http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/calvinist_on_orthodoxy.html

A Calvinist Looks at Orthodoxy

Jack D. Kinneer

---

During my studies at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, I was often asked by students, "Are you Orthodox?" It always felt awkward to be asked such a question. I thought of myself as doctrinally orthodox. I was a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. So I thought I could claim the word orthodox.

But I did not belong to the communion of churches often called Eastern Orthodox, but more properly called simply Orthodox. I was not Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, or Antiochian Orthodox. As far as the Orthodox at St. Vladimir's were concerned, I was not Orthodox, regardless of my agreement with them on various doctrines.

My studies at St. Vladimir's allowed me to become acquainted with Orthodoxy and to become friends with a number of Orthodox professors, priests, and seminarians. My diploma was even signed by Metropolitan Theodosius, the head of the Orthodox Church in America. From the Metropolitan to the seminarians, I was received kindly and treated with respect and friendliness.

I am not the only Calvinist to have become acquainted with Orthodoxy in recent years. Sadly, a number have not only made the acquaintance, but also left the Reformed faith for Orthodoxy. What is Orthodoxy and what is its appeal to some in the Reformed churches?

The Appeal of Orthodoxy

Since the days of the apostles, there have been Christian communities in such ancient cities as Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, and Corinth in Greece. In such places, the Christian church grew, endured the tribulation of Roman persecution, and ultimately prevailed when the Roman Empire was officially converted to Christianity. But, unlike Christians in the western half of the Roman Empire, the eastern Christians did not submit to the claims of the bishop of Rome to be the earthly head of the entire church. And why should they have done so? The centers of Orthodox Christianity were as old as, or even older than, the church in Rome. All the great ecumenical councils took place in the East and were attended overwhelmingly by Christian leaders from the East, with only a smattering of representatives from the West. Indeed, most of the great theologians and writers of the ancient church (commonly called the Church Fathers) were Greek-speaking Christians in the East.

The Orthodox churches have descended in an unbroken succession of generations from these ancient roots. As the Orthodox see it, the Western church followed the bishop of Rome into schism (in part by adding a phrase to the Nicene Creed). So, from their perspective, we Protestants are the product of a schism off a schism. The Orthodox believe that they have continued unbroken the churches founded by the apostles. They allow that we Reformed may be Christians, but our churches are not part of the true church, our ordinations are not valid, and our sacraments are no sacraments at all.

The apparently apostolic roots of Orthodoxy provide much of its appeal for some evangelical Protestants. Furthermore, it is not burdened with such later Roman Catholic developments as the Papacy, purgatory, indulgences, the immaculate conception of Mary, and her assumption into heaven. Orthodoxy is ancient; it is unified in a way that Protestantism is not; it lacks most of the medieval doctrines and practices that gave rise to the Reformation. This gives it for many a fascinating appeal.

Part of that appeal is the rich liturgical heritage of Orthodoxy, with its elaborate liturgies, its glorious garbing of the clergy, and its gestures, symbols, and icons. If it is true that the distinctive mark of Reformed worship is simplicity, then even more so is glory the distinctive mark of Orthodox worship. Another appealing aspect of Orthodox worship is its otherness. It is mysterious, sensual, and, as the Orthodox see it, heavenly. Orthodox worship at its best makes you feel like you have been transported into one of the worship scenes in the book of Revelation. Of course, if the priest chants off-key or the choir sings poorly, it is not quite so wonderful.

There are many other things that could be mentioned, but I've mentioned the things that have particularly struck me. These are also the things that converts from Protestantism say attracted them.

The Shortcomings of Orthodoxy

So then, is this Orthodox Presbyterian about to drop the "Presbyterian" and become simply Orthodox? No! In my estimation, the shortcomings of Orthodoxy outweigh its many fascinations. A comparison of the Reformed faith with the Orthodox faith would be a massive undertaking, made all the more difficult because Orthodoxy has no doctrinal statement comparable to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Orthodoxy is the consensus of faith arising from the ancient Fathers and the ecumenical councils. This includes the forty-nine volumes of the Ante- and Post-Nicene Fathers, plus the writings of the hermits and monastics known collectively as the Desert Fathers! It would take an entire issue of New Horizons just to outline the topics to be covered in a comparison of Orthodoxy and Reformed Christianity. So the following comments are selective rather than systematic.

First, in my experience, the Orthodox do not understand justification by faith. Some reject it. Others tolerate it, but no one I met or read seemed to really understand it. Just as Protestants can make justification the whole (rather than the beginning) of the gospel, so the Orthodox tend to make sanctification (which they call "theosis" or deification) the whole gospel. In my estimation, this is a serious defect. It weakens the Orthodox understanding of the nature of saving faith.

Orthodoxy also has a real problem with nominal members. Many Orthodox Christians have a very inadequate understanding of the gospel as Orthodoxy understands it. Their religion is often so intertwined with their ethnicity that being Russian or Greek becomes almost synonymous with being Orthodox. This is, by the way, a critique I heard from the lips of Orthodox leaders themselves. This is not nearly as serious a problem in Reformed churches because our preaching continually stresses the necessity for a personal, intimate trusting, receiving, and resting upon Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Such an emphasis is blurred among the Orthodox.

