What are some areas of agreement? Differences? I know one difference is on the atonement. Almost every theory is represented in Anglicanism, but only those of the earliest churches are held in Orthodoxy -- Ransom/Recapitulation/Christus Victor.
That's a great question Rebel. I'll hazard a guess but must first qualify my statements by confessing that i know little about atonement theories within the Anglican tradition and much less in EO. I am only going by what I see in the formularies and there are far more learned members on the Forums than I who may want to chime in. Working from the perspective that Anglicanism does not preach new or peculiar doctrines but rather holds fast to those taught by Scripture and the Church Fathers of the ancient, undivided Church, I would hope that we share a great deal in common with EO. Looking for direction in the formularies, one is immediately met with the sparceness of input available. This would indicate to me the Anglican fathers wish us to concentrate on the Biblical truth of Christ's atonement rather than delving into manmade speculations on how it was accomplished. Article II of the AoR simply declares that Christ suffered and died to reconcile His Father with us as a sacrifice for both our original and actual sins. I did find something close to a theory of the atonement in the first part on Homily III, Of the Salvation on all Mankind. The homilist writes the following: "Objection. But here may mans reason be astonied, reasoning after this fashion. If a ransom be paid for our redemption, then is it not given us freely. For a prisoner that payed his ransom, is not let go freely, for if he go freely, then he goes without ransom: for what is it else to go freely, then to be set at liberty without paying of ransom? Answer. This reason is satisfied by the great wisdom of GOD in this mystery of our redemption, who hath so tempered his justice & mercy together, that he would neither by his justice condemn us unto the everlasting captivity of the devil, & his prison of Hell, remediless for ever without mercy, nor by his mercy deliver us clearly, without justice or payment of a just ransom: but with his endless mercy he joined his most upright and equal justice. His great mercy he showed unto us in delivering us from our former captivity, without requiring of any ransom to be paid, or amends to be made upon our parts, which thing by us had been impossible to be done. And where as it lay not in us that to do, he provided a ransom for us, that was, the most precious body and blood of his own most dear and best beloved Son Jesus Christ, who besides this ransom, fulfilled the law for us perfectly. And so the justice of GOD & his mercy did embrace together, & fulfilled the mystery of our redemption. And of this justice and mercy of GOD knit together, speaks S. Paul in the third Chap. to the Romans, All have offended, & have need of the glory of GOD, but are justified freely by his grace, by redemption which is in Jesus Christ, whom GOD hath sent forth to us for a reconciler & peace maker, through faith in his blood, to shew his righteousness (Romans 3.23-25). And in the tenth Chap. Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness, to every man that believeth (Romans 10.4). And in the 8. Chap. That which was impossible by the law, in as much as it was weak by the flesh, GOD sending his own Son, in the similitude of sinful flesh, by sin damned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, which walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (Romans 8.3-4)." From this, I would argue that Anglicans follow a form of Ransom Theory without specifically identifying whether the ransom was paid to the Devil, Death, Sin, or to God in order to put away His just wrath. My own opinion is that it was paid to sin and death, since the Bible declares that Adam's sin made mankind slaves to sun and death. But, as I've said earlier, this is solely based on my cursory knowledge of the formularies. Whether this is a complete and accurate description of the Anglican stance on the atonement and whether this lines up with the EO position, I couldn't say.
