Yesterday, I interviewed a former Southern Baptist who has converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. Today I am interviewing a former Eastern Orthodox believer who has become Baptist. Tomorrow, we will look at the parallels between the two accounts and hopefully better understand these two traditions and why people are converting from one to the other.
John’s Story: Why I Left Eastern Orthodoxy for Evangelicalism
John is a Romanian man in his late fifties who is no stranger to the Eastern Orthodox Church. He was born into a family of Orthodox Christians, in a society where church and state often mix in unhealthy ways. Romanian Orthodoxy is the state religion, meaning that almost everyone born in Romania is already considered a member of the Orthodox church, regardless of devotion or belief.
John’s grandparents were faithful leaders in the Orthodox church. The Orthodox priest was one of the most important people in the village in which John grew up. John’s family was considered “devout” and “religious” by the priest and the rest of the community. Though the church building was just four houses down the street from his, John rarely attended. “I usually went to the midnight Easter vigil,” he recalls. “A few days before Easter, I would go confess my sins to the local priest. But this had no effect on me. When I walked out of a church service, I was the same as before.”
John was baptized into the church when he was six weeks old. Later, he and his wife were married in the Orthodox Church. As John tells me about these years, I sense he resents the past. It is clear that he sees his youth as a wasted part of his life, and he is upset that the priest never taught him the truth about God. “The priest never confronted us in our sins,” he says, with a mixture of grief and anger. “I didn’t have a Bible, but no one encouraged me to read one anyway.”
In his early twenties, John became active in the Communist party in Romania. One evening, he was on assignment to visit one of the Baptist churches and to see how many of the “repenters” (as they were derogatorily called) were present. He was also told to ask the Baptists questions about why they were attending churches other than the Orthodox Church. “I had no intention of converting to evangelicalism,” he says. “But when I heard the Word of God preached for the first time, and the concept of repentance and being ‘born again,’ I was touched. I realized that I had never truly repented of my sins. Here I would go to the Orthodox Church, cross myself, kiss an icon one moment and despise God the next. I realized that the Orthodox church was a societal organization that had taught me nothing.” So John decided to “follow Jesus” and turn away from his sinful past.
John’s family reacted harshly. His wife thought he had gone crazy. His parents told him he was bringing shame upon the whole family. The Communist party began to put pressure on him to give up his newfound faith and continue to be involved in their atheistic agenda.
The pressure from all sides to give up his new identity was overwhelming. “I would have caved had I not begun reading the Bible the Baptists had given me,” John says with a smile. “As I began reading Scripture, I understood Jesus to be the only way to God. I realized I did not need the Orthodox church or even a priest to be my mediator, for Jesus was the mediator between me and the Father.”
Though John does not use the term, it is clear from his testimony that he had acquired an unshakable belief in the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura. “I realized that the Bible was the authority, even over the Church. The Bible was true, and the Church with all its traditions and rituals was wrong.”
“How did you adjust to the different beliefs between the Baptist church and the Orthodox church,” I ask, looking over my list of differing views.
John explains how he quickly left behind former Orthodox doctrines that he had been taught in church. The intercession of the saints and Mary on behalf of Christians on earth was easily rejected. “That isn’t in the Bible,” he says, without further elaboration. Shortly thereafter, he rejected the Orthodox doctrine of infant baptism. “My baptism when I was 6 weeks old was not a true baptism. Scripture teaches that the one who believes is the one who should be baptized.”
John’s view of salvation changed dramatically as well. As he delved into Paul’s epistles, primarily to the Romans and Ephesians, John came to understand salvation as a gift from God through faith alone, not through good deeds. “My understanding had always been that to be saved, you had to do a certain amount of good works. Paul said we are dead in sins. So I began to ask myself, ‘How can a dead person do good works?’”
“Are you saying that the Orthodox Church preaches salvation by good works?” I ask. John nods in agreement. “That’s all I knew anyway.” He acknowledges that Orthodox doctrine might contradict Orthodox practice in some places, but for John, it’s in practice that one shows what is truly believed.
