This is a tremendous write up! Pastor Schooping was absolutely instrumental in helping me leave Orthodoxy, and I think you have done an amazing job here capturing the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism. Pr Schooping’s discussion of Marian devotion and the Jerusalem Council are also outstanding. The EO church really painted themselves into a corner by claiming to be inerrant and declaring everyone outside of Orthodoxy to be anathema. They can’t walk themselves back from it, though I have seen priests try.
I had a friend unfortunately concert to EO recently. I understand stand him wanting to leave what he grew up in but I don't understand the appeal of EO and I definitely don't understand their teaching on sin and the need of the cross.
The beauty of EO is available for your eyes to see. How can you not understand being attracted to beauty? Modest and small Orthodox churches beauty surpasses protestant Cathedrals. People are attracted to beauty and richness
The heart needs no external five-sense stimuli - it turns from stone to beating faith by the power of God alone. He can save you in a black cave or a well-appointed church as long as the Word of God is present.
I agree with you, we have Gulag Saints who had no beauty and whose faith and heart shined.
Essentially every protestant argument is proven wrong by the Lives of the Saints. We need to understand that an argument can be made for anything, the Greeks being philosophers understand this deeply.
We have to look for real existing faith. Where does it exist? Not in my life, i am a poor sinner. I look to the Saints and they vindicate the faith and transcend any counter argument.
There are distinctions between Roman Catholic and Orthodox Saints. Orthodox Saints are the real deal.
Have a blessed day and consider exploring the lives of the saints.
I appreciate your exploration and contribution to christian understanding.
Again, none of it truly matters, when the Saints exist.
My brother, the saints do not save you, and Mary, God's mother, does. Christ Jesus alone saves you through his atoning sacrifice, which propitiates God's wrath without fear or favor. We can admire the saints and look at their portraits to be reminded of how God used their lives to fulfill his will. However, their veneration is not in the Bible. We are instructed by Scripture to look at the life of Christ alone if we seek an example to imitate. Trust the finished work of our Lord Jesus, not the deeds of the saints.
I agree the aesthetics are beautiful. But the theology behind it is largely confusing(at least for me). I don't understand the need for Jesus's death on the cross in the eyes of EO. And if the beauty is all that is to attract I don't see it as a lasting hold.
Question: are you the Kenneth I interacted with on Twitter before I took my break?
I dont think i am that kenneth I dont have twitter.
Hi there though!
Trying to understand theology without the grace of the holy spirit that is only attained through the Orthodox Church is the same as trying to do calculus without knowing algebra 1.
We just try to connect with God, repent, and do good onto our neighbor, its a living theology that is understood through experience. This experience is created through lifestyle.
You can try out the lifestyle by attending liturgy, the fasts, and a prayer rule within the church. Many people inquire for several years before being baptized. Completely normal.
The "wheat cracker" is the very body of our Lord Jesus. The wine is the very blood our Lord Jesus.
John 6
The Bread from Heaven
22On the following day, when the people who were standing on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other boat there, except [d]that one [e]which His disciples had entered, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with His disciples, but His disciples had gone away alone— 23however, other boats came from Tiberias, near the place where they ate bread after the Lord had given thanks— 24when the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they also got into boats and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25And when they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You come here?”
26Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
28Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
30Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ”
32Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
35And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will [f]by no means cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
What a remarkable journey and conversion from evangelicalism to Lutheranism! The longest chapter of his journey was certainly in Orthodoxy, but it's incredible he made it in Orthodoxy as long as he did, knowing what the Gospel was and putting up with all the other things that came with the Orthodox church that whole time and not having a seared conscience is maybe miraculous. But to be generically Protestant, then to be Orthodox and to come back out as evangelical again before finding Lutheranism is incredible! I would love to hear Pastor Schooping talk about what separates Lutheranism from the rest of Protestantism too.
Why wasn't evangelicalism good enough, why did he need to keep searching? Why didn't the Christianity of Gavin Ortlund or other Protestant celebrity apologists and preachers attract him? Everyone talks about the Gospel and Sacraments but, as we all well know, every Protestant church differs in important ways on these two categories and as Lutherans it really can't be said that they properly possess either the Gospel or the Sacraments.
