Kosta, may we never forget your post. It is Eastern Orthodoxy in a nutshell.
It's sad that the centuries long antagonism between the East and Latin churches seems to be converging in the mysticism that riddled the early church. The great contradiction, of course, is that you toss out the charge of "gnosticism" with every post, while it's the Eastern church that encouraged gnosticism and entombed it within its doctrines and liturgy.
Here's an excellent synopsis by Douglas Wilson regarding our different starting points...
Some years ago some colleagues and I had occasion to criticize various aspects of the Eastern Orthodox Church in print. Aside from all the expected disagreements, and the back and forthing that goes on after such things, a remarkable thing became apparent to us in the exchanges that we had. The Eastern Orthodox do not really know how to argue. And this is said, not as an insult, but simply as an observation. Given the profound differences between East and West, I am not even sure they would take this as a slighting comment. I would not be surprised if they took the western zeal for argumentation as a central part of our problem. By way of contrast, historic Protestants have deep and abiding differences with the Roman Catholic Church which cannot be papered over with ecumenical position papers. But the disagreements that remain between Rome and Geneva still show that the participants on both sides of the debate retain something in common. They are both heirs of the western mind; they both share a common approach to argument. He would be a foolhardy man who maintained that a Jesuit did not know how to argue a theological point. This is not the case at all with the Eastern Orthodox. In order to argue anything, a man has to be able to say this, not that, here, not there, A, not not A. In short, he has to be able to make distinctions. So argumentation depends entirely on this, and distinctions in their turn depend on having an ultimate ground for making distinctions. In the historic Protestant view, the ultimate and greatest distinction that must be maintained at all times is the distinction between the Creator and the creature. This divide is an ontological chasm, which keeps clear the utter and complete differences between necessary and contingent, infinite and finite, Maker and made. This ultimate distinction provides us with the basis we need to justify the process of argument, and is an assumption which Protestants and Catholics share. So the point being made here is not that the Eastern Orthodox do not know how to argue because they did not have debating classes in high school or college. Neither is any question being raised about intelligence or education -- the issue rather is the uses to which intelligence and education are put. In the East, careful debate is not valued, and the reason for this is an idea which had a profound consequence. The Eastern Church blurs the ultimate distinction between Creator and creature with their doctrine of theosis, or deification. That doctrine is critiqued elsewhere in this issue, and so it should be sufficient here simply to point out that when the Eastern Orthodox argue for an ontological union between man and God's energies, they are confusing the one thing that must not be confused. We maintain, in contrast, that our union with Christ is a covenantal union, not a union of natures. Blurring distinctions between Creator and creature leads necessarily to blurring distinctions within the Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity is foundational to all coherent and sustained thought -- and this doctrine of theosis has to threaten the doctrine of the Trinity in its implications. We in the Church cannot be deified without creating an imbalance in the relations or processions of the divine Persons, and without creating troubling questions about the Church as an aspiring fourth Person in the Quaternity. The implications of this line of thought place the Eastern Church at variance, not only with Scripture, but also with the early ecumenical creeds. But there I go, arguing . . . My point here is not to show that they are wrong in their assumption, but rather that the assumption they make is inconsistent with sustained theological argumentation. This in its turn explains a host of consequences -- the Eastern Orthodox Church is still here because of inertia and authority. It is not really a missionary faith; it does not readily go anywhere where argument might be required. Preaching, proselytizing, apologetics, evangelism -- all these are impossible to conceive apart from argument. Those modern evangelicals who are drawn eastward are not drawn by argument; rather they are attracted by antiquity, beauty, and authority, and repelled by the apparent lack of such things in the monkey house that we call contemporary evangelicalism. But if such a pilgrim asks the question, "How do we know this is true?", the answer is entirely out of argument's reach. In the Eastern view, doctrinal truth is established by the uniform consensus of the Church throughout all time. The only problem with this is that history is not yet done. We do not yet know what the Church throughout all ages has said. Suppose we have another twenty-thousand years ahead of us. We see yet another failure to make distinctions. But in seeing this failure, and any others like it, we have to remember the source of it.""Ideas have very pointed consequences, and very particular destinations. One of the best illustrations of this is the profound differences that have developed between the western Church and the eastern Church. Those differences are not merely "doctrinal," but reveal two completely different mindsets, two different paradigms. And all because ideas have consequences.