“How did your family get over their condemnation of your newfound faith?” I wonder aloud. John smiles and begins to get visibly excited. He tells me how his family could deny his new beliefs, but none could deny the visible change in his lifestyle. “I stopped getting drunk, stopped smoking, stopped cursing. I began reading my Bible, going to church, praying. I had been born again,” he says. Within months, his wife, parents, and even his 80-year-old grandmother who had been a mainstay of the village Orthodox church, had all converted, as a direct result of his testimony.
“How sure are you that you made the right decision?” I ask.
“I am totally sure, based on the authority of God’s Word alone,” he replies firmly, again appealing to the sola scriptura principle.
“What would you say if someone were to convert from evangelicalism to Eastern Orthodoxy?” I challenge. John is visibly taken aback by the question. His response comes quickly. “In all my years, I’ve never heard of such a thing.” I begin to explain what it is like in other countries, where Eastern Orthodoxy is a minority and the evangelical tradition dominates. John admits he cannot conceive of Orthodoxy as a minority; neither can he come up with a reason why one would leave a “life-giving relationship with God for a ‘dead’ church.”
“But can there be true believers who decide to remain within the Orthodox church?” I ask, pointing to the Romanian renewal movement “Army of God” within the Orthodox Church that emphasized many of the same doctrines as evangelicalism. John shakes his head, sadly but firmly. “An Orthodox Christian that is truly born again would realize that the church is wrong and would turn to evangelicalism.” For John, coming to Christ and joining an evangelical church are two sides of the same coin.
Ironically, the very assumption John despises in the Orthodox Church (that there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church) is the same assumption he has made regarding evangelicalism. “The Baptist church is the true Church that is following the teachings of Jesus and the apostles,” he affirms, though admitting the presence of believers in Pentecostal, Brethren, and other evangelical denominations.
“Do you seek to convert your Orthodox family and friends?” I ask, already somewhat expectant of what his answer will be.
“I have pleaded for the past thirty years with my Orthodox friends to come to Christ and know Him personally,” John says, with tears in his eyes. “My Orthodox friends confess Christ with their mouths, but they do not know Him in their hearts. I try to convert people, because I believe the Orthodox Church is wrong and is leading people astray.”
“What about pious Orthodox Christians? Those who do not live sinful lives? Those who remain faithful to the church and who trust in Christ for salvation?” I press him further.
“Religiosity does not mean salvation,” he replies. “People can be sincere and still be sincerely wrong. The Orthodox Church feeds on tradition, not on Scripture. If Orthodox believers would read Scripture without it being interpreted for them by the Church, they would discover the truth,” he adds.
John’s reliance on Scripture is evident. All throughout the interview, John has been backing up his statements with verses he has committed to memory. He rarely gives me an answer without a Scriptural reference or justification.
I thank John for his time, and then ask him to sum up the biggest difference between Orthodox Christians and Baptists. He pauses for a moment, looks at me intently, and says, “Baptists preach that ‘You must be born again.’”
It’s interesting to get a perspective from evangelicals within an Orthodox country. It seems that evangelicals in Romania (if they are like John) are much more exclusive in their ecclesiology than those here in the States. Gotta admire the passion, though.
Comment by Scott A. — November 9, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
As a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy I found this article both sad and inspiring. It comes across that clearly John is very sincere and deeply believes in the Baptist teachings and it seems evident that positive changes were made. I also don’t doubt that there are many village priests in Romania whom are not doing their job as shepherds of the flock. John himself gave a clue as to why this might be: communism. I’m no sociologist, but I have read many accounts of what athiest communism has done to the Orthodox Christians in the Balkan states through re-education classes to isolation imprisonment to death camps. In Romania alone, hundreds of churches and monasteries were shut down and priests were forbidden to hold Christian education classes. Those that did not obey were brutally punished. Do a little research on Ceausescu and his dreaded Securitate. I won’t try to invalidate John’s story re: complacent Orthodox because it’s probably true. Here in America, our churches are filled with complacent Protestants. But this is no litmus test for the validity or self-efficacy of either views. I believe that we (Orthodox and Protestants) can learn much from one another. We Orthodox should take a cue from the Protestants and begin reading our Bibles much more (which Holy Tradition actually dictates), while Protestants need to realize that it is the Church which brought us the Bible and not the other way around. When we deviate from Holy Tradition we get the pluralistic nightmare that can be found in the American religious expression: the Bible says what I say it says and I’m starting a church that reflects my beliefs. 24,000 denominations and sub-denominations later we see the devastation that Sola Scriptura has wrought on the Church.
