This thread is split from my previous thread, "Where are the Trinitarian and Christological Boundaries", and particularly some of the longer quotes from books contained up to Post #21. It also references the discussion on the 2005 thread "Doctrine of Eastern Orthodox Church", particularly posts #5 and #6.
In order to narrow down the conversation, we'll only be discussing the Chalcedonian East. The timeframe 780-2025 refers to the period between Irene's rise to power in the Eastern Roman Empire, soon before the Second Council of Nicea (the one that mandates Icon veneration), up to the posting of this thread.
In the discussion, it appeared a few times that the view of those involved is that, at least up to a certain later than expected (by me) point, the East was orthodox enough to contain pockets of true grace, and cannot be as categorically denounced as a false church and religion as Rome can. The text quoted in post #21 in particular, placed the East on par with the Lutherans as mere schismatics. I have also periodically heard, usually from ecumenically minded folk, the claim that some Reformers avoided denouncing the East and used it's legitimacy in polemics against the tyranny of the Roman harlot.
It would seem, based on what I have been able to gather, that:
1. Denying core doctrines, including Augustinian views of salvation and Anselmian views of the attonement, is popular in modern Eastern theology.
2. Nominalism and liberalism plague the East at least just as much as it does the Protestants and Rome.
3. Theodore Beza denounced the East, but his view was not a universal view.
4. The East had it's very own Reformer, who was in contact with Western Protestants, but this did not go far before the East got rid of it.
5. The East does not really define it's theology as often as the West, making it harder to point to where they categorically rejected the gospel. It seems the East has no Council of Trent.
6. The East has no pope, no purgatory and no treasury of merit, but it does have other problems.
7. At least one Eastern Orthodox congergation moved in it's entirety, with it's clergy and people, into Protestantism as late as the 19th century. I do not no how many examples of this exist, I just happen to know that one such event accoured in Nablus, where the Eastern congergation became Anglican.
8. The East is highly grounded on a certain segment of the pre-medieval church that we all accept, or at the very least they want us to think they are.
The question of how to view the East, and whether to categorically reject them or not, is highly relevant for dealing both with Eastern Christians (nominal or serious, laymen and ordained), and with those leaving Protestantism for the East (though the latter are probably leaving because of agreeing with the worst of Eastern Ortho/Hetero-doxy). It should be noted that these questions are not strictly theoretical for me, as I know two EO's (one nominal cradle one, one who is leaving Protestantism) and it is one of the more common kinds of Christianity where I am.
In order to narrow down the conversation, we'll only be discussing the Chalcedonian East. The timeframe 780-2025 refers to the period between Irene's rise to power in the Eastern Roman Empire, soon before the Second Council of Nicea (the one that mandates Icon veneration), up to the posting of this thread.
In the discussion, it appeared a few times that the view of those involved is that, at least up to a certain later than expected (by me) point, the East was orthodox enough to contain pockets of true grace, and cannot be as categorically denounced as a false church and religion as Rome can. The text quoted in post #21 in particular, placed the East on par with the Lutherans as mere schismatics. I have also periodically heard, usually from ecumenically minded folk, the claim that some Reformers avoided denouncing the East and used it's legitimacy in polemics against the tyranny of the Roman harlot.
It would seem, based on what I have been able to gather, that:
1. Denying core doctrines, including Augustinian views of salvation and Anselmian views of the attonement, is popular in modern Eastern theology.
2. Nominalism and liberalism plague the East at least just as much as it does the Protestants and Rome.
3. Theodore Beza denounced the East, but his view was not a universal view.
4. The East had it's very own Reformer, who was in contact with Western Protestants, but this did not go far before the East got rid of it.
5. The East does not really define it's theology as often as the West, making it harder to point to where they categorically rejected the gospel. It seems the East has no Council of Trent.
6. The East has no pope, no purgatory and no treasury of merit, but it does have other problems.
7. At least one Eastern Orthodox congergation moved in it's entirety, with it's clergy and people, into Protestantism as late as the 19th century. I do not no how many examples of this exist, I just happen to know that one such event accoured in Nablus, where the Eastern congergation became Anglican.
8. The East is highly grounded on a certain segment of the pre-medieval church that we all accept, or at the very least they want us to think they are.
The question of how to view the East, and whether to categorically reject them or not, is highly relevant for dealing both with Eastern Christians (nominal or serious, laymen and ordained), and with those leaving Protestantism for the East (though the latter are probably leaving because of agreeing with the worst of Eastern Ortho/Hetero-doxy). It should be noted that these questions are not strictly theoretical for me, as I know two EO's (one nominal cradle one, one who is leaving Protestantism) and it is one of the more common kinds of Christianity where I am.
Last edited:
