home many Ukrainians because of the similar topography of Plains/Steppes. We have quite a few Eastern Orthodox who are quite evangelistic. There is an apologetics radio program (which I have posted on this site in other threads) that runs here in Edmonton. There has already been a convert to EO interviewed because of this show, and who knows how many others have converted because of it. They stage debates between Reformed people (I don't think the people who run these debates really respect any other form of Protestantism) and Roman Catholics quite frequently. Western Christians tend to do bad against EO apologetics because we aren't use to their arguments. They have certain nuances to them that just don't exist in Western Christianity. It's harder to pin them down on things. It is sometimes easier to talk to Western Christians who have converted to EO because they still think like us in a lot of ways, but home grown EO are another breed altogether. You get a good EO monk and you better know church history and your Bible inside out, but from an Eastern perspective.

It just frustrates me. I guess I've just gotten use to reading the "greats" on these issues to help me, but when it comes to the EO, I have to really do the grunt work. However, most people don't do that, and then are easily convinced of EO apologetics. It's bad enough hearing an argument you've never heard before and not having an answer. It's even worse when you can't find an answer later, nor your pastor, nor the big names in your faith. It makes you think "well, I guess these guys really are the true church". There's no where to turn to.

Sorry, I'm ranting. But hopefully my point is coming across.

[Edited on 4-2-2006 by tellville]

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
For reasons enumerated in this thread and others, until recently EO has not been on the radar screen for most, and rightfully so since the various EO churches are not missionary minded and most (other than converts) are not aggressive in criticizing Reformed beliefs, etc. There seems to be a few places where there are exceptions, but they are few and far between.

Even on the internet, I can only remember once coming across an aggressive EO apologist, and as you might guess, he was a convert. Aggressive RC apologists are ubiquitous.

The EOC actually don't blame us for finding fault with Rome and protesting per se. They see the Protestants as a schism of a schism, so they kind of just sit back and watch the heretics fight each other and start more and more denominations.

They are comfortable with their claimed Apostolic succession and believe they are the true one holy catholic and apostolic church that was started by Christ and His Apostles and handed down through bishops through the centuries.

Protestants boast to have assembled the Westminster confession of Faith as their church document based on scripture of course. The EOC claims to have assembled the New Testament along with the old (and thus closed the canon) as their church document.

In other words:

Protestant church = Westminster Confession of Faith (and then a plethora of other various confessions and statements)

Eastern Orthodox church = Holy Scripture

So why would they criticize Reformed beliefs? From their point-of-view they dealt with us way back in 1054

 

[Scott]

Mark: Read Mathion's book. He address EO separatelt from RC.