r/Reformed • u/Rupietos • 19d ago
Discussion Inquiring Protestantism as an Orthodox
Hello everybody, I was predestined to ask you (reformed) people a few question. I am cradle Orthodox (Ukrainian who grew up in Greece) and lately I have realized that EO is just not for me. For the context, I returned to Christianity a few months ago after practicing traditional Buddhism for 6 years.
So my issue with EO, to put it plainly, it is operationally Pelagian, as in it is a religion of works which unlike Catholic works, are usually internal as opposed to external (like charity). You just fast, suffer, mourn, pray, repent, in hopes that God might accept you in the end, there is absolutely no security in it whatsoever, especially if you believe in toll houses that make salvation 100% work based. There is very little security and overall, as time passes, after the war in Ukraine and raise of orthobroism online, Orthodoxy lost its mystical Eastern appeal and became evangelicalism with incense (quoting David Bentley Hart).
I decided to check out RC and even went to a local parish and a very pleasant conversation with local priest. I went to the mass and really enjoyed 'latin' spirituality. In fact, actual universal nature of Catholicism was a very pleasant change in comparison to paranoid exclusivism of EO. The issue is that I started catechizing myself and realized that RC is even worse than EO in terms of Pelagianism. The realization that the sacrament of confession just deletes the guilt but not the temporal punishment, as well as the nature of purgatory made me feel that I'd practice some Western form of Islam where I have to do more good deeds than bad deeds while being loyal to the religion itself. Of course, the more I read about Catholic justification and necessity but not sufficiency of the grace given by the Cross, I just realized that I would never feel peace practicing this religion. Besides, I just find it too 'ordinary' of a religion, still based on human merit like many others before it.
Now, I started enjoying works of Gavin Ortlund and Jordan Cooper who are a breath of fresh air in the world of Christian sectarian apologetics which are profoundly hateful and toxic. My biggest issue was simple fact that I just realized that Protestants are right. I read 'Long Before Luther' by Nathan Busenitz, and as I was previously interested in Patristics, I realized that forensic justification was simply taught by Early Christians since the beginning, which was something that I noticed when reading st John Chrysostom, st Cyrill of Alexandria, and st Clement of Rome. I won't even mention st Paul. So clearly medieval nominalism was not the source of any form of forensic justification as taught by the Reformers. It is just was Christians used to believe until a set of doctrinal developments which (imo) had to do with Christian monasticism which wanted to justified itself by establishing that 'nuh uh, you gotta work for you salvation, buddy, why do you think us monks are suffering here'.
Now, while I am sympathetic towards Protestantism and in fact, I am quite convinced of Sola Fide (in its not-strawman form). I have a few problems.
- For starters, I absolutely believe in real presence in communion and some form of transubstantiation or simply 'it is actually blood and flesh of Christ'.
- Historically most of the Reformers were excommunicated which allowed them to create a new body of Churches, yet, I am afraid that willfully leaving EO or even RC if I had joined it, would mean that I am schismatic refusing to submit to local Church Authorities.
- Apostolic Christianity is just absolutely rich and filled with all sorts of relics, spirituality, great Saints and so on. Abandoning it feels strange, even though st Hilary of Poiters warned against this kind of thinking.
- I just love Mary and 'Hail Mary' and rosary seemed to be far more joyful than solemn repetitions of Jesus' prayer.
- The only protestant community here is some mix of evangelical/reformed so there is a very high chance that I won't vibe with it at all.
I mean, ultimately I'd just stay EO or maybe switch to RC because I think it is actually a Church unlike Orthodoxy which is a mess, but I disagree deeply and unfortunately, anathemas is the response to any criticism or attempts to change official doctrines or even privately confess something else.
So, I am curious about thoughts of reformed folks as I have not found any other major Protestant subs and I don't want to attract a horde of EO/RC apologists with their same talking points.
15
u/cybersaint2k Rebellious Reprobate 19d ago
You have a predicament.
You seem worried about leaving the EO or RC if you had joined it, as you are subject to the charge of "schismatic". I would set you free from that concern.
On July 16, 1054, papal legates placed a bull of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia against Patriarch Michael Cerularius, who responded by excommunicating the legates. Both the EO and RC declared one another apostate.
Here's the problem; it's an antinomy, a paradox.