Comment by Christian P — December 17, 2006 @ 11:51 pm
While I’m sure that there is some truth to this story, such as much of Orthodoxy being dead in Romania or teaching doctrines contrary to The Church, I have to say that this story is sad. It’s sad because John in this story has taken everything that the Orthodox Church believes, and has applied it now to the Baptist church. As stated in another comment, the Sola Scriptura principle has torn and divided Christianity so much that 33,000 denominations later the world sees Christianity as a joke, when Christians can’t even keep thier own house in order.
Comment by Jonathan C — April 11, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
I am glad that John has found a personal relationship with Christ! That is awesome! However, it is quite judgmental to say that all Orthodox Christians are dead and wrong. I, being a former youth minister in a non-denominational protestant church (Vineyard) but now an Orthodox Christian, can tell you that you can be a “dead christian” in any church:Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. The Orthodox Church experience is what you make of it; as well as the protestant experience. I am closer to Jesus now, than I ever was before. I think the protestant people as a whole, should learn more about the eastern christians from better sources; such as: a practicing sincere believing orthodox, a bishop, priest, or even the many good books that are out there. Anyway, I love you all! Read your Bibles, pray, and love Jesus with all your hearts! -peace-
Comment by Herman — August 26, 2007 @ 6:03 am
[...] People Living on Earth as Citizens of Heaven « 5 Reasons You Should Vote Today John’s Story: Why I Left Eastern Orthodoxy for Evangelicalism [...]
Pingback by Theron’s Story: Why I Left Evangelicalism for Eastern Orthodoxy « Kingdom People — September 7, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
I don’t question John’s sincerity. But it seems like far too many people convert for entirely the wrong reasons. From the sound of it, his conversion was one emotional impulse after another. I fit the opposite description, and as an Evangelical convert to Orthodoxy, I found that it wasn’t until I really delved into the underlying issues that I understood both sides enough to make a educated decision. Though I’m sure John’s heart is in the right place, as a student of theology, he clearly does not understand Orthodoxy, and I think it’s a shame so many people make life-changing decisions based on emotions and bad experiences rather than truth.
Comment by DavidShankle — November 9, 2007 @ 9:58 am
I should say, before my comments, that I happen to attend a Southern Baptist Church. I would rather refer to myself as a disciple, meaning learner and follower, of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. I wonder, and I do not hope to cause an argument or debate, that should we take away all of our distinctives and just have people share their testimonies of salvation what that would look like? I wonder, if we took away our well trained lingo and simply told the story of how we come to know JESUS, what it would sound like to tell about our walk with God? I was not raised in church at all. I’d read the Bible since my childhood and am a lover of history. Four things helped me along: (1) a grandmother who told me about Jesus and never tried to convince me that I needed her church, but that I needed her Friend; (2) I read the Bible a lot; (3) the Holy Spirit both convicted of my sins and convinced me of my need; (4) I survived myself long enough to surrender. There is NO Orthodox church were I live and one very small Catholic church, one Presbyterian, NO Lutheran, one Episcopalian, several United Methodists, many Baptists (Southern, General, American, Independent, Freewill, and Primitive [and I've probably missed something]{and within all those Baptist groups are arguments over which of them are right}), and all sorts of non-denominational churches. We also have several home churches. We also have one gathering of “Latter-Day Saints” and a gathering of “Jehovah’s Witnesses” but I won’t call them a church because they don’t exalt Christ as God (big “G” I mean). The point to my rambling is simple: take away our allegiances to denominations and I wonder what our testimony of personally relating to God would be? Praise God for people who LOVE JESUS more than they love their distinctives! I am sure many would argue those are mutually inclusive, but I wonder. I am 36 years old and today I know three things: (1) I ain’t half as bad as I once was; (2) I ain’t near as good as I want to be; (3) God ain’t done with me yet!
