|
Post by Kenny on Dec 25, 2004 17:05:52 GMT -5
What is the difference between orthodox [particularly Russian] and protestant Christian?
I have had someone e-mail me asking for the difference and I told her that I would have to get back with her. If someone is knowledgeable in this section please post here a nice simple response that I could copy and paste. She is trying to become pure and get away from sin and she is a little mislead so simple terms. Do it as if you were witnessing to a person.
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Dec 25, 2004 18:56:16 GMT -5
PaxJohn is obviously the best one to answer this question. I'll be trying to pull doctrine out of him where I can at least. I don't have a short answer to what you're after because I'm still looking for it myself... Couple of things that are important to keep in mind when contrasting Protestants and Orthodox, however. - Protestants were protesting the doctrines of Rome in the 16th century and many of the most important ones are best understood by contrasting the five solas with Rome's dogma. - The Orthodox beat the protestants to protesting Rome by over 500 years. - Most of the dogma of the Roman Catholic church that Protestants opposed so vehemently was dogmatized with Anathema by Rome after the split with the east. While the east may agree with some of their positions they don't seem to have the inclination to proclaim the curse of God (the anathema) upon everyone that disagrees with them. I've personally found it somewhat difficult to get clear statements of doctrine that would be held in common the the Orthodox churches. That's one of the reasons why I posted a thread in one of the other areas asking (more like begging) for a place of clear statement of doctrine like a systematic theology, or a well done confession or a reasonably thorough and commonly used catechism. If you have something like that, then finding the differences would be much easier.
|
|
Juan
Catechumen
Keep it pithy!
Posts: 16
|
Post by Juan on Dec 25, 2004 19:07:58 GMT -5
The differences are so subtle that they have largely been lost in history.
It would be useful to read Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton.
It largely has to do with the view of adventure in life/free will and grace... the traditions are also a bit different.
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Jan 15, 2005 20:56:38 GMT -5
The differences are so subtle that they have largely been lost in history. It would be useful to read Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton. It largely has to do with the view of adventure in life/free will and grace... the traditions are also a bit different. Actually, in his book Orthodoxy, G K Chesterton is using "orthodox" in the more descriptive or conceptual sense, as opposed to "heretical". He is not writing to describe that branch of Christianity known as Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christianity comes from a different cultural mindset than the Western traditions, of which Prostestant Christianity (at least in its more conventionally "orthodox"--small "o"--varieties) remains. In many ways, you will find them much more akin in practice to rabbinic Judaism, in the sense that if you were to ask a rabbi for a systematic theology that would define Judaism, he would look at you rather quizzically. One of the best descriptions of the difference between Western and Eastern thought forms has been that if Christianity, that dynamic living relationship with our Abba Father through Jesus Christ, were a lake, the Western theologian would spend a great deal of time describing its attributes (length, width, depth, salt or fresh, etc.); the Orthodox theologian would dive in and experience the lake, realizing that ultimately all descriptive language must as some point fail to result in as intimate a knowledge of the lake, whereas immersion within the lake itself would impart a knowledge beyond the scholastic. Hence, much understanding of Orthodox Christianity comes, not merely from the writings of their theologians over the centuries, but also the experience of the glory of God through their worship. Interestingly, the Orthodox Church traditionally has thought of the split between Protestant and Catholic as simply an internecine squabble, since they both are encased in a largely Western mindset. I have found, however, that in many ways, much of evangelicalism hears in Orthodoxy what they have always believed, yet with a sense of newness. Two of your best resources as a layman