Posted on 07/16/2003 4:00:43 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
Sorry for the long response time... doin' some catch-up Freeping now, and I had meant to respond to this post.
Liturgy,
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:
Sacraments,
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
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
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)
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.