Orthodoxy was traumatic for him, but what can be done to get more Protestants out of the mass of bad theology in other Protestant churches and into the fullness of Lutheranism from his POV? It's really easy to point out inconsistencies in a house you lived in, but what makes your house now a place someone wants to be, that would be more interesting and maybe more impactful and important.
Certainly Pr. Schooping is happy in our Lutheran enclave, for many good and salutary reasons. Many Lutheran/LCMS pastors have, it should be noted, gone the other way, crossing the Bosporous so to speak (although never leaving the US!). The main group I have known came through CTSFW. And guess what? They're happy in the EOC. They weren't blinded by the light coming from the East; in fact, they were attracted to it. So it's a two-way street, 'nuff said.
Theosis is an area that deserves attention, in my opinion as a Lutheran pastor and theologian. It is connected directly to an early Lutheran Orthodoxy teaching (see Philip Nicolai) called the "Unio Mystica," the mystical union. That is a description of exactly what happens when by grace alone through Holy Baptism a person is given faith. Simultaneously, Scripturally, the Holy Trinity enters that person's being and "abides", Father Son and Holy Spirit. From this gift of the Living God spring the gifts of the Spirit referenced in at least three different New Testament passages. I have difficulty understanding how in someone's estimation the mystical union detracts from or hinders the assurance of salvation. Saving faith is extra nos, to be sure. And yet the living God living in me (the riches of this mystery, Christ in you the hope of glory viz.) is yes - a mystery and yes - a union of God and the believer and yes, a core Lutheran doctrine.
Maybe Rev. Schooping sees great differentiation between the unio mystica and theosis. I have not found that to be the case. In fact, per contra, it's a great point of connection leading to further dialog by those of us who are stewards of the mysteries of God.
This is a good article, much better than most Protestant articles addressing the Orthodox. However, the arguments presented in this article are not convincing to anyone who has been in the Orthodox Church for a good length of time and has striven to acquire the Orthodox mindset. The attacks on the veneration of Mary and icons are particularly poor and indicative of someone who was not paying attention in catechesis and seminary. This article is clearly intended to reassure a Lutheran audience of their correctness and would only convince people that had pre-existing problems with the Orthodox.
The arguments that Shooping presents were discussed by Craig Truglia and Fr. John Whiteford in these livestreams:
I personally think both EO and western evangelicals get the atonement wrong, it was an honor/shame substitution. We’ve forgotten that the shame of the cross was the point, not the pain
There was honor and shame, but it did not exclude physical pain, agony, suffering, and torture, which are all bound up with honor and humiliation and impossible to separate. Hence, the atonement fully satisfied all the requirements to propitiate God's wrath and reconcile sinners to him through faith in Christ Jesus.
The shame was by far worse than anything else, no matter the physical torture. Yes, they were bound up together, but it’s time to be honest about how we are autistically split off from their reality of honor and shame. Hebrews said Jesus scorned the shame, not the pain, for good reason. Time to be honest
Here is my response to this, please don't see any malice or ill will in my being frank.
Let's get this part out of the way: from the portion (the first third) of the article I read, Mr. Schooping does not appear to be a credible source. He makes a ton of objectively (and subjectively) wrong claims that are actually shocking as someone that claims to have attended St. Vlad's, as well as some bad faith interpretations that are obvious to Orthodox Christians.
>Pr. Joshua Schooping colloquized into the LCMS in 2023 after departing the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC)
This is already a problem. I have spent significant time around the laity and clergy of the Orthodox Church of America, Greek Orthodox Church, ROCOR, etc. Nobody calls it the "Eastern" Orthodox Church, except. This is an intentional term of estrangement by people who want to reduce the Orthodox Church (OC) to some sort of foreign, easily dismissed vestigial outpost of Ancient Christianity in Eastern Europe. OC writers use it only as a way to be familiar to audiences that are not Orthodox. What's Eastern about it? Eastern compared to what? Are you guys the "Western Lutheran Church"?
Fr. Alexander Schemann: **"It is essentially and structurally Biblical and Patristic, and therefore, it is "eastern" in exactly the same measure in which the Bible and the Fathers, or rather, the whole Christianity can be termed "Eastern".**
>He started doubting the church's persistent claims of being ‘original and unchanging’ despite historical evidence showing that the church’s liturgical practices had significantly changed over time
This is a case of bad-faith literalism. Consider Romans 3.23: "For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". Did Jesus sin? By Mr. Schooping's logic, yes.