for understanding Orthodox Christianity are books written by the now Bishop Kallistos Ware, nee Timothy Ware. They are The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware, and The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware. These provide two of the best introductions to Orthodoxy that I have found. You might also find the book How Are We Saved? The Understanding of Salvation in the Orthodox Tradition by Kallistos Ware to be very enlightening. You might be tempted to think their view of salvation is Arminian (or Pelagian), since they do not view assurance in the same way that we do and give emphasis to the freedom of the will. But a further look will demonstrate that in many ways, their view of salvation/sancitification is similar to the Reformed view of the "perserverance of the saints". Yet they do not stress the "penal substitution" of the atonement as much as the "subtitutionary" aspect, in that through Jesus Christ (the Word of God who becomes man), man is brought into unity with God. I will be sharing more as I study more (although I hope I will also be assisted by my Orthodox friends). In my home town of Wichita, St George's Orthodox Cathedral is much more open in engaging inquiring evangelicals. We also have book store (Eighth Day Books) which is one of the best sources in our area of both Biblical reference material and patristics. So I am making a real pest of myself to learn as much as I am able about Orthodoxy. God bless and keep you and yours in his ever-faithful love, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Apr 27, 2005 17:30:31 GMT -5
While the east may agree with some of their positions they don't seem to have the inclination to proclaim the curse of God (the anathema) upon everyone that disagrees with them. Since I've recently read the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 I retract this statement now that I know Reformed Protestants are indeed explicitely anathematized. Here is a transcript of the Synod if you'd like to read through and find out if you're eternally condemned as well. If you're arminian you may do better since they explicity state support for prevenient grace as well as predestination based upon God's foreknowledge of your good works (Decree III), but most will still run aground over anathemas regarding icons and ecclesiology... Depending upon how you read the thoroughly confused wording on sola fida (Decree XIII) you may be there as well, but they seem to be confusing sola fida for antinomianism. I find it odd that if a church is going to condemn others to hell for eternity based upon the infallible aurthority they lay claim to, why don't they take the time and effort to condemn them based upon an accurately expressed understanding of the positions? Trent's wording frequently demonstrates utter lack of understanding of Reformation principles as well. In any case, here is the document: catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html Yours In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Apr 28, 2005 9:47:34 GMT -5
I find it odd that if a church is going to condemn others to hell for eternity based upon the infallible aurthority they lay claim to... I have a couple of questions, of course. Please bear with me on this because, once again, this is something that is way over my head. - If a church, through it's doctrine or ancient manuscripts, condemns those who disagree with them to hell, is that any different that some of the more subtle, modern claims to knowledge of how to achieve righteousness/salvation? I know that not all denominations/traditions claim "the only way to Heaven" but I feel that some come dangerously close.
For example, in a conversation with a Christian friend about another denomination, I was told, "They're going to Hell." Also, my dad's church places more emphasis on being baptized than in accepting Christ as your personal saviour, though I believe that's in their belief too. It is my understanding they believe that if you aren't baptized by immersion, your going to Hell.
- If a church's doctrine/manuscripts condemn those who disagree to Hell, AND if that is seen as wrong in the eyes of God, are the church's members held accountable simply for belonging to that denomination? If so, what about those who really don't know their church's doctrine inside-out? For example, a lot of people are simply brought up in the church of their parents, never questioning issues such as doctrine. What about them?
- Is a church's doctrine considered to be the Word of God?