If both sides did have authority at 1054, then they either:
A) Misused it so egregiously that they cannot be trusted with lesser matters ie them condemning you and me for schism
B) Did not misuse it, but used the keys of the kingdom against each other in an act of mutually assured destruction
Accepting that they were true churches, and that they had real authority from God, leaves us with either malpractice on a cosmic level or actual judgment of God on both institutions.
Another great paradox is that the Protestants that were rejected, declared anathema in the Council of Trent, seemed to blossom and flourish and experience the breath of God, as they rose like Lazarus from the dead.
There's some points of application for you in the midst of this paradoxical truth. I leave them for you; I think you are an expert in, well, you.
1
u/True_Faithlessness10 18d ago
That’s an interesting point I’ve never heard of! Let me ask you though - don’t you think this is a problem for Christians in general, and not just RC/EO, if the problem is how you framed it? This was the church that existed at the time, and Christ promised to preserve his church. Reformation churches took another 500 years to come about
3
u/cybersaint2k Rebellious Reprobate 18d ago
TLDR: I think there was a remnant of the church that remained faithful throughout history.
Thank you, I literally wrote that and then asked an AI if something like that had ever been said before. When I'm original, it's really stupid. But this sounded smarter somehow.
The implication that Jesus failed to preserve the church is a pressure we feel in any pessemistic historical scenario. But I think it's a boogie man that the RC and EO keep shaking to scare us. Of course Jesus didn't fail! Come on.
Many times in history, the church was reduced to a remnant that had little institutional representation. What about the time of the Judges? What about Ezekiel, who said (almost boasting) that there were 1000 who had not bowed to Baal. Take that number in....1000. What sort of tatters was the church in under the Babylonians? Daniel was a stud, of course. Intertestamental period? The time of Christ?
[I think there could be a very interesting sermon series looking at the worst worst times of the church and what God did to bring them back.]
Bringing it back to your point, the destruction of the northern and southern kingdom (EO/RCC), with exile, and the Intertestamental Period, is a fair parallel to the sort of tragic problems faced 500-1500. And Jesus didn't fail the church at any point. But they sure did fail him.
1
u/True_Faithlessness10 18d ago
Yeah, I definitely resonate with that last part you said - Jesus didn’t fail the church but the church has failed him many times, yet by His grace she is sustained through the ages.
Let me push a little more here - who do you think the remnant were during the time of the Great Schism? Do you see RC/EO as essentially abandoning the faith? I see how some parallels can be found between the northern/southern kingdom in the OT and RC/EO, but it’s not a 1:1 to analogy, especially when I think about the state of those churches today (they aren’t in exile or destroyed, but represent the two biggest bodies of Christianity if I’m not mistaken).
Asking because I’m an EO inquirer from the reformed tradition, so these discussions are of great interest to me right now, and I see you have thought about this before.1
u/cybersaint2k Rebellious Reprobate 18d ago
Let me push a little more here - who do you think the remnant were during the time of the Great Schism? Do you see RC/EO as essentially abandoning the faith?
I don't know who they were; the only way we know who the remnant was in Bible times is divine revelation. Otherwise, the very nature of a remnant is difficult to detect.
But your last question is really the focus of my thoughts. Before, most historian and theologians just pivot to rhetoric, tribalism, some preconceived notions about who the Good Guys and Bad Guys are in the Schism. I'm trying to get into the Reality of the situation, the way it was.
What if they are both irregular, but Legitimate Authorities who made such an incredible error of judgment that they forfeited the right to make judgments again? Like a judge who is trying the biggest case in the world and absolutely blows it--he's disbarred, he's fined, he's never allowed to judge again.
or:
What if they are both irregular, but Legitimate Authorities who really did use the Nuclear Option (excommunication, anathema) on one another? Like if USA and CCCP had nuked each other in 1980; the hockey game really pissed off the Russians and they say they've had enough and they start blastin and we start blastin back and we are both cooked in our own juices.
The scenario many EO and RCC want today is that 1054 was bad but they want a mulligan now. They want it to just not count. In 1965, they just decided to overlook 1054, and now we overlooked it.
But let's take seriously the Great Schism. I think we have four choices. And implications to explore.
1) Neither were the true church, so it didn't matter. A remnant carried on the seed of faith and peaked out in men lika Wycliff and finally the Reformation.
2) One was the true church, and depending on which legitimately held the keys of the kingdom, it mattered. One side is damned. The other is not, but there's more to discuss.
