2021-06-05 05:08:49
DEBATE (Orthodox vs Protestant): Is the Orthodox Church the only One True Church? — Review [watch]
In a recent debate on ecclesiology, Fr. Patrick Ramsey (Orthodoxy) and Dr. Gavin Ortlund (Protestantism) go head to head on the topic of whether the Eastern Orthodox Church is the only 'One True Church', as it so claims. Seeing as there is minimal Protestant-Orthodox dialogue (as opposed to Protestant-Catholic and Catholic-Orthodox), debates of this nature are especially valuable and we will endeavour to review it accordingly.
It is pretty difficult to say that Dr. Ortlund didn't come out stronger in the debate. Eastern Orthodox proponents tend to prey on the fact that most Protestants are historically illiterate when it comes to the Early Church and cannot articulate the nuances which led to the rise and developments of various traditions and dogmas. Ortlund, on the other hand, has certainly done his due diligence and could aptly navigate the patristic sources.
Some of Dr. Ortlund's points that I believe were most compelling:
1) The Narrow View of Orthodox Ecclesiology — the view that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the 'One True Church' (that none outside may be deemed part of the body of Christ) would infer that the organic church is beholden to the institutional church, rather than the institutional church being a tool that may serve the organic church. This would preclude the 64% of Christians in Europe and 95%+ of Christians in North America from being a part of the body of Christ, simply for belonging to churches outside of the Eastern Orthodox communion. It should go without saying that the majority of OE Christians and churches exist in Eastern Europe, with most in the West never having heard of this denomination. Such an inorganic view of the
ecclesia is not found within the New Testament.
2) The Historical Development of the Monarchical Episcopate — Ortlund uses the patristic witness to demonstrate that the monarchical episcopal polity is an ecclesiastic development of the 2nd century (à la Ignatius) out of the presbytery polity of the 1st century. In the earliest and most apostolic texts — Book of Acts, Pauline and Pastoral Epistles, Clement of Rome, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas — bishop (episkopos - overseer) and presbyter (presbyteros - elder) are used interchangeably to refer to the same office, whereas from the 2nd century onward we see the rise of a monepiscopacy (local governance of single bishop) with the separation of the office of bishop and presbyter into a hierarchy. This would indicate the Orthodox system of an episcopate via apostolic succession is a doctrinal development, rather than doctrine via divine right.
3) Existence of Schisms 'Within' the Body of Christ — in the Orthodox worldview, those who belong to any church outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church are not only in schism, but are in schism outside of the body of Christ. The point of contention between Ortlund and Ramsey lies with whether schisms and divisions happen
within the Church (Protestant view), or whether they happen
from the Church (Orthodox view). Dr. Ortlund points out that such a divisive and exclusivist ecclesiology is not to found in the New Testament, and that even in Paul's First Epistle the Corinthians we find that divisions (
Gr. schismata) occured within the Corinthian church (1:10, 11:18, 12:25), while still being of one body, no matter how fractured.
Other miscellaneous topics were touched upon, such as the western patristic support for the Filioque, the conundrum of spiritful regeneration outside of the EOC, and the inconsistency of apostolic and patristic tradition as a foundation for doctrine. Overall the debate was worth a watch, especially to elucidate the various differences which separate the Protestant and Eastern traditions, and to see the strengths and weaknesses of both put to the test. Iron sharpens iron.
131 viewsSeяaphim, 02:08
𝕭
Porn in Telegram » 