There is a distinction between tradition and Tradition. Lowercase t tradition has changed many times, though not significantly in the last 1000 years (evinced by the lack of councils). For example, we celebrate the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom, who was born in the 3rd Century. Does Mr. Schooping think he's the first person in human history to ask what early Christians did before this?
"Liturgical practices" is honestly a weird, surface level choice that is not even the best example of things changing. To me, this is like saying "Automobiles didn't exist until 2015 because that was the first time we saw infotainment systems".
>The more he researched it, the more he realized the church’s emphatic assertions of unbroken liturgical and doctrinal continuity with early Christianity were unsupported by the facts.
This would be an expose for the ages, that I honestly do not see accomplishing it's mission. I did wishlist his book tho.
Serious question: do you guys really think the original people that knew Christ were stealth Protestants? What a quandry that would be!
>The EOC reduces the atonement simply to Christ's victory over death (Christus Victor).
This is an extremely anti-Orthodox thing to say. The OC almost never makes definitive statements for doctrine. I encourage you to read the book "Thinking Orthodox" for an explanation of the Orthodox phronema. Reducing milennia of theology and contemplation to boilerplate, bulletpoint statements is ironically one way to know what Orthodox Christians do **not** think.
What the OC does, in my experience, delineate is that you cannot reduce Christ's victory to a mere transaction where he absolves a debt (sin) by substituting equity of equal value (an innocent life). This mercantilist view is common to Protestant thinkers who were also engrossed in the works of John Locke etc. and is a great example of why an eternal Church cannot be super engrossed in the fads of particular eras.
It is important to realize: we would need Christ even if we had never sinned. Very few Protestant intellectuals can survive this trvke.
>He has published a well-written, tightly structured, and densely referenced book documenting his search for the truth
Again, not to be rude, but I doubt it. He is not off to a good start.
>did indeed teach penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), contrary to EO claims about it being a ‘Western’ invention.
I'm assuming this is in the book, but where? What exact references? And is this really the same thing that Protestants then later re-invented millennia later? Why? This already assumes that there is a neat bullet point catechism for the concept of "PSA" which, again, doesn't exist.
>He was attracted to study Eastern Orthodoxy due to a combination of personal experiences and a desire to understand Christianity more deeply
This sounds like a very emotional, impulsive decision. The OC doesn't really care for erratic, spur-of-the-moment confessions, repentances, or other shows of pious guilt. Was he really an ordained priest?
>“Seminary itself, however, was in many ways a rude awakening, doctrinally, ecclesiastically, and morally. At the seminary, among other things, we had a Scripture professor deny the inspiration of Scripture, and another professor deny the historical resurrection of Jesus.”
I'm not calling Mr. Schooping a liar, but I sincerely doubt this. These are **very** un-Orthodox things to say. I've met many priests trained at St. Vlad's, I've read their books and the books written by professors there, and I've never seen a single one ever say anything like this-- probably because they don't believe it. For example, read "the Mystery of Christ", where Fr John, faculty at St. Vlad's, spends many pages saying the perfect inverse of this idea. Mr. Schooping appears to be the first and only person in human history to make such claims.
What he **might've heard**, and portrayed in a bad faith "gotcha" manner, is something I've heard many times: you cannot debate someone into a loving relationship with Christ, and thus it **doesn't matter** if something like the Resurrection can be proved as a factual, historical event. Because, on Orthodoxy, feeling the presence of Christ (and knowing that means He did Resurrect), is an acceptable alternative to visiting archeological digsites and being informed that such a thing is a fact.
This is a clear miss, and further reduces the credibility of his witness.
>Pr. Schooping’s disillusionment deepened when he examined the EOC's formal teachings
Sigh..
>This was a pivotal moment for Pr. Schooping, realizing the EOCs formally rejected the gospel much as the Roman Catholic Church anathematized the gospel with the Council of Trent.
Lol
>Additionally, the church's inconsistent and sometimes contradictory teachings on several doctrines, including the veneration of icons and the role of Mary, further eroded his confidence.
Not only is this wrong, it's not even setting up the question correctly to be right in the wrong way.
