Eastern Orthodoxy and Original Sin

[Knight]

I've been doing some research into Eastern Orthodoxy, and I'm struck by how dismissive they are of the significance of original sin. One example: in a video posted today (see below), Eastern Orthodox Bishop Irenei of London & Western Europe says:

"We are born spotless. There is no human ever ever born sinful, as if he were already a sinner by virtue of his constitution. God does not create like this, and every human being is born pure as Adam was fashioned pure. Yet we are touched by sin from the very beginning. By the time we open our eyes to the world, the sinfulness of the world is already having an impact on us."

He borders on suggesting that original sin merely refers to Adam's progeny having to be born into a corrupted, external world. While other Eastern Orthodox disagree with his comments, they universally reject imputed guilt.

It is also interesting to note a generally accepted difference between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox on this point. While both groups accept that Mary never committed an act of sin, Eastern Orthodox also accept that Mary experienced original sin whereas Roman Catholics deny this (cf. Orthodox writer Andrew Louth's comments in Original Sin and the Fall: Five Views):

"The interesting thing is that based on this concept of the transmission of the original sin and the guilt and responsibility of Adam, the Roman Catholic Church proceeded to develop another theology when it was confronted with the thought of how can the Virgin Mary give birth to God if she was never baptized and since she had the sin of Adam. So they came up with the theology of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, which has become a dogma in the Roman Catholic Church. In order to cleanse the mother of God from the guilt and sin of Adam, since that conflicted with the understanding that how can she give birth to God if she was sinful and she was condemned to hell herself. So we have this development - this theological development - which is based on this erroneous concept, but we also have among the Reformers John Calvin, who embraced a lot of the Augustinian concepts including predestination. And he also embraced the understanding of original sin and the transmission of sin and guilt and the responsibility of Adam based on Augustine's understanding. And that has been the case until this day for those who have followed the Calvinist understandings. Of course in the Orthodox Church this is not even a topic to be discussed because we do not see any such possibility of transmission of sin and guilt and responsibility in any possible way."

 

[cthorn14]

I have heard EO extended family express similar sentiments. From the EO sources I've seen online (admittedly not many) it seems like they can be all over the place.

I've found Michael Horton's summaries to be helpful.

Are Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy Compatible? | Modern Reformation

A cursory comparison of the indices of any primary or secondary work on Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelicalism exposes an interesting contrast—in the Eastern Orthodox index, one will find such entries as chrismation, deification, energies of God, recapitulation, theosis, and the like, but notable...

www.modernreformation.org

Sin and Free Will

Anselm’s famous retort to his imaginary friend Boso “You have not yet considered how great your sin is” applies to all of our communions, especially in this day of optimism about human capabilities. Despite the agreements noted above, the Christian East, in the Reformed view, possesses an inadequate view of sin. This becomes apparent in its treatment of original sin, excluding inherited guilt from the picture and embracing a synergistic view of regeneration as well as a medicinal view of justifying grace.

To do justice to the Orthodox view, we must again recall that the reigning paradigm is relational and transformative. Humanity is on a pilgrimage from innocence to mortality to immortality. Father Palachovsky explains:

We have been made in His image through Creation, but we must become like Him by ourselves, through our own free will. To be the image of God belongs to us by our primordial destination, but to become like God depends upon our will….Human nature has not remained intact, as some theologians teach, but has become corrupt. Nevertheless, this corruption does not go so far as the Protestant theologians teach.

We must appreciate the categories of Orthodox thought on this issue, since the context of early patristic development was Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and their kindred heresies in which creation and redemption were set against one another. Matter was inherently evil because it was intrinsically temporal rather than eternal, physical rather than spiritual, and so forth. Sin was accounted for in a cosmic fatalism grounded in ontological dualism. It would only make sense that the church fathers would confront this pagan determinism and dualism with an emphasis on human responsibility and freedom, as well as on the goodness of the Creator God (and therefore of every natura he creates). There are some passages in Augustine, particularly in his description of the origin of sin, that come perilously close to viewing nature qua nature as sinful. This is thoroughly rejected by the Reformers and their successors.

