Replies

Okay, Blogger, what you quote is Calvinism (i.e. theology of John Calvin). What makes you a Calvinist? How much of Calvin's theology do you have to embrace in order to qualify as a "Calvinist?" Is it 10, 20, 50, 100%, which is it?

The reason I am Orthodox is because, no matter what I speculate, I believe 100% that what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches, and has taught everywhere and always, is right. One cannot say "I am Catholic, a little bit." When you say you are Calvinist, I must assume you believe 100% of his teaching. But you deny that.

HA!, I say with a smile. :) Your system is simply different, but its structure does not make it automatically superior, IMO. (You appear to only be arguing structure here.)

You would agree with everything the EOC teaches, but they don't even come CLOSE to teaching all there is to teach, do they? What is the EOC teaching on young earth/old earth, or whether Jericho actually fell as told in scripture, or better yet, the end times? I just want to make sure that you agree with your brethren. :)

You can point to a list of core beliefs that you must adhere to, in order to consider yourself Orthodox. That's great. We cannot to such an exacting degree because we don't have the centralized authority that you do (to your degree). So what? Compared with the more senior Calvinist posters on these threads I am still a newbie, and yet it is relatively easy for me to spot a fellow Calvinist from just a few posts. I know 'em when I see 'em. Isn't it the same with you and new Orthodox posters? What does it matter to have only one handbook, in one edition, to be considered of like faith? (I'd even bet that in Orthodoxy it isn't even that cut and dried.)

Good Orthodox can disagree on anything that's not in the handbook, I presume. (The "handbook" is everything the consensus patrum, and/or a Council, has ruled upon.) I say no shame on Orthodoxy. Good Calvinists don't have a single book of interpretation, but nonetheless agree on much more than I think many others are willing to give us credit for. We do not follow the one man Calvin or the one man Luther, and everything they said. Our faith is not in them. Our faith is in God in Heaven, and scripture on earth, and we are attracted to how these men (and many others, later) explained and brought ideas together that are clearly found in scripture, as the Spirit has revealed it to us. That's all, no veneration.

So, I am asking you again, are you a Calvinist? Or do you simply accept some of his teachings, in which case you could say "I am 10% Calvinist" or "somewhat of a Calvinist" or "so-so Calvinist," etc.? If you say that you are a Calvinist then your theology is, by necessity, 100% Calvinist. I believe you would disagree.

It appears that you are trying to say, in comparison, that anyone who calls himself a "Reagan Conservative" would be required to have fully believed in every policy he ever set forth. Is that correct? I would say that I am the definition of a Reagan Conservative, and yet I disagreed with him on his amnesty for illegal aliens. Am I no longer a Reagan Conservative? :)

Now, OTOH, if I told you that my main political goals have always been to raise taxes whenever possible, and weaken our national defense because it might hurt the feelings of our enemies, then you would be correct in stripping me of my claim to being a Reagan Conservative. There is a huge difference.

Good Calvinists don't have a single book of interpretation, but nonetheless agree on much more than I think many others are willing to give us credit for. We do not follow the one man Calvin or the one man Luther, and everything they said. Our faith is not in them. Our faith is in God in Heaven, and scripture on earth, and we are attracted to how these men (and many others, later) explained and brought ideas together that are clearly found in scripture, as the Spirit has revealed it to us. That's all, no veneration.

Amen! And that which we disagree on is not a matter of essential doctrine. It says a lot for the unity that Christ called for that we agree on essentials and can still respect one another in matters of disagreement because we know that the other party has taken Scripture seriously. Such was my experience at seminary. We agreed on the essentials. We agreed on many if not most of the secondary doctrines. But where we disagreed, we could sit down and debate about them and still come away without an ounce of ill-will in us because of the high view of Scripture held by the other party. Where I begin to lose respect is when people will take whatever the Jesus Seminar or a similar organization says to degrade Scripture and announce that Scripture is unreliable. If one does not have Scripture as one's base, then it is all just human invention and we have no foundation period.

"It appears that you are trying to say, in comparison, that anyone who calls himself a "Reagan Conservative" would be required to have fully believed in every policy he ever set forth. Is that correct? I would say that I am the definition of a Reagan Conservative, and yet I disagreed with him on his amnesty for illegal aliens. Am I no longer a Reagan Conservative? :)"

That's a false analogy, FK. Being a Reagan conservative is not to be a member of a dogmatic Church, indications on FR to the contrary notwithstanding. Kosta's comments point out precisely why The Church does not understand Protestant assemblies to be true churches. In order for one to be a member of a particular church, Orthodoxy teaches that we must believe the exact same things. In saying this Orthodoxy doesn't go so far as the Latin Church does in great measure because we don't define theological matters to the same extent that the Latin Church does. Some things must be believed because all Orthodox everywhere and always have believed them, others because the Ecumenical Councils have proclaimed them, still others because they are in the consensus patrum. Disciplinary canons can and do change with the times and locations and in any event, since the canons are made for men, not vice versa, bishops have the power to exercise economia on strict application of those canons. Now, why do 300,000,000 Orthodox Christians believe the exact same things in these areas? Because these things are parts of The Truth as revealed to The Church pursuant to Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit to guide The Church. Without The Church, one might well be a Christian, but one can never be sure that what is being revealed is of the Holy Spirit or of the Zeitgeist. Look at the Episcopalians. They sincerely believe that the HS is doing a "new thing" regarding women's ordination, gay lifestyles and whether or not Christ is the ONLY way to the Father. Look across the broad spectrum of what is commonly called "Protestantism". Is there any broad commonality of belief among Southern Baptists or snake handling fundies in Appalachia on the one hand and gay Episcopal bishops with "life partners", lesbian priestesses and some UCC preacher presiding over a gay marriage ceremony attired in a rainbow sash?

But is there any broad commonality of belief between me and, say, an Orthodox peasant in Siberia, or Ghana, or Georgia or Japan? Absolutely. In fact, we have 100% commonality of belief not only broadly, but also specifically!

What I am pointing to, as was Kosta, is the "Oneness" and "Catholicity" of The Church, something which lacking in virtually all of "Protestantism".

Now it is apparent that "Protestants", despite the fact that they virtually all recite The Creed (another one of those spiritual things The Church gave you, either don't understand what they are praying or they positively reject it. I tend to think that the latter is as a direct result of the former and that lack of understanding arises precisely because "Protestantism" has rejected the teaching authority of The Church in favor of personal interpretation of scripture and what remains of Holy Tradition within "Protestantism".

There is nothing centralized about the Eastern Orthodox Church, FK.

Being Orthodox is either 100% or nothing, personal views and errors notwithstanding, FK. You can't say I am Orthodox "a little bit." It's like being married or living; either you are or you are not.

Being a Calvinist is different. You can pick and choose those parts of John Calvin's theology with which you agree in principle and if they dominate your personal convictions you can say that you are a Calvinist (a little bit, a lot, mostly, etc.).

Herein lies the rub, FK. God is not relative and his Church is not a man-made institution that is subject to relativity. One cannot say I believe in God a little bit, or I agree with Him on some things. The Church is not-man made. One cannot agree with the Church a "little bit."

Your thinking is of this world. You are of this world. The Orthodox/Catholics are not.