Eastern Orthodox Brochure

[Scott]

This is a Eastern Orthodox brochure from my area. It appears consciously directed at evangelicals. Notice the emphasis on scripture, the translation of evangelical terminology into Orthodox concepts and the like.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by Scott]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

The timeline of Church History is priceless!

 

[Poimen]

Ugghh!

The Sunday church service in an Orthodox Church includes over two hundred quotes from the Bible.

Bi ghum, Ma if ther quotin from the Bahble, it must be right!

You might be Orthodox if"¦

"¢ When you buy church shoes, you select comfort over style.
"¢ You know how to say, "œLord, have mercy!" in at least two languages.
"¢ Your pastor is called a priest, and he´s married.
"¢ You think "˜fast food´ refers to a vegetarian meal during Lent.

This is a definite appeal to evangelicals! Silly yet informational humor.

 

[Scott]

I find it interesting that they are targeting evangelicals. As a practical matter, I think cross-overs are rare (although they may be highly publicized when they happen). The conversions I have heard about tend to be long and painful processes.

 

[Denny]

Orthodox Converts

Originally posted by Scott
I find it interesting that they are targeting evangelicals. As a practical matter, I think cross-overs are rare (although they may be highly publicized when they happen). The conversions I have heard about tend to be long and painful processes.

There was an article in the Dallas Morning News several months ago that talked about how there were many Evangelicals who were converting to Orthodoxy,because they were dissatissfied with many aspects of Evangelicalism. And highlighted more prominant conversions of people such as Peter Gillquist,who once was head of Campus Crusade for Christ,and of course in another article in the same paper , highlighted Franky Schaeffer,Francis Schaeffer's son,converted to Orthodoxy a few years back,so I think it is not quite as rare as you may think it is.

Here is the link.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1389823/posts

Thanks

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Denny]

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Scott
I find it interesting that they are targeting evangelicals. As a practical matter, I think cross-overs are rare (although they may be highly publicized when they happen). The conversions I have heard about tend to be long and painful processes.

Actually, the Orthodox have more cross-overs from evangelicals than Roman Catholics...

 

[Puritanhead]

Reformed Perspective on Orthodoxy

 

[SRoper]

"The timeline of Church History is priceless!"

It definitely makes sense from their perspective. They see the Western church as one of division and the Reformation the logical conclusion of forensic justification.

 

[RamistThomist]

Nowhere in the Bible
does it state or imply that any tradition
was put to writing. This revelation was
profound. What became clear is that
God has always used Scripture and oral
tradition.

Just like Catholics--they beg the question over *what* the content of traditions really is.

 

[Denny]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Nowhere in the Bible
does it state or imply that any tradition
was put to writing. This revelation was
profound. What became clear is that
God has always used Scripture and oral
tradition.

Just like Catholics--they beg the question over *what* the content of traditions really is.

I think they say for them,the Orthodox,Sacred Scripture is a part of Tradition,and not Tradition pitted agaisnt Scripture,that in some way Tradition and Scripture should speak with one voice.

 

[SRoper]

I believe that is correct. EO view scripture as in important part of tradition. However, I think what Jacob was getting at is that like the Romanists, the Eastern church are unable to demonstrate from scripture that they are the guardians of the tradition scripture references.

 

[Denny]

Originally posted by SRoper
I believe that is correct. EO view scripture as in important part of tradition. However, I think what Jacob was getting at is that like the Romanists, the Eastern church are unable to demonstrate from scripture that they are the guardians of the tradition scripture references.

It would be hard for any Christian group to demonstrate from Scripture that they are the guardians of apostolic truth,seeing that the very nature of Scripture itself,does not relay that truth to us.
Although authoritative in it's content. The content that is there is sketchy and not definitive for any group to make a dogmatic assertion.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The point of the Reformation, of course, was to strip the church of its worthless traditions, while preserving that which was demonstrable from the Scripture's themselves. Granted, there will doubtless be a degree of difference in determinig what, in fact, is demonstrable from Scripture. Hence: disagreement over whether hymnody is permissible, or bishops (hierarchal church government), just to name two.

Rome could not, they simply could not defend themselves biblically against the reformers--not against the Lutherans, nor the Reformed, nor the Anglicans. Each of these groups was set to the same reforming work, albeit in different degrees, and with slightly different aims, and ending up in different attitudes. But Rome itself was driven from the field. Until she took back some of her losses on the points of her temporal pikes.

