Comments on: Essay. Eastern Orthodoxy, part 2

By: Jen

Jen — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:53:33 +0000

Check this timeline from a secular source:

http://www.saintbarbara.org/faith/history/timeline.cfm

There was was this idea of the Nicean Creed of ONE, holy, apostolic Church and that Church was not a mystical idea. It was under the Bishop, focused upon the Eucharist. I could back this up but it would take too much time to go into it all. You might try reading Eusebiues History of the Church written in the 300’s, available at a local bookstore.

Thank you Eliza for being so respectful.

By: ElizaF

ElizaF — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:15:45 +0000

Jen:
How did our (Reformed) Christianity come “from the Eastern Church”? This is a sincere question. I am at a loss to understand your reasoning.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:17:25 +0000

Jen,

You would have to have experienced Mormonism in order to know E. unOrthodoxy is not like it, according to your reasoning.

My faith came from God, who gives it as a free and undeserved gift. It didn’t come from the eastern church. Nor is Luther a forefather in the understanding of the E unOrth. If he were, I would have to accept his word as comparably authoritative with the Bible, and that is a view that is foreign to the Word of my Source of faith.

Words mean things, that is why we use them. In fact, God gave words, not gold-plated cartoon pictures, to reveal himself.

M.A.B.

By: ElizaF

ElizaF — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:04:29 +0000

Tim:
That last comment…that surprises me…
Jen has a point–modern evangelicalism has little in common with the reformers. The modern face of the “church” is a far cry from both E.Orthodoxy and Calvin. From what I understand (which isn’t a lot) the Orthodox have a more, shall I say, “orthodox” view of the Trinity than do most churches (even Reformed). This is an area that deserves more study: the typical, American “Christian” understanding of the Trinity. Personally, I do not understand the constant use of the name Jesus–his earthly name, for the most part. He is Lord and Savior, so why not–the Lord Jesus Christ? Have we not broken up the Trinity into 3 gods, in effect, in our thinking, talking, praying and acting? These are some thoughts from a Reformed person who struggles with some of the ideas/actions/terminology of our modern church.

By: Tim H

Tim H — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:55:14 +0000

(deleted … sorry about that)

By: jen

jen — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:00:49 +0000

It seems these ‘conversations’ never have an ending. What is the saddest is the fact that Christendom is so divided! It makes me sad that Christians view other Christians in this way—referring to the ‘reformed’ Christians I’ve often encountered and from the discussions have also been found here. The MOST annoying this, as well, is to hear an outsider who has probably never experienced an Orthodox liturgy put them as the likes of Mormonism. This couldn’t be farther from the truth of the matter. I think what all parties need here is a good dose of humility. Your Christianity came from the eastern Church that you are in fact condemning. Your forefather Luther would not have stood for this. In fact, I am quite convinced that Luther’s understanding of Christianity was much closer to that of the East than the modern idea today. Ok, so I’ll get down from my soap box now. Have fun josting with words. I’m going to go find something better to do with my time.

By: TurretinFan

TurretinFan — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:11:59 +0000

Dear ElizaF,

Perhaps JTA will correct me, but I have yet to hear of a so-called Orthodox teacher suggesting that salvation is any other way than by the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on behalf of sinners.

Some so-called Orthodox writers are a bit mechanistic (almost sacramental) in the way in which saving grace is applied, but I have never heard of any so-called Orthodox writer promoting salvation through meritorious works.

I don’t know if you are trying to suggest that in Orthodoxy (so-called) fasting and head-covering are supposed to be works that save.

I’ve never heard any so-called Orthodox apologete suggest such a thing, and – indeed – I’ve heard that in some churches, such as the American Orthodox Church, the laity (as they are termed) are given the impression that fasting is commendable but wholy voluntary.

Furthermore, even in more rigid so-called Orthodox bodies, the fasting calendar is not strictly followed by more than a tiny percentage of the church.

As JTA hinted, it is increasingly common for women to neglect observation of the head-covering, especially among casual church goers (“ethnic Orthodox”).

-Turretinfan

By: ElizaF

ElizaF — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:31:27 +0000

JTA:
You mention fasting and head covering (for women; “at least they are told to”)as evidence of treasuring the Word of God over tradition. Why do you imply these teachings are unique to the E. Orthodox Church? Maybe you do not get around.

In addition, if there are extrabiblical traditions that are taught in your church, then those must be taken into account when racking up the whose-church-is-faithful-to-the-Word score. The Pharisees were commended for their keeping some laws, but rebuked for leaving others undone as well as rebuked for adding to the law of God with traditions of men. It’s more complex than you seem to imply.

In fact all the works in the world that WE do cannot atone for our sins. We must have all our sins covered by Christ’s blood (shed on the Cross 2,000 years ago), which is why we remember that in the symbol of the cup of the Lord’s Supper. When we trust in Him for salvation, we will, of course, out of gratitude respond with good, though nonmeritorious, works.

But best wishes, and may we all grow ever more
Biblical and follow the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

By: Tim H

Tim H — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:07:06 +0000

Right. Affirming that all Scripture is authoritative is not the same as saying it is all intended literally.

By: TurretinFan

TurretinFan — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:18:17 +0000

Stephen,
You seem to confuse Protestant’s recognition that:

“This is My body . . . this is My blood” and “For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.”

employs metaphor, just as in:

John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

In fact, could it be any clearer that Christ is not more baked dough or a wooden cup, than He has grape leaves or a doorknob?

Perhaps that’s why there’s no evidence of any professing Christian teaching the doctrine of physical transformation within the first millenium of Christianity, while at least one council during that period referred to the elements as an icon of Christ (the one and only proper icon of our Lord).

-Turretinfan