I have been interacting with Eastern Orthodox friends and this has led me to focus on certain doctrinal and historical points in Christianity. Following, I will post some points, some ideas and then questions. If you guys could jump in and give me your input I would greatly appreciate it.
1) The Church and the bible. This one pertains to church history and the fact that there was not a set canon until a later time in church history. In my discussions, the Orthodox will point out that the bible as we have it today was not yet around for the formative years of the church. Because of this, they will claim that it was the church, through the guidance of the holy spirit, that had authority and kept things together. Essentially, what the Orthodox are trying to get at here is that Protestantism and Sola Scriptura was not even a viable option if one wanted. My thoughts on this are as follows. Although the bible, old and new testament, were not yet canonized, the church was never without holy writ. I realize that very early on only the old testament was available, but I think this was enough given the fact that the witnesses to Jesus' ministry were still around to expound the old testament. Over time, what we now call the new testament followed. However, I must confess that it seems odd the apostles did not write earlier than they did. My question here would be, what is the Reformed response to this part of church history where people were gathering more for the eucharist than hearing God's word (as the Orthodox would say)? The Orthodox see sitting in the pew and listening to a sermon bizarre, compared to the liturgy experienced in their service. They say that the Protestant service is a later development in church history and they have a more historical one. Even more, they say that the Protestant idea was not even possible because the bible was not yet canonized, and who is to say what scripture was? (This is all to show that the early church looked more Orthodox than it did Protestant).
2) Church authority. Because of what I mentioned in my first point, my friends will say that it was not the Protestant vision of a church being informed by the word that operated in the early decades and centuries of the church. Rather, it was the authority of the church, under the guidance of the holy spirit that was operative. Because the promise of the guidance of the holy spirit, the church was "the pillar and ground of the truth." On this understanding, there is no emphasis on church visible/church invisible distinction. Instead, it is understood that there was always a visible church on earth that had the truth. The liturgy is always being performed in some visible place on earth, and at the very least we must say that Christ is there. From the Orthodox perspective, they would hold that they are that church, to the exclusion of the Roman Catholic, and "their Reformed descendants." What is the Reformed response to the Orthodox claims of being the true church found by Jesus and the apostles?
3) Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox have never allowed for the filioque insertion into the creed. There are different conceptions on the Trinity. Whereas in the West, following Augustine perhaps, we tend to start with the unity of God, the divine essence, in the East they start with the persons of the Trinity. The Orthodox view the more Western development as essentially leading to modalism, or some other deficient view of the Trinity. Instead, they claim it is correct to start with the persons and place emphasis on the Monarchy of the Father and the begetting and procession of the others to arrive at their divinity. Is the Eastern view in peril in any way. Is there something deficient on their persons>monarchy,begetting,procession view as opposed to the divine essence>persons view? I do see a bigger danger in the West with the emphasis on the simplicity of God that has led many to a modalist view. However, I do also see a subordinationist type tendency in the East.
4) Trinity, two. Essence/energies distinction vs. incommunicable/communicable attributes. In Orthodoxy, following pseudo Dionysius and Gregory Palamas, they maintain the former distinction, and the Reformed the latter. What is problematic of the Orthodox view here, and why is the Reformed better?
5) Salvation paradigm. The Orthodox make mention that the satisfcation and, even more so, the penal substitionary atonement view is a later development. The first thousand years of the church operated on more theosis, deification understanding of salvation. The Orthodox see the "developments" in the West as a result of Latin and judicial understanding of Christianity. In the East, on the other hand, they view the atonement in more "healing" terms. Jesus was necessary for the atonement, not so much for the wrath of the Father to be poured out on his Son, but rather for the God-man to bring humanity back to the divine. For this reason, the Eucharist is important, because it is through the elements and the life of the church that we partake in the divine. In my brief study of church history and the theories of the atonement, I do find the Reformed and general Protestant view to have weaker patristic and early church support. Also, in reading the new testament, I do find myself reading with "Protestant judicial" glasses on. In being charitable I have found that I can read from a theosis informed perspective. At the same time, I do have a harder time doing the latter. Maybe this is Reformed/Protestant influence, or perhaps, that is what the bible explicitly and implicitly teaches. Anyhow, what can be said about this?
I will probably add more later, but this is it for now. I do realize this is a long-winded post, but I had a lot to say. I just ask for the responses to actually engage what I wrote instead of just brushing things off with anti-Catholic rhetoric, as is often the case in the non-Orthodox vs. Orthodox polemics. I had to say this because some of the arguments leveled against Roman Catholicism does not have the same effect against Orthodoxy.
1) The Church and the bible. This one pertains to church history and the fact that there was not a set canon until a later time in church history. In my discussions, the Orthodox will point out that the bible as we have it today was not yet around for the formative years of the church. Because of this, they will claim that it was the church, through the guidance of the holy spirit, that had authority and kept things together. Essentially, what the Orthodox are trying to get at here is that Protestantism and Sola Scriptura was not even a viable option if one wanted. My thoughts on this are as follows. Although the bible, old and new testament, were not yet canonized, the church was never without holy writ. I realize that very early on only the old testament was available, but I think this was enough given the fact that the witnesses to Jesus' ministry were still around to expound the old testament. Over time, what we now call the new testament followed. However, I must confess that it seems odd the apostles did not write earlier than they did. My question here would be, what is the Reformed response to this part of church history where people were gathering more for the eucharist than hearing God's word (as the Orthodox would say)? The Orthodox see sitting in the pew and listening to a sermon bizarre, compared to the liturgy experienced in their service. They say that the Protestant service is a later development in church history and they have a more historical one. Even more, they say that the Protestant idea was not even possible because the bible was not yet canonized, and who is to say what scripture was? (This is all to show that the early church looked more Orthodox than it did Protestant).
2) Church authority. Because of what I mentioned in my first point, my friends will say that it was not the Protestant vision of a church being informed by the word that operated in the early decades and centuries of the church. Rather, it was the authority of the church, under the guidance of the holy spirit that was operative. Because the promise of the guidance of the holy spirit, the church was "the pillar and ground of the truth." On this understanding, there is no emphasis on church visible/church invisible distinction. Instead, it is understood that there was always a visible church on earth that had the truth. The liturgy is always being performed in some visible place on earth, and at the very least we must say that Christ is there. From the Orthodox perspective, they would hold that they are that church, to the exclusion of the Roman Catholic, and "their Reformed descendants." What is the Reformed response to the Orthodox claims of being the true church found by Jesus and the apostles?
3) Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox have never allowed for the filioque insertion into the creed. There are different conceptions on the Trinity. Whereas in the West, following Augustine perhaps, we tend to start with the unity of God, the divine essence, in the East they start with the persons of the Trinity. The Orthodox view the more Western development as essentially leading to modalism, or some other deficient view of the Trinity. Instead, they claim it is correct to start with the persons and place emphasis on the Monarchy of the Father and the begetting and procession of the others to arrive at their divinity. Is the Eastern view in peril in any way. Is there something deficient on their persons>monarchy,begetting,procession view as opposed to the divine essence>persons view? I do see a bigger danger in the West with the emphasis on the simplicity of God that has led many to a modalist view. However, I do also see a subordinationist type tendency in the East.
4) Trinity, two. Essence/energies distinction vs. incommunicable/communicable attributes. In Orthodoxy, following pseudo Dionysius and Gregory Palamas, they maintain the former distinction, and the Reformed the latter. What is problematic of the Orthodox view here, and why is the Reformed better?
5) Salvation paradigm. The Orthodox make mention that the satisfcation and, even more so, the penal substitionary atonement view is a later development. The first thousand years of the church operated on more theosis, deification understanding of salvation. The Orthodox see the "developments" in the West as a result of Latin and judicial understanding of Christianity. In the East, on the other hand, they view the atonement in more "healing" terms. Jesus was necessary for the atonement, not so much for the wrath of the Father to be poured out on his Son, but rather for the God-man to bring humanity back to the divine. For this reason, the Eucharist is important, because it is through the elements and the life of the church that we partake in the divine. In my brief study of church history and the theories of the atonement, I do find the Reformed and general Protestant view to have weaker patristic and early church support. Also, in reading the new testament, I do find myself reading with "Protestant judicial" glasses on. In being charitable I have found that I can read from a theosis informed perspective. At the same time, I do have a harder time doing the latter. Maybe this is Reformed/Protestant influence, or perhaps, that is what the bible explicitly and implicitly teaches. Anyhow, what can be said about this?
I will probably add more later, but this is it for now. I do realize this is a long-winded post, but I had a lot to say. I just ask for the responses to actually engage what I wrote instead of just brushing things off with anti-Catholic rhetoric, as is often the case in the non-Orthodox vs. Orthodox polemics. I had to say this because some of the arguments leveled against Roman Catholicism does not have the same effect against Orthodoxy.