Still, even granting this important point, Orthodoxy appears to deny clear biblical statements on this important question. Corruption and mortality are hardly the only categories in biblical teaching. Nevertheless, as Constantine N. Tsirpanlis writes in presenting the Orthodox view,

Now, Adam’s sin was a personal choice and act, not a collective guilt nor a “sin of nature.” Hence, inherited guilt is impossible….In other words, the posterity of Adam inherited the consequences of his sin, i.e., physical death and mortality, sickness of corruption, and obscurity or distortion of God’s image, but not his personal guilt.

John Meyendorff concurs that there is, in fact, “a consensus in Greek patristic and Byzantine traditions in identifying the inheritance of the Fall as an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than of sinfulness, sinfulness being merely the consequence of mortality.” “The opposition between the two Adams is seen in terms not of guilt and forgiveness but of death and life,” he says, citing 1 Corinthians 15:47–48.6

First Corinthians 15:47–48 is a marvelous and much-overlooked side of the sin-and-grace message. Orthodoxy offers profound insight on this aspect, but in presenting half of the picture as if it were the whole, it ignores the obvious juridical elements and consequently leaves us not merely with an incomplete account but with an erroneous one. Can sinfulness be regarded as a consequence of mortality and vice versa when Scripture so clearly states that “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12)? “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). Here in Romans 6, “wages” is a similarly legal category, a debt that is owed. The biblical testimony to the Savior’s payment of a debt is so replete as not to require citations. The New Testament language for sin (e.g., condemnation of the law) and redemption (e.g., justification, imputation, reconciliation, acquittal) is unmistakably forensic as well as relational.

Even those who have not in their own persons committed exactly the same sin as Adam’s are nevertheless guilty of that sin (Rom. 5:14). “The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation” (v. 16), and “by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man” (v. 17). “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men” (v. 18). (I have purposely reserved the corollary of the second Adam for our discussion below.) Paul repeats for effect, “through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners” (v. 19). Death comes through sin, inherited both in its power and in its guilt. Therefore, the consequence is inherited. That is Paul’s logic in this text.

The Orthodox view excludes original guilt, while the Western view admits both original guilt and original corruption/mortality. Despite Augustinian (and Roman Catholic) distortions of sin and nature, the confessional Protestant articulation of original sin is thus able to do greater justice to the fuller teaching of Scripture, even if it needs to give more attention to the emphasis on immortality in the second Adam.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

This is a good example of why, in spite of superficial similarities between EO and Protestants, EO is much further at heart from the Reformation than Rome. We have a common frame of reference with Rome, not so much with EO.

 

[Ploutos]

I've heard it said (can't remember who - Letham, maybe?) that Rome and Protestantism disagree over the same questions, but the West and the East disagree over which questions should be asked. Which makes the recent rapprochement between Rome and the EO church all the more interesting to me...

 

[RamistThomist]

I've heard it said (can't remember who - Letham, maybe?) that Rome and Protestantism disagree over the same questions, but the West and the East disagree over which questions should be asked. Which makes the recent rapprochement between Rome and the EO church all the more interesting to me...

It was Letham. He said something like that. Both Protestantism and Rome understand the nature of the wrath of God. While we disagree on merits, we at least agree with the idea (Christ merits for us, etc). Rome, at least before the Jesuits, also believed in predestination (see Thomas Aquinas).

There are areas where there is some convergence between the Reformed and the East, but the differences are all to real.

 

[MarrowMan]

It was Letham. He said something like that. Both Protestantism and Rome understand the nature of the wrath of God. While we disagree on merits, we at least agree with the idea (Christ merits for us, etc). Rome, at least before the Jesuits, also believed in predestination (see Thomas Aquinas).