I personally hold to the Christus Victor theory, myself. I don't really see the typical Penal Atonement or Substitutionary Atonement as having any real grounding in the teaching of the Fathers. My view on the atonement is as follows: Christ was not sent by God the Father simply to be punished in the stead of all humanity to satisfy His wrath at humanity, as if God was a seething, unstable ball of rage and needed a perfect Victim to vent his anger on until he had no wrath left to expend. Nor was it meant to placate God, like in the manner of human beings who offer gifts to calm down an angry monarch whose dignity has been offended. And finally, Christ did not become incarnate because the Father was unwilling to pardon humanity for transgressions without an exchange of a perfect Sacrifice, as if it was a matter of trading blood for sins committed like an ancient merchant bartering for goods. God the Father is in no way comparable to an earthly tyrant of ancient days, capricious and easily angered, and to consider Him such is a disservice and gross indignity. Instead, Christ, God the Son, the Word, became incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost, to offer himself to His Father to suffer and die, out of love for humanity and His Father, in order to break the bonds of death and sin on humanity, and to redeem our fallen world, and eventually purge it of all evil. Father and Son worked together to bring down the downfall of Sin and Death, not diametrically opposed to each other as the Substitution theory suggests. Sin is primarily an illness, a weakness and a bondage brought into the world by the sin of Adam and Eve, not simply legal offences which God demands retribution and vengeance for, after the manner of an earthly plaintiff seeking compensation. Therefore Christ, the Divine Physician, by His wounds and death, liberates us from the power of evil, heals our sins and restores us to life in Him. By his death, we are ransomed back from the powers of death and sin which held us in thrall. By grace, we are sanctified, our souls are healed, our wills aligned more and more closely to God’s, and our souls made holier and holier until we are truly the image of God, and become holy as God is holy.
The problem with theories is that they're theories. This came up recently in a conversation and I was sent this fun little thing: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2015/03/abstraction-and-atonement-theory
Good point Anne. In thecwords of Archbishop Cranmer: "the most sure and plain way is, to cleave unto holy Scripture. Wherein whatsoever is found, must be taken for a most sure ground and an infallible truth; and whatsoever cannot be grounded upon the same (touching our faith) is man’s device, changeable and uncertain."
I am not sure if I posted this before, but I think it is a good illustration of the different soteriologies. Though written by a Calvinist, he does a good job of being fair in what he represents of other perspectives. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/bl...-roman-catholicism-arminianism-and-calvinism/
Thanks very much, LL; this is wonderful! I greatly appreciate what you have written. This is what I believe.
One of the biggest areas of agreement is the importance of extrabiblical tradition. In Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, scripture is first (prima scriptura), but tradition outside the Bible is another key "source of authority", as Hooker put it, I think. One difference here is that many Orthodox consider the 7 ecumenical councils infallible. But that is not unanimous in every sense of infallible. One of the biggest differences I see is that IMO the Anglican Church under Queen Elizabeth intended to teach Receptionism or Virtualism, whereby only the worthy and faithful make any contact with Jesus' body in the Communion ritual, an idea that they intended to put in the articles of religion, based on the title of article 29. See the thread I made here on this: http://forums.anglican.net/threads/...tself-to-really-be-or-have-christs-body.1614/ The distinction is important, because in the Orthodox, Catholic, and Lutheran Churches, Jesus is objectively and directly present in the elements of the ritual themselves, whether or not each of the people who participate believes it. The bread itself is not only a symbol or a tool of Jesus' "energy" and power, Jesus is directly in the elements himself. The Anglicans' Articles however definitely rule out Transubstantiation, but the Orthodox do not definitively pick a side in the Lutheran v Catholic battle on that. Jesus "changed" water into wine, and so he can turn bread into body. Orthodox sometimes speak of meta ousia, literally a change of substance. Pope Gelasius definitely did not teach Transubstantiation, but the major church father Cyril of Alexandria definitely did. Therefore, the Orthodox view better holds in common the two views, but not the Receptionist/Virtualist one.
Orthodoxy allows for different theories like Anglicanism does. Calvinism comes across as strict and penal. Orthodoxy is more like Methodists than Lutherans, I think. In the website above, the author is not Orthodox, so of course he is not the best source on Orthodoxy. He claims of orthodoxy: "But they must do their part by swimming along with God’s pull (grace plus works; synergism). If at any time they let go or quit swimming, they will not be saved." This is the Calvinist portrayal Orthodoxy as works salvation. But in truth works are not absolutely needed for everyone. Take for example infants where personal decisionmaking is not so important by them.