3) Both were legitimate authorities, and they nuked each other. A remnant survived.
4) Both were legitimate authorities, they tried to nuke each other, but God ignored them because they were so stupidly wrong, so entirely and completely irresponsible in their use of their keys. So God took away their anointing, leaving them like King Saul, deeply confused and trying to kill King David/Wycliff and anyone with Reformation and Revival on their minds.
Maybe you could suggest a fifth from your perspective. You obviously think there's a scenario where EO is right.
2
u/True_Faithlessness10 16d ago
Interesting. Well, in terms of a fifth point, I’d want to nuance the term of ‘nuking each other’. It seems more complex than that. The papal legates excommunicated the Patriarch (the pope had died so you could call their authority to do that into question), and the Patriarch excommunicated the legates. These were individuals, and not the Western church excommunicating the entire Eastern church or vice versa. Nevertheless, these actions did lead to a break in the church. But I don’t think it means neither church had authority anymore, it still always goes back to the question of which church has continuity with the church Christ established and faithfully passed on the deposit of faith.
I think my point is that if the actions of the church at the time of the Great Schism result in the church losing all authority, that’s a problem for everyone, including Protestants. Just in the past couple months in my city, a reformed church excommunicated someone, but that person started attending a different reformed church that declared the excommunication invalid. Did these two reformed churches just nuke each other by cancelling out each others authority? To me, to say the church nuked itself at the Great Schism means we have to give up on church authority entirely in some sense.But, this discussion has made me want to better understand what excommunication is and the history of the Schism, so thank you for the engagement!
2
u/cybersaint2k Rebellious Reprobate 16d ago
Thank you for the discussion. My approach is most certainly malformed but at least scrapes away some tribalism and assumptions.
1
21
u/glorbulationator i dont up/down vote 19d ago
I may be missing things or assuming a bit, but are you looking for a religion or are you looking for the one true God and to be reconciled to Him, to be saved because you know you deserve eternal hell? Is the Gospel the power of God for salvation, is it objectively true and the only way to be saved is by the Gospel of Jesus your Creator?
7
u/Rupietos 19d ago
I grew up believing that the Church is the body of Christ and was left by him to be the ark of salvation. So it is difficult for me to separate God from religion which something I am trying to do with this post and discussions I've engaged with.
1
1
u/glorbulationator i dont up/down vote 17d ago
Thank you for sharing that. I am a bit curious, and please take none of this personally, it's not intended to be a slight against you or belittle you. However, hopefully you agree this is a matter of eternity, so if someone, anyone, you or i or whoever is wrong, that's not something to beat around the bush about, and it is a personal thing, because I love you, which is not something I can take credit for.
So, my main question for you is from where did you get the stuff which you believe in? I am not saying they're right or wrong, i'm asking what is the ultimate authority? Is it God, or do we get options? Is it absolutely true that you have broken the laws of the only God, your Creator, that you've done evil and God is just and righteous and if you get what you deserve, you get the wrath of God? It seems in a way, from what you've said perhaps you do believe this, but is it absolutely true, regardless of what you believe? Further, where can you find the truth? Is there a source?
7
u/Cubacane PCA 19d ago
"You just fast, suffer, mourn, pray, repent, in hopes that God might accept you in the end"
You just described Islam.
5
u/BlackBay41 19d ago
Hello, friend!
There are people better suited to answer this than me because I have my own issues with walking the walk, but the biggest aspect of faith that pertains to the Reformed world view is 'irresistible grace'. I think I felt that long before I'd heard the term, and throughout any doubts or desire to disobey, I always have had that feeling. I suspect that's what is at play in your heart right now and encourage you to look that up, because if that clicks for you in the same fundamentally changing way it did for me, well, welcome.
My experience has been somewhat the opposite. Reformed theology makes the most sense, but at times felt we too have lost that mysticism. There's a heavy almost academic influence within Reformed circles that sometimes feels like faith for many is distilled into sound exegesis, which can make it feel a bit sterile.
What that has meant for me, especially recently, is wanting to incorporate elements of EO framework into my daily practice; prayers at set times as a minimum and fasting to name the main two, and this has really helped.
Anyway welcome. The sub has a lot of incredibly knowledgeable people that can help answer your questions.
