Shouldn't Protestants Really be Converted to Orthodox?

[dessert]

Many protestants DO convert to Orthodoxy.

Why?

 

[JRKH]

Yea, weird huh? Perhaps I don’t like to argue PRECISELY because I’m highly opinionated. But those opinions don’t extend to criticizing others over fine points of doctrine that no one can know definitively anyway.

I too find it rediculous some of the things people wind up arguing over.
Of course I must confess to getting suck in sometimes.

I have thought of doing writing something on this. If I did I would call it:
“Was Jesus Left Handed”
Just as a segue into the idea of how we can argue ourselves silly over details and miss the larger picture.

Peace
James

 

[ralphinal]

I too find it rediculous some of the things people wind up arguing over.
Of course I must confess to getting suck in sometimes.

I have thought of doing writing something on this. If I did I would call it:
“Was Jesus Left Handed”
Just as a segue into the idea of how we can argue ourselves silly over details and miss the larger picture.

Peace
James

The problem is that to someone, the detail is the larger picture. Think about it. How many splits have there been over what seems to be a minor issue. To the people who left, it was not minor.

 

[Hesychios]

Hey look we are catholic , yet not!

I don’t follow this.

Like my response to the other post. I view the Orthodox as a copy
cat off Catholicism and wanted their own catholic church.

Later they copied of what the protestants were doing and put some of that in their churches.

To me you are either catholic or protestant, the viewpoints are so radicaly different how can there be a middle ground?

Wow.

 

[Peter_J]

The problem is that to someone, the detail is the larger picture. Think about it. How many splits have there been over what seems to be a minor issue. To the people who left, it was not minor.

Well said!

And sometimes, a point needs to be insisted on for reasons that are external (if you will) to the point itself. For example, Cardinal Newman believed it was unwise for VCI to dogmatically define Papal Infallibility; but once it was defined, it was a dogma, like it or not.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t follow this. Wow.

You have to keep in mind that Sublime Prince uses the word “Orthodox” to refer to what most of us would call “the Anglicans”.

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello strngrnrth,

Maybe an individual story would answer part of the question.

Oh, I don’t know…maybe…

… mixed feelings … felt that way… why I felt it was time to explore further…I also felt… it felt wrong.

You seem to concentrate on feelings quite a bit. By that I think you might me having an emotional reaction to whatever new external qualities you have been exposed to. This could be unrelated to the question of Truth.

If you had decided against the Catholic church the other posters here would be all over you for that. The Catholic church would be the first to emphasize Faith and Reason, you must intellectually assent to all the dogmatic positions of the church and feelings should not…must not…get in the way.

I do hope that you have been led by the Holy Spirit, and I personally think that you will do fine if you stick with this decision. But don’t let your feelings guide you back out again, it is not an appropriate means or tool for making an eternal decision about your soul.

Peter wasn’t the big hurdle, essentially. If we are to have patriarchs, it actually makes sense that we would know who is the original patriarch.

That’s fine as far as it goes.

But the issue for Orthodox is not really about that. So it does not answer their objections to the office of the modern bishop of Rome.

One really needs to study the ecclesiology of the early church, and the ecclesiology of the other Apostolic churches to get a grasp of how primacy is exercised routinely. Then take another look at the bishop of Rome, and how his function has changed or evolved over the centuries.

If you are comfortable with that and the arguments presented to justify it, you are in the right place. But be sure you are making an informed decision.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

You have to keep in mind that Sublime Prince uses the word “Orthodox” to refer to what most of us would call “the Anglicans”.

I can see that.

I read Virtue Online quite a bit, and it seems like the conservative Evangelical Anglican party likes to refer to itself as Orthodox Anglicanism.

While I have a great deal of sympathy for their position vis a vis TEC I was always perturbed with their terminology.

Now then, if those fellows in Geneva had been under the influence of Greeks instead of Continental Protestant Reformers and Cranmer had led the Church of England into Holy Orthodoxy I would consider what came next something Orthodox.

Pity.

 

[ralphinal]

for the record, I have no issue with someone who lands in Constantinople instead of Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

for the record, I have no issue with someone who lands in Constantinople instead of Rome.