The more I read about Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the more I am persuaded that at the heart of the errors contained in these churches is a love of monasticism. These churches prefer and thus venerate the asexual, monastic life to the life of the family. Which is actually a pretty scary point of view.
It encourages secrecy and brotherhood over transparency and liberty and the family structure God has instituted among His children.
It is the love of an icon over and above the love of that which the icon stands for. It is pretense over substance. Illusion over truth. Vapor over substance. It is believing in the "human choice" and not in God's choice. It is being "turned off" to the words of God.
I pray that God will turn you on to His words, Kosta.
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." -- John 6:63
Whew.. the art of the insult is not dead...
Remind me to never urinate you off...
I am not that smart.
The great contradiction, of course, is that you toss out the charge of "gnosticism" with every post, while it's the Eastern church that encouraged gnosticism and entombed it within its doctrines and liturgy
LOL! I have seen a lot of nonsense written about Orthodoxy but this one really takes the lead. I can assure I won't forget this post!
Here's an excellent synopsis by Douglas Wilson regarding our different starting points...
Who is Douglas Wilson? Am I supposed to know this person for some reason? If you want me to conceder your posts as credible or at least respectable, I think some credits as to various authors you use, preferably a link, would be in order.
But, as it is, I am very much tempted to simply toss the whole thing out as worthless because for all I know Douglas Wilson could be your next door neighbor, or not even exist!
If he is someone really well known in the Protestant world, then he is very likely unknown in mine.
But if this man is who I think it is, having made a cursory search, this man is a racist. Although I usually don't believe everything I read in Wikipedia, this short paragraph about Douglas Wilson is not only telling but well referenced.
Anyway, it's an eye opener that you would use such a man just to smear the Orthodox Church but, see, we Orthodox really do not get insulted easily because our egos are not as large as those of our Protestant friends.
Mr. Wilson actually open up with a true statement:
Right on target. The mindset affects perception and perception affects reaction. Excellent!
Then he slips into a simple opinion, namely:
We Orthodox could say the same thing about the Protestants. It's all relative. If you compare a man to a dog, using dog's abilities as standard, man is a failure (he can't run, jump, smell, hear, see at night or chew as well as any dog). But, in reverse, if we subject a dog to human standards, then the dog will be an innocent failure, but a failure nonetheless.
However, Mr. Wilson is close to the truth but not close enough on this. The culture of monasticism is the backbone of Orthodoxy and the Orthodox mindset and doctrine is not based on western scholastic standards. That was essentially set in stone by the 14th century thorough the consolidation of the works of the Desert Fathers, the Cappadocian Fathers, and the Hesychastic Fathers by St. Gregory Palamas (late 13th century).
The problem is that Wilson, as so many westerns, have nothing but disdain for anything that is not western or "scholastic" in the western (somewhat pagan) sense.
Then he says:
And he is right. An Orthodox Christian may be amazed at such audacity or arrogance and pride, but will not be offended by it. If anything, an Orthodox person would only feel pity for him.
He continues:
Correct! He must be getting this from the Orthodox side, since by his own admission he "had occasion to criticize various aspects of the Eastern Orthodox Church in print," and probably received replies to that effect.
Wilson then draws a parallel between the Protestants and Roman Catholics as
Here, of course, is where Wilson is simply showing his incredible ignorance despite all the religious degrees he has piled up.
What he calls Catholic western mind is the Catholic western mind shaped by Franks in the Gaul, and Visigoths in Iberia, who were neither western nor eastern, but simply barbarian in every way, like their Nordic cousins, the Vikings.