What are "the Church's teachings"? The writings of the Early Church Fathers? The same ones that you guys rely on for doctrines such as Chalcedonianism and the Nicene Creed? The ECFs weren't inerrant, and much like the American Founding Fathers, they sometimes contradicted one another in their massive canons. This isn't a big deal, and it's why we have scripture and discernment.
So, does he mean the ecumenical councils? The same ones that you guys **and** the Catholics also accept (Well, the first six anyway)?
Can he provide a single example of this contradiction?
>He also grew frustrated with the EO habit of selectively quoting church fathers to support different theological positions, “In short, people pick and choose whatever they want in today's EO world,” writes Pr. Schooping.
I know this is basically a summary article, but this entire perspective is so scant on details. Who? The faculty? Can he provide an example?
> “As time went on, after the Pandemic closures ceased"
So he **just** bailed out of seminary, and he already feels confident enough to write an "expose"? This is, again, a very un-Orthodox way of doing things that calls into question his original sincerity.
>then it became clear that not only were these the factual, formal positions of the confessing Eastern Orthodox Church
No. Basically every part of this is just wrong. He did not acquire an Orthodox phronema prior to writing this. There is no "Factual, formal positio" outside of something like the Nicene Creed.
> I had overlooked the constant Semi-Pelagianism
Oh come on dude. This is getting embarrassing. The only question I have at this point is why his faculty didn't iron some of this crap out before he presumably bailed.
>the confusion surrounding the Atonement
I doubt his instructors were the ones that were "confused".
> the unscriptural pietism
?
> the Toll Houses
"Toll houses" are a meme propagated by Reddit-level anti-Ortho crusaders, like Mr. Schooping is quickly appearing.
>Pr. Schooping says the EOC deals with contradictions and inconsistencies
Where? Which ones?
>by combining strategic silence
This is a really slimy interpretation of the contemplative tradition. Nobody shushes you for asking questions about theology. Instead, as the saying goes, theology **is** prayer. Attempting to rationalize everything into bullet points is not the way Orthodox Christians approach theology, nor should the OC conform to the wishes of people like Mr. Schooping who want easily digestible, "rational" dogmas. In other words, people that want Orthodox Christians to behave like Protestants.
>selective emphasis on certain church fathers
Similarly slimy and indicates a lack of knowledge as to why certain ECFs are elevated above others.
>and a flexible interpretation of historical and theological claims
Maybe to someone that has an extreme passion for rationalizing. And also, just no.
----
This is as far as I'm going to read. I hope anyone who reads what I wrote (hopefully Mr. Schooping, as he needs it) reflects sincerely on what was written.
ROFL! PSA is literally something credited to Ansalem during the same period of the Schism, and despite legal / penal language being both Biblical and Orthodox, the formulation of PSA is not found in the Faith of the Apostles - this represents another common tactic of reading back into the fathers something that was alien to them and just proves with the wrong mindset you will never understand anything.
"Tollhouses" is not formal dogma at all. It is a permissible theological opinion (theologoumenon). I have been Orthodox for 29 years, and not once have I ever heard this notion preached in a church, only in some online forums.
Also, Orthodox liturgical prcatice has changed, and I've never heard that denied-- however the changes are gradual and cautious. There's no equivalent of Vatican II in Orthodoxy abruptly decreeing a novus ordo Liturgy.
Re: The EOC is clear in its instructions for veneration that Mary is the savior, not Christ:
This is a tremendous write up! Pastor Schooping was absolutely instrumental in helping me leave Orthodoxy, and I think you have done an amazing job here capturing the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism. Pr Schooping’s discussion of Marian devotion and the Jerusalem Council are also outstanding. The EO church really painted themselves into a corner by claiming to be inerrant and declaring everyone outside of Orthodoxy to be anathema. They can’t walk themselves back from it, though I have seen priests try.
Thank you for the positive feedback. Pr. Schooping is very gifted. Welcome to the one true faith. May the Lord Jesus enrich your faith and witness!
I would encourage you to revisit this topic, this article is full of errors. You can see my comment for more info
Great article!
I had a friend unfortunately concert to EO recently. I understand stand him wanting to leave what he grew up in but I don't understand the appeal of EO and I definitely don't understand their teaching on sin and the need of the cross.
The beauty of EO is available for your eyes to see. How can you not understand being attracted to beauty? Modest and small Orthodox churches beauty surpasses protestant Cathedrals. People are attracted to beauty and richness
Faith is not apprehended through the eyes, but the ears and the heart.
There is no conflict between your statement, which is true, and using beautiful artwork and adornments to move the heart to love.
The beauty of EO compels the heart to be inspired to repent.
Thats why I became EO, beauty.
The heart needs no external five-sense stimuli - it turns from stone to beating faith by the power of God alone. He can save you in a black cave or a well-appointed church as long as the Word of God is present.
I agree with you, we have Gulag Saints who had no beauty and whose faith and heart shined.
Essentially every protestant argument is proven wrong by the Lives of the Saints. We need to understand that an argument can be made for anything, the Greeks being philosophers understand this deeply.
We have to look for real existing faith. Where does it exist? Not in my life, i am a poor sinner. I look to the Saints and they vindicate the faith and transcend any counter argument.
There are distinctions between Roman Catholic and Orthodox Saints. Orthodox Saints are the real deal.
Have a blessed day and consider exploring the lives of the saints.
I appreciate your exploration and contribution to christian understanding.
Again, none of it truly matters, when the Saints exist.
My brother, the saints do not save you, and Mary, God's mother, does. Christ Jesus alone saves you through his atoning sacrifice, which propitiates God's wrath without fear or favor. We can admire the saints and look at their portraits to be reminded of how God used their lives to fulfill his will. However, their veneration is not in the Bible. We are instructed by Scripture to look at the life of Christ alone if we seek an example to imitate. Trust the finished work of our Lord Jesus, not the deeds of the saints.
Grace and peace to you and all your loved ones.
I agree the aesthetics are beautiful. But the theology behind it is largely confusing(at least for me). I don't understand the need for Jesus's death on the cross in the eyes of EO. And if the beauty is all that is to attract I don't see it as a lasting hold.
Question: are you the Kenneth I interacted with on Twitter before I took my break?
I dont think i am that kenneth I dont have twitter.
Hi there though!
Trying to understand theology without the grace of the holy spirit that is only attained through the Orthodox Church is the same as trying to do calculus without knowing algebra 1.
We just try to connect with God, repent, and do good onto our neighbor, its a living theology that is understood through experience. This experience is created through lifestyle.
You can try out the lifestyle by attending liturgy, the fasts, and a prayer rule within the church. Many people inquire for several years before being baptized. Completely normal.
I am unable to wrap my head around their rejection of penal substitution. So much of Scripture does not make sense without it.
Well, EO don’t reject penal substitution altogether. Substitution is one part of a compositely glorious redemption by Our Lord.
Sacrifices aren’t substitutional, period.
The entire OT is filled with substitutionary sacrifices that transfer the guilt of humans to animals...
Does a wheat cracker take your guilt? How about the offering of incense?
The "wheat cracker" is the very body of our Lord Jesus. The wine is the very blood our Lord Jesus.
John 6
The Bread from Heaven
22On the following day, when the people who were standing on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other boat there, except [d]that one [e]which His disciples had entered, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with His disciples, but His disciples had gone away alone— 23however, other boats came from Tiberias, near the place where they ate bread after the Lord had given thanks— 24when the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they also got into boats and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25And when they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You come here?”
26Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
28Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
30Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ”
32Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
35And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will [f]by no means cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Okayyyy, so in the Old Testament, when someone sacrificed a wheat cracker(not the Last Supper), did the wheat cracker take the guilt of their sins?
No. Jesus had not yet provided the Words of Institution. Without consecration, it is just a cracker.
What a great summary of what sounds like an outstanding book. Thank you for this! Thank God in Christ for His absolute atonement for us.
What a remarkable journey and conversion from evangelicalism to Lutheranism! The longest chapter of his journey was certainly in Orthodoxy, but it's incredible he made it in Orthodoxy as long as he did, knowing what the Gospel was and putting up with all the other things that came with the Orthodox church that whole time and not having a seared conscience is maybe miraculous. But to be generically Protestant, then to be Orthodox and to come back out as evangelical again before finding Lutheranism is incredible! I would love to hear Pastor Schooping talk about what separates Lutheranism from the rest of Protestantism too.
