I just recently had an exchange on X with a type of guy who is often referred to as an “Orthobro,” short for “Orthodox brother,” but with a “dude” edge. I am not going to use his name, which to his credit he actually uses his (real name) on X. But he is a recent convert from Anglicanism (as an ordinand for the ministry) to the Eastern Orthodox church (where he will be soon, apparently, also an ordinand). As you will notice, only by inference, I would suggest that he is still in the so-called “cage-stage.” Often this terminology is applied to guys who become “Calvinists.” It is that novelty stage where everything is new; where you’ve finally taken the plunge into a whole new world where everything is shiny and sparkly; and you think everyone else, besides you, and your newfound faith, is wrong. I would say my interlocutor easily fits within those parameters.
So, what I am going to do is simply string all of my responses to my interlocutor together, and allow you to infer what it is that I am probably responding to; with reference to his comments to me. I will share a comment from him that will serve as a nice synopsizing frame, which in spirit, typifies the gist of most of the exchange from his end. I will also note here at the outset that what sparked the whole exchange is that I reposted his original post, made on his timeline, where he was noting his conversion to the “only true and Apostolic Church on the earth.” When I reposted his post, my comment was something like: “it’s too bad when people move say from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy (in this case) that they simply can’t say that that’s what they did; without the further sectarian qualification that often attends it.”
The Orthodox interlocutor: It’s hardly surprising that as a Reformed theologian you have such a view. I pray you eventually come to see the truth and become Orthodox rather than holding to heretical Reformed doctrine that is wholly inconsistent with the Apostolic faith and the patristic consensus. . .. It’s simple, there was one undivided Church, the RCC split off at the Great Schism, then your denomination split off from them. The original Church remained unchanged and still exists today. Ask yourself which human man founded your “church”.
My responses: Jesus loves you too. Altho, I’d say I’m not quite “Reformed” in the way you are presuming. I’m Athanasian Reformed; I’m “Eastern” Reformed; it could even be said, of Thomas F. Torrance, in important ways. You presume much too much methinks. In the end, you’re a sectarian in spirit, which is not of Christ, and thus is antiChrist. . .. Sure thing. And yet the esse of the church is not possessed by a particular “body” on this earth, but grounded in the body of Jesus Christ at the right hand of the Father. There is no prolongation of the incarnation in a peculiar people found in the “East” or anywhere. The church participates in the Church, so to speak, in the triune life, mediated by the Church’s reality in Jesus Christ. We thus bear witness to that reality, to the Church’s reality, through union with His life by the Spirit. . .. Yes, the Orthodox church is really Greek. There is either Greek or Latin churchiology in the history. Yes, indeed: His body, not ours. To simply assert an absolute representation of that on earth is in fact sectarian par excellence. Study of church history itself doesn’t bear out your assertions about the uniformity of things, per se. . .. Again, eh. I understand you must assert such things. It’s as if you operate with some type of physicalism in regard to the church’s lineage. The only yea or no in the church is not conciliar, but within the divine and triune life itself. Your appeals to authority aren’t convincing. . .. This will have to be my last comment. Quoting Bruce McCormack on the councils and creeds and their value. “I say all of this to indicate that even the ecumenical creeds are only provisional statements. They are only relatively binding as definitions of what constitutes “orthodoxy.” Ultimately, orthodox teaching is that which conforms perfectly to the Word of God as attested in Holy Scripture. But given that such perfection is not attainable in this world, it is understandable that Karl Barth should have regarded “Dogma” as an eschatological concept. The “dogmas” (i.e., the teachings formally adopted and promulgated by individual churches) are witnesses to the Dogma and stand in a relation of greater or lesser approximation to it. But they do not attain to it perfectly—hence, the inherent reformability of all “dogmas.” Orthodoxy is not therefore a static, fixed reality; it is a body of teachings which have arisen out of, and belong to, a history which is as yet incomplete and constantly in need of reevaluation.” -Bruce L. McCormack, Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 16. . .. Sola scriptura isn’t solo scriptura (most likely how you’re thinking of it—many do, even those who say they hold to sola). Anyway, I’m more radical than that given my theory of revelation. We won’t make headway here, that is clear. I can understand why someone would be drawn to the aesthetics of Orthodoxy, no doubt. If I were to go that way, it wouldn’t be Latin, but Greek for sure. Other than that, socially and politically you and I seem to be simpatico, as I’ve scanned your TL a little. . .. Eh. Enjoy.
I think I might have made a few more responses to him, but the above should suffice. I let him know in one of my responses that I would look forward to hooking back up in ten years, Lord willing, and seeing how he had calmed down on the sectarianism by then; hopefully.