Why doesn't Protestantism look like Eastern Orthodoxy?

[ConstantineTG]

I understand what you are saying,but I am simply saying sin keeps us away from God-correct?

God Bless

Keeps us away from God in what way? I can think of an aspect where the answer is “yes”, but in a different context it can also be “no”.

 

[JonNC]

Now, this is very interesting, steido and Jon. Thank you for the reading. It is very interesting, and I think, while I don’t completely agree with XXVIII, I can understand the rationale for not wanting the bishop to be a temporal authority, and I think it is very much like the Catholic position on the preliminary look of it - although something is skewed about it, namely the question of Apostolic Succession.

I mean, I agree a priest should receive the “calling” to become a priest. Same with a bishop. And again, while I don’t think a bishop’s temporal power necessarily invalidates his authority, I agree a bishop should aspire to Heavenly rewards.

But what do Lutherans make of the historical line of bishops centuries before Luther, such as the Liber Pontificalis? Why would such records be kept if the original form of Christianity had no bishops, or apostolic succession, but only “ministers”? The bishops serve a very important purpose, as we see it: preserving orthodoxy. They are and ought to be like your ministers. But they are something more.

I don’t think it would be exact to say that Lutherans disregard the necessity of bishops, or even AS. From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

As Steido said, the reformers were reacting to what they viewed as corruption among the bishops:

But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine.

Obviously, that’s not the case today, and I don’t see As as being an obstacle for unity, other differences having been resolved.

Jon

 

[manualman]

… Like right now, I should be working but I’ve hyperfocused on CAF, again, for the Nth time.

I know a little how you feel. We’ve each had our say, so I’ll quit this one and leave you to other things. Thanks.

 

[Nicea325]

Keeps us away from God in what way? I can think of an aspect where the answer is “yes”, but in a different context it can also be “no”.

My brother…do not try to read between the lines. We both know very well sin is not good-period.

God Bless

 

[ConstantineTG]

My brother…do not try to read between the lines. We both know very well sin is not good-period.

God Bless

But every religion out there believes that sin is bad.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My brother…do not try to read between the lines. We both know very well sin is not good-period.

God Bless

I revisited an old blog post by Fr. Stephen Freeman and he articulates this point I was trying to get across very well.

Here is what he said:

Thus the problem of sin is not a legal issue, but an ontological issue (a matter of being and true existence). The goal of the Christian life is union with God, to be partakers of His Divine Life. Sin rejects that true existence and moves us away from God and towards a spiral of non-being.

 

[Nicea325]

But every religion out there believes that sin is bad.

Because it is bad…there is nothing positive about it in the long run.

 

[Nicea325]

I revisited an old blog post by Fr. Stephen Freeman and he articulates this point I was trying to get across very well.

Here is what he said:

And I was never trying to convey that I was against it or your understanding.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And I was never trying to convey that I was against it or your understanding.

I’m just clarifying it. Because our understanding of soteriology is clearly different. Western Christians view it purely as atonement, or the paying of debt. That is, sin is debt and I need to repay the sins I committed. While in the East it is ontological, man without sin (pre-fall) is different from man with sin. And we are with sin and we need to achieve that ontological change through the grace of God. Not to say that there are certain elements within our beliefs that are similar or that overlap, but the core of it all is essentially different.

 

[Nicea325]

I’m just clarifying it. Because our understanding of soteriology is clearly different. Western Christians view it purely as atonement, or the paying of debt. That is, sin is debt and I need to repay the sins I committed. While in the East it is ontological, man without sin (pre-fall) is different from man with sin. And we are with sin and we need to achieve that ontological change through the grace of God. Not to say that there are certain elements within our beliefs that are similar or that overlap, but the core of it all is essentially different.

Which I dearly enjoy to know and learn from my Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ. Knowledge is beautiful…

 

[elizaveta01]

Of course they would agree with him,why wouldn’t they? Many Germans agreed with Hitler,does not mean it is correct-right?

As I said, I’m not saying he’s right. Only that he is a well respected Orthodox bishop and that his writings would be a good source for anyone wishing to understand the Orthodox perspective on things.

And yes, many German’s agreed with Hitler, just as many Catholics (and Orthodox) agreed with Arius. Not really sure what this adds to the discussion. But there it is.

 

[Surnaturel]

I’m just clarifying it. Because our understanding of soteriology is clearly different. Western Christians view it purely as atonement, or the paying of debt. That is, sin is debt and I need to repay the sins I committed. While in the East it is ontological, man without sin (pre-fall) is different from man with sin. And we are with sin and we need to achieve that ontological change through the grace of God. Not to say that there are certain elements within our beliefs that are similar or that overlap, but the core of it all is essentially different.

