Posted on 10/31/2011 5:10:42 AM PDT by rzman21
Introduction In the past decade there has been an ever increasing level of interest in Orthodoxy in this country. Along with this interest has come a tremendous increase in the number of converts from Protestantism to Orthodoxy. Thus, it was inevitable that Protestant apologists would begin to train their intellectual artillery on Orthodoxy. In the Protestant Reformed journal Credenda/Agenda, we find one of the first attempts to repudiate the claims and teachings of the Orthodox Church in a way that does not merely rehash anti-Roman polemics (though the author does not fully escape this temptation, as we shall see).
In the lead article of the issue under consideration, Douglas Jones attempts to lay out the battle plans for subsequent articles. He briefly levels six specific charges against the Orthodox Faith in order to support his basic thesis that it is apostate. We have chosen to list these in the order in which we will address them, not as he presented them: 1) our theology is Platonistic, and thus pagan; 2) the doctrine of Theosis relegates the Cross of Christ to a "quaint sideshow"; 3) Orthodoxy teaches salvation by works, substituting human effort for Christ's effort; 4) we have subjugated God's revelation (Holy Scripture) to human tradition; 5) we place an undue emphasis on ecclesiastical power and tradition which has turned the Church into a magisterial authority dominated by "ecclesiastics"; 6) our worship is arrogant and pagan.
One may wonder why it has taken so long for an Orthodox response to this Credenda issue to appear. Even though some Protestants have found the articles persuasive, many Orthodox have argued that these articles should not even be dignified with a response. Jones' remarks in particular lack balance and objectivity. The Church that has produced tens of millions of martyrs for Christ in this century alone is to him merely a "synagogue of Satan." Common sense, decency, and even a cursory reading of Orthodox materials—let alone interaction with Orthodox Christians—would easily lead an objective person to the conclusion that the Credenda staff's depiction of the Orthodox Church is way off. Nevertheless, we have decided to respond to these articles because many sincere Protestants who are unfamiliar with Orthodoxy have unwittingly accepted them at face value. We felt that a thorough reply was necessary for the sake of those Evangelicals who want to learn the truth about the Orthodox Church.
What will become more clear as one reads the rest of the issue in question is that the authors' fundamental misunderstanding of Orthodoxy stems from a penchant for analyzing everything through the prism of a Reformed Protestant worldview. This worldview is decidedly different from that of the Orthodox, and likewise that of Christian antiquity. Their mistakes are also the result of an over-dependence upon modern Orthodox writers (who frequently do not properly articulate the Patristic consensus), as well as a complete neglect of the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church. The latter is an especially serious error; for our theology is often set forth in these texts in ways that other written forms of Holy Tradition do not. To overlook them is to invite error and misrepresentation, both of which are rife in these essays. In the end, Jones and company portray an Orthodoxy which no one (Orthodox or otherwise) with even a moderate grasp of Orthodox belief could recognize.
Anybody got popcorn?
I’ll bite. Why do some modern Orthodox writers not properly articulate Patristic consensus? This seems a serious problem.
The article suggests “neglect of the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church. The latter is an especially serious error; for our theology is often set forth in these texts in ways that other written forms of Holy Tradition do not.”
Frankly, that is the problem.
Men can argue till the second coming about what “liturgical texts” do or do not say and mean, but they neglect the only Text that matters.
This article is just more buzzword-filled blabber in the cacophony of manmade theology.
This seems to be the normal procedure. They start out by misrepresenting their target and then attack that misrepresentation.
I’m a Protestant currently attending an Orthodox Church because my wife was raised in it. They get the basics right - one path to salvation is Christ.
I see the Christian church moving to one denomination. What we agree on is much more important than where we disagree. People focus too much on the small stuff. Meanwhile, the world around us, literally, goes to Hell.
“Men can argue till the second coming about what “liturgical texts” do or do not say and mean, but they neglect the only Text that matters.
This article is just more buzzword-filled blabber in the cacophony of manmade theology.”
The Article was in response to another article written about the Orthodox faith, which was filled with technical errors misrepresenting Orthodox theology. That was the point of the article.
I’m not going to argue with you about who decided which texts were *the* text and why, but suffice it to say that most Christians today, of whatever type, read Holy Scripture with certain axioms which were not always taken as fact.
Take the time to read Pelikan’s series “The History of Christian Doctrine” and then come back for a chat about “buzzword-filled blabber” (a charge which most Orthodox Christians would lay against others for concepts such as Sola Scriptura or the meaning of the Second Coming, which you referenced). Your axioms are not so easily assumed without a great deal of mental exercises, which have filled volumes of very technical theological treatises. The fact that *you* take these conclusions as axiomatic without understand *why* does not make them any less technical or less argued or less nuanced.
“the authors’ fundamental misunderstanding of Orthodoxy stems from a penchant for analyzing everything through the prism of a Reformed Protestant worldview.”
The only valid prism is The Word Of God, not the words of man.
I have had two Methodist friends tell me they “hate” the Catholic church. But when I inquire, they don’t know why. On the internet, there are many “hate” the Catholic church sites, telling about dungeons in convents, nuns held captive and starved and other assorted garbage.
Meanwhile the other “Christian” denominations ignore the pro abortion, pro adultery, pro other sin stances of their “churches”.
What is this supposed to convey?
In the lead article of the issue under consideration, Douglas Jones attempts to lay out the battle plans for subsequent articles. He briefly levels six specific charges against the Orthodox Faith in order to support his basic thesis that it is apostate. We have chosen to list these in the order in which we will address them, not as he presented them: 1) our theology is Platonistic, and thus pagan; 2) the doctrine of Theosis relegates the Cross of Christ to a "quaint sideshow"; 3) Orthodoxy teaches salvation by works, substituting human effort for Christ's effort; 4) we have subjugated God's revelation (Holy Scripture) to human tradition; 5) we place an undue emphasis on ecclesiastical power and tradition which has turned the Church into a magisterial authority dominated by "ecclesiastics"; 6) our worship is arrogant and pagan.
One may wonder why it has taken so long for an Orthodox response to this Credenda issue to appear. Even though some Protestants have found the articles persuasive, many Orthodox have argued that these articles should not even be dignified with a response.
Ping for later
You means little things like gay marriage and praying to anyone other than God/Christ? Those aren’t so little.
I’ll be staying at my values based protestant church. Some things I can work with Catholics on, but not enough.
It looks like someone’s imaginative scene of a dungeon in the Spanish Inquisition. Not sure what that has to do with Eastern Orthodoxy.
Um, so the Orthodox church doesn’t consider itself Protestant - which makes it Catholic? Or was it the Catholics who “protested” against the Orthodox by starting a new denomination? Very confusing.
Perhaps you have missed the mirade of articles about the fights within these churches against these very things. There have been many of them posted on FR, and I'm sure there will be more. Keep your eyes open. :)
you see it on freerepublic all the time too!
the Orthodox are part of the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church.
The Orthodox believe that they are true Catholic Church. But they share about 95 percent of the same beliefs as the Roman Catholic Church minus St. Augustine’s teachings on grace and papal supremacy.
They accord him a primacy of honor and certain prerogatives as the Successor of St. Peter as the head of the Church of Rome.
“This article is just more buzzword-filled blabber in the cacophony of manmade theology.”
Do you mean like Baptist theology and the traditions of men that go into your Biblical hermaneutics?
I guess Martin Luther didn’t read his Bible considering he taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, sacramental absolution, the necessity of water baptism for salvation, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.