Q#1-What is the difference(s) between Protestants and Orthodox Christians?

[Wesley7]

What are the difference(s) between Protestants and Orthodox Christians???

 

[agiosotheos]

Typically, the conception of the ancestral curse (“original sin”).

 

[Wesley7]

To note a few specific ones;

Protestant “churches” do not have Apostolic Succession.
Protestants use a “Sola Scriptura” approach to interpreting Scripture.
Also, Protestants do not have the proper placement of Tradition.

. .

 

[ralphinal]

Hisorical development is another (though it is not theological). Protestants are a late comer to the party and they are from areas where there was no first century Church

 

[John_Larocque]

Reform theology is heavily Augustinian (even more so than Catholics). All you need to do is look around and see the fatwas that were issued when a number of Protestants described penal substitution as a “cosmic child abuse” and all that ensued. The Orthodox view of Easter appears to be mostly “Christus Victor” - “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death.”

This “post Protestant” likes to clim that he prefers the theology of the first five hundred years over the last five hundred.

theogeek.blogspot.com/2007/06/church-fathers-on-atonement.html

The fatwa was issued against Steve Chalke by Evangelicals. Some of it is covered here in this thread:
theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=111638

 

[theistgal]

To note a few specific ones;

Protestant “churches” do not have Apostolic Succession.
Protestants use a “Sola Scriptura” approach to interpreting Scripture.
Also, Protestants do not have the proper placement of Tradition.

. .

You left out an important word in your descriptions of Protestants: “SOME”.

Some Protestants do indeed have Apostolic Succession, though it may have become obscured or corrupted over the years. (Anglicans, Old Catholics)

Some Protestants believe in “Sola Scriptura”; some do not (Anglicans).

Some Protestants have great respect for Tradition (as they understand it) (Anglicans)

And FWIW, there are plenty of Catholics around here (not me!) who would happily consign you, as a non-Catholic Orthodox Christian, to the same level as the Protestants you have so little respect for. It’s so much fun to judge others, isn’t it?

 

[John_Larocque]

Interestingly enough, these critiques of Penal Substitution are coming from Protestants. Which proves there’s no monopoly of theological views there.

lofitribe.com/penal-substitution-or-christus-victor/

So, I have been seriously preoccupied with one, ultimate question: “What happened on the cross?” I found the answer while critically unpacking the Cross, Atonement Theory(ies), and honestly questioning more than a few of my previously unexamined beliefs.

So, where am I landing, as far as Christology is concerned? My answer, without a second of hesitation: Christus Victor. I have had more than a few serious difficulties with Vicarious Atonement, Penal Substitution, and Satisfaction Theories. I will save the specific problems inherent to such theories for a later post, but I will now say that these motifs developed much, much later in Christian history (Anselm, Abelard, & Protestantism). The first 1000 years of so of Christianity were characterized by an embrace of Christus Victor. I think that is more than important to note.

So, what is Christus Victor? It is, as some would advance, the Atonement motif in the New Testament. It is the proverbial battle between Good and Evil. Christus Victor explains Christ’s work on the cross as the defeat of Satan (the Biblical “Strong Man”), and the freeing of humanity from the bonds of Sin, Death and the Satan (the autonomous force of defiance). Christ defeated the Satan in what was incorrectly perceived, by the Satan, as a moment of weakness. Christ’s death was the literal undoing of the evil bent upon deterioration, death and destruction. Jesus, by overextending the over-confident enemy, defeated it, thus providing not only humanity, but also the universe its salvation (salvation which occurs in each of us upon our acknowledgment & acceptance of it, via the daily work of the Holy Spirit). Christus Victor is not built upon the idea of Christ’s work on the cross as appeasement for God. God does not need a blood appeasement - or the death of His Son - to forgive. The problem is Sin, Death, and The Satan, not God’s need for blood appeasement. This is a huge difference! Again, Christus Victor was the embraced Atonement motif of the earliest Christians. Too, Christus Victor is very, very conducive to the overarching cosmic dualism of the New Testament (Good vs. Evil).