There are areas where there is some convergence between the Reformed and the East, but the differences are all to real.

I'm not sure Letham is a particularly sound guide re: Eastern Orthodox. His Through Western Eyes significantly downplays the areas of disagreement between EO and Reformed.

 

[Knight]

Orthodox apologists tend to emphasize church councils and synods. Relevant to this post is a confession produced by the Synod of Jerusalem (1672):

We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord says, “Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Savior would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. (The Confession of Dositheus, Decree 16)

This seems quite a contrast to the sentiments in the original post! To the extent the Orthodox find themselves obliged to accept this - and if they don't, it seems the same reasoning must apply to the "Palamite" synods - their apologists have a challenge in accounting for how one can be "subject to eternal punishment" without bearing guilt. I'll note that one prominent Orthodox apologist considers this synod as binding (link):

Next Hank talks of the Confession of Dositheus as an “Orthodox writing.” Well, its more than just a “writing.” It is a synodally affirmed document and one that anathematizes Protestantism, to which Hank must adhere. So here it seems Hank is trying to play down its significance. Maybe he missed its synodal standing when he read Bp. Ware’s book, The Orthodox Church?

On the other hand, the same apologist implies something quite different in the following comment made a few years earlier than the above, which indicates that the Orthodox view of councils is not, shall we say, as perspicuous as they might want to lead on (link):

If the council were ecumenical then it would be infallible. I would think that Catholics would agree that local synods aren’t necessarily infallible. I would also think that Catholics would agree that there are degrees of authority and means for expressing them. While it is true that councils a step down from ecumenical councils hold authority, it doesn’t follow that they bind equally. This is uncontroversial for Catholics so I don’t know on what grounds you are pressing it as some kind of problem for Orthodox ecclesiology.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm not sure Letham is a particularly sound guide re: Eastern Orthodox. His Through Western Eyes significantly downplays the areas of disagreement between EO and Reformed.

In terms of what EO believes, he is. Yes, there are problems in his book, but the above statement is accurate enough as it stands.

 

[Knight]

This also functions as a useful occasion to note the following dilemma for Eastern Orthodox apologists:

1. If the Synod of Jerusalem and Confession of Dositheus is binding, then Eastern Orthodox believers are bound to believe that infants are subject to eternal punishment. But if they reject that infants are guilty of sin, such punishment is unjust.

2. If the Synod of Jerusalem and Confession of Dositheus is not binding, how is it that an Eastern Orthodox believer is able to determine i) which synods or councils are binding and which are not; ii) to what "degree" is a synod or council binding (which seems to suggest lower and higher rules of faith) such that Protestants cannot make an analogous case for sola scriptura?

Take the following. The recent Council of Crete (2016) might lead one to think that the Synod of Jerusalem and Confession of Dositheus is binding. Note the bold:

3. The Orthodox Church, in her unity and catholicity, is the Church of Councils, from the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15.5-29) to the present day. The Church in herself is a Council, established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, in accord with the apostolic words: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15.28). Through the Ecumenical and Local councils, the Church has proclaimed and continues to proclaim the mystery of the Holy Trinity, revealed through the incarnation of the Son and Word of God. The Conciliar work continues uninterrupted in history through the later councils of universal authority, such as, for example, the Great Council (879-880)convened at the time of St. Photios the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople, and also the Great Councils convened at the time of St. Gregory Palamas (1341, 1351, 1368), through which the same truth of faith was confirmed, most especially as concerns the procession of the Holy Spirit and as concerns the participation of human beings in the uncreated divine energies, and furthermore through the Holy and Great Councils convened in Constantinople, in 1484 to refute the unionist Council of Florence (1438-1439), in 1638, 1642, 1672 and 1691 to refute Protestant beliefs, and in 1872 to condemn ethno-phyletism as an ecclesiological heresy.