Romans 12:1-2
Comment by Tim Bowes — November 23, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
For all the intercession of saints, ‘Mary-worship’ and icons, there is nothing remotely as idolatrous in the Orthodox church as Bibliolatry is in the evangelical movement. Evangelicals from my experience can get addicted to ’spiritual excitement’ – a kind of subtle form of pride and even narcissism. They need that ‘reborn rush’ over and over.
Comment by Dan Liebert — January 13, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
As a convert from evangelicalism to Orthodoxy, I found John’s story difficult to take in. I am certainly glad that he is glorifying Christ more now than he had in the past, but it appears that he was merely a victim of sloppy Orthodoxy; this is to say, he was not educated in the Orthodox way as he should have been and rejected a de facto *absence* of Orthodoxy—an inherently questionable reason for making such a life-altering decision. I also noticed that considering his collaboration with communist authorities, he seems to have shifted not from Orthodoxy to evangelicalism, but from atheism to faith, his Orthodox past not playing a major role since it was not exposed to him as comprehensively as it should have been—especially considering the circumstances re: communist atheistic re-education and persecution of the Church. His reliance on Scripture alone seems to be a coping mechanism or antidote to the thoroughness and elaborateness of Orthodoxy, i.e. his new understanding of Christianity does not require as much effort or education since he only needs to acquaint himself with only one thing, the Bible. This, of course, seems to have satisfied his previous unwillingness to look deeper into the Orthodoxy to which he was not sufficiently exposed, by decreasing the “required reading,” as it were. I am truly glad, however, that he seems to be progressing in theosis and towards union with Christ more than he had in the past, but this seems to be because he was not interfaced with the contrivances of the Church and its role of nurturing its parishioners in this process. Bottom line: it appears that he did not leave Orthodoxy because of Orthodoxy, but because of a lack of Orthodoxy. The situation is much different for someone who converts from evangelicalism to Orthodoxy, since the former’s minimalist attitude and relative simplicity makes it 1) easier to become familiar with it and 2) quicker to reject it if one were so inclined (i.e. less to learn, quicker to learn, quicker to reject). I wish John all God’s blessings; there is little doubt that he is by all extents more Orthodox than he was before, but hopefully he one day acquaints himself with the real Orthodox Church to which he was never exposed and comes to view in a more positive light.
Comment by Andrew K — February 22, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
As a seven year old child, raised by a Greek Orthodox dad and a Methodist mom, I looked for God. I knew that from three years old, I loved the Jesus my mom talked about. Then I picked up a Greek catechism book and it talked about Hell. I finally realized that was a place and when my mom was mad and told my older sister to “go there”, she was talking about a mythical place, I thought. I began to get terrified when I read the book. I realized Hell was a real place and I was afraid I would go there. I began to go to church alone week after week, looking for God. My father would drive me there and pick me up because I wanted to go but my family did not. They only went sporadically. I looked and looked for God and one day I said “God please tell me the ‘real religion’ so I can follow you.” Soon after, I was in my sixth grade class and God sat me right next to Ruth. She was a Baptist girl who told me about salvation. She is still the best Christian I know. I don’t know how she could invite me to her home and be friends with me after all the horrible ways I have lived. But, Ruth still loves, still hopes, and still prays. Praise God. I still do not know Orthodox doctrine because I was never taught any. We just went to the church and listened to predominantly Greek which I do not speak. I have no problem with the Orthodox Church but I know the truth. It is only through Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection that I am saved. My husband and I prefer a Baptist church but I have no problem with any church anyone goes to. It is not church membership that matters. There may be many Orthodox Christians who are saved IF they accept Christ’s death and resurrection for the forgiveness of their sins. I acknowledge that I do NO good works. Christ did The GOOD WORK by dying for me and raising again.It was Christ who did it all and thank God for his precious son that a person like me, who is probably the worst of the worst, can be saved. Because of what HE did on the cross, defeating death, we can have new life in Him, and not of our own works. Thank you God!!!