I don’t mean to clobber people over the head, but a sacramental understanding of St. Paul is really in order. When you are baptised, you are baptised in the death, descent into hell and resurrection of Christ. Also, the Eucharist is the body of Christ, and the church is also the body of the Christ (i.e. through the eucharist). The Eucharist is also deeply connected to the death of Jesus.

There is a fomula that I read from John Zizioulas which is strongly anchored to Ignatius of Antioch (who was building on the Pauline model):

Its presence in history follows the line which Ignatius presents to us in such a remarkably concise and comprehensive way, and which, curiously, has been overlooked by scholarly research: one Church, one Eucharist, one flesh and one cup, one altar, one Bishop with the presbyterium and the deacons. Thus, in conclusion, the “Catholic Church” is identified according to Ignatius with the whole Christ, and the whole Christ is to be found and is revealed in the most tangible way in the eucharistic synaxis and communion of all the members of each Church under the leadership of the Bishop. In consequence, the local Church is catholic not because of her relationship with the “universal” Church, but because of the presence within her of the whole Christ in the one Eucharist under the leadership of the Bishop. In this way, each local Church having its own Bishop is catholic per se; that is to say, it is the concrete form in space and time of the whole body of Christ, of the “generic” (kath’ olou) Church.

Several early fathers, I think Justin Martyr, and also St. Iraneus, linked the celebration of the Eucharist to Malachi’s prophecy of the era when the Gentiles would offer incense and pure sacrifice to the Lord. Also the early fathers definitely believed in the Real Presence.

 

[Parascheva1014]

It’s almost impossible to answer this question without first knowing exactly which protesant sect. There are over 30,000.

You could always go to orthodoxforum.com and ask. I’m sure they’d be happy to itemize for you.

 

[Harpazo]

You left out an important word in your descriptions of Protestants: “SOME”.

Some Protestants do indeed have Apostolic Succession, though it may have become obscured or corrupted over the years. (Anglicans, Old Catholics)

Some Protestants believe in “Sola Scriptura”; some do not (Anglicans).

Some Protestants have great respect for Tradition (as they understand it) (Anglicans)

And FWIW, there are plenty of Catholics around here (not me!) who would happily consign you, as a non-Catholic Orthodox Christian, to the same level as the Protestants you have so little respect for. It’s so much fun to judge others, isn’t it?

Even then you need to insert a “some” into the parenthesis. It varies even among the exceptions!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[bpbasilphx]

Orthodox wrote the Bible that Protestants are always appealing to.

 

[agiosotheos]

Some Protestants… Old Catholics

I have never before heard Old Catholics referred to as Protestants.

And FWIW, there are plenty of Catholics around here (not me!) who would happily consign you, as a non-Catholic Orthodox Christian, to the same level as the Protestants you have so little respect for. It’s so much fun to judge others, isn’t it?

And the same could be said of EO towards those in dogmatic and sacramental union with Rome.

 

[agiosotheos]

There is usually a stark distinction in the understanding of the Atonement.

As there is with justification.

And various issues of the salvation of Man related to the Augustine vs. Pelagius debate (which really became so much larger than those two parties).

 

[trophybearer]

You left out an important word in your descriptions of Protestants: “SOME”.

Some Protestants do indeed have Apostolic Succession, though it may have become obscured or corrupted over the years. (Anglicans, Old Catholics)

Some Protestants believe in “Sola Scriptura”; some do not (Anglicans).

Some Protestants have great respect for Tradition (as they understand it) (Anglicans)

And FWIW, there are plenty of Catholics around here (not me!) who would happily consign you, as a non-Catholic Orthodox Christian, to the same level as the Protestants you have so little respect for. It’s so much fun to judge others, isn’t it?

Many Orthodox consider Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as two sides of the same coin… So… Ya know.