Best Resources Addressing Eastern Heterodox Errors and Heresies
- Thread starter Sam Jer
- Start date
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
There isn't one single silver bullet against EO. For starters, anything Joshua Schooping (formerly Reformed Ninja) has written is worth checking out.
thereformedninja.blogspot.com
The Reformed Ninja
thereformedninja.blogspot.com
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
As someone who seriously considered EO over a decade ago, here's what I learned:
* Arguments against the pope don't always work against EO, since EO has been arguing against the Pope for a longer time.
* Don't dismiss other facets of the atonement. There is a truth to Christus Victor, but it isn't the whole truth. When challenged on PSA, simply ask, given what they believer about punishment and justice, "what is it about your view of the atonement that solves the sin problem? How does that apply to any concerns with justice?"
I know some Reformed guys don't like him, but Michael Horton has done an excellent job on this point.
* Arguments against the pope don't always work against EO, since EO has been arguing against the Pope for a longer time.
* Don't dismiss other facets of the atonement. There is a truth to Christus Victor, but it isn't the whole truth. When challenged on PSA, simply ask, given what they believer about punishment and justice, "what is it about your view of the atonement that solves the sin problem? How does that apply to any concerns with justice?"
I know some Reformed guys don't like him, but Michael Horton has done an excellent job on this point.
Knight
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't recommend investing any time in studying it unless your reasons have to do with something like evangelizing a friend. Maybe if you are in seminary where you would (and should) talk to others about it.
One problem is that after you study "EO," you realize how much of a moving target it is. Jacob mentioned the atonement. I myself brought this up in a EO video in which the EO apologist claimed that some sort of penal substitution was possible on EO. His version was vague and wishy-washy, but when I commented on the video, someone replied with the following quote:
Is this not just the Reformed view? Then why have EOs been accusing us of Nestorianism for accepting penal substitution? This quote is obscure - I can't find an online reference to it - but I have no reason to think the EO who responded to me was lying.
One more example: original sin. The vast majority of EOs (English-speaking, at least) reject that infants are born guilty. But what does their own confession that was accepted by a pan-orthodox council - i.e. all the EO patriarchs signed off - say:
Infants are subject to the eternal punishment of the divine wrath? I had one EO try to tell me "guilt" was a translational mistake, but if so, then that means that infants are subject to punishment for no reason. Further, I've convinced all of one EO that my interpretation is correct and that the vast majority of EOs have defected from this truth (problematic for the EO, no? And what was that about the EO argument that Protestantism has an insufficient structure of authority?)
That EO who I was able to have an amiable conversation with was unable to reconcile the above with the following from their allegedly infallible liturgy:
This directly contradicts Mogila (Confession 63, 64, 68).
With all that said, two points:
1. This shows that what you'll find is that you often think you're studying EO, but you're not. You're studying what EO apologists, priest, or bishops think, but very few of them seem to know the positions of the authorities to which they ought to submit on their own grounds. Again, moving target.
2. Do you understand how much effort it took and takes to understand what EO actually teaches so that you can hit the proper target - by examining their stated, extra-biblical authorities (their liturgy, the ecumenical councils, local councils received by these councils, subsequent, pan-orthodox councils)?
It's not worth most people's time to be more knowledgeable about EO than EOs themselves. Until our Reformed churchmen sense a need to address EO, it is probably wiser study God's word instead.
One problem is that after you study "EO," you realize how much of a moving target it is. Jacob mentioned the atonement. I myself brought this up in a EO video in which the EO apologist claimed that some sort of penal substitution was possible on EO. His version was vague and wishy-washy, but when I commented on the video, someone replied with the following quote:
Is this not just the Reformed view? Then why have EOs been accusing us of Nestorianism for accepting penal substitution? This quote is obscure - I can't find an online reference to it - but I have no reason to think the EO who responded to me was lying.
