What are peoples thoughts on it? I know there are a few Orthodox Christians running around here. I am very interested and a potential convert. I have been doing lots of reading and plan on visiting one or more orthodox churches once I get back to school (there are none near by where I live in the summer)

so I guess I'm just wondering what are some pros and cons you see?


Also I was wondering which Bible translation Orthodox Christians typically use (if there is one)

Hi. I was chrismated into the Eastern rite Catholic church several years ago (raised evangelical Protestant)---ECs are Christians who worship in the Orthodox tradition but whose hierarchs re-established full communion with the bishop of Rome over the past few centuries. I have learned a fair amount about Eastern Orthodoxy over the years and would be happy to share my perspective. At one time, my reading on Orthodoxy was more extensive than on Catholicism.

Short answer--I would certainly encourage anyone to investigate it. I would caution against assuming that Catholicism is not an option--sometimes potential converts look to Orthodoxy and not Cathollicism because they have an instintive reaction against what they take to be certain Cathollic ideas. I can tell you that in many respects, the adjustment from Protestant to Orthodox is more pronounced than from Protestant to Catholic.
(These might be perceived in terms of "pros" and "cons," htough of course that question is somewhat a matter of perspective).

However, I always encourage people to explore any of the ancient traditions, and believe Eastern Christianity offers a valuable perspective which Western Christians can find quite illuminating.

As time permits, I'll be happy to share.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger

I'm on my way into Orthodox myself.

I got into orthodox christianity about 2 years ago. It pretty much came down to transubstantiation, the role of Mary, and being saved through works.

No one is saved through works. You, like many, have misunderstood the teachings of salvation by the Catholic/Orthodox Churches.

Not by works alone, yes...you're right.

Haha, I clicked on Theology ready to search to see if any threads about Orthodoxy had been made, and lo and and behold, there's one right at the top of the page!

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

Not by works alone, yes...you're right.

But how is this any different than the works righteousness taught by JWs, Mormons, and other pseudo-Christian cults? It's not. None of these other groups believe in works alone. They all claim the same thing, that it is by faith and works that one is justified.

Biblical theology is: Faith = Justification + Works
Anti-biblical works theology is: Faith + Works = Justification

HUGE difference people. I myself would rather listen to what the early church actually taught and wrote in the NT than give my brain over to a religious institution that claims to be descended from the early church yet at the same time teaches stuff that is the polar opposite of what they taught and still have the arrogance to claim apostolic succession.

Anastasis wrote:

Haha, I clicked on Theology ready to search to see if any threads about Orthodoxy had been made, and lo and and behold, there's one right at the top of the page!

About time you made it here. Welcome.

Broc, faith + works IS Biblical. Jesus is talking constantly about doing works, NEVER mentions having faith alone, and constantly saying we are judged by our works. Works do NOT flow out of faith. People can have faith and not do any works. Paul tells us that we will be judged by our works.

Martin Luther just randomly added the phrase "faith alone" to his Bible to a use of the phrase "faith". Changing the words of scripture is seriously wrong.

Quote :

I myself would rather listen to what the early church actually taught and wrote in the NT than give my brain over to a religious institution that claims to be descended from the early church yet at the same time teaches stuff that is the polar opposite of what they taught and still have the arrogance to claim apostolic succession.

eternalmystery wrote:

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

Not by works alone, yes...you're right.

But how is this any different than the works righteousness taught by JWs, Mormons, and other pseudo-Christian cults? It's not. None of these other groups believe in works alone. They all claim the same thing, that it is by faith and works that one is justified.

Biblical theology is: Faith = Justification + Works
Anti-biblical works theology is: Faith + Works = Justification

HUGE difference people. I myself would rather listen to what the early church actually taught and wrote in the NT than give my brain over to a religious institution that claims to be descended from the early church yet at the same time teaches stuff that is the polar opposite of what they taught and still have the arrogance to claim apostolic succession.

Broc, you KNOW you shouldn't be starting this. This isn't a thread to argue about denominations. I'm just saying this before we get in a stupid tiff again. Have some respect.

No offense, Mikey, but the OP *did* ask what people's thoughts were on it. The OP stated that he's a potential convert and wanted some input. Broc, being protestant wanted to state right-off his fundamental disagreement with classic EO. If someone was a Roman Catholic, considering "crossing the Tiber" to Protestantism, I would expect RC's to chime-in with their concerns as well.

Should Broc have been more diplomatic, most likely but I think the OP was the one "starting it" with a genuine request for feedback.