Note also that this council declares itself to have been given "by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit":

With a hymn of thanksgiving, we praise and worship God in Trinity, who has enabled us to gather together during the days of the feast of Pentecost here on the island of Crete, which has been sanctified by St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, and his disciple Titus, his “true son in the common faith” (Tit 1.4), and, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to conclude the sessions of this Holy and Great Council of our Orthodox Church – convened by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, by the common will of Their Beatitudes the Primates of the most holy Orthodox Churches – for the glory of His most holy Name and for the great blessing of His people and of the whole world, confessing with the divine Paul: “Let people then regard us thus: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4.1).

Through a spokesman, the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople further declared that the Council of Crete is "binding" (link). Open and shut case?

Not quite! Four Eastern Orthodox churches - representing a significant percentage of the worldwide population of Eastern Orthodoxy - declined to participate. Several of these churches (e.g. Antioch) convened synods in which they stated that the Council of Crete is not binding. The ecumenical patriarch later wrote a letter of admonishment (link) in which he reaffirmed "the binding nature of its documents for all the Orthodox faithful, clergy and lay..."

Now, if I'm Eastern Orthodox, who am I supposed to believe, and why am I supposed to believe them? Are Eastern Orthodox apologists left with "private judgment" as they themselves have constructed the concept when straw-manning Protestantism (regarding which I've always found this post by Steve Hays to be helpful)? Or what criteria is supposed to be applied, and just as importantly, on what grounds (normative and/or epistemic, since they themselves constantly frame the issues this way)?

 

[MarrowMan]

In terms of what EO believes, he is. Yes, there are problems in his book, but the above statement is accurate enough as it stands.

I'd agree that he does go to great lengths to accurately present EO. I've not found much, if anything, in the book that contradicted what I've read from Kalistos Ware and other sources. I just really didn't like the downplaying.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

@RamistThomist - I've been working my way through PRRD by Muller and am on Volume 3. What strikes me is how rich Western theology was that Protestant thinkers adapted and further developed. It seems to me, however, that deep theological thinking of the kind in the West didn't really develop much in the East. It seems like the last great thinkers in their Tradition were 1500 years ago, and they never really wrestled with deep ideas as they did in the West. Am I off in thinking of them as sort of intellectually and theologically stunted?

 

[arapahoepark]

@RamistThomist - I've been working my way through PRRD by Muller and am on Volume 3. What strikes me is how rich Western theology was that Protestant thinkers adapted and further developed. It seems to me, however, that deep theological thinking of the kind in the West didn't really develop much in the East. It seems like the last great thinkers in their Tradition were 1500 years ago, and they never really wrestled with deep ideas as they did in the West. Am I off in thinking of them as sort of intellectually and theologically stunted?

I'd say and that it was largely due to the external pressure of Islam.

 

[Knight]

@RamistThomist - I've been working my way through PRRD by Muller and am on Volume 3. What strikes me is how rich Western theology was that Protestant thinkers adapted and further developed. It seems to me, however, that deep theological thinking of the kind in the West didn't really develop much in the East. It seems like the last great thinkers in their Tradition were 1500 years ago, and they never really wrestled with deep ideas as they did in the West. Am I off in thinking of them as sort of intellectually and theologically stunted?

I would recommend Tikhon Pino's book Essence and Energies. That might balance your perspective.

 

[MarrowMan]

I would recommend Tikhon Pino's book Essence and Energies. That might balance your perspective.

Does it expand upon and further develop Palamas?

I see it is an analysis of Palamas, but does it contribute anything to the actual doctrine in terms of development?

 

[Knight]

Does it expand upon and further develop Palamas?

It's only an exposition of his thought. As one EO apologist puts it (link):

Pino’s work analyzes Saint Palamas’ teaching on the essence/energies distinction across Saint Palamas’ entire corpus. No one to my knowledge has ever attempted such a task. Even Meyendorff who was in the past the only modern scholar, at least in the West, to have read the entirety of Saint Palamas’ works did not produce such an analysis. Here we are definitely in Dr. Pino’s debt for his clarifying and analytical work.