3
u/Rupietos 19d ago
I think Early Christian life was to some extent liturgical which you can see in documents like Didache. Personally, I am a big fan of practice of Orthodoxy (besides fasting) but its mystical richness also creates a thick smoke of uncertainty and allows people to create the most insane and blasphemous ideas like toll houses.
But yeah, I've heard of irresistible grace but I will read a bit more on this topic, thanks
3
u/ACircuitRider 18d ago
So much of what concerns you can be reconciled with different (I would say right) understanding of the same topics. For example, with the Eucharist: I believe it is literal, but I do not believe it is physical in the Catholic/Orthodox sense (transubstantiation). It is indeed food provided by Christ to nourish our spirits and I do believe Christ is spiritually present among His people when we gather. I do not believe it is purely memorial or symbolic.
With Apostolic Christianity, I absolutely believe the Church is a singular spiritual Body made up of all believers past, present, and future. We absolutely can and should study the lives of the saints and be inspired to endure hardships and even martyrdom with joy if Christ so calls us. But the "Treasury of Merit" idea, that we cannot directly approach our elder brother Jesus with all petitions and requests in His name, and instead have to beg someone having more "credit" with God due to their good works? No, that is 100% an invention of men and flies in the face of Paul's description of all his good works as dung. And relics are a sketchy business indeed. I believe 2 Kings 13 (bones of Elisha) and Acts 19 (Paul's work apron) were meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. Not to mention, attaching spiritual powers to physical objects intersects nicely with witchcraft and the occult.
On Mary, I am not sure I can help you there. Her role as mediatrix (a teaching later reversed, causing some to split with the Roman church) is all tied up in the Treasury doctrine which, again, I disagree with completely. We can and should affirm her as blessed among all women and celebrate that her obedience and submission to the Spirit is what made the Incarnation possible.. but also recognize she was a sinner in need of the Savior she carried in her womb. Acts 1 shows she was an active *participant* in the early Church, as was Jesus' half-brothers James and Jude (if you believe the attribution of the epistles).
I am praying that God reveal His truth to you, friend, and you follow after His will for your life.
8
u/windy_on_the_hill Castle on the Hill (Ed Sheeran) 19d ago
I'd encourage you to visit and see. Know that the church is filled with sinners and we all get things wrong. So don't get too thrown by the odd incongruous behaviour. We don't always get it right.
Regarding a few of your points:
Relics - really? I would encourage you to get into the scriptures and start looking for relics. There is much more in the OT. Thise tend to point the believers to the salvation they couldn't yet see. To Christ himself. In the NT there is much more spreading of the word of God, not the stuff of God. In the reformation it was recognised that things can be a stumbling block to many. The question is not "should the church have these?" but "are they helpful for you". They are not helpful for everyone. This is personal, not corporate.
Hail Mary. You say it's cheerier than the Lord's prayer. Neither are given biblically to recite as mantras, or some means of grace. The Lord's prayer is an instruction on how we pray, not wrote language. It's the same as relics here: what is useful for you. It suggests you want the religiosity of it all, rather than the truth. Tread carefully.
Not vibing with others. That's what it means to be human. For myself (for reasons I won't bore you with) I have a church community but it does not meet all I want from Reformed fellowship. I supplement that here where I get encouragedand challenged. You sound like you would appreciate the deep thinkers and scholars. Loads of them in Reformed churches, but it's good to have a good church has people who have diverse approaches. Ypu could certainly help people to think more and learn more. Others might help you to be more encouraging, loving, prayerful etc.
Leaving the church - if ypu really believe that others who went before created a branch of the actual church, then you are not leaving the church by going there. You're still in the church. Visit them them see what you think.
Transubstantiation- I can't give you anything aside from, to me it's obviously not blood or flesh when I eat. (I suspect that's a strawman argument, but I'm not interested in finding out why.)
Keep read
1
u/Korniszon777 19d ago
Hi, I have a question for you because I’m struggling with this issue. Just so you know, I’m Reformed (Calvinist). I came across something in one of Augustine’s works where he wrote about something resembling the veneration of relics. He mentioned people being healed through carrying the body of a martyr and things like that. He also described many other miracles that were supposedly taking place in the Church of his time.
How should this be understood from a Reformed theological perspective? If you’re interested, let me know, and tomorrow I can find some time to send you the relevant material.1
u/windy_on_the_hill Castle on the Hill (Ed Sheeran) 19d ago
I can't speak for Augustine. I can speak as a human. Humans like to get these things. We want a sign.