The ever questioning, Melinda
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Apr 28, 2005 12:50:57 GMT -5
I have a couple of questions, of course. Please bear with me on this because, once again, this is something that is way over my head. Sounds to me like you understand just fine. You're asking the same questions that led me eventually to stop calling myself Catholic. I didn't see any real differences in what was being taught at the Baptist church I was going to with my wife (she was Baptist) and what I already believed. Then I began to do the research on the teachings of the Catholic church, which led to the same kinds questions you are asking here. Some aren't just "close" as you've noted. Some have indeed crossed the line IMO. In a qeustion on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and tonues elsewhere here I contested that saying speaking tongues is a requirement for salvation is an addition to the gospel. This is an extreme charismatic viewpoint and as you have pointed out, heaven will be quite empty if this is truly the case. Mankind's propensity to generalize is truly amazing isn't it... Unfortunate, but true in many churches, not just his. Is it a "Church of Christ" church? They generally hold to this. This is why I am so, ahem, zealous about additions to the message. I just don't see Jesus words in John 3 allowing for additions and I don't see any of Paul's direct teachings on the gospel allowing for additions. And in Galatians 1 he's beside himself about one small return to the law with circumcision. [/li][li]If a church's doctrine/manuscripts condemn those who disagree to Hell, AND if that is seen as wrong in the eyes of God, are the church's members held accountable simply for belonging to that denomination? If so, what about those who really don't know their church's doctrine inside-out? For example, a lot of people are simply brought up in the church of their parents, never questioning issues such as doctrine. What about them?[/quote] This is a description of me earlier in my life. I was raised in the RCC and went to Mass and Sunday School every Sunday. My firm conviction is there are many of Christ's sheep in churches that present what I consider a false gospel. My statements on this board were with respect to the RCC, whose dogmatic teachings I consider to amount to a false gospel, but I sincerely believe I was saved as a Catholic. I understood and accepted that I was a sinner. I understood that I would one day stand before a just and holy God. I understood that the good news of Jesus Christ that was if I put my faith in him (and I didn't have any elaborate theology of what that meant and I still don't think it's necessary for salvation) for my salvation he would save me from my sins and I would go to heaven. Like I mentioned before, I only stopped calling myself a Catholic later after I finally understood that I could not submit to some dogmatic teachings of the church. I then understood why in a homily a Priest at our church had said that the RCC wasn't a democracy. Some things quite simply must be believed by the faithful when they find out they must believe them. The RCC at least no longer holds ignorance against you because in Vatican II they made what are virtually universalist claims with respect to salvation. But that's another discussion. [/li][li]Is a church's doctrine considered to be the Word of God?[/li][/ul][/quote] Only if it says it is. Orthodoxy and the RCC both make this claim. See "Decree II" here for one of Orthodoxy's statements on this: catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.htmlYours In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Apr 28, 2005 13:21:35 GMT -5
Makese sense to me. While the RCC doesn't bother me in the least, I don't believe I could ever become a convert. I'm quite happy where I am, I have seen direct, immediate response to prayer and I know that God's blessings pour over me on a daily basis. As long as I know He's with me, I'll count myself content. Melinda
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Apr 28, 2005 16:26:01 GMT -5
Makese sense to me. While the RCC doesn't bother me in the least, I don't believe I could ever become a convert. I'm quite happy where I am, I have seen direct, immediate response to prayer and I know that God's blessings pour over me on a daily basis. As long as I know He's with me, I'll count myself content. Melinda Just be glad you have the choices you do. According to one of the following quotes you flatter yourself. " A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration" Rome has also infallably declared you have not right to think this way. Here are some pleasent words from Pope Pius IX's Papal Encyclical "Quanta Cura" (Syllabus of Errors) for you to contemplate: " ... called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."This "error" is naturally followed up by the ever present anathema: Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.Lovely, lovely words. Of course he's quoting from Pope Gregory XVi's Papal Encyclical Mirari Vos which attacks freedom of Religion, freedom of the press and separation of church and state. It's a lovely letter really. Here are some of my favorite sections. I would like to know how people reconcile the following with Vatican II's statements: 13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate." Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me." A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?This one is a beauty: 16. The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books. ... Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it. 20. Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty.Melinda, you have seen many anathemas from Rome on these pages. You stand knowingly under most of those anathemas therefore according to Rome you are not a Christian and your friend is commanded that you are not a Christian. She needs to understand, as many in my family understand and accept regarding me, that these statements apply directly to us because the Pope infallably ex cathedra "commands that they [those who are in knowingly in error like you Melinda] be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned" Rome's is a false Gospel. You have the true Gospel. I beg of you to be zealous for it's purity just as Paul was zealous for it in Galatians. Yours In Christ, Ron,
|
|
|
Post by Mysterion on May 5, 2005 17:25:09 GMT -5
This is very interesting discussion, I plan on responding as soon as finals are over this week.
|
|