Mark wrote:

Broc, faith + works IS Biblical. Jesus is talking constantly about doing works, NEVER mentions having faith alone, and constantly saying we are judged by our works.

I wasn't going to post this because it's way too big, but since no one cares to even listen and just ignores it, here I go.

ALL of Romans 4

1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,
12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,
15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all
17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.”
19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb.
20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,
21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform.
22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him,
24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,
25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

Quote :

Works do NOT flow out of faith.

Actually they do.

Ephesians 2:8-10

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Quote :

Martin Luther just randomly added the phrase "faith alone" to his Bible to a use of the phrase "faith". Changing the words of scripture is seriously wrong.

Luther did not add any such phrase. If salvation is by grace through faith APART from works (which is in Romans 4, but I'm sure that you probably won't even glance at it), then the logical conclusion is that salvation is by faith alone. You cannot add what was left out of the equation.

Was Christ's sacrifice enough Mark? If it was, then why do we need to add to His work?

Faith + works is a blatant denial of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, and is a serious error.

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

eternalmystery wrote:

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

Not by works alone, yes...you're right.

But how is this any different than the works righteousness taught by JWs, Mormons, and other pseudo-Christian cults? It's not. None of these other groups believe in works alone. They all claim the same thing, that it is by faith and works that one is justified.

Biblical theology is: Faith = Justification + Works
Anti-biblical works theology is: Faith + Works = Justification

HUGE difference people. I myself would rather listen to what the early church actually taught and wrote in the NT than give my brain over to a religious institution that claims to be descended from the early church yet at the same time teaches stuff that is the polar opposite of what they taught and still have the arrogance to claim apostolic succession.

Broc, you KNOW you shouldn't be starting this. This isn't a thread to argue about denominations. I'm just saying this before we get in a stupid tiff again. Have some respect.

Why do you have to completely miss what I'm trying to say every time I make a post in theology?

You are accusing me of arguing denominations, when nowhere in the post you quoted did I even do such a thing.

I am not arguing that the protestant church is better than the RCC or the EO or whatever. The DOCTRINE, the system of teaching and dogma of both the RCC and the EO, is what I am taking issue with. A lot of protestants don't bother to research it, but I have, and I have found several things taught in both systems that disturb me greatly, and should disturb anyone who affirms a biblical gospel.

You are telling me to have respect. I really wish I could Mikey, and even though I do respect the laypeople of both communions, I cannot respect and throw my arms around those systems of doctrine. Knowing what I know about what both of them teach, and knowing what I know about what the NT teaches, I cannot do it. It is not a matter of me being unwilling. It is a matter of me being unable to do so. I would have to throw out 90% of what I know about what the NT teaches in order to legitimately make such a move.

See what you're doing already? I was just advising you to steer clear of this because this has gotten out of hand in the past. You're just very stubborn sometimes and it's unbecoming and at times, you get pretty offensive. I just want you to respect our views and not insist that we're completely wrong. I don't want to fight with you...i don't want to dis-like you...i love your music hahaha!

eternalmystery wrote:

Luther did not add any such phrase.

Um, actually, Luther stuck "alone" into Romans 3:28.

Romans 3:28 (King James Version)

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


Where is alone.... or is it another verse or bible translation?

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

See what you're doing already? I was just advising you to steer clear of this because this has gotten out of hand in the past. You're just very stubborn sometimes and it's unbecoming and at times, you get pretty offensive. I just want you to respect our views and not insist that we're completely wrong. I don't want to fight with you...i don't want to dis-like you...i love your music hahaha!

I understand where you are coming from, as its easy to get heated when people have opposing views. But we can't only hear one side all the time... w not very balanced then.... sometimes more fun to watch this than tv Noses get out of joint most times as we do not like our faith and views challenged.

therockismighty wrote:

Romans 3:28 (King James Version)

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


Where is alone.... or is it another verse or bible translation?

I'm talking about Luther's German translation, not the KJV.

K sorry man, ah read some more.... it seems its easy to stir up the pot here.

I guess Luther just wanted to challenge the whole doing works is the way to heaven..... although both combined with the right intentions and promptings by the Holy Spirit are the key.

Anastasis wrote:

eternalmystery wrote:

Luther did not add any such phrase.

Um, actually, Luther stuck "alone" into Romans 3:28.

You have completely missed what I was trying to point out along with a few others.

If justification is by faith APART from the deeds of the law, then it logically must follow that justification is by faith alone. There is no need to put the word "alone" into that verse, because if it says we are justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law, then the simple fact is that it is by faith alone that we are saved because works are not involved.

