Since someone at church mentioned that the Eastern church (Orthodox, with capital "O") is closer to "true" Christianity" than Roman Catholicism, which just seems logically odd since the Protestant church came out of the West instead of the East, meaning that Rome parted ways (schism) with the Greeks in the 11th century over theological issue and any doctrinal differences must have diverged further through history, thus, making Rome (instead of the Greeks) to be closer to the protestant faith.
But this is just a conjecture of mine. The repetition of such encounter at church only reactivates my curiosity in this subject: What does the East believe? What are the differences against Reformed theology? How wrong were the Orthodox?
I remember trying to look this up years ago, before any personal encounter of the issue. Perhaps it was Frank Schaeffer and Hank Hanegraaff's conversions to the East, that prompted my interest in the matter. But I couldn't find much to go on. Other than the Filioque debate, icons and something about mysticism, I could not find more clarity online.
So I'm redoing this research again. First stop, from an OPC article: A Calvinist Looks at Orthodoxy by Jack D. Kinneer:
Appeal:
Orthodox Christianity was older than the Roman church. Most Church Fathers were Greek-speaking theologians in the East.
Unbroken succession of churches from the apostles (From St. Andrew, apparently), but not based on Bishop succession of Rome (From St. Peter) and this makes the protestants seen as the product of a schism off a schism. However, they have no problem considering the Reformed as Christians, just not part of their "true" church and thus, invalidating our ordinations and sacraments. By breaking away from Rome, the Greeks do not burden themselves with Papacy, purgatory, indulgences, the immaculate conception of Mary, her assumption into heaven. Doesn't really have any medieval doctrines and practices that the Reformation inherited from (mysticism?).
Rich liturgical heritage: clergy garment, elaborate liturgies, symbols and icons.
Otherness: Mysterious, sensual, heavenly. Based on the Book of Revelation?
Shortcomings:
No doctrinal statement other than ecumenical councils and 49 volumes of Ante- & Post-Nicene Fathers and writings of the hermits/monastics = Desert Fathers.
Rejection/No understanding of justification by faith. Sanctification = The whole Gospel is Theosis=deification. Thus, more on Sanctification rather than justification. I would say more on work rather than grace.
Membership intertwined much with ethnicity (i.e. Russian, Greek, etc.), almost synonymous with being Orthodox.
Weak view of sovereign grace. Though not Pelagians, they definitely are not Augustinians on sin/grace. Ezekiel 36:26-27 is foreign to them as God's grace precedes faith & human response. Don't deal much with sin, regeneration, election, etc. Don't really use/understand "original sin" much. Example: Chrysostom vs. Calvin on John 6:44-45.
Use of icons in worship: of Christ, Mary, saints, etc. Annual Feast to celebrate end of Iconoclast controversy (843 A.D.). Icon of Christ is linked tightly to incarnation (Jesus as both God and man).
On the Bible, some are influenced by contemporary scholars of Rome, higher-criticism and liberals are within their church. Ancient Church Fathers have more say in the Bible than sola scriptura.
Passionate for monasticism.
Prayers to Mary in liturgy. Apostolic liturgy involves: the Lord's Supper, the Lord's Prayer, sing psalms, hymns, spiritual songs; chanting "amen", "hallelujah" & "maranatha". Anything else would be later development of the liturgy.
Dr. Kinneer concludes that though he's faithful to the Reformed sola scriptura, he thinks we could learn from the Orthodoxy, though I may not completely agree:
the Incarnation
the meaning of worship
the soul's perfection in the communicable attributes of God (energies of God)
the disciplines by which we grow in grace
I asked the question on FB, and here's a better response, I will bold out the ones (which GO rejects of RC) I have not covered above:
Amie Potter Roberg
Orthodoxy has refrained from these Catholic innovations…
- the papacy
- purgatory
- the Filioque [GO sees this as twisting John 15:26 to unbalance the Trinity as they erroneously call it the balance of eternal procession]
- a juridical, legalistic, and meritorious understanding of salvation
- the doctrine of Original Sin
- immersion baptism for infants
- the idea that when one is made a priest, it is an ontological change
- unleavened bread for Eucharist
- barring infants from communion until they reach the "age of reason" for confirmation
- confession in a box [GO simply just confess directly to a priest in church]
- strictly unwed priests [GO allowed marry before ordination]
- statuary icons [GO: no 3D, but only 2D]
- Western scholasticism [Reason over mysticism. GO: More on Apophatic (definition on what is NOT) rather than Cataphatic (definition on what is) Theology]
- Absolute Divine Simplicity [GO wants to hold to both the unknowable essence and knowable energies of God. As long as both sides concede to a Creator/Creation Distinction, which I think the Reformed is better at explaining, I don't see much difference to argue over]
- a Dante's Inferno vision of Hell [GO doesn't like to speak of hell in the physical sense but mystic spiritual one]
- a classical theist understanding of God's relationship to creation [GO: Immanence over transcendence, more on divine energy in creation and less on distinction of creation/creation, more on caring than sovereignty of God - I would say that's why GO doesn't really do much persecution of anyone in their history]
And here's the GO's version of such comparison.
Next with have GO's view on atonement, which is against PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) which came from Anselm's Satisfaction theory (12th century AD). GO holds to the Ransom Theory, which is later popularized in Gustaf Aulen's book Christus Victor in 1931. Ransom Theory began with Irenaeus, saying that this ransom is paid to Satan, until Anselm changed it from Satan to God.
Stephen Tong gave similar correction of the view:
Some resources from PuritanBoard:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/doctrine-of-eastern-orthodox-church.9058/
Theodore Beza on the Orthodox Church from Questionum et Responsionum Christianarum, pars Altera, Quae est de Sacramentis (1577): Question #132:
I infer that, Popery is by no means Christianity, but rather, it is such a great aberration, that the one who embraces and abides in it actually falls from Christianity. I say the same about Greek Orthodoxy, which also itself is such a great deviation from Christianity that no man today may truly be a Christian and Greek Orthodox [at the same time]. I say however, that the Gentiles (who now are generally comprehended in these same two factions and are inclined to that same excision of which Paul manifestly foretold) are not, for all that, to be considered as cut off, as long as the outward note of baptism should endure there; and further I say that the Church is gathered out of the midst, and in the midst, of Popery.