Why wasn't evangelicalism good enough, why did he need to keep searching? Why didn't the Christianity of Gavin Ortlund or other Protestant celebrity apologists and preachers attract him? Everyone talks about the Gospel and Sacraments but, as we all well know, every Protestant church differs in important ways on these two categories and as Lutherans it really can't be said that they properly possess either the Gospel or the Sacraments.
Orthodoxy was traumatic for him, but what can be done to get more Protestants out of the mass of bad theology in other Protestant churches and into the fullness of Lutheranism from his POV? It's really easy to point out inconsistencies in a house you lived in, but what makes your house now a place someone wants to be, that would be more interesting and maybe more impactful and important.
Certainly Pr. Schooping is happy in our Lutheran enclave, for many good and salutary reasons. Many Lutheran/LCMS pastors have, it should be noted, gone the other way, crossing the Bosporous so to speak (although never leaving the US!). The main group I have known came through CTSFW. And guess what? They're happy in the EOC. They weren't blinded by the light coming from the East; in fact, they were attracted to it. So it's a two-way street, 'nuff said.
Theosis is an area that deserves attention, in my opinion as a Lutheran pastor and theologian. It is connected directly to an early Lutheran Orthodoxy teaching (see Philip Nicolai) called the "Unio Mystica," the mystical union. That is a description of exactly what happens when by grace alone through Holy Baptism a person is given faith. Simultaneously, Scripturally, the Holy Trinity enters that person's being and "abides", Father Son and Holy Spirit. From this gift of the Living God spring the gifts of the Spirit referenced in at least three different New Testament passages. I have difficulty understanding how in someone's estimation the mystical union detracts from or hinders the assurance of salvation. Saving faith is extra nos, to be sure. And yet the living God living in me (the riches of this mystery, Christ in you the hope of glory viz.) is yes - a mystery and yes - a union of God and the believer and yes, a core Lutheran doctrine.
Maybe Rev. Schooping sees great differentiation between the unio mystica and theosis. I have not found that to be the case. In fact, per contra, it's a great point of connection leading to further dialog by those of us who are stewards of the mysteries of God.
This is a good article, much better than most Protestant articles addressing the Orthodox. However, the arguments presented in this article are not convincing to anyone who has been in the Orthodox Church for a good length of time and has striven to acquire the Orthodox mindset. The attacks on the veneration of Mary and icons are particularly poor and indicative of someone who was not paying attention in catechesis and seminary. This article is clearly intended to reassure a Lutheran audience of their correctness and would only convince people that had pre-existing problems with the Orthodox.
The arguments that Shooping presents were discussed by Craig Truglia and Fr. John Whiteford in these livestreams:
https://www.youtube.com/live/2uQ17ijWWo4?si=_mzlCT5TczA1ItRe
https://www.youtube.com/live/1KwztwUWEXE?si=o3a1AmKpe4IMRPjh
Truglia's response to Shooping on icons:
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/09/20/schoopings-icon-related-misinformation/
I personally think both EO and western evangelicals get the atonement wrong, it was an honor/shame substitution. We’ve forgotten that the shame of the cross was the point, not the pain
There was honor and shame, but it did not exclude physical pain, agony, suffering, and torture, which are all bound up with honor and humiliation and impossible to separate. Hence, the atonement fully satisfied all the requirements to propitiate God's wrath and reconcile sinners to him through faith in Christ Jesus.
The shame was by far worse than anything else, no matter the physical torture. Yes, they were bound up together, but it’s time to be honest about how we are autistically split off from their reality of honor and shame. Hebrews said Jesus scorned the shame, not the pain, for good reason. Time to be honest
First article I’ve seen on Substack that smacks of LLM generated content. I could be wrong but it doesn’t feel right.
Here is my response to this, please don't see any malice or ill will in my being frank.
Let's get this part out of the way: from the portion (the first third) of the article I read, Mr. Schooping does not appear to be a credible source. He makes a ton of objectively (and subjectively) wrong claims that are actually shocking as someone that claims to have attended St. Vlad's, as well as some bad faith interpretations that are obvious to Orthodox Christians.
