The Bible vs Eastern Orthodoxy
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
In the scriptural examples it is God in person who informs people that they are saved. Of course God has foreknowledge and He can make that pronunciation. It is completely unjustified for Protestants to believe they have assurance given directly by God. Did they talk to Him personally? What they have is Scripture which they quote-mine and misinterpret disregarding the living tradition (the Church) which produced and kept it.
Yes, many people fall for word-concept fallacies and could think the word "god" always refers to God the Father/Trinity. Theosis is deification by participation in the divine energies. We can't participate in the divine essence which is unknowable. We don't become God or one with God's essence (like hindus believe), we become godlike (by becoming saints and restoring our likeness that was lost after the fall).
You make good points and I can't address them all rn. Jay Dyer explains the Orthodox position really well. Look up his videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2O58rX0K5o (on salvation)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXQQSA9U3xs (on faith alone justification being based on nominalism)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_XS9xp7kiI (sola fide critique)
Good, we can leave it there for now. As my own link of Robert Arakaki shows, I'm not convinced the Orthodox and Protestant opinions are opposed (call me ecumenical), but I am bookmarking Jay Dyer for the Orthodox and will continue looking into it.
I'm glad. Jay is obviously biased but he has been an evangelical, a calvinist and a trad cath before arriving at eastern orthodoxy so he has first-hand knowledge of what the different doctrines are.
Check out his video on Sola Scriptura too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_AjgIrk9-o&t=78s
Skimmed it but found it too simplified. Seems like we agree on the history, and for the norms the Orthodox only have the plus that they weren't the ones who split. The problem is that in theory any individual or group can set new norms and they have done this, even in the first millennium among those who are still professing Christian churches today, because they believed it was conscientiously incumbent to split. Both sides are acting out of good conscience, and in such cases God seems to say the division is from him.
Consider the history of denominations and see whether the whole argument over who is the root isn't best resolved by Jesus's statement that he is the root and we are (all) the branches.
More important, I'd ask if in turn you could skim R. C. Sproul and see if my summary of him has some error.
I know about branch theory. It contradicts the Nicaean creed (one holy catholic and apostolic Church). The Church is Christ's body here on Earth - there can be no divisions or parts within the body. This is a heresy condemned at Chalcedon which is the reason why the Orthodox Church rejects the Catholic's Sacred Heart devotion.
You're confusing the synodal structure of the apostolic Church (as established in Acts and the Epistles) and oikonomia (canon law under the jurisdiction of the local bishop) with different sects falling away from communion with the Church due to difference in dogma and doctrine. The first major split in the Church was due to Nestorianism and that led to the falling away of the Oriental Church after Chalcedon. The setting of new norms is economic only. The decisions made at the ecumenical councils are infallible and definitive of what the orthodox faith is - deviation from this means you're no longer in the Church (your branch has been cut off).
Here's Jay on branch theory: https://youtu.be/qXx6DHU0HmI?t=377