 

[RamistThomist]

@RamistThomist - I've been working my way through PRRD by Muller and am on Volume 3. What strikes me is how rich Western theology was that Protestant thinkers adapted and further developed. It seems to me, however, that deep theological thinking of the kind in the West didn't really develop much in the East. It seems like the last great thinkers in their Tradition were 1500 years ago, and they never really wrestled with deep ideas as they did in the West. Am I off in thinking of them as sort of intellectually and theologically stunted?

There was some intellectual development in the East, but it never had widespread publication as in the West. Several reasons for that. Some of the work was done by monks and never made it to the wider world. In other cases, the Sultan didn't have any interest in having Christian ideas spread. Probably worst of all, in the late 19th and early 20th century, a myth arose that the evil Westerns had captured the patristic mindset in the East, which meant that anything Western (such as reason) was medieval and bad. (Now that I think of it, that line sounds familiar and can probably be applied in a nearer context).

There is another interesting angle: the split between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox probably isolated the East from some scholastic thinkers. For example, Severus of Antioch, while I can't go with all of his Christological conclusions, easily outmatched any thinker the East would produce for hundreds of years.

 

[Knight]

By the way, I just found that the book I mention can be read here.

 

[HauerVos]

This all interesting... but will u debate Dyer, brother?

 

[Knight]

This all interesting... but will u debate Dyer, brother?

Interesting pivot. I don't follow his livestream schedule, but I would consider calling into it if I was free. I would be interested in his answer to this question regarding original sin and the question of the EO canon (given he seems to accept the Council of Trullo which, by extension, affirms the canonical list of the 85 Canons of the Apostles - it excludes Revelation and includes Clement).

My first child turned one month old today, so I've mostly put reading/writing on the backburner. But a response to EO apologists is indeed an area of need and one which I am keeping in mind.

 

[HauerVos]

Interesting pivot. I don't follow his livestream schedule, but I would consider calling into it if I was free. I would be interested in his answer to this question regarding original sin and the question of the EO canon (given he seems to accept the Council of Trullo which, by extension, affirms the canonical list of the 85 Canons of the Apostles - it excludes Revelation and includes Clement).

My first child turned one month old today, so I've mostly put reading/writing on the backburner. But a response to EO apologists is indeed an area of need and one which I am keeping in mind.

Lol, it is somewhat needed, but not really worth it. I was mocking online orthobros who comment on every protestant and Romanist discussion of EO's issues with "Debate Jay Dyer."

 

[Knight]

Lol, it is somewhat needed, but not really worth it. I was mocking online orthobros who comment on every protestant and Romanist discussion of EO's issues with "Debate Jay Dyer."

Gotcha. Other than Turretinfan, I don't know who is currently providing much online pushback against EO apologists. My perspective is limited, however. I am looking forward to Gavin Ortlund vs. Perry Robinson, which seems unavoidably incumbent given a comment thread in which they had an exchange.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

I know I’m probably resurrecting a dead thread, but I see so many young barely Reformed guys move along the “red pill” to EO/Jay Dyer path. It’s almost like a meme at this point. Any good resources and ways to be prepared for this type of apologetic? (Sola Fide isn’t found in any of the Early Church Fathers, etc etc)

Gotcha. Other than Turretinfan, I don't know who is currently providing much online pushback against EO apologists. My perspective is limited, however. I am looking forward to Gavin Ortlund vs. Perry Robinson, which seems unavoidably incumbent given a comment thread in which they had an exchange.

 

[Ploutos]

I know I’m probably resurrecting a dead thread, but I see so many young barely Reformed guys move along the “red pill” to EO/Jay Dyer path. It’s almost like a meme at this point. Any good resources and ways to be prepared for this type of apologetic? (Sola Fide isn’t found in any of the Early Church Fathers, etc etc)

The problem is not how to prepare a defense against EO. The problem is how to work with someone whose grounding in the faith is so shallow that they are susceptible to this just because it's edgy, and who is willing to substitute YouTube videos for actual critical thinking.