The Eastern churches have a different history. Very different. And that history has shaped those churches in a markedly different way from that of the Western, the far-reaching, far-grasping Roman see. But they, no less than Rome, are cumbered with traditions that are unsupportable by direct appeal to Scripture. They also have no comparable Reformation.

Our point is not that "our church has apostolic tradition, and yours doesn't." That statement of the question is improper (I mean formally "improper", not that is not right to ask it, OK?). The issue is purity of that tradition. Every unscriptural accretion onto the pure worship of God mars the form of the church and its worship. And as the WCF puts it: no church is completely free of an admixture of error, that is, there is not perfect church this side of heaven (25.4). Both the unreformed Roman see, and the multitudinous Eastern sees that have never had a reformation, are awash in unbiblical traditions and superstitions. They all "teach for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mt. 15:9), and that in profusion.

If we claimed to be the ONE pure church of Christ (as in fact Rome and Byzantium do--so which is it?!?) we would be properly branded liars and schismatics. Our churches are impure, because they are filled with men. But we will certainly stake our eternal hopes on the bold claim that having torn out the idolatry and purged the church of the blinding, cloying, gospel obscuring artefacts of the west (and by extension, the east as well), we are that much better prepared as a bride to greet the Groom, even our Lord.

Hard or not, we've said we found enough of the truth, and laid hold of it (by the grace of God) to the extent that we have summarized it in the dogmas of our Confessions. To say that this is chimerical denies the essential perspicuity of Scripture (WCF 1.7-9). It is a false humility to say that we hold this to be true, but only so far as everyone, within or without, may be equally correct. This statement:

It would be hard for any Christian group to demonstrate from Scripture that they are the guardians of apostolic truth,seeing that the very nature of Scripture itself,does not relay that truth to us.

is a dogmatic claim about the nautre of Scripture, and one that is not relieved of its post-modern philosophical tensions by the qualifier:

Although authoritative in it's [sketchy] content.

With all due respect, there is nothing sketchy about the 2nd commandment. If this were not true, we had never had a Reformation.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[Denny]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
The point of the Reformation, of course, was to strip the church of its worthless traditions, while preserving that which was demonstrable from the Scripture's themselves. Granted, there will doubtless be a degree of difference in determinig what, in fact, is demonstrable from Scripture. Hence: disagreement over whether hymnody is permissible, or bishops (hierarchal church government), just to name two.

Rome could not, they simply could not defend themselves biblically against the reformers--not against the Lutherans, nor the Reformed, nor the Anglicans. Each of these groups was set to the same reforming work, albeit in different degrees, and with slightly different aims, and ending up in different attitudes. But Rome itself was driven from the field. Until she took back some of her losses on the points of her temporal pikes.

The Eastern churches have a different history. Very different. And that history has shaped those churches in a markedly different way from that of the Western, the far-reaching, far-grasping Roman see. But they, no less than Rome, are cumbered with traditions that are unsupportable by direct appeal to Scripture. They also have no comparable Reformation.

Our point is not that "our church has apostolic tradition, and yours doesn't." That statement of the question is improper (I mean formally "improper", not that is not right to ask it, OK?). The issue is purity of that tradition. Every unscriptural accretion onto the pure worship of God mars the form of the church and its worship. And as the WCF puts it: no church is completely free of an admixture of error, that is, there is not perfect church this side of heaven (25.4). Both the unreformed Roman see, and the multitudinous Eastern sees that have never had a reformation, are awash in unbiblical traditions and superstitions. They all "teach for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mt. 15:9), and that in profusion.

If we claimed to be the ONE pure church of Christ (as in fact Rome and Byzantium do--so which is it?!?) we would be properly branded liars and schismatics. Our churches are impure, because they are filled with men. But we will certainly stake our eternal hopes on the bold claim that having torn out the idolatry and purged the church of the blinding, cloying, gospel obscuring artefacts of the west (and by extension, the east as well), we are that much better prepared as a bride to greet the Groom, even our Lord.