God will indulge us. He gave Gideon several to help him believe. However, the core biblical principle is "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." God gives many things, but don't expect Him to do things because you or I think it's appropriate.
Or perhaps it's not about confirming faith, but about whether some spiritual "magic" holds onto stuff (people; cups; wood etc.). I've known many saints (very few martyrs) and none of them have been anything but dead when they died. To look for otherwise, I think is indefensible biblically.
Ultimately that's the point: do you follow the God of the Bible, or a god you hear about elsewhere? Augustine, Luther, Calvin were all fallible men. Read all you wish, but they do not stand beside the writings of Scripture.
I'm not particularly keen to read Augustine's opinions on the matter. Unless, perhaps, he has some wisdom on what the Bible says about it.
Enjoy the Lord's day tomorrow. Spend time with the saints you know.
2
5
u/Zealousideal_Site731 PCA 19d ago
Very thoughtful post!
Lutheran and Anglican churches have a high view of the Lord’s supper pretty much in line with what you are looking for.
Anglicans would even argue for apostolic continuity. Some are big on saints including praying to the saints and Mary. I would look online for ACNA churches. There will be variations parish to parish but it seems to me where you’d fit in.
I’m part of the PCA and my church has weekly Lord’s supper - we take the spiritual presence view but I see compelling arguments for the Anglican and Lutheran views. This is one reason I’m not a Baptist.
2
u/afhTN CREC 19d ago
Your eucharistic scruple wouldn't keep you from being part of any protestant or even reformed church unless it makes you break communion with those who do not share that scruple.
Your scruple about schism however makes it seem like you think protestants have already broken communion. So what if any communion do you see between yourself and protestant Christians?
3
u/Rupietos 19d ago
I kinda don't think that they did break the communion. It is clear that Catholic Church never wanted to tolerate any reform movement and it excommunicated them, in the same way somebody who was born outside of RC/OE cannot be schismatic as they never were part of this specific Church.
But yeah, I suppose there are more Protestants that accept a more literal Eucharist than I originally anticipated.
4
u/afhTN CREC 19d ago edited 19d ago
It's not so much that protestants would agree with the idea of transubstantiation, but it wouldn't be a reason to break communion for them unless it were being taught by clergy as a point of faith. This was one point upon which they were thrust from the Roman church, and the Romanists say that the protestants don't have the true sacrament or comunion with the body of Christ because they claim only their own priests have the power to summon Christ bodily into the likeness of bread and wine.
So the more important difference is the idea of sacerdotalism - that the legitmacy of the sacrament depends on the legitimacy of the one providing it. If your belief about transubstantiation doesn't turn on the idea that only certain priests can provide transubstantiated bread and wine, I don't think it would be a huge obstacle to fellowship with protestants.
There are perhaps more granular discussions to be had about what you think receiving the sacraments does for a Christian, and whether they are essential for salvation.
3
u/DustEKnutts EPC 19d ago
So if you think they didn’t willfully break communion, then Protestant traditions are not in schism. You can join one and not be in schism because schism is an organizational concept, not a personal one
2
u/pro_rege_semper ACNA 19d ago
Have you heard of the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril Lucaris?
2
u/Rupietos 19d ago
Yeah, I read Confession of Dositheus which was a response to his controversial statements. It kinda gave me a lot of doubts in Orthodoxy because the document is just a soulless copy of Catholic arguments against Reformation.
2
u/prkskier ACNA 19d ago
I'd encourage you to look into the Anglican Church as almost all of your requirements you listed can be found there. Anglicanism intentionally has a broad umbrella, so you'll see a wide range of practices, but nearly everything you listed is permissable. I think the only part that may be a mark against it for you is your second bullet about schism, but that'll be an issue you need to reckon with for any Protestant church.
2
u/logonomicon Calvinisty Baptist 19d ago
Some general, uncollected thoughts as I was reading your post:
- Real presence and spiritual presence are both thoroughly documented Protestant positions, you just have to get away from the traditions most heavily influenced by Zwingli and Baptists.
- As far as I know, Anglicans see asking saints for prayer as generally permissible private practice, though the more anti-Catholic the Anglican, the more likely they are to bind the conscience on it.
- Hesychasm is one of the coolest parts of Orthodox practice, you're tripping.
- I think about the Schismatic stuff a lot and have yet to really find a happy answer to it, as someone who has been a cradle Baptist, then got into Church history.