Romans 3:28, Romans 4, and the million other verses in Scripture say: faith = justification (+ works if you throw in the context of James 2)

RCC, EO, OO view is: faith plus works = justification

There IS a difference here. And since both are in opposition to each other, I will side with Scripture.

Also, I forgot to bring this up, but it hasn't really been thoroughly explained to me.

I know this thread is about Eastern Orthodoxy, but I still want this answered.

Both the RCC and the EO claim to be the original church Christ founded (of course there is ZERO evidence for this, but the claims are still made despite the lack of evidence for either communion).

Both of them claim apostolic succession.

Yet even with these claims of them both being "the Church", neither one agrees on doctrine. In fact, both groups disagree so bad that they are not even in communion with each other.

I'm always hearing stories about how the EO church is the original church and that Rome broke away. And then I get the opposite from Catholics, who claim that it was the EO that broke away from them.

This is another reason, besides the works righteousness dogma, why I cannot accept either as being "the Church" in any sense.

Every time I see this asked (if I ask it or if someone else somewhere asks it), I can sit there and imagine Catholics and Orthodox duking it out.

"We're the true Church!"
"No, we are!"
"We have the true apostolic succession!"
"No, we do! U iz wrong!"

And to be honest, all these crappy, illegitimate claims with zero evidence to support any of it gives me a massive headache.

I don't mean to open a can of worms, but seriously. This is something I have been thinking about.

eternalmystery wrote:

RCC, EO, OO view is: faith plus works = justification

Or perhaps the problem is that the very definition of "justification" in the Western, overly legally-orientated and juridical view, is not the Orthodox one.

I thought that we discussed this in great length on MSN. Christ has redeemed humanity by His own work, not our own. And at the risk of directly quoting myself from our conversation, I shall say that the "works" as such are what we do in our co-operation with God towards theosis. And even then, the sacraments, the church, everything like that is what God has given TO us. So God has redeemed our human nature and given us the opportunity for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, but our theosis (which in the end is just as important as our redemption, as what good will eternal life with Christ be if we have not co-operated with Him and become like Him?), is what we co-operate with him for.

And while we're on the subject, why is faith any less of a work than other deeds?

eternalmystery wrote:

Also, I forgot to bring this up, but it hasn't really been thoroughly explained to me.

I know this thread is about Eastern Orthodoxy, but I still want this answered.

Both the RCC and the EO claim to be the original church Christ founded (of course there is ZERO evidence for this, but the claims are still made despite the lack of evidence for either communion).

Both of them claim apostolic succession.

Yet even with these claims of them both being "the Church", neither one agrees on doctrine. In fact, both groups disagree so bad that they are not even in communion with each other.

I'm always hearing stories about how the EO church is the original church and that Rome broke away. And then I get the opposite from Catholics, who claim that it was the EO that broke away from them.

This is another reason, besides the works righteousness dogma, why I cannot accept either as being "the Church" in any sense.

Every time I see this asked (if I ask it or if someone else somewhere asks it), I can sit there and imagine Catholics and Orthodox duking it out.

"We're the true Church!"
"No, we are!"
"We have the true apostolic succession!"
"No, we do! U iz wrong!"

And to be honest, all these crappy, illegitimate claims with zero evidence to support any of it gives me a massive headache.

I don't mean to open a can of worms, but seriously. This is something I have been thinking about.

I'll answer this properly when I get home, but that is a VAST oversimplification, and if I remember correctly, we have already discussed a lot of these issues and on some of them you seemed to be satisfied, only to bring them up again now.

Anastasis, sorry bro. I forgot to save our MSN conversation.

As for theosis, do you believe that one has to achieve it in this life in order to be redeemed and saved by God and ultimately let into heaven? What happens to those who try and don't achieve it?

therockismighty wrote:

Mikey Erasmus wrote:

See what you're doing already? I was just advising you to steer clear of this because this has gotten out of hand in the past. You're just very stubborn sometimes and it's unbecoming and at times, you get pretty offensive. I just want you to respect our views and not insist that we're completely wrong. I don't want to fight with you...i don't want to dis-like you...i love your music hahaha!

I understand where you are coming from, as its easy to get heated when people have opposing views. But we can't only hear one side all the time... w not very balanced then.... sometimes more fun to watch this than tv Noses get out of joint most times as we do not like our faith and views challenged.

I understand getting a balance and hearing both side of this argument, but the truth of the matter is the orthodox Christians on this board are a minority. I think it would be fair to have this thread be informative about orthodoxy and not informative about what each "side" of this argument thinks about the other.