It is this barbarian mindset that took over the Catholic Church little by little(Frankish priests, for example, would take off their habits and put on armor and go a killin' some heretics before resuming their priestly duties) and estranged it form its patristic orthodox roots.
Until that slow but certain hijacking of the Latin Church, and turning it into a Church with a Germanic mindset, the Latin Church was distinctly patristic and Latin (do not forget that literary Latin was derived from Greek and that the Latins became hellenized and not the other way around).
It was, after all, the Visigoth mindset that introduced the Filioque into the Creed at the time when the linguistic apartheid of the Church was practically complete. What made sense in the patristic mind, was an "omission" in the Gothic minds.
After this rather amusing lack of historical perspective on behalf of Mr. Wilson, he begins to sink deeper and deeper in his confusion (rather unbelievable given all the degrees he claims).
He says:
So far so good, actually. It this, even we simpe Orthodox would agree with that wholeheartedly. The problem is, he is implying that the Orthodox do not!
I am not sure what he means by "convenantal union." But from the other half of his sentence I understand that he means something other than the union of human and divine natures.
In a nutshell, and for the record, Eastern Orthodoxy does not teach union of natures. In the life-long process of theosis, we do not become "gods" by nature, but by grace.
Then Mr. Wilson really begins to say what can best be described as complete foolishness:
The implication is of course that the Orthodox are disturbing the whole Trinitarian dogma. Hmmmm.
This is nothing short of ridiculous. Trinity is beyond out logic, understanding or imagination. How do you assign "coherent thought" to the invisible, incomprehensible, immeasurable, inconceivable, eternal, simple inidivisible, yet triple?
It is even more ridiculous that this man, with so many degrees, could confuse theosis as "threatening" the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Nothing could be farther form the truth! This is so ridiculous it's not even worth an argument.
It is actually beyond my comprehension that this man is actually quoted as authority. There is never any even hit of such a stupidity. This man is nothing short of pathetic.
By now he is a freefall. And his statements are simply uneducated, ignorant blather.
I am very sorry, Dr. E that this is someone you hold in high regard. He is pathetic. If you really want to know the Orthodox teaching read the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith written by St. John of Damascus. It's all there. I can tell that Mr. Wilson never read it.
In fact, Mr. Wilson is perhaps good at arguing because that's probably what he has done all his life. What he seems to understand by "argument" is a sledgehammer approach to things you don't like.
These churches prefer [monasticism] and thus venerate the asexual, monastic life to the life of the family. Which is actually a pretty scary point of view. Why are you speaking so disparagingly and judging other people's way of life? Monastics spend their whole life in unceasing prayer, as the scriptures urge us to do. Christianity was never an exercise in scholasticism, but a way of life. In fact, as Mark reminds us in previous post, it eas actually called "The Way."
None of us will ever fully comprehend and understand and "know" the true extent of God and his word, so untilately all our academic degrees and ability to argue fall short. Rather, we choose to follow Christ and imitate Him in His mercy and in His love.
If the Orthodox are in errors, then the whole Church has been in error including that Church that gave you the Bible. But, you are free to believe whatever you want. Apparently you believe someone of such a low caliber and intolerance as Mr. Wilson.
It is the love of an icon over and above the love of that which the icon stands for
How do you know that? We do not love the icon, the paint, the frame, etc. That never enters our minds. Icons remind us of those who in our belief are alive and in heaven, and an icon is an image of a human being in all cases.
It is believing in the "human choice" and not in God's choice
Human choice is God's choice. God decided to give us choices.
It is being "turned off" to the words of God.
It is is being turned of to those who pretend to be the mouth of God.
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." -- John 6:63
I think you are reading way too much into it. The word "spirit" simply means "breath" (pneuma). So long as you are breathing you are alive. The ancients believed that "life" was in the breath. Those who breathe are "quickened"; those who don't are dead. We simply say breathing and not breathing.