One more example: original sin. The vast majority of EOs (English-speaking, at least) reject that infants are born guilty. But what does their own confession that was accepted by a pan-orthodox council - i.e. all the EO patriarchs signed off - say:
Infants are subject to the eternal punishment of the divine wrath? I had one EO try to tell me "guilt" was a translational mistake, but if so, then that means that infants are subject to punishment for no reason. Further, I've convinced all of one EO that my interpretation is correct and that the vast majority of EOs have defected from this truth (problematic for the EO, no? And what was that about the EO argument that Protestantism has an insufficient structure of authority?)
That EO who I was able to have an amiable conversation with was unable to reconcile the above with the following from their allegedly infallible liturgy:
This directly contradicts Mogila (Confession 63, 64, 68).
With all that said, two points:
1. This shows that what you'll find is that you often think you're studying EO, but you're not. You're studying what EO apologists, priest, or bishops think, but very few of them seem to know the positions of the authorities to which they ought to submit on their own grounds. Again, moving target.
2. Do you understand how much effort it took and takes to understand what EO actually teaches so that you can hit the proper target - by examining their stated, extra-biblical authorities (their liturgy, the ecumenical councils, local councils received by these councils, subsequent, pan-orthodox councils)?
It's not worth most people's time to be more knowledgeable about EO than EOs themselves. Until our Reformed churchmen sense a need to address EO, it is probably wiser study God's word instead.
There are actually two. One from a family I know is in what seems to be a pretty late stage of apostasy to EO, and another person who was born EO
What would you suggest for studying the various doctrines they'd be likely to have a false view of (especially the important ones) to be equipped against said attacks? Which doctrines would those be, and did any good theologians write of these doctrines with the EO at least partially in mind?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Correct. I no longer debate the issue unless it is for someone I know personally. 99% of online EO aren't interested in fairly representing what I believe. I read through close to 15,000 pages of the Fathers, but when I bring up where they might disagree, I'm told I don't have the correct phronema to understand the fathers, which makes me wonder why someone should read them at all.
Knight
Puritan Board Freshman
In that case, study the perfection of God's word. Sola scriptura is one of the main doctrines they attack. Then read Schaff's book on the 7 "ecumenical" councils (link, a book copy is infinitely preferable), which includes local councils EOs must accept due to their reception by later, "ecumenical" councils. It won't include other councils that EOs accept, but it's a good start. As you read, mark all the places you think you find extra-biblical information, contra-biblical information, or internally contradictory information.
An example would be canonical lists. Schaff points out 4-5 different documents that EO must accept have different canonical lists. Some of these are sharply different, e.g. here, canon 85. Revelation is not accepted, Clement's works are.
Some EOs try to get around this by affirming something called canonical maximalism - something like that EOs actually can accept everything listed in every council. This cognitive dissonance twists history to suit (false) doctrine. Their fallback is often that the church has guided us through the ages, so whatever they teach, that's good enough. This is problematic for multiple reasons:
1. Individual churchmen are fallible on even EO grounds. So, yes, we can agree about the church's role in history, but that isn't the final bar to which [our knowledge of] divine revelation must submit.
2. Apropos 1, it suggests a sore disrespect to God's word - its lack of perfection. It functionally subordinates [our ability to know the content of] divine revelation to the "church" (individual patriarchates of which are fallible and also list different canons, by the way - none including Clement's material). Ironically, the fallback puts the EO in the same ballpark as the RC.
3. Finally, it misframes the real difficulty: can we know what is the content of divine revelation or not? I've asked numerous EOs for an infallible list of their authoritative/infallible documents, and I never get an answer. Is Clement authoritative/infallible or not? If you can't tell me - and if another EO disagrees with you and there is no possible resolution to the disagreement - then how am I even supposed to know what EO commits me to?
Hardened EOs will use language unfamiliar to westerners in their apologetics. Just stay confident that sometimes, the responses are easier than you think - it's just that you'll have to think, put in work, and admit when you don't know something. Theosis, for example, presupposes libertarian free will (so the same arguments that apply to Arminians will apply to EOs). Further, synergy or cooperation with God is perfectly intelligible within the Reformed worldview, contrary to EO claims.