Comment by mar — April 27, 2008 @ 10:00 am
As an Orthodox Christian who converted from Roman Catholicism some years ago, I would just like to point out that “John”, if he only attended one service a year, would not be considered a member of the Orthodox Church here in the US, according to the bylaws of most parishes here.
Yes, there are many people who claim to be Orthodox but for whom it is more cultural than spiritual. However, it is I think unfair to label such slackers as ‘Orthodox” and hold them up as examples of the Church. Although in the US many Orthodox parishes focus more on the cultural apects of their parishioners than the spiritual or scriptural, there are more and more parishes who do not identify with any single culture. Worship servicves are conducted in English. Children are taught scripture in Sunday school. Everyone is welcome.
In my experience most so-called converts to evangelism from Eastern Orthodoxy were never really grounded in the Orthodox faith to begin with. For if they were, they would understand that the Holy Bible is the crown Jewel of Apostolic Tradition — not a substitue for it. The Holy Bible itself states that it is not sifficient for conveying all that Christ’s Apostles intended. So why believe the Bible alone is good enough when it states clearly that it is not?
Yes, the Orthodox Church has been stable — Why would a Church that contains the fullness and truth of Christ ever need to change?
Comment by Mike — August 19, 2008 @ 11:02 am
There are real Christians in all sorts of variations of the Christian churches, just as there are those who are merely religious. Jesus rebuked the pharisees because of their emphasis on man-made religious tradition. So many of us want to earn our way to salvation when the Bible says that cannot be done. It is the difference between self-righteousness and righteousness. I would argue that it is self-righteousness and hypocracy that turns people away from Christianity more than anything else.
When you find yourself in a church that emphasises something that you can’t find in the Bible, you are being misled. Without the Bible as the center piece, the authority, you end up with man-made add ons that distract you from the actual truth contained within the word of God. This is what the pharisees were doing that Jesus pointed out as wrong.
I believe that God has enabled His word to be preserved for ALL to read for themselves. I believe that humanity is corruptible and cannot be entirely trusted. If you find yourself in a church that has to interpret the Bible for you, you are being misled. God will help you understand His word as you read the Bible and pray, as you seek His guidance. I trust that God would not leave the truth in the hands of mere men, not to say that there aren’t men and women who know Him and can help us find God. Afterall, it IS about knowing God, not rituals and “magic” words. It’s about righteousness not self-righteousness. All honor and glory are His.
I feel strongly that you can make a difference in just about any Bible-based, Jesus-preaching church if you 1. believe the Bible is the word of God , not man, and 2. that Jesus is the only way to the Father and eternal salvation.
The rest God will take care of.
Comment by Anthony — October 28, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
[...] orthodoxy, Protestant, Protestantism, theology, theron, West, Western An interview from the Kingdom People: Why do we see a growing number of evangelicals in the West converting to Eastern Orthodoxy [...]
Pingback by Theron’s Story: Why I Left Evangelicalism for Eastern Orthodoxy « The Bravery of Stillness — December 19, 2008 @ 7:59 am
Anthony says: “I believe that God has enabled His word to be preserved for ALL to read for themselves. I believe that humanity is corruptible and cannot be entirely trusted.”
This is the conspicuous paradox that Protestants declare while at the same time missing entirely that it is internally contradictory. You claim that (1) the Bible is able to be interpreted by anyone on their own unaided, yet also claim that (2) “humanity is corruptible and cannot be entirely trusted.” This, however, same “corruptible humanity” that cannot be trusted is, according to you, unilaterally allowed to interpret the Holy Scriptures! The Orthodox Church, thankfully, does not denigrate the Holy Scriptures in this manner, but gives the Church, which is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), the mandate to preserve Apostolic Tradition, whether written or oral (2 Thes. 2:15). Unilateral interpretation of a Bible that itself does not permit such a method (think Ethiopian eunuch and the two men on the road to Emmaus) by humans is what gives rise to “human doctrines.” The doctrines of the Church (which are in reality surprisingly few – dogmatically codified, anyway) are just that, the doctrines of the Church – what else is the Church supposed to be composed of, cats? :) Was the decision re: circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in the Acts of the Apostles a doctrine of man, or does it bypass this epithet simply because it was recorded on parchment? Pen to paper does not ensure truth; truth is participation in life, in the kingdom of God, in the life of Christ himself. To claim that this can be limited to a book is not only dishonest, but is also defamatory.