Such a person probably has mediocre Biblical literacy, still more mediocre ability to interpret Scripture, and a level of self-confidence that renders them either oblivious to or easily offended by any hint of criticism.

More practically, such a person may not be a believer, or may be unwilling to fully submit their hearts to the counsel of God's word. They're drawn to some aspect of EO thought that is different or anti-western - maybe it's the latent universalism of Origen or the rejection of original sin and predestinarianism; maybe it's the cleverly marketed appeal to tradition; maybe it is the mysticism and its contrast with western rationalism; maybe it is the structured and liturgical nature of the thing (though I'd like to test such a person's attention span against an actual EO service). As with the drift across the Tiber in earlier decades, it's a manifestation of a deficiency in spiritual and educational formation of which the person is unaware and unwilling to be made aware.

As such, the only real solution is prayer and a willingness to engage the person and work with them over a period of time, being willing to share and explain one's beliefs along the way, not as a bludgeon but simply as a manifestation of one's lifestyle. Standard counterpoints against EO thinking won't succeed if the person is unwilling or unable to engage in the necessary critical analysis or if they just simply want to believe what they are hearing from Jay Dyer or whoever, though that doesn't mean such points should be avoided.

 

[RamistThomist]

I know I’m probably resurrecting a dead thread, but I see so many young barely Reformed guys move along the “red pill” to EO/Jay Dyer path. It’s almost like a meme at this point. Any good resources and ways to be prepared for this type of apologetic? (Sola Fide isn’t found in any of the Early Church Fathers, etc etc)

As noted above, there really isn't one single defense. I've known this movement for 15 years. They will latch onto some theological position in order to justify a psychological need. I know that sounds Freudian, but it is true. I can prove that because many of them are 15 years old.

With that said, the best thing to do is introduce cognitive dissonance. If they are disciples of Jay Dyer, then you need to find things that don't really fit his narrative. Jay took all of his stuff from Perry Robinson and Joseph Farrell. For example, if you can find where Fathers like Cyril of Alexandria and John of Damascus spoke of a composite hypostasis, that is a problem for them and they know it.

 

[cthorn14]

Do these young converts to EO actually end up integrating into EO churches? The union between young guys becoming zealous about it on youtube and eastern European culture seems like a strange one.

Asking because I'm mostly familiar with EO from a cultural perspective. When my wife began to identify as evangelical/reformed rather than EO, it was taken as an outright denial of her heritage by her family back east. Perhaps with the EO in America there is less of an ethnic aspect.

I can definitely see why young people in particular feel let down by the shallowness and worldliness of American churches, but EO has never seemed to me to be a real solution to that problem.

 

[RamistThomist]

Do these young converts to EO actually end up integrating into EO churches? The union between young guys becoming zealous about it on youtube and eastern European culture seems like a strange one.

Asking because I'm mostly familiar with EO from a cultural perspective. When my wife began to identify as evangelical/reformed rather than EO, it was taken as an outright denial of her heritage by her family back east. Perhaps with the EO in America there is less of an ethnic aspect.

I can definitely see why young people in particular feel let down by the shallowness and worldliness of American churches, but EO has never seemed to me to be a real solution to that problem.

Many times they don't for the simple reason that the church in town is too compromised from their perspective (usually a GOARCH parish).

 

[Knight]

I know I’m probably resurrecting a dead thread, but I see so many young barely Reformed guys move along the “red pill” to EO/Jay Dyer path. It’s almost like a meme at this point. Any good resources and ways to be prepared for this type of apologetic? (Sola Fide isn’t found in any of the Early Church Fathers, etc etc)

As @Ploutos suggests, preparation presupposes that you are yourself grounded in the faith. With that in mind, in apologetics, the framing of a topic is important. For example, you asked about what to say to the EO claim that "Sola Fide isn’t found in any of the Early Church Fathers."