Second, the Orthodox have a very inadequate understanding of sovereign grace. It is not fair to say that they are Pelagians. (Pelagius was a Western Christian who denied original sin and taught that man's will is free to choose good.) But they are definitely not Augustinians (Calvinists) on sin and grace. In a conversation with professors and doctoral students about the nature of salvation, I quoted Ezekiel 36:26-27 as showing that there is a grace of God that precedes faith and enables that human response. One professor said in response, "I never thought of that verse in that way before." The Orthodox have not thought a lot about sin, regeneration, election, and so forth. Their view of original sin (a term which they avoid) falls far short of the teaching of Paul. Correspondingly, their understanding of Christ's atonement and God's calling is weak as well. Their views could best be described as undeveloped. If you want to see this for yourself, read Chrysostom on John 6:44-45, and then read Calvin on the same passage.

Third, the Orthodox are passionately committed to the use of icons (flat images of Christ, Mary, or a saint) in worship. Indeed, the annual Feast of Orthodoxy celebrates the restoration of icons to the churches at the end of the Iconoclast controversy (in a.d. 843). For the Orthodox, the making and venerating of icons is the mark of Orthodoxy—showing that one really believes that God the Son, who is consubstantial with the Father, became also truly human. Since I did not venerate icons, I was repeatedly asked whether or not I really believed in the Incarnation. The Orthodox are deeply offended at the suggestion that their veneration of icons is a violation of the second commandment. But after listening patiently to their justifications, I am convinced that whatever their intentions may be, their practice is not biblical. However, our dialogue on the subject sent me back to the Bible to study the issue in a way that I had not done before. The critique I would offer now is considerably different than the traditional Reformed critique of the practice.

Finally, many of the Orthodox tend to have a lower view of the Bible than the ancient Fathers had. At least at St. Vladimir's, Orthodox scholars have been significantly influenced by higher-critical views of Scripture, especially as such views have developed in contemporary Roman Catholic scholarship. This is, however, a point of controversy among the Orthodox, just as it is among Catholics and Protestants. Orthodoxy also has its divisions between liberals and conservatives. But even those who are untainted by higher-critical views rarely accord to Scripture the authority that it claims for itself or which was accorded to it by the Fathers. The voice of Scripture is largely limited to the interpretations of Scripture found in the Fathers.

There is much else to be said. Orthodoxy is passionately committed to monasticism. Its liturgy includes prayers to Mary. And the Divine Liturgy, for all its antiquity, is the product of a long historical process. If you want to follow the "liturgy" that is unquestionably apostolic, then partake of the Lord's Supper, pray the Lord's Prayer, sing "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs," and say "amen," "hallelujah," and "maranatha." Almost everything else in any liturgy is a later adaptation and development.

A Concluding Assessment

But these criticisms do not mean that we have nothing to learn from Orthodoxy. Just as the Orthodox have not thought a lot about matters that have consumed us (such as justification, the nature of Scripture, sovereign grace, and Christ's work on the cross), so we have not thought a lot about what have been their consuming passions: the Incarnation, the meaning of worship, the soul's perfection in the communicable attributes of God (which they call the energies of God), and the disciplines by which we grow in grace. Let us have the maturity to keep the faith as we know it, and to learn from others where we need to learn.

Orthodoxy in many ways fascinates me, but it does not claim my heart nor stir my soul as does the Reformed faith. My firsthand exposure to Orthodoxy has left me all the more convinced that on the essential matters of human sin, divine forgiveness, and Christ's atoning sacrifice, the Reformed faith is the biblical faith. I would love to see my Orthodox friends embrace a more biblical understanding of these matters. And I am grieved when Reformed friends sacrifice this greater good for the considerable but lesser goods of Orthodox liturgy and piety.

---

Dr. Kinneer is the director of Echo Hill Christian Study Center in Indian Head, Pa.

Romans 3.9: Why I am not Roman, Orthodox, or Evangelical Arminian

Romans 3.9

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,

9 τι ουν προεχομεθα ου παντως προητιασαμεθα γαρ ιουδαιους τε και ελληνας παντας υφ αμαρτιαν ειναι
Observations:

Observations:

1. Verse 9. “To return to the discussion,” following Romans 3.1-8 and the casuistic questions about God’s faithfulness, truthfulness, and justice. What should be said? Are Jews superior? Or are Gentiles? There’s nothing to choose here since both were equally indicted, the Gentiles (Romans 1.18-32) and the Jews (Romans 2.17-29). Both ethnic and all linguistic groups are under sin.

2. Whether Jew or Gentile regarding privileges, one over the other in either direction, such is answered by a “sweeping denial. (Murray, 102). Paul answers: “No, not at all.” The sense of the answer is: “not by any means,” “in no respect,” or “altogether not.”