Please, I implore you, answer these questions for me:
1. If Scripture is easy to interpret, why are there 30,000+ denominations in NA, and just as many interpretations as there are Christians
2. If we should read Scripture on our own, how did the laity do this in the 16th century during the Reformation when literacy among men was approx. 5% and among women at 1%? Who interpreted the Scriptures for these people who could not read? How do the illiterate in developing countries read Scripture? Who interprets it for them and how is this different than the Orthodox Church interpreting it for them?
3. How did the laity read the Bible before the printing press?
4. Immediately after Christ ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father, that very day, and for approximately the next 30 years before anything in today’s NT had even been written, what was the guide for the first followers of Christ? Would not this life of the Church before the NT was even written not constitute a life, practice, and belief that resides outside of a Scripture that had not yet been written? Do you know what the apostles and early Church were doing at this time? Have made an attempt to find out?
5. Did Scripture canonize itself in St. Athanasius’ Paschal Letter, or was it the Church that canonized Scripture?
6. Which Scriptures did the Church of the first three hundred years read?
7. Do you, in your own life and in your own family, only *do* and *believe* what you and your family have documented about yourselves, or do you do things that you have not written about? Do you not think this is the same for the Church?
8. Does the Church, its practices, beliefs, ethos, spirituality, proceed from your mind upon reading Scripture, or is it a historical entity in time that has subsisted, debated, toiled, and suffered since the resurrection and ascension of Christ? Have the gates of hell prevailed against it then? If the nature of the Church proceeds from your mind upon reading Scripture, is it your mind, or the mind of the 19th and 20th c. German liberal theologian who uses your same method of unilaterally interpreting Scripture? If the Holy Spirit is involved, who does he agree with – you are those that belong to one of the other 30,000+ denominations? How do we know?
9. If the Church existed before you did, could it be that you simply do not agree with the Church and so should be something else? Is that not what evangelicals do? Make something up and become it? Do you have a mandate to tell the Church how to be the Church, or should the Church simply tell you what it already is?
10. Who tells you that your interpretation is correct or incorrect, and if it something (which I doubt), from where does this something have the authority? Does it contradict anyone else who claims the same authority? Why?
11. Who tells you what to emphasize in Scripture and what not to? Should we all go to the temple at the hour of prayer like Peter and John did (Acts 3:1), or to our mega-church to sing Brian Doerkson jingles? Who are we in the account in John 6? What does it mean? Who can tell you that you are right or wrong?
12. Have you read Scripture in the original languages? If the NIV translates the 10 negative places where paradosis is mentioned as “tradition,” and the three positives places where the same word paradosis is mentioned as “teachings,” isn’t that biased? Are there other places where this is done? Are you being deliberately deceived? Is an English Bible translated by evangelicals the actual Holy Scriptures or a mere commentary based on their own presuppositions?
I certainly do not want to come across as belligerent, but this is a serious matter that I fear has not been given the comprehensive attention among evangelicals it deserves. Anthony, just remember three things: (1) the Holy Spirit continued living among the Church even after the apostles; these are real people who you can read about, some of them disciples of apostles (eg. Sts. Polycarp and Ignatius were disciples of St. John), who did things not recorded as done by the generation before them, but they did these things because, though not recorded, the generation, and their mentor, St. John, did them nonetheless; if God “died” or went on vacation after the apostles had died off, we have a problem; (2) the Church existed chronological *prior* to Scripture; there exist thousands of documents that record its life, practice, and beliefs that many evangelicals, because of their pre-occupation with Scripture, simply ignore; what the apostles and early Church *did* IS important and is recorded in places outside of Holy Scripture; (3) You cannot unilaterally figure out what the Church is, practices, and believes, or else you become your own personal pope; in fact, the scriptural model is a conciliar one (think Council of Jerusalem) not a sola scriptura one.