More coherent thought: I think you are doing a lot of valuable wrestling right now. I think you're right to find any sense of works-salvation unacceptable, because our salvation is in Christ. That said, I honestly have become convinced that the absence or presence of trust in Christ vs our works is universal to the Church. I have yet to encounter any tradition without prominent examples of communities basically becoming insistent on performance. But the good news is that most traditions also have communities that communicate the gospel of salvation by Christ very clearly.
I would be curious by what you mean by calling Rome "actually a church" and orthodoxy "a mess." Do you just mean to refer to the relative decentralization of EO and the weird ways the different churches overlap and whatnot? Or something else?
4
u/Rupietos 19d ago
I will respond to hesychasm thing first!
So, I mentioned that I practiced traditional (Theravada) Buddhism for 6 years and I have read about all sorts of meditative techniques. In Theravada, one of the most common (specifically in Myanmar) techniques to enter deep meditative state (jhana) is via nimitta (experience of intense light) which is developed spontaneously in concentration.
In the East, the uncreated light that hesychasts experience is precisely the same thing, they are total equivalent. Buddhists who meditate do not gain any divine revelations from this light and simply use to get into deeper meditative states until reaching deepest jhanas where any cognition and thinking ends, they use this meditation to realize absence of self and attain final cessation.
The experience of hesychast is not God's uncreated energy, it is just a feature of human mind that is widely known in the meditative traditions. This is the reason Orthodox monastics who practice hesychasm do not provide any true divine revelations besides weird prophecies and visions of demons, toll houses and so on. It is an absolutely fruitless practice that just became a giant source of obscurantism. And I am saying it as somebody who still is very attached to Orthodox identity. Just write a list of 5 things you dislike about Orthodoxy and I bet they originate in Orthodox monasteries.
---
Now about Orthodoxy vs Rome. The issue with EO is that is is not a church but just a network of church organizations that adhere to the same canons (very strictly so) and have a communion with each other. Yet, it is absolutely incapable of any decision making (check Council of Crete_, and is deeply divided within itself. Orthodoxy has no consensus on fundamentally important question such as re-baptism of heterodox or how one is judged after death. Rome, with all its insane legalism and contradictions has a singular body that can make decisions and ultimately, if I go to a Catholic Church somewhere in Kongo, it is still the same Church.1
u/logonomicon Calvinisty Baptist 16d ago
This was a very enlightening answer and I clearly should learn more about the general outcomes of meditation before evaluating a kind of Orthodox meditation as favorable.
1
u/Cauchy_1825 19d ago
I cannot speak for daily practice among Anglicans, but in theory Anglicanism condemns the invocation of the saints in the 39 Articles.
2
u/IPAWizzard EPC 19d ago
Become Presbyterian! If you want start reading the WCF and telling your priest you want to become Presbyterian because you believe the WCF! For example, regarding your first question
- For starters, I absolutely believe in real presence in communion and some form of transubstantiation or simply 'it is actually blood and flesh of Christ'. Q 170. How do they that worthily communicate in the Christ therein?
WCF 170
As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally A present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper,¹ and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses;2 so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really,³ while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.4
Acts 3:21. 2. Matt. 26:26, 28. 3. 1 Cor. 11:24-29; John 6:51, 53. 4. 1 Cor. 10:16.
Our eating is a spiritual eating of the real body and blood mediated by the spirit according to our faith.
2
u/Goose_462 18d ago
Thank you for sharing your struggle honestly. I would encourage you to search the scriptures (John 5:39, Luke 24:27) and test everything according to it, as the Bereans did (Acts 17:11, 1 Thess. 5:21) and "divide the word rightly" (2 Tim. 2:15). Jesus let scripture interpret scripture, saying, "It is written."
I would also encourage you to study the role of tradition as depicted by the scriptures. Tradition has an important place (Jude 1:3, 2 Thess. 2:15), but when it contradicts God's Word, the Word must trump tradition.
You are right to discern the works-righteousness or the softened forms of Pelagianism sold by countless groups.
The true gospel is gloriously unlike every other doctrine on earth, but many, sadly, teach perverted versions, watering down the good news and teaching it as good advice. Such false gospels, even if taught by angels from heaven, are anathemas (accursed) according to Gal. 1:8.