3. Irrespective of birth or privilege, e.g. the Hebrew exposure and possession of the “oracles of God” (Romans 3.1), all--without exception or exemption, are “under sin.” παντας υφ αμαρτιαν ειναι

4. Romans 3.9-20, if we may, is the closing argument of the universal indictment of Romans 1.18-2.24. The gavel has dropped. "All are under sin."

5. The series of statements drawn from the Old Testament are decisive for Paul. There are no rabbis, apocryphal literature or self-statements. The Scripture triumphantly concludes the case.

6. This section deals with sin, loss of communion with God, the fugitive impulse in the fallen human, the alienation of affections, the twistedness of fallen reason in theological matters, inherent opposition to God and His kingdom, and the specifics of sin’s venomous anti-God character, its internal and external nature.

7. This will raise the question of the origin of sin: confer Romans 5.12ff., inter alia. To be discussed later.

8. Murray powerfully summarizes it this way: “To be `under sin’ is to be under the dominion of sin, and the pervasiveness of the resulting perversity is demonstrated in the manifold ways in which it is manifested. The apostle has selected a series of indictments drawn from the Old Testament and covering the wide range of human character and activity to show that, from whatever aspect men may be viewed, the verdict of Scripture is one of universal and total depravity. The quotation of verses 10-18 is not deprived from any one place in the Old Testament. The apostle places together various passages which when thus combined provide a unified summary of the witness of the Old Testament to the pervasive sinfulness of mankind.”

Correlations (larger considerations and relationships):

1. The classic religions contained a general view that the gods are offended and must be propitiated some way. Humans are hard-wired for his.

2. Contemporaries still think—often—that entrance into Christ’s kingdom is works-based, self-propitiation perhaps with layers of Christian theology. “God judges the heart.” Contemporary evangelicalism has no sensitivities about Law and Gospel.

3. Psalm 143.2; Prov.20.9; Ecc.7.20; Gal.3.22; James 3.2; 1 John 1.8,10 are a few among many texts on the universality of the fall and its effects.

4. Sin is not the result of imitating bad examples: Psalm 51.5; Job.14.4; Jn.3.6.

5. Federal theology re: imputed guilt and inherited corruption.

6. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Pelagius, Hugo St.
Victor, Peter the Lombard, Anselm, Bonaventura, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Socinus, Arminius, Reformation Confessions and liturgies, Barth and Brunner.

7. Arminians and man’s inherited inability and hence, guiltlessness. "God can't judge someone for something he or she is unable to perform," the operational assumption in Arminianism and Orthodoxy. Arminians and a “gracious ability” based on common grace, enabling them to turn to God.

8. Jonathan Edwards on the “natural ability” versus the “moral inability.” Freedom of the Will, 1741. How this corrupted New England Calvinism with the New Haven theology.

9. Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will, 1525.

10. Immaculate Conception and the Romish doctrine.

11. Trent, 6th Session, Canon 1: “…although in the free will by no means extinct, though its powers were weakened and bowed down.” In other words, though the will is injured, corrupted and defiled, yet it is not wholly lost, destroyed or annihilated. (Chemnitz, 1.413)

12. Greek patriarch, Cyril Lucar, 1631. Schaff’s Creeds, 1.57ff. Cyril, later repudiated by the Orthodox, believes: “…the freedom of the will before regeneration is denied. (Ch. XIV).” Pisteuomen en tois ouk anagennhqeisai to autexousion nekron einai. Cyril's views on the effect of the fall is summarized by Schaff: “This is in direct opposition to the traditional Greek doctrine which emphasizes liberium arbitrium even more than the Roman, and was never affected by the Augustinian anthropology.”

13. Arminius is straight from the play book of Orthodoxy: “God has from eternity predestined to glory those who would, in his foreknowledge, make good use of their free will in accepting the salvation, and condemned those who would reject it. The Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional predestination is condemned as abominable, impious, and blasphemous.” Confessio Dosithei, Schaff, op.cit., I.63. We understand that anti-Reformation man, Metropolitan Jonah, with his fooled appearance at the ACNA hugfest, 23 Jun 2009, tolerated by the duplicitous, cowardly, and un-Reformed in American Anglican leadership.

14. Romanism: “Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted.” Catholic Catechism, 405. (Misnamed: it should be called the Romanist Catechism since the Catholic Churches of the Reformation own the title. Another usurpation by them.) Paul will take a different view than the Papists.

Interpretation:

1. Paul presents total depravity of all humans. They “under sin” and the dominion of sin, with the resulting perversity substantiated by a series of indictments drawn from the Old Testament. These indictments cover the wide range of human character and activity to show that the verdict of Scripture is one of universal and total depravity. For St. Paul, what the "Word " says is what "God says."

Applications:

1. Continue to expose the lies of Rome, Orthodoxy, and contemporary evangelicalism (non-Reformed, Arminian).

2. Expose the weaknesses of the Reformed facilitators who are soft on the proud Wesley brothers.

3. Expose the sola duplicita, non solas, sola admixta, sola confusa, and sola stupida of the ACNA and its facilitators. The leaders know what they are doing; the poor sheep don’t know and perhaps don’t care. Caveat emptor.