A. Here's what not to do: find a resource which quote mines the early church and consider that to be a sufficient response. See Perry Robinson vs. Anthony Rogers. You need to do your own reading of the early church. Secondary sources might provide a starting point, but it shouldn't be your ending point.

B. What to do is to question whether the claim itself is the framework under which you should pursue a rebuttal. To what extent is it important that sola fide is found in the early church? Why?

i) Is the idea that any doctrine which cannot be "found" in the early church is false? If so, why?

ii) Are all of EO's distinctive claims able to be "found" in the early church (e.g. Mary inherited original sin but acted out a sinless life)? For that matter, who constitutes the "early" church, and what timespan is in view? The "apostolic fathers"? All eight "ecumenical" councils?

C. It is indeed useful to have one example of an early church father who you are prepared to argue either seems to accept sola fide or, more conservatively, seems to reject the EO alternative (as @RamistThomist mentions).

i) Note the word "seems." In terms of what is taught by specific people in the early church, we should be prepared to argue up to the point where the evidence leads. But there's no need to force the issue, since even someone like Dyer admits that individuals in the early church are fallible and get some things wrong.

ii) Following point i), this against indicates that it may be less useful to spend time on this specific claim. If individuals in the early church are fallible and get some things wrong, we are returned to B. above and should recognize that the EO may just be trying to score rhetorical points to the audience. If so, that needs to be questioned and/or pointed out.

iii) Nevertheless, entertaining C. a little longer, is it the EO apologist's expectation that the sort of sophisticated reasoning or systematization one finds centuries later should be present in the first generations after the apostles? Do they think such sophistication regarding the articulation of Christology or Mariology was present? What is their evidence?

iii) If sophisticated reasoning or systematization are not requirements for positing that an apostolic father seems to accept an orthodox Christology, then on the subject of sola fide, why wouldn't something like Chapter 32 of Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians (link) suffice as prima facie evidence? Is it because in Chapter 30, Clement writes that we are "justified by our works, and not our words"? But what does the next line - "For [the Scripture] says, He that speaks much, shall also hear much in answer. And does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteous? Blessed is he that is born of woman, who lives but a short time: be not given to much speaking" - suggest Clement means by that statement in Chapter 30, and does the EO apologist think Clement [un]intentionally back-peddles just two chapters later?

D. Aside from the content of an apologetic claim, there are a few other considerations to keep in mind when responding.

i) Setting: I've touched on this elsewhere regarding Eastern Orthodoxy (see point 5 here). To add to that, if we restrict a setting to social media, going on a livestream in front of an audience who is largely nominally EO is more attractive (hence, my post 19) than an online, so-called "moderated" social media debate in which a loose cannon such as Dyer often feels free to laugh during and/or interrupt your presentation on your own time without reproach. At least in the former case, there's not much to lose. Alternatively, video responses would keep the focus on the issues without either side cutting off the other.

ii) Style: Socratic questioning goes hand-in-hand with my comments on framing. You should have your own questions and not feel compelled to capitulate to their line of questioning if it ignores yours. Who is perceived to "win" or "lose" is sometimes a matter of who sets the pace. Of course, I am not speaking of the power to convict the minds of sinners, but I've noted elsewhere that the Holy Spirit uses means to accomplish various ends (link).

iii) Anticipation: this returns to the original idea of being grounded in your faith. If and when you are, only then is it helpful to watch or listen to persons of other faiths to understand their thought processes, arguments, etc. to anticipate how your apologetic response to claims they make will, in turn, be responded to. If you are not already grounded, it is likely you will twist in the wind (like much of the people you refer to who are being influenced). Apologetics is a defense. To defend, you have to know what you are defending. To know what you are defending, you have to sit, listen, and learn first.

