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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So I'm redoing this research again. First stop, from an OPC article: A Calvinist Looks at Orthodoxy by Jack D. Kinneer<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Appeal<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Orthodox Christianity was older <\/strong>than the Roman church. Most Church Fathers<\/strong> were Greek-speaking theologians in the East<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unbroken succession of churches from the apostles (From St. Andrew<\/a>,<\/a> apparently<\/a>), 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<\/strong>, purgatory<\/strong>, indulgences<\/strong>, the immaculate conception of Mary<\/strong>, her assumption into heaven. Doesn't really have any medieval doctrines and practices that the Reformation inherited from (mysticism<\/strong>?).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rich liturgical heritage: clergy garment, elaborate liturgies, symbols and icons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Otherness: Mysterious, sensual, heavenly. Based on the Book of Revelation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Shortcomings:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n No doctrinal statement<\/strong> other than ecumenical councils and 49 volumes of Ante- & Post-Nicene Fathers and writings of the hermits\/monastics = Desert Fathers.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Rejection\/No understanding of justification by faith<\/strong>. Sanctification = The whole Gospel<\/strong> is Theosis=deification<\/strong>. Thus, more on Sanctification rather than justification. I would say more on work rather than grace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Membership intertwined much with ethnicity <\/strong>(i.e. Russian, Greek, etc.), almost <\/strong>synonymous with being Orthodox.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Weak view of sovereign grace. Though not Pelagians, they definitely are not Augustinians on sin\/grace<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Use of icons in worship: of Christ, Mary, saints, etc. Annual Feast to celebrate end of Iconoclast controversy (843 A.D.). Icon <\/strong>of Christ is linked tightly to incarnation <\/strong>(Jesus as both God and man).<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the Bible<\/strong>, some are influenced by contemporary scholars of Rome, higher-criticism and liberals <\/strong>are within their church. Ancient Church Fathers<\/strong> have more say in the Bible than sola scriptura<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Passionate for monasticism<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Prayers to Mary<\/strong> in liturgy<\/strong>. Apostolic <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Kinneer concludes that though he's faithful to the Reformed sola scriptura<\/em>, he thinks we could learn from the Orthodoxy, though I may not completely agree: I asked the question on FB, and here's a better response<\/a>, I will bold out the ones (which GO rejects of RC) I have not covered above:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Amie Potter Roberg And here's <\/a>the GO's version of such comparison<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Next<\/a> with have GO's view on atonement, which is against PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) which came from Anselm's Satisfaction theory<\/strong> (12th century AD). GO holds to the Ransom Theory<\/a><\/strong>, which is later popularized in Gustaf Aulen's book Christus Victor<\/a> in 1931. Ransom Theory began with Irenaeus<\/a>, saying that this ransom is paid to Satan, until Anselm changed it from Satan to God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stephen Tong gave similar correction of the view:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
the Incarnation<\/strong>
the meaning of worship<\/strong>
the soul's perfection <\/strong>in the communicable attributes of God (energies of God<\/strong>)
the disciplines <\/strong>by which we grow in grace<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Orthodoxy has refrained from these Catholic innovations\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n