I think you and I are much more alike than it first appears.

I feel, for the record, that anyone who comes in from the cold to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy is equally blessed.

I have no problems with Protestants and unchurched seekers becoming Catholics in communion with the Pope of Rome. I also congratulate them for making the difficult decision to approach apostolic Christianity with such courage.

God Grant Them Many Years!

 

[ralphinal]

I think you and I are much more alike than it first appears.

I feel, for the record, that anyone who comes in from the cold to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy is equally blessed.

I have no problems with Protestants and unchurched seekers becoming Catholics in communion with the Pope of Rome. I also congratulate them for making the difficult decision to approach apostolic Christianity with such courage.

God Grant Them Many Years!

My view is this, and I think you would agree with the words reversed.

I find the case for the Catholic Church as being closer to the original than the Orthodox. I cannot say that the Catholic Church has the monopoly on sacramental grace, or the only apostolic succession, as I accept that the Orthodox Churches are also heirs to the faith.

I can say that non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians have some of the Original Faith within their churches, to varying degrees. If, while one the search for truth, they realize that they should change to one or the other, they gain more access to that which is pure.

If they find Rome to be home, wonderful. IF they find Orthodoxy more for them, fine. In either event they gain so much more.

 

[strngrnrth]

You seem to concentrate on feelings quite a bit. By that I think you might me having an emotional reaction to whatever new external qualities you have been exposed to. This could be unrelated to the question of Truth.

If you had decided against the Catholic church the other posters here would be all over you for that. The Catholic church would be the first to emphasize Faith and Reason, you must intellectually assent to all the dogmatic positions of the church and feelings should not…must not…get in the way.

I do hope that you have been led by the Holy Spirit, and I personally think that you will do fine if you stick with this decision. But don’t let your feelings guide you back out again, it is not an appropriate means or tool for making an eternal decision about your soul.

Well, I would have gone further into the facts that affected my choice except that I remembered there is a limit on post size. It was a mix of both. My choice of churches while Evangelical was mostly emotional and intuitive, and to a degree so was my choice of Tiber v. Bosporus, but the choice to get wet was more fact-based, as was my decision to become a Christian at all; I have posted on some of my reasons elsewhere a few times now. I’m not leaving.

But the issue for Orthodox is not really about that. So it does not answer their objections to the office of the modern bishop of Rome.

Then I guess I misunderstood the division.

One really needs to study the ecclesiology of the early church, and the ecclesiology of the other Apostolic churches to get a grasp of how primacy is exercised routinely. Then take another look at the bishop of Rome, and how his function has changed or evolved over the centuries.

Yeah, I’m trying. I’m getting leads here.

If you are comfortable with that and the arguments presented to justify it, you are in the right place. But be sure you are making an informed decision.

Yep. I thought my own story would help make this concrete, but I don’t know how typical it is. One woman from my last church was telling me how she talked to an Orthodox priest I see around. She said, “He’s Jewish.” I said he is not. I was irritated that she had talked with him, seen the big cross he wears and everything and still didn’t even know he’s a fellow Christian. She was annoyed that I was contradicting her, my elder. She had thought that “Orthodox” was a synonym for “Jewish.” Maybe the reason fewer Protestants turn Orthodox is that many have no idea there is such a choice. They don’t know the word. I knew, and it sounded interesting, but it didn’t rub me right. When I began understanding what it means that Jesus built the Church on Peter I was glad I hadn’t gone Orthodox.

 

[DLC]

The Church Fathers testify that they too upheld the Scriptures as the sufficient and authoritative font of divine revelation.
The Fathers also held tradition in high esteem, but for them tradition was not a supplementary source of divine doctrines in addition to the teaching of the Scripture. "Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, refer with equal confidence to the “rule of faith;” that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, and above all as still living in the original apostolic churches, like those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome… the substance of its doctrine this apostolic tradition agrees with the holy scriptures, and though derived, as to its form, from the oral preaching of the apostles, is really, as to its contents, one and the same with there apostolic writings… In the narrower sense, by apostolic tradition or the rule of faith was understood a doctrinal summary of Christianity, or a compend of the faith of the church.” History of the Christian Church, II:12.
The following quotations prove that the Fathers considered the Scriptures as both sufficient and the highest authority in the church.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III.
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
Athanasius; Against the Heathen, I:3.
The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.
Athanasius, De Synodis.
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.
John Chrysostom, Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC.
Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.
Basil, The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC
What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.
Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 7.
We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.
Basil, Moralia, 72:1.
The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign.
Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Bk 3, ch. 6.
If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema.
Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 10.
Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.
Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 3.
Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures.
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II, 9.
For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life.
Augustine, De Bono Viduitatis.
What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostles? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.
Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9.
There is one God the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other sourc, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God.