Hard or not, we've said we found enough of the truth, and laid hold of it (by the grace of God) to the extent that we have summarized it in the dogmas of our Confessions. To say that this is chimerical denies the essential perspicuity of Scripture (WCF 1.7-9). It is a false humility to say that we hold this to be true, but only so far as everyone, within or without, may be equally correct. This statement:

It would be hard for any Christian group to demonstrate from Scripture that they are the guardians of apostolic truth,seeing that the very nature of Scripture itself,does not relay that truth to us.

is a dogmatic claim about the nautre of Scripture, and one that is not relieved of its post-modern philosophical tensions by the qualifier:

Although authoritative in it's [sketchy] content.

With all due respect, there is nothing sketchy about the 2nd commandment. If this were not true, we had never had a Reformation.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by Contra_Mundum]

I obviously meant sketchy regarding certain aspects of Christian teaching,Church Government for instance.Other than qualifications for it's leaders,that is about all we have to go on.

As for Eastern Orthodox,they reject many of the Roman Orthodox's assertions,such as papal infallibility, Mary's immaculate conception and assumption,and purgatory. Other than the Iconoclasm controversy,and their views on free-will I find them quite Orthodox.

I do find many in the Reformed position wrong for rejecting Mary as the Theotokos,even R.C. Sproul embraces this I believe,simply because it emphasises Jesus Christ as being fully God and fully Man,and dispels any notion of Him being otherwise. Nestorius wanted her referred to, as simply Christotokos,which the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus rejected as heresy. Because it basically says that Jesus is two Persons,with two natures.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by Denny]

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by Denny]

 

[LadyFlynt]

I'll have to reover the last two posts later. And the brochure. I can say that conversion is NOT a painful process. MIL converted to Greek Orthodoxy awhile back and stayed for 5yrs. Even though she's since removed her membership and has moved to another state (and another church-anabaptist this time), she still comes every Labor Day for Greek Fest to dance with her friends. (okay, maybe THAT'S the painful part...they do tend to dance till their feet about fall off!)

 

[Scott]

As in Roman Catholicism, there are a variety of views of tradition in the EO world. Some hold to the 2-source theory (i.e. revelation has been transmitted in two sources - written and oral). Others hold to what amounts to more of an interpretative tradition. The mind of the Church interprets the scriptures and these interpretations are the right ones. SOrt of like the way a court might interpret the constitution, except that the church, when acting universally, does not err as do our courts. Here is an article: On Church and Tradition. It is by Georges Florovsky, who is one of the most respected EO theologians of the 20th century. You will note that he even criticizes the 2-source view.

 

[Scott]

"And highlighted more prominant conversions of people such as Peter Gillquist,who once was head of Campus Crusade for Christ,and of course in another article in the same paper , highlighted Franky Schaeffer,Francis Schaeffer's son,converted to Orthodoxy a few years back,so I think it is not quite as rare as you may think it is."

Schaeffer and Gilquist always come up. They are something of celebrities in EO circles. Yet they are still pretty minor and their conversions have not produced much of a wave of new converts. The fact that year after years these are the main guys mentioned is telling.

In fact, Schaeffer is openly critical of a host of problems in EO: The Seduction of Orthodoxy. The ironic thing is that EO has some of the same problems that led him to search for an alternative to evangelicalism. In his conversion story he relates one reason that caused him to leave was the lukewarm nature of evangelicals. Well, he finds that EO suffers the same problems (often they are ethnic social clubs with little spirituality). For a book-length version of Schaeffer's criticisms , see his Letters to Father Aristotle.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by Scott]

 

[Scott]

Denny' article is interesting. A couple of the more interesting facts:

> About 80 percent of its converts come from evangelical and charismatic backgrounds, 20 percent from mainline denominations.

> About 78 percent of clergy in the Antiochian Church are converts, up from 10 to 15 percent 25 years ago. Nearly half of the students in America's two largest Orthodox seminaries are converts.

> "Conversion to Orthodoxy often begins with an intellectual quest, Mr. Shinn said."

On the third point, I have heard allot of EO conversion stories and this does seem to be a common element. This is an interesting contrast to evangelicalism. People often convert to evangelicalism from unbelief or liberal Christianity and do so for reasons that this offer meaning to life, the zeal of the adherents, etc. In spite of apologetic efforts, it seem rare for people to become evangelical for intellectual reasons.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by Scott]