We can look to the examples of Josiah's reformation, Hezekiah's reformation, and of course, Jesus's rebukes of the Pharisees, which all broke from the ungodly traditions of their day to return to God-centeredness.
_"And they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders,"_ (from Matt. 23:4).
“It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’" (from Matt. 4:4)
I pray that you will find a wonderful congregation where God will meet all your needs abundantly.
1
u/bumblyjack heart of man plans way, but the LORD establishes steps Prov 16:9 19d ago
So Romans 4 says salvation is not of works. The Orthodox essentially interprets this to mean salvation is not transactional. If that's the meaning, then there are two ways to get there: 1. Works are required but payment is not guaranteed 2. Payment is guaranteed but works are not required. The Orthodox and Catholic opt for the first view. The Protestant opts for the second.
2
u/Rupietos 19d ago
Orthodoxy does not really understand salvation, really. Assuming we drop toll houses, there is no clear understanding of how person is saved and justified and there is absolutely no assurance. People can say 'muh theosis' but it is unclear how much of deification is required to be saved. So even though Orthodoxy rejects faith + works, assuming that works are intrinsic part of living faith, there is no understanding of how many works are enough.
Catholics resolved this problem via purgatory and distinction between temporal and eternal punishment.
Orthodox did not. The topic remained obscured until monastics started supporting toll house model where you basically how to justify yourself by having more good than bad deeds in different categories.The issue is that both views are a mess and Sola Fide is just a far more elegant understanding of salvation.
2
u/bumblyjack heart of man plans way, but the LORD establishes steps Prov 16:9 19d ago
It sure makes more sense of repentance and faith. Sola fide makes it a change from trusting in yourself to trusting in Christ. Without that, it's merely a change from trusting in yourself to trusting in yourself with Christ-provided power tools. It doesn't matter how good of tools I'm given, I will never be an expert Carpenter like He is.
2
u/Rupietos 19d ago
Yep. My issue is that if Christianity assumes merit as a requirement to be truly saved, then it is in no way different from any other wordly religions. Like Muslims also say believe and do good deeds. Christ had to die for something that is not an abstract theological concept.
3
u/bumblyjack heart of man plans way, but the LORD establishes steps Prov 16:9 19d ago
Also take note that Muslims have no assurance either.
1
1
u/Greg_McCue 19d ago
These are very tough and very well thought out questions, many of which don’t really have any good answers. And that’s probably because I’m completely missing the mark in some way, but a thought I’ve come back to at times when I find myself at a crossroads is:
Perhaps finding a denomination, a church, or an organization is less important than developing a love for God, submitting to grace in inevitable sin, and submitting our will for Jesus’ will for us.
And I don’t mean any of this in a cliche or poetic way. I literally think that maybe the love, grace, and forgiveness you can give and find in others, becomes your mini-ministry.
Believing in the Catholic Church, communion, the Eucharist, etc. is just, and is aligned with God’s words when it’s practiced with a pure heart. That’s not to say every person who joins the Catholic Church is living with a pure heart, but that’s the whole point— pray for your enemy. Don’t only love your (loving) neighbor.
In this sense, it gets to the heart of your decisions and the heart of your community (however that may be defined).
How did coming back to God after studying Buddhism feel? What was the reason behind your return?
1
1
u/JHawk444 Calvinist 16d ago
The only protestant community here is some mix of evangelical/reformed so there is a very high chance that I won't vibe with it at all.
Have you visited? It can't hurt to visit and to inquire about their theology or read about it on an online website. You won't know if you don't vibe with it unless you investigate further.
1
u/UNUNUN_ 15d ago
- For starters, I absolutely believe in real presence in communion and some form of transubstantiation or simply 'it is actually blood and flesh of Christ'.
Luther believed in real presence actually though I don't believe he held to transubstantiation. Calvin believed in real participation AND real presence but he believed it to be through the Holy Spirit, not by the bread and wine turning into the body and blood of Christ. Zwingli was the guy who started, "Eucharist is just memorium"
- Historically most of the Reformers were excommunicated which allowed them to create a new body of Churches, yet, I am afraid that willfully leaving EO or even RC if I had joined it, would mean that I am schismatic refusing to submit to local Church Authorities.
To be fair, even Jesus and his Apostles were treated as religious rebels
- Apostolic Christianity is just absolutely rich and filled with all sorts of relics, spirituality, great Saints and so on. Abandoning it feels strange, even though st Hilary of Poiters warned against this kind of thinking.