You do not understand Catholic sotetiology which is allows for more than one expression as does the Scriptures whether it is a ‘ransom’ or a ‘sacrificial lamb’ or ‘incarnate Wisdom’ etc.

The overly juridical model of soteriogy was dominant in the Middle Ages from St. Anselm but not dogmatized by a council. You would do well to go read the Gospels again and see that there is a truth being expressed in Anselmian soteriology insofar as Christ is through and through presented as a sacrifice for our sins; think of the Johannine emphasis: "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.’

Now, that emphasis is called a ‘theology of the cross’. The incarnate Logos model which was followed by Blessed Scotus and St. Bonaventure, like the Greeks, sees Christ’s incarnation as salvific and the atonement as secondary, but make no mistake there is still an atonement as the Scriptures clearly state. This is the dominant and accepted soteriogy in contemporary Catholicism. See Benedict XVI, Karl Rahner, Raymund Schwager et al.

And nearly every Latin Father believed that there was an ontological after the Fall: see St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, etc.

 

[dzheremi]

And nearly every Latin Father believed that there was an ontological after the Fall: see St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, etc.

This kind of thinking is why I prefer Orthodoxy from a soteriological perspective…witness for instance, the Nativity prayers of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which talk of how, with the incarnation, Christ has “blessed our nature in Himself”. The focus is much more on the redemption of man, and not on some sort of destruction of what he was meant to be. As Christ is is how we are meant to be. Emphasizing instead a sort of ontological change in man’s nature as a result of the fall seems inappropriate to me, in light of the incarnation. Taken to extremes, it can lead to some quite frankly very disturbing ideas about mankind (e.g., total depravity).

 

[Surnaturel]

This kind of thinking is why I prefer Orthodoxy from a soteriological perspective…witness for instance, the Nativity prayers of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which talk of how, with the incarnation, Christ has “blessed our nature in Himself”. The focus is much more on the redemption of man, and not on some sort of destruction of what he was meant to be. As Christ is is how we are meant to be. Emphasizing instead a sort of ontological change in man’s nature as a result of the fall seems inappropriate to me, in light of the incarnation. Taken to extremes, it can lead to some quite frankly very disturbing ideas about mankind (e.g., total depravity).

You just reiterated, in many ways, the RC position in your summation of Orthodox soteriology. The ontogical change post-Fall in the view of most RCs is a weakened will. Total depravity, a Calvinistic teachig, means that the intellect and will are so devastated that they cannot seek truth or do good. That’s not the RC position in any respect.

Rather, if you read Catholics like Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, and John Paul II, to name a few, then you will find the same teaching (as it was in St. Irenaeus too) that humankind is graced by the redemption in a qualified sense since Christ drew all men to himself and into the sacred Mystery of Redemption. There is no “destruction” of human nature posited by any RC theologians, whether its Augustine or Aquinas. It’s a corrosion of human nature but it never transmutes humans into something other than human, to be clear.

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. These are all very imprecise terms, of course (“destruction” was something I threw in there with an eye toward Calvinist-type thinking, actually, but I think everyone recognizes that that got its start in the writings of St. Augustine). My point was more that the sense I get from reading Orthodox prayers and the like is that most Orthodox would probably say that St. Augustine and the other Latin fathers who taught an ontological change in man with the fall were incorrect. (Though I honestly have not sought out much on this one way or another; it is just a matter of differing emphasis that I get from comparing our prayers and hymns to those of the Latins and other Western Christians.)

 

[Surnaturel]

Hmm. These are all very imprecise terms, of course (“destruction” was something I threw in there with an eye toward Calvinist-type thinking, actually, but I think everyone recognizes that that got its start in the writings of St. Augustine). My point was more that the sense I get from reading Orthodox prayers and the like is that most Orthodox would probably say that St. Augustine and the other Latin fathers who taught an ontological change in man with the fall were incorrect. (Though I honestly have not sought out much on this one way or another; it is just a matter of differing emphasis that I get from comparing our prayers and hymns to those of the Latins and other Western Christians.)

Well, set aside the matter of an ontogical change for a moment and consider whether Adam before the Fall, in his will, was any different than his offspring? Was a pre-Fall Adam any different than say Noah or Adam after Fall? In what ways did the Fall affect Adam and the human race negatively in your perspective?