>Pr. Joshua Schooping colloquized into the LCMS in 2023 after departing the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC)
This is already a problem. I have spent significant time around the laity and clergy of the Orthodox Church of America, Greek Orthodox Church, ROCOR, etc. Nobody calls it the "Eastern" Orthodox Church, except. This is an intentional term of estrangement by people who want to reduce the Orthodox Church (OC) to some sort of foreign, easily dismissed vestigial outpost of Ancient Christianity in Eastern Europe. OC writers use it only as a way to be familiar to audiences that are not Orthodox. What's Eastern about it? Eastern compared to what? Are you guys the "Western Lutheran Church"?
Fr. Alexander Schemann: **"It is essentially and structurally Biblical and Patristic, and therefore, it is "eastern" in exactly the same measure in which the Bible and the Fathers, or rather, the whole Christianity can be termed "Eastern".**
>He started doubting the church's persistent claims of being ‘original and unchanging’ despite historical evidence showing that the church’s liturgical practices had significantly changed over time
This is a case of bad-faith literalism. Consider Romans 3.23: "For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". Did Jesus sin? By Mr. Schooping's logic, yes.
There is a distinction between tradition and Tradition. Lowercase t tradition has changed many times, though not significantly in the last 1000 years (evinced by the lack of councils). For example, we celebrate the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom, who was born in the 3rd Century. Does Mr. Schooping think he's the first person in human history to ask what early Christians did before this?
"Liturgical practices" is honestly a weird, surface level choice that is not even the best example of things changing. To me, this is like saying "Automobiles didn't exist until 2015 because that was the first time we saw infotainment systems".
>The more he researched it, the more he realized the church’s emphatic assertions of unbroken liturgical and doctrinal continuity with early Christianity were unsupported by the facts.
This would be an expose for the ages, that I honestly do not see accomplishing it's mission. I did wishlist his book tho.
Serious question: do you guys really think the original people that knew Christ were stealth Protestants? What a quandry that would be!
>The EOC reduces the atonement simply to Christ's victory over death (Christus Victor).
This is an extremely anti-Orthodox thing to say. The OC almost never makes definitive statements for doctrine. I encourage you to read the book "Thinking Orthodox" for an explanation of the Orthodox phronema. Reducing milennia of theology and contemplation to boilerplate, bulletpoint statements is ironically one way to know what Orthodox Christians do **not** think.
What the OC does, in my experience, delineate is that you cannot reduce Christ's victory to a mere transaction where he absolves a debt (sin) by substituting equity of equal value (an innocent life). This mercantilist view is common to Protestant thinkers who were also engrossed in the works of John Locke etc. and is a great example of why an eternal Church cannot be super engrossed in the fads of particular eras.
It is important to realize: we would need Christ even if we had never sinned. Very few Protestant intellectuals can survive this trvke.
>He has published a well-written, tightly structured, and densely referenced book documenting his search for the truth
Again, not to be rude, but I doubt it. He is not off to a good start.
>did indeed teach penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), contrary to EO claims about it being a ‘Western’ invention.
I'm assuming this is in the book, but where? What exact references? And is this really the same thing that Protestants then later re-invented millennia later? Why? This already assumes that there is a neat bullet point catechism for the concept of "PSA" which, again, doesn't exist.
>He was attracted to study Eastern Orthodoxy due to a combination of personal experiences and a desire to understand Christianity more deeply
This sounds like a very emotional, impulsive decision. The OC doesn't really care for erratic, spur-of-the-moment confessions, repentances, or other shows of pious guilt. Was he really an ordained priest?
>“Seminary itself, however, was in many ways a rude awakening, doctrinally, ecclesiastically, and morally. At the seminary, among other things, we had a Scripture professor deny the inspiration of Scripture, and another professor deny the historical resurrection of Jesus.”
I'm not calling Mr. Schooping a liar, but I sincerely doubt this. These are **very** un-Orthodox things to say. I've met many priests trained at St. Vlad's, I've read their books and the books written by professors there, and I've never seen a single one ever say anything like this-- probably because they don't believe it. For example, read "the Mystery of Christ", where Fr John, faculty at St. Vlad's, spends many pages saying the perfect inverse of this idea. Mr. Schooping appears to be the first and only person in human history to make such claims.
What he **might've heard**, and portrayed in a bad faith "gotcha" manner, is something I've heard many times: you cannot debate someone into a loving relationship with Christ, and thus it **doesn't matter** if something like the Resurrection can be proved as a factual, historical event. Because, on Orthodoxy, feeling the presence of Christ (and knowing that means He did Resurrect), is an acceptable alternative to visiting archeological digsites and being informed that such a thing is a fact.