Horton's contribution in Three Views of Eastern Orthodoxy is good for showing the incompatibility. Then maybe Letham's Through Western Eyes to get a solid reformed critique while showing the key areas where there is agreement and even some important points where modern reformed could learn a thing or two, e.g. Trinity and union. After you have your wings you can fly. And those skies are full of surprises.
My reading list is a little goo long already, but thanks for all the book recommendations. I was kind of hoping for either something shorter, or which is not exclusively on the EO but rather "the EO attack doctrine x. Here is someone who takes the EO into account when writing on said doctrine" (I know a lot more muslims than I do EO but don't understand Islam any better, so if I'd be studying a false religion in this way it should really be Islam)
Elias_Amare
Puritan Board Freshman
I consider ancientpathstv the best YouTuber out there. He have a couple of documentaries concering EO worthy of looking; here are the video links Filioque: How Eastern Orthodoxy Anathematizes the Church Fathers and The Failure of Eastern Orthodoxy
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
Years ago, I noticed that many of the Eastern Orthodox apologists were converts from Catholicism or Protestantism. EO isn’t catechetical and systematic in the same sense. Franky Schaeffer was that way decades ago when he became EO. I’ve read, but I have no first hand knowledge, that EO clerics found it out of step with how EO should be approached. EO liturgy and chant carry doctrinal water Western Christians don’t always understand. While you can appropriate some apologetic methodologies that you would use in a Roman Catholic context, as Jacob is noted there are significant differences. For one thing, Western Christianity is perceived as rationalistic. People are attracted to the aesthetic of EO.
Charles Johnson
Puritan Board Junior
The difficulty in criticizing Eastern Orthodoxy is that doctrinally they really run the gamut.
Some are universalist (Bulgakov), some aren't (Jordanville).
Some (most?) believe in works righteousness, and some don't.
Some think that justification and the atonement is a "mystery" that really can't be explained at all (common among the Russians). Some are pretty certain that works play a part in it (common among the Greeks).
Some think they're worshipping (venerating?) icons, and some things it's just a "civil honor."
Some believe the apocrypha is inspired, canonical scripture (especially the Greeks) and some don't (especially the Russians).
Some use a bible based on the Hebrew text (the Russian Synodical version, for example). Some insist the Septuagint is inspired (common among the Greeks).
As recently as pre-revolutionary Russia, many at a high level in Russia taught salvation by faith alone, and that view was promoted in their official catechisms and endorsed by the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem.
Now, the pendulum has swung entirely the other way and most EO are openly hostile to protestantism and friendly with Romanism.
So with EO, it's often best to be familiar with the biblical arguments against Romanism, and identify the degree to which a particular EO person agrees or disagrees with the common errors of Romanism.
Only a few EO errors, like Palamism, are not held in common with Romanism.
Some are universalist (Bulgakov), some aren't (Jordanville).
Some (most?) believe in works righteousness, and some don't.
Some think that justification and the atonement is a "mystery" that really can't be explained at all (common among the Russians). Some are pretty certain that works play a part in it (common among the Greeks).
Some think they're worshipping (venerating?) icons, and some things it's just a "civil honor."
Some believe the apocrypha is inspired, canonical scripture (especially the Greeks) and some don't (especially the Russians).
Some use a bible based on the Hebrew text (the Russian Synodical version, for example). Some insist the Septuagint is inspired (common among the Greeks).
As recently as pre-revolutionary Russia, many at a high level in Russia taught salvation by faith alone, and that view was promoted in their official catechisms and endorsed by the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem.
Now, the pendulum has swung entirely the other way and most EO are openly hostile to protestantism and friendly with Romanism.
So with EO, it's often best to be familiar with the biblical arguments against Romanism, and identify the degree to which a particular EO person agrees or disagrees with the common errors of Romanism.
Only a few EO errors, like Palamism, are not held in common with Romanism.
Similar threads
- Locked