I hope this helps. I implore you, without skipping any of them, to honestly answer each question without bias or delusion; you owe it to yourself, to the Church, and to God.
Peace
Comment by Andrew K — June 16, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
QUOTE from the article:
“What about pious Orthodox Christians? Those who do not live sinful lives? Those who remain faithful to the church and who trust in Christ for salvation?” I press him further.
“Religiosity does not mean salvation,” he replies. “People can be sincere and still be sincerely wrong. The Orthodox Church feeds on tradition, not on Scripture. If Orthodox believers would read Scripture without it being interpreted for them by the Church, they would discover the truth,” he adds.
——————
Notice John’s answer completely ignores the genuine subtext of the question posed to him. The question says “What about those Orthodox…and who trust in Christ for salvation?”
Johns answer bypasses that and merely blurts out ‘Religiosity does not mean salvation’. Now hold your horses ‘John’. The question was those orthodox who remain faithful to their churches, lead good lives and TRUST IN JESUS? John merely rejects them as true believers outright and assumes their faith in Christ is ‘relgiousity’. Here ‘john’ makes himself an enemy of the Holy Spirit himself because if you trust in Jesus YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN.
I’ve been a Christian for a long time and can tell you they come from ALL churches and denominations. I dont judge the Spirit and those who He works into to trust in Jesus. What do you think Christians before the reformation were not saved? Or were saved only ‘in spite’ of their churches? Pure nonesense. I was reading Martin Luther (perhaps you’ve heard of him John?) and he said that to condemn the orthodox church and its thousands of christians who died for the faith as not being christian is dead wrong. Lutherans and Orthodox have had several dialogues where the joint statement issued is “Jesus saves by a living faith in him” (see lutheran orthodox dialogue on good search its a major organization).
What John experienced was not Orthodoxy but a mutated local expression from his area of orthodoxy. Its like this: I know ‘baptists’ and then I know ‘BAPTISTS” okay? I know baptists who have so distorted the baptist belief and have even adopted quietistic holiness beliefs and dispensational innovations of the faith that did not exist before 1833 and then I know BAPTISTS who are careful to maintain a doctrine truly connected to the official confession of the baptist churches.
If you want to know what “orthodox” believe you dont go to the some theological backwater in the Orthodox country and say ‘this is orthodoxy’ just like you dont go to certain ahem baptist expression found in the the cultural backwater of certain areas and say ‘this is baptist!”
Do you honestly think heaven is for baptists like John and not Orthodox christians (or others) who believe and trust in Jesus? If so then rip out the part of your bible that says “they who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved’ and rip out several passages from the great Reformer Martin Luther’s journals and so forth which state that the Orthodox are brothers in the Lord.
This reminds me of the Simpsons episode where marge goes to heaven in a vision and sees two heavens one Catholic and one protestant. The skit is supposed to poke fun at those dumb christians who dont see that the REAL difference is not between say an Orthodox person who trusts in Jesus and a Baptist who trusts in Jesus but those who trust in jesus and THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS at all. The atheists are laughing at you. Repent John. I pray you repent and not judge God’s people in whatever church they use for this life. If it wasnt for the Orthodox there wouldnt BE a baptist church. Where do you think the Nicene Creed came from? What tradition gathered the bible into the one you have now.
Of course the orthodox have their problems but hell so do the baptists and dont get me started on the whole evangelical history in America (read the scandal of the evangelical mind written by an evangelical intellectual). We all have traditions. You must judge a church by their best examples not their worst.
Comment by Elijah — October 13, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Ps read the joint statement by the Orthodox and the Lutheran (the first reformational church) on salvation: ” Lutherans and Orthodox both understand good works as the fruits and manifestations of the believer’s faith and not as a means of salvation.” (thats a quote john)
The entire statement is long and worth reading is here (as well as all agreed on statements by that thrid branch of Christianity called Orthodoxy and the Lutheran church):
http://www.helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html#salv
Comment by Elijah — October 13, 2009 @ 3:36 pm