Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Hard Knox
Anyone know much about Eastern Orthodox soteriology?
The Eastern Orthodox do not think in western terms on the issue of soteriology. The emphasis is on what they describe as "theosis," or man becoming god. A good introduction to read would be John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983). Here are some quotes to give you a taste of how this question is approached from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.Originally posted by Hard Knox
Anyone know much about Eastern Orthodox soteriology?
I'm just curious how this works. Would they define cooperating with "divine transforming grace" as faithful participation in the Church and it's sacraments? Like Rome?Originally posted by DTK
As you can see, the imputation of guilt does not figure in their doctrine of original sin. But the concept of theosis is central to the soteriology of Eastern Orthodoxy. It involves at least three interrelated meanings as underscored by Daniel B. Clendenin..."It is the mystical union with God whereby believers are transformed; the movement from death, mortality, and corruption to life, immortality, and corruption; and the ascent from the image of God (posessed by all people) to his very likeness (given to those who cooperate with divine transforming grace)." See Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), p. 157.
Yes, that would surely be part of it. As Meyendorff notes...Originally posted by puritansailor
I'm just curious how this works. Would they define cooperating with "divine transforming grace" as faithful participation in the Church and it's sacraments? Like Rome?
Originally posted by openairboy
Originally posted by Hard Knox
Anyone know much about Eastern Orthodox soteriology?
I highly recommend spending some time reading some Eastern Orthodox literature rather than simply going by our judgments of what they think. I find their treatment far different than western church, so I don't believe it is a simply, "You see, here they say x, y, and z", because their terms may be loaded with different meaning.
One Orthodox fellow that I love is Father Henry Reardon. He was a baptist minister until about 15 years ago. His magazine, Touchstone, can be found on the web, and you can peruse the content. In my experience, I have found the Protestants, like Reardon, turned Orthodox to be extremely attractive. They possess a richness of faith, tradition, and liturgy that is missing from most Protestant churches.
openairboy
Originally posted by Hard Knox
Thank you for the suggestion, I've spent two years in the Greek Orthodox Church, I'm none the wiser really. They refuse to define anything! The EO is basicly RC theology packaged a little different.
Ya know, the 'parish' I attended was KJV only and were more interested in being Greek then 'Orthodox.' One member (I'd say from my experiance normal Canadian born Greek Orthodox Church member), believes the EO is just like the RC Church...
I miss the Divine Liturgy...still. Pray 4 me.
HK
Originally posted by Puritanhead
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/EasternOrthodoxy.html
Beyond that doctrine of theosis (i.e. man becoming God), they also share the Romanist view of baptismal regeneration (i.e. baptist requisite for regeneration and salvation.)
Other than that, the Orthodox allure quite a few evangelicals who are taken in by the pomp and pagentry of some of their Orthodox masses... Their icons are really extraordinary pieces of art, which hads to the allure as does their claim to be the unbroken apostolic church. They "venerate" icons and holy relics, and draw they're careful to make a distinction between worshipping them and venerating them. Some Orthodox hymns I admit are very soothing and appealing to the ear.
Originally posted by bill c.
I agree that we are very sacramental but you can't define a sacrament too narrowly. Events in everyday life can be sacramental. We have to be careful that we don't interpret the idea of a sacrament as the Scholastics did.
Originally posted by bill c.
{The drawing in of evangelicals isn't due to "pomp" and "pagentry" or the "added allure" of icons, but the idea of Apostolic succession and consistency is of great appeal. When one considers that there are about 70 different baptist denominations, the idea of consistency and unity is appealing. Not to mention that many of these churches are constantly changing with every Barna poll that comes out. "Oh, you mean people don't want sacraments? O.k., no sacraments, except for 'special services'." "UH? Oh, people do want sacraments, b/c it is postmodern; yes, we are very sacramental." While Protestant churches are blown around by every wind and poll, the EO just keep on, keepin' on.}
You must admit that some are drawn in by the "pomp" and "pagentry". When I was EO we had a lot of evangelical converts and maybe 30% were drawn by the icons and ritual the rest by the continuity.
I don't agree about Protestant churches being driven by every wind and poll. I think there are churches that change their manner of worship but stay true to the essentials. A recent Newsweek poll inidcated that something like 20% of people who identify themselves as Christians don't believe in the Resurrection. I haven't heard of any churches deleting belief in the Resurrection from their credo. I think that people see a Protestant church or denomination change their form of worship and people think that it implies a change in their belief. I think the Moravians had it right when they call for unity in the essentials but accept diversity in all else.
I agree that we are very sacramental but you can't define a sacrament too narrowly. Events in everyday life can be sacramental. We have to be careful that we don't interpret the idea of a sacrament as the Scholastics did.
bill c.
Originally posted by bill c.
Could you explain this more. I don't think PCA has, due to the way the wind is blowing, redefined the Resurrection. Have they? If this is so then where is the pure church? Our Lord said the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against it surely a poll is a little less powerful than the forces of hell.
{I would tie worship much more directly to ones beliefs.}
I tend to agree. Lex orandi lex credendi.