 

[Anthony_V]

This kind of thinking is why I prefer Orthodoxy from a soteriological perspective…witness for instance, the Nativity prayers of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which talk of how, with the incarnation, Christ has “blessed our nature in Himself”. The focus is much more on the redemption of man, and not on some sort of destruction of what he was meant to be. As Christ is is how we are meant to be. Emphasizing instead a sort of ontological change in man’s nature as a result of the fall seems inappropriate to me, in light of the incarnation. Taken to extremes, it can lead to some quite frankly very disturbing ideas about mankind (e.g., total depravity).

I agree with you that there is a rough patch from the grace vs. nature dichotomy the post-Tridentine theologians adopted (such as St. Bellarmine), but this was a defense against Protestant teleological assumptions that slashed through the supernatural order. You certainly get things like pure nature (from Bellarmine, of course). Henri de Lubac wrote a book called Surnatural (which is what the poster’s name is derived from) which attempted to work out the kinks without falling into some sort of theological deconstructionism or a glorified semiotics that simply talks about God. I’ve yet to read it, but I’ve read much about it. I’m reminded of Jean-Luc Marion (I’ve not read anything from him either, but I’ve heard interesting things about him), who is attempting to use postmodern phenomenology (he was under Derridas) as an expression of divine truth. Many theologians in the west are trying to come up with creative and prayerful solutions to this problem of modernism.

All this to say, Catholic theology is heading in that direction around that subject, but It won’t abandon the typological essence of the atonement. In the words of Chesterton, “the Church has always had a healthy hatred of pink [as the mixing and diluting of red and white].” Such an approach is fraught with Christological background.

 

[dzheremi]

I can’t really answer that in the abstract, as you’d want it, as though that’s not a question of ontology. Ontology is the nature of being, and you’ve essentially asked me if mankind’s nature has changed. I would say no, in that humanity did not become another type of thing after the fall. The fundamental nature of man was not changed into something else. What did happen, of course, is recorded in many places in the Scriptures, so you don’t have to ask me. For example, in the letter of St. Paul to the Romans, the saint writes: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” – in other words, sin entered the world, and death through it. Does sin change man’s nature? I don’t know…I guess you could say in the sense that man would not have died without it, that is definitely some kind of change (from living to not living), but even a dead person is still a person. So I think I would still say no. We remain people even though we are sinners. People in need of salvation, sure, as we cannot defeat death and win salvation by ourselves (sorry, Pelagians), but people nonetheless.

This conversation suddenly took a very weird turn. Sorry, everybody.

 

[Anthony_V]

Back to the OP, I think I’ll take a stab at this, insofar as pure ideology is involved (though there is obviously concession to historical context):

The use of teleology and the large rejection of integrated ontology and metaphysics in the Reformed/Luthern scope of theology (consider Karl Barth, but don’t stone me over Paul Tillich) is much different than the way it is used in the east. Thus, things like sacramental theology and ecclesiology (and in some contexts, Christology) differ drastically in trajectory from the get-go of that of the Catholic Church, and especially that of the EO. Anglicanism in its purest form and a few lesser known sects (such as the Old Catholic church) would be the closest thing (I think) that any offshoot of the Catholic Church could come to looking like eastern Orthodoxy.

Nevertheless, because of said reasons, I think that’s why the Protestant traditions of continental origin seem so “different” from EOC, ECCs, and RCC in structure and theology.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You do not understand Catholic sotetiology which is allows for more than one expression as does the Scriptures whether it is a ‘ransom’ or a ‘sacrificial lamb’ or ‘incarnate Wisdom’ etc.

The overly juridical model of soteriogy was dominant in the Middle Ages from St. Anselm but not dogmatized by a council. You would do well to go read the Gospels again and see that there is a truth being expressed in Anselmian soteriology insofar as Christ is through and through presented as a sacrifice for our sins; think of the Johannine emphasis: "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.’

Now, that emphasis is called a ‘theology of the cross’. The incarnate Logos model which was followed by Blessed Scotus and St. Bonaventure, like the Greeks, sees Christ’s incarnation as salvific and the atonement as secondary, but make no mistake there is still an atonement as the Scriptures clearly state. This is the dominant and accepted soteriogy in contemporary Catholicism. See Benedict XVI, Karl Rahner, Raymund Schwager et al.

And nearly every Latin Father believed that there was an ontological after the Fall: see St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, etc.

It isn’t about one expression. There is a concept of “State of Grace” in the Catholic Church that doesn’t exist in the Orthodox Church. This is a clear statement of what the soteriology of the Catholic Church is. Also, Beatific Vision vs. Theosis, again, two different things based on two different understandings of Salvation.