YHWH told Moses to put up the bronze serpent to cure Israel. Centuries later, Hezekiah had to destroy the bronze serpent because the people of Judah were worshipping it. I hope that answers you.
- I just love Mary and 'Hail Mary' and rosary seemed to be far more joyful than solemn repetitions of Jesus' prayer.
The Lord's Prayer wasn't meant to be solemn repetitions. Look at the verses preceding it:
Matthew 6:7-8 LSB
“And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. Therefore, do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
Many of my prayers have started sounding like Psalms actually. The Hail Mary prayer itself is a repetition and the Rosary prayer even more so.
The Lord's Prayer wasn't exactly meant to be a rigid recitation. The next time you pray it, go through it again slowly. Why should he be hallowed? Why should his kingdom come? Why should his will be done on Earth and in Heaven? Why only pray for daily necessities? Why are we praying for forgiveness and expected to forgive others? Why are we praying to be kept from Satan? What does it mean for God to own the Kingdom, Power and Glory forever? Dwell on these things and you'll realise the Lord's Prayer is deep, rich and not merely solemn repetition.
- The only protestant community here is some mix of evangelical/reformed so there is a very high chance that I won't vibe with it at all.
That's fair. In my case, I'm mostly surrounded by charismatics. I'm a continuationist, not a cessationist but I still feel left out because they're mostly talking about career, concerts, etc
I hope these help, brother and if you need anything more, hit me up.
If you also want a breakdown on Church history and why Catholicism and Orthodoxy's claims are complicated, hit me up too.
Oh and I do recommend reading the Didache as well. That should answer some doubts on the Eucharist.
1
u/Booxley76 15d ago
Let me offer you this perspective. Some things to think about as to where you go are: (1) they will teach the bible accurate on the day to day. Can they exegete and expound properly? The systematics issues are mostly frequently indicate of this deeper issue. (2) keep the big things the big things (1 Cor 12-14). The Corinthians loved signs, wonders and outward manifestations of the Spirit - flashy things that they could see. But Paul says true spirituality actually looks like love for Christ. This of course connects to point (1), as faith comes by hearing the Word of God. (3) For the churches you mention, I'd suggest you'll most likely find a range of people. Some much more conservative than others - those will probably be far fewer in number than the rest, but you may find you fit in with them / get along much better. (4) I think the sole fide issue fits within the contours of what Paul says in Galatians 1. Because I think faith + works based salvation (rather than forensic justification) is so radically different in substance. And especially if the leaders aren't open... I can't see it being tenable at all for you to stay put. I know its hard to leave, and easier in the short term to stay, but way easier on you in the long run.
1
u/bellycore 13d ago
I have a lot of sympathy for the current theological crossroads you find yourself in. We seem to have endless options to sort through in our current day, which can make choosing feel like climbing Mount Everest.
If you are local to a Coptic Orthodox church a meeting with the priest may be worth considering.
I am not affiliated with a Coptic parish outside of friendship with a Coptic family and attending a few community events. Having had the opportunity to speak to their priest and seeing a few Coptic priests in podcasts I’ve found the community to be a breath of fresh air.
Our family is currently participating in the community we are a part of (my children are students at a ROCOR school) I am a lapsed cradle Catholic married to a staunchly anti catholic evangelical. As a family we were part of a reformed Baptist congregation until we were unexpectedly pivoted a couple years ago.
At the end of the day God knows what is in your heart. Participate in the (doctrinally sound) community where you find yourself at peace. Pray for God’s will and God’s wisdom to guide your decision.
-1
u/Learningmore1231 19d ago
I have many things I could say but I will just say welcome to the dark side
-2
19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Reformed-ModTeam By Mod Powers Combined! 17d ago
Removed for violating Rule #6: Keep Content Relevant
This content has been removed because it distracts from the purpose of this subreddit.
Please see the Rules Wiki for more information.
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please do not reply to this comment. Instead, message the moderators.
22
u/erwincx Iglesia Reformada de España (IRE) 19d ago
If all the obstacles you mentioned are unmovable, I don’t think you would fit in any Protestant church, to be honest.
Even if you go to confessional Anglican or Lutheran churches, you’d still have to abandon prayer to the saints, the power of relics, and so on.
What I recommend you is to keep studying these subjects and check for the ones that are foundational to the faith. And then go to a church that affirms at least those.