 

[JRKH]

The Church Fathers testify that they too upheld the Scriptures as the sufficient and authoritative font of divine revelation.
The Fathers also held tradition in high esteem, but for them tradition was not a supplementary source of divine doctrines in addition to the teaching of the Scripture. "Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, refer with equal confidence to the “rule of faith;” that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, and above all as still living in the original apostolic churches, like those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome… the substance of its doctrine this apostolic tradition agrees with the holy scriptures, and though derived, as to its form, from the oral preaching of the apostles, is really, as to its contents, one and the same with there apostolic writings… In the narrower sense, by apostolic tradition or the rule of faith was understood a doctrinal summary of Christianity, or a compend of the faith of the church.” History of the Christian Church, II:12.
The following quotations prove that the Fathers considered the Scriptures as both sufficient and the highest authority in the church.

(Snip)

There is one God the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other sourc, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God.

I thank you for the effort you put into your post, though I fail to see the direct relevance to the topic.

To point to the ECT’s as supporting the “Sufficency of Scripture” is to prove what? Of course the Church has always held Scripture to be the central document of the faith. However, do you believe that any of these men, from their writings, would agree with the idea of Removing the Bible from the Traditon and Church which Christ established? Do you think that these men would agree with Sola-Scriptura, individual interpretation and the rejection of the Authority of the Church?

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

DLC,

I think it might help if you could give a specific example of something the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church teach that you see as foreign to the Bible (either an example for each, or one example for both).

 

[LoveofGod]

May Christ our God illuminate our minds and hearts by His One Holy Spirit given to the One Body of Christ and have Mercy on us all. I do not want to come across as tryiing to “convert” anyone from the path Christ has you on in his gentle manner, but do have some possible add-ons to DLC’s quotes and connection to this thread here.

The Church Fathers testify that they too upheld the Scriptures as the sufficient and authoritative font of divine revelation…John Chrysostom, Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC.
Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.
Basil, The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC
What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.
Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 7.
We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.
Basil, Moralia, 72:1.
The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign.

DLC, interesting quotes showing that the Orthodox Church Fathers always honored the Holy Scriptures and very important to all catholic Orthodox believers like John Chrysostom and Saint Basil, whom you pulled quotes from.

If you found that John Chrysostom also said that Scripture apart from apostolic understanding of Holy Scripture was unheard of in the early Church and if you found out that St. Basil honored Mary The God Bearer, The Theotokos as Mother of God, while honoring Holy Scriptures as you pointed out, what would that mean to a modernized western understanding? And if you found out that St. John Chrysostom also pointed out that the early Christian Church never relied only on Scripture but clearly accepted and followed not only Scripture (open to private interpretation), but rather followed Scripture ACCORDING TO Apostolic Tradition and understanding, what would that mean to your church history viewpoint?

It would seem you would have 2 choices: say that Orthodox catholic (not Roman catholic necessarily) faithful believers like John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, believed in sufficiency of Holy Scripture and in that light made the sign of the Cross over themselves, and accepted the real presence of Christ in their weekly Liturgy, because they had been taught by the apostolically faithful Christians how to correctly interpret The Bible or you would have to contradict yourself and say that they believed and taught old and new testament sufficiency of scripture sometimes living as calvinists, reformists, baptist like Christians, while the next day living as Orthodox faithful Christians. In the latter case, it would put the historian you quoted in a precarious position of accepting schitzophrenics as the source of Christian historical defense of Biblical sufficiency, which is obviously an untenable position.