{The fact that every year or two a new book comes (at least that get popular. i am sure there are plenty more books) out on how your church can be more influential, have more purpose, etc., shows the changing tide of the church.}
Ideas about how to reach more people for Christ are always good provided they don't compromise the Gospel. Could you give a few examples?
{So, I see the continually changing worship styles as a change in beliefs.}
So again I ask where is the pure church and what would you say is a Gospel true worship style? Luther retained the old Catholic mass and changed the language and the theological emphasis away from sacrifice. Calvin developed a more simplified liturgy that still involved an order of service but was not so much based on the mass. The Great Awakening led to an order of service that at times had no order.
The apostles met in somebody's spare dining room reading the Scriptures (OT), breaking bread and prayers. We've changed alot since then. Fir the worse or the better is the question
bill c.
Originally posted by bill c.
There's abig difference between having a kids program and modified moral teachings.
Maybe they are actually just trying to reach more people. Sometimes what something is is actually what it is.
This can vary greatly in how it's done. I just looked at the WCF and there is, thankfully, no addendum outlining exactly how it's to be done.
I can't help thinking that people were saying the same thing about Calvin, then about Whitfield, then Spurgeon.
Originally posted by bill c.
No your point seemed to be that churches that have kids programs and try new ways of bringing in the lost are compromising the Gospel. You weren't clear.
Yes everyone will do what they want. As long as it wins souls for Christ what does it matter if we sit in St Giles cathedral or a storefront with a worship band. You can win souls in both places or lose them. I don't like some forms of ministry such as dramatic re-enactments of Biblical scenes but if makes the difference between someone going to hell or heaven then I don't see a problem with it.You can win souls in both places or lose them. I don't like some forms of ministry such as dramatic re-enactments of Biblical scenes but if makes the difference between someone going to hell or heaven then I don't see a problem with it.
You said that the content is places that try new forms of ministry have poor content. Then you go on to ask me to cite examples of where people disparage Calvin, Whitfield or Spurgeon. For Calvin you can read RC histories of the Reformation, I would suggest Henri Daniel-Rops and Warren Carroll. As for Whitfield and SPurgeon I remember reading this in the 2 very good bio's of them by Dallimore. Now would you care to cite examples of poor content?
I made no such comparison. I have not a clue as to who the first 2 are and have only read a small portion of the third's book.
I think we do see the world differently. I have to ask again what church has this pure form of worship you speak of?
I know we see the world differently but I think that the 3 men you mention would shiver if they heard this statement. Jesus Christ is still bearing fruit! At the end of the day it is all about the Glory of God but it can also still be about "reaching" people. Jesus gave us a commission to go forth and preach and baptize and bring people into the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. How we go about that, as long as it doesn't compromise the Gospel, is a matter of interpretation.
Originally posted by openairboy
I went to Covenant Seminary and Bryan Chapell wrote 'Christ Centered Preaching', and this sermons are definitely not Christ-centered, aside from saying you need him for salvation. The rest is warmed over morality or Dr Phil.
Originally posted by RAS
Originally posted by openairboy
I went to Covenant Seminary and Bryan Chapell wrote 'Christ Centered Preaching', and this sermons are definitely not Christ-centered, aside from saying you need him for salvation. The rest is warmed over morality or Dr Phil.
wow.
As an aside from your conversation with bill c., please explain this comment.
In other posts, he is too much into sonship which is considered antinomian, but now he is considered moralistic (legalism). I am confused as to which one it is.
I am asking myself why is it that his preaching helped me and a friend of mine out of a doctrinally legalistic church that never focused on Christ. His preaching is the complete opposite of the moralism I received in all those psuedo-evangelical churches of my past. And since his sermons are "definitely" not Christ-centered, please tell me what Christ-centered means then? Other issues with him aside, I think this is one criticism that far from sticks. Better tell the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals to quit selling his book, because apparently he isn't practicing what he writes. Is it personal for you, or have I been listening to a different guy with the same name?
I'm asking all this as a brother in Christ, I'm not offended
Originally posted by bill c.
{I will also let you guess who has won the day.}
You needn't admit defeat quite so easily.
I think in the end it's Jesus who wins the day.
I don't think I'm a Pelagian. I realize that it's God's grace that saves. Many people think that our supposedly Judeo-Christian culture is shot through with the Gospel. Therefore we can simply set up our church plant and sit back and wait for folks to show up. I like to think that we need to go out into the byways and forcibly bring people into the banquet. There are many who have really never heard the Gospel; some who have never entered a church and some who have been occupying a pew all their lives. I think we disagree in our outlook on evangelism. But then again I attend a Arminian mega-church.
bill c.
ps. never heard the term "humble card" used I'll have to use it now. I'll also have to read about Finney. Sounds like a nice guy.
Originally posted by openairboy
O.k., I am posting this with all sorts of caveats. Basically, this is what I am trying to say by posting this: No, I don't agree with everything. No, I don't side with him necessarily historically. Yes, I find the subtitle unnecessary. Yes, I find it helpful. Make sense?
Hyper-Evangelism: Another Gospel