The Execution of Servetus for blasphemy, heresy and Obstinate AnaBaptism

TRUECOVENANTER ^ | Unknown | John Knox

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

it is simply impossible for me -- as a Calvinist -- to accept his Eastern Orthodox teachings on Liturgy, Ecclesiology, Sacraments, and the Supplication of the Saints. ~~ It would be very enjoyable to hear more specifics from you on these topics, although I think I can understand the latter one you mentioned without assistance.

Sorry for the long response time... doin' some catch-up Freeping now, and I had meant to respond to this post.

Liturgy,

Well, dividing the usual Sunday service into Liturgy (or "worship"), Homily (or "sermon"), and closing Benediction, let's contrast the Liturgies of Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism (not necessarily in order):
• Eastern Orthodox -- Scripture Reading by the Priest, Hymns/Psalms, Chanting/Responsive readings, Incense, Bowing/Kneeling, Veneration of Icons, etc.
• Protestantism -- Scripture Reading by the Priest, Hymns/Psalms, occasional Chanting/Responsive readings.

  Obviously, the Protestant liturgy tends to incorporate fewer elements than does the EO liturgy. However, while as a Calvinist I am most "comfortable" with the simple forms of Protestant worship, I do not regard the more varied elements found in the EO forms to be UnScriptural. Indeed, if one interprets Revelation 5 as being a model "Heavenly Worship Service", we do find many of the elements included in Eastern Orthodoxy -- Chanting/Responsive readings, Incense, Bowing/Kneeling, etc.

  Where the Calvinist is really going to part company is over the matter of Icons. While I am able to understand the distinction drawn by the Eastern Orthodox between "worshipping" Icons and "venerating" them as an educational/devotional instrument, my understanding does not translate into a personal comfort with the practice. Not finding a warrant for Icon-veneration in Scripture (as I can for chanting, kneeling, incense, etc.), it's not something which I, as a Protestant, could ever personally adopt.

Ecclesiology,

Loosely speaking, there are three types of Christian Ecclesiology:

• Roman Catholics have a three-tiered Clergy: Popes, Bishops, and Priests (I realize that some Roman Catholics may object that the Pope is, himself, a Bishop; but in actual practice, the Bishop of Rome does function as a super-duper ultra-Bishop extraordinaire - IMHO)
• Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and old-school Arminian Protestants (methodists) have a two-tiered Clergy: Bishops, and Priests.
• Calvinists (both Presbyterian and Baptist) have a single-tiered Clergy: Elders (or "Pastors"). Calvinists regard the offices of presbuteros and episcopos to be equivalent in Scripture (and therefore in fact). "The term presbyter or elder (Greek, presbuteros) and the term bishop (Greek, episcopos) are interchangeable. The apostle Paul in his letter to Titus, Chap. 1:5, instructs Titus to ordain elders (presbuteros) and the elders that Titus is to ordain are the bishops (episcopos) of verse 7. The apostle Peter in his first letter instructs the elders, to fulfil their office as bishops, 1st Peter 5:1-2." In Presbyterian churches you will generally find a division of duties between the "Teaching Elder" (i.e., Pastor) and the "Ruling Elder" (i.e., Administrator) of a Congregation, but this is a functional distinction only, not an ecclesial one (assuming equal qualifications, there's no reason the two could not trade offices -- the offices are Scripturally equivalent).

Sacraments,

There are at least four Western views of the Sacrament:
• Roman Catholic: Transubstantiation.
• Lutheran: Consubstantiation
• Presbyterian: Spiritual Presence
• Baptist: Symbolic Memorial

  Depending on which EO theologian you read, the Eastern view could be said to fall somewhere between the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran view, or fairly similar to Lutheranism, or somewhere between Lutheranism and Presbyterianism. The Eastern Orthodox generally do not choose to define the Sacrament as rigorously as Westerners (for that matter, the EO term the Supper as a "Mystery" rather than a "Sacrament"). In any case, however, the EO view tends to be "closer" to Lutheranism or Roman Catholicism (or somewhere in between) than to Presbyterianism or Baptistry.

and the Supplication of the Saints

No explanation required here. Eastern Orthodox do it. Protestants don't.

I'm not going to accuse the Eastern Orthodox of committing a "fatal heresy" (i.e., a salvation-preventing heresy) on this count, because the Eastern Orthodox - like the Protestants - do regard Jesus Christ as the sole Redeemer and the sole Mediator of salvation. By contrast, Roman Catholics who make Mary a Co-Redemptrix/Co-Mediatrix of Salvation are, IMHO, treading dangerously close to Fatal Heresy, depending on how seriously they commit Mariolatry (I'm not going to judge that matter, only God knows the heart. I do believe that the Roman Catholic doctrine on this matter is itself very dangerous). However, the Eastern Orthodox do seem to treat departed (or "deified") Saints as being Co-Mediators of supplications. As far as I am concerned, any prayers directed through Mediators other than Jesus Christ himself are just wasted prayers -- Jesus Alone is High Priest and He alone carries our Prayers to the Father; and of course, He's happy to hear our prayers directly. Not a personal attack, of course; but my honest, forthright opinion.

Hope that's informative.

God bless, OP

[Hermann the Cherusker]

St. Gregory is of course most preeminently important for his work on mental prayer and theosis. No one would disagree with that. But at the heart of such prayer is a faith nourished by participation in the Divine Rites and in devotion to the Mother of God.

Palamas

"St. Gregory Palamas is presented to us as a bold example of faith in action. He is a role model in thought, word and deed."

Here is a writing on prayer by Saint Gregory Palamas which mentions not one word about the Theotokos.

"... from the beginning of his literary activity, Palamas showed an extreme devotion to the Mother of God: Philotheus points that out, and we find the same throughout Palamas's works." (Fr. John Meyendorff, "A Study of St. Gregory Palamas", p. 39)

"Whereas the Fathers in the line of development from Origen chose Moses to illustrate the stages of spiritual ascent, Palamas turns to Mary when treating a similar subject, and he brings the contemplative life to a climax not with a simple vision of the Divine, but with a corporal and intimate contact of the Incarnation." (Fr. John Meyendorff, "A Study of St. Gregory Palamas", p. 149)

"Nevertheless, in so far as man cannot save himself on his own, the mind needs grace and can find it nowhere but in the Body of Christ united to our bodies by Baptism and the Eucharist." (Fr. John Meyendorff, "A Study of St. Gregory Palamas", p. 154)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

BUMP again for later.

[jude24]

Thanks, man.

I read the first half of the thread, and my current conclusion is that the difference between the Reformed paedobaptist belief and my own credobaptist belief isn't too big. The difference is in practice, not in doctrine or belief. The Reformed Paedobaptist doesn't see the infant baptism as anything other than a symbol of that child's inclusion into a covenant community. I don't agree, myself, but I can live with it.

It's definately not a teaching I'd decide fellowship on.