Really interested in your viewpoint on this very important subject, since this is one of the main reasons why The Orthodox Fathers you quoted have led many Bible believers to the fullness of the Faith in Orthodoxy while others are still on that path to find Orthodoxy with detours in mostly Augustinian influenced Churches. By this I mean, it was Augustine who was separated by language (latin vs Greek) and distance+time from Chrysostom, Basil and Athanasius, and unfortunately made up a “new interpretation” of something called Original sin, because he considered sex to be evil in marriage and came up with the antiChristian belief that sex was the means by which sin was transmitted from generations to generations. This false doctrine is what is guiding the Lutheran, Calvinists and most modernized western Bible believers alongside of the Roman catholics against the original apostolic faith taught by Orthodox Christians in the early Church. Main connection to this thread- how could the original Church Fathers miss modern Roman teachings on papal infallibility, and sex as evil and transmission of original sin, if Chrysostom and Basil and Athanasius had their Apostolically accurate and true Theology based on the same grounds as Augustinian theology in the modern Church of Rome.

Is it not therefore more historically accurate to say that the modern Church of Rome obviously departed from the consensus of The Holy Spirit’s teaching to all Christians everywhere since the modern church of Rome is far in certain important areas from our Apostolic understanding of our One Body of Christ in One Faith, One LORD and One Baptism?

Hope I am not offending anyone on their path to the same faith of the early Church by pointing out clear concerns of Orthodox in regards to modern roman teachings and the teachings of Bible believers who follow the same tradition but deny the historical roots of some of their doctrines.

humbly,
Anthony

 

[valient_Lucy]

Many Protestants reject far more than simply Papal authority. Many Protestants believe that there are only two sacraments, and reject a sacramental theology, believing that the sacraments are only symbols. One of the key doctrines of the Reformation, sola scriptura, would also be denied by the Orthodox Church. Add to this the intercession of the saints, and the honor the Orthodox Church gives to the Virgin Mary, many Protestants would have just as difficult a time adapting to the Orthodox Church as they would to the Catholic Church.

 

[thirdn6]

Hey look we are catholic , yet not !

Like my response to the other post. I view the Orthodox as a copy
cat off Catholicism and wanted their own catholic church.

Later they copied of what the protestants were doing and put some of that in their churches.

To me you are either catholic or protestant, the viewpoints are so radicaly different how can there be a middle ground?

Anglicanism is the middle ground or ‘via-media’, many say.

You view the Orthodox as a “copy-cat” off Catholicism. They’re ancient.
I view Anglicanism as a “clone” off Catholicism. They’re modern.
The latter claims to be the third branch of Catholicism which, as far as I know, is just a deception.

I think both reject each other.
To bring them together maybe is not a problem. But to re-unite them as one with the Catholic Church (headed by our pope) will cause us a big problem. Just my thoughts…

 

[Hesychios]

Many Protestants reject far more than simply Papal authority. Many Protestants believe that there are only two sacraments, and reject a sacramental theology, believing that the sacraments are only symbols. One of the key doctrines of the Reformation, sola scriptura, would also be denied by the Orthodox Church. Add to this the intercession of the saints, and the honor the Orthodox Church gives to the Virgin Mary, many Protestants would have just as difficult a time adapting to the Orthodox Church as they would to the Catholic Church.

These are my thoughts as well.

 

[Hesychios]

I think both reject each other.
To bring them together maybe is not a problem. But to re-unite them as one with the Catholic Church (headed by our pope) will cause us a big problem. Just my thoughts…

I think that if the Papacy reunified with Holy Orthodoxy (assuming both parties made some compromises or concessions to make this possible) the rift between Catholicism and Protestantism would widen.

Alternatively, if the Papacy affected some kind of reunion with Protestant churches it could very likely make the rift with Holy Orthodoxy wider.

As an Orthodox Christian, I would much rather see Rome concentrate it’s efforts on the Protestant communities first. At least then we would know what we were in for and measure our responses accordingly.

Apparently, this Pope and the last Pope have put more effort in reconciling with Orthodoxy first.

I do believe though, that if the role of the Bishop of Rome becomes defined in a way that will be acceptable to the Orthodox, a lot of objections the Protestants have on that issue will dissipate.