This is a clear miss, and further reduces the credibility of his witness.
>Pr. Schooping’s disillusionment deepened when he examined the EOC's formal teachings
Sigh..
>This was a pivotal moment for Pr. Schooping, realizing the EOCs formally rejected the gospel much as the Roman Catholic Church anathematized the gospel with the Council of Trent.
Lol
>Additionally, the church's inconsistent and sometimes contradictory teachings on several doctrines, including the veneration of icons and the role of Mary, further eroded his confidence.
Not only is this wrong, it's not even setting up the question correctly to be right in the wrong way.
What are "the Church's teachings"? The writings of the Early Church Fathers? The same ones that you guys rely on for doctrines such as Chalcedonianism and the Nicene Creed? The ECFs weren't inerrant, and much like the American Founding Fathers, they sometimes contradicted one another in their massive canons. This isn't a big deal, and it's why we have scripture and discernment.
So, does he mean the ecumenical councils? The same ones that you guys **and** the Catholics also accept (Well, the first six anyway)?
Can he provide a single example of this contradiction?
>He also grew frustrated with the EO habit of selectively quoting church fathers to support different theological positions, “In short, people pick and choose whatever they want in today's EO world,” writes Pr. Schooping.
I know this is basically a summary article, but this entire perspective is so scant on details. Who? The faculty? Can he provide an example?
> “As time went on, after the Pandemic closures ceased"
So he **just** bailed out of seminary, and he already feels confident enough to write an "expose"? This is, again, a very un-Orthodox way of doing things that calls into question his original sincerity.
>then it became clear that not only were these the factual, formal positions of the confessing Eastern Orthodox Church
No. Basically every part of this is just wrong. He did not acquire an Orthodox phronema prior to writing this. There is no "Factual, formal positio" outside of something like the Nicene Creed.
> I had overlooked the constant Semi-Pelagianism
Oh come on dude. This is getting embarrassing. The only question I have at this point is why his faculty didn't iron some of this crap out before he presumably bailed.
>the confusion surrounding the Atonement
I doubt his instructors were the ones that were "confused".
> the unscriptural pietism
?
> the Toll Houses
"Toll houses" are a meme propagated by Reddit-level anti-Ortho crusaders, like Mr. Schooping is quickly appearing.
>Pr. Schooping says the EOC deals with contradictions and inconsistencies
Where? Which ones?
>by combining strategic silence
This is a really slimy interpretation of the contemplative tradition. Nobody shushes you for asking questions about theology. Instead, as the saying goes, theology **is** prayer. Attempting to rationalize everything into bullet points is not the way Orthodox Christians approach theology, nor should the OC conform to the wishes of people like Mr. Schooping who want easily digestible, "rational" dogmas. In other words, people that want Orthodox Christians to behave like Protestants.
>selective emphasis on certain church fathers
Similarly slimy and indicates a lack of knowledge as to why certain ECFs are elevated above others.
>and a flexible interpretation of historical and theological claims
Maybe to someone that has an extreme passion for rationalizing. And also, just no.
----
This is as far as I'm going to read. I hope anyone who reads what I wrote (hopefully Mr. Schooping, as he needs it) reflects sincerely on what was written.
ROFL! PSA is literally something credited to Ansalem during the same period of the Schism, and despite legal / penal language being both Biblical and Orthodox, the formulation of PSA is not found in the Faith of the Apostles - this represents another common tactic of reading back into the fathers something that was alien to them and just proves with the wrong mindset you will never understand anything.
Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, and Augustine... https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/2011-3_195.pdf
They are hardly divorced from the Apostles, who explicitly explain PSA unless we exclude St. John and St. Paul and prophets like Isaiah.
"Tollhouses" is not formal dogma at all. It is a permissible theological opinion (theologoumenon). I have been Orthodox for 29 years, and not once have I ever heard this notion preached in a church, only in some online forums.
Also, Orthodox liturgical prcatice has changed, and I've never heard that denied-- however the changes are gradual and cautious. There's no equivalent of Vatican II in Orthodoxy abruptly decreeing a novus ordo Liturgy.
Re: The EOC is clear in its instructions for veneration that Mary is the savior, not Christ:
All I can say is that this is nonsense.