If you have a go at this quiz - How Orthodox Am I (should read how Eastern Orthodox am I), then that might give you some answers with regards to the differences. http://www.orthodoxresource.co.uk/index.html#Take_the_Quiz! Differences - well, of course there's the Filioque. And have a look at this - although written from en EO perspective. http://www.orthodoxresource.co.uk/comparative/anglo-catholic.htm
I took the quiz just for fun Turns out I got only 11 of the 20 questions correct... So according to them: "You are on the right track to Orthodoxy. Why not find out more?"
Yeah, actually much more than I thought I'd end up with ... I love and respect the Orthodox Church quite a lot. Own and read Orthodox books, lives of the saints, have some Serbian icons, appreciate their ascetic spirituality....but in the end, I just find myself more at home in the western and Anglican "formularies". I do indeed love the Orthodox though. (EDIT by me - I knew what the correct Orthodox answers would be, but answered with what I believed to be the truth)
Just to add another difference. And this one is important to me personally: Orthodox view of validity of protestant Baptism. I was baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet my baptism wasn't by immersion, or even pouring. It was by "sprinkling" (a common Presbyterian method). A while back, early in my faith, while corresponding with a local Orthodox priest, he told me that it was not valid, and I would need to be baptized by triple immersion. Yet, after contacting and later attending an independent Catholic church, they assured me I was indeed truly baptized. And, the Roman Catholic church herself also confirmed that my baptism was true. And once again. My local Anglican church that I attend says that yes, I am a baptized Christian. Obviously, immersion is the ideal, given the symbolism of dying and rising again. And pouring of water better than sprinkling...but as long as there is water, and the Holy Spirit, in the name of the Trinity...it is really and truly Sacramental. This was a big deal to me at one time. For we are "born again by water and the Holy Spirit". I know that I was truly baptized into The Church. I cling to this fact every morning when I awaken. I cling to my baptism through faith. So then, I believe the Eastern Orthodox practice of re-baptizing fellow Christians by triple immersion is flat wrong...and a danger to the faith of an individual. Knowing one is born again by water and the Spirit is a comfort to the soul, regardless if it was by a protestant minister or Catholic or Orthodox. Just my thoughts on one particular difference
To me it seems that there is a great connection between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. When Gregory sent Augustine to Canterbury (597), the general idea we are told is that he was sent to bring Christianity to England. That does not match entirely with what we know. Firstly there were christians in England before that. Alban is reported as the first British Martyr (perhaps as early as 209 or as lat as 304). There were almost certainly three British Bishops at the Council of Arles in 314. The Venerable Bede spends much time explaining how Augustine was convincing them to adopt the correct date of Easter. The issue was that they were celebrating Easter according to the Eastern Tradition, whereas Augustine needed them to celebrate Easter on the Roman calculated date. One must therefore read that some part of Augustine's Mission was at least to bring the English Church under the Umbrella of the Patriarch of the west rather than the Patriarchs of the East. In 1054 the Great Schism occurred separating the Eastern and Western Branches of the Church. in 1052 Stigand became ArchBishop of Canterbury - not the Popes preferred choice it would seem. It seems in the confusion of the Papacy of the time, Stigand was excommunicated, given the pallium, ungiven the pallium and re-excommunicated. In 1066 Pope Alexander the 2nd authorised the Norman Conquest of England, when Harold was hit in the eye with an arrow, and Stigand was taken to France and ultimately deposed and Lanfranc was made ArchBishop of Canterbury (1070). Much of the history of the English Church and the Magisterium of Rome has been a battle of freedom and dominance. This is in a way underlined in the separation of the 16th Century when Henry declared 'no jurisdiction in this realm of England'. It is more about authority than it is about doctrine. The question I would like to answer at the moment is who was the English Church in communion with in the period from 1054 to 1066?