 

[Knight]

A sample of my reading from today that goes to show why it is helpful to read those with whom one might disagree. The following sounds quite a bit like total depravity. Take a guess as to who said the following:

A breath of life. What is a breath of life? A living soul. Let Paul instruct you: "the first man was made a living soul." And what is "living"? Ever living, immortal, which is the same as to say rational (since what is rational is immortal), and not only this, but also divinely grace. For such is truly a living soul. And this is the same as being according to the image and, if you will, according to the likeness as well. O the injurious loss! From what into what we have been changed!

The eyes of angels were beholding at that time the soul of man joined with sense and flesh, and they were beholding another God, which had not only come into existence upon the earth on account of divine goodness, being the same in both intellect and flesh, but had also been formed according to the grace of God on account of the exceeding greatness of this same goodness, so that the same man might be flesh and intellect and spirit and so that his soul might completely possess being according to the divine image and likeness, since it is unitary in intellect and reason and spirit. But the envious eye also beheld him. The principal source of vice, the serpent, did not bear it. He was patient, I think, just as much as was enough for to mix a more potent poison under the tongue and as if to prepare and mingle with deceit, with a sweet word, the aural poison. He came; he captivated; he wounded - O my docility and his malignity! He injected the virus into the soul, he killed what was living off of it (I am referring to the body), while he blacked the soul which had life in itself. We have lost the divine beauty; we have been deprived of the divine formed; we cast away the light; we corrupted the likeness to the highest light itself. We put on darkness as a garment, alas! and as with a double cloak we endued ourselves with darkness. But - to be succinct - He freely had mercy, He whose nature is goodness and the consequent mercy; and for me who had fallen He descended and He had become, just ads the Apostle says, "a quickening Spirit," so that having been quickened, He may renew the tarnished image.

Spoiler

Gregory Palamas, Apodictic Treatises on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, pg. 203

How might the bishop in the original post respond to this, do you think?

 

[Ploutos]

A sample of my reading from today that goes to show why it is helpful to read those with whom one might disagree. The following sounds quite a bit like total depravity. Take a guess as to who said the following:

Spoiler

Gregory Palamas, Apodictic Treatises on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, pg. 203

How might the bishop in the original post respond to this, do you think?

That excerpt is congruent with a doctrine of total depravity but it is vague enough to me that it doesn't necessitate it. The bishop would probably agree that sin has darkened the world in the way this writer describes, but your quoted excerpt doesn't specifically and unambiguously link this darkness to the impact on each individual's nature as opposed to the sort of "environmental depravity" the OP spoke of. Not knowing anything but what you posted, I would never try to argue that your excerpt sounds like total depravity as understood in a Reformed context.

 

[Knight]

That excerpt is congruent with a doctrine of total depravity but it is vague enough to me that it doesn't necessitate it. The bishop would probably agree that sin has darkened the world in the way this writer describes, but your quoted excerpt doesn't specifically and unambiguously link this darkness to the impact on each individual's nature as opposed to the sort of "environmental depravity" the OP spoke of. Not knowing anything but what you posted, I would never try to argue that your excerpt sounds like total depravity as understood in a Reformed context.

I wouldn't actually argue Palamas accepted total depravity, but it is sufficient to note in C. above, it's useful to show how those whom one's interlocutors hold in high esteem disagree with them. And I think there is more to what Palamas admits than that the effects of [original] sin constitute a mere externality. He writes that the image has been tarnished and the soul has been blacked.

By the way, on the subject of total depravity and human "nature," one of the best responses to EO counter-apologetics on this doctrine is from a commentor buried so deep in Triablogue's history that the search engine even has trouble finding it. It took me weeks to find this, but it is a fantastic response. It helped me to distinguish between "concrete" human nature (e.g. the Son assumed a numerically distinct human body and soul from my own) from "abstract" human nature (e.g. the Son assumed "humanity" insofar as he stands in an exemplification relation to an archetypal, participable, divine idea).