The Eastern Orthodox and The Protestant, how divided are we ? [Archive]

View Full Version : The Eastern Orthodox and The Protestant, how divided are we ?

jason

April 1st 2004, 01:52 AM

Well after a discussion with Jezz in another thread, this seems like an interesting question to explore.

How divided are the doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Doctrines of the Protestant Churches ?

I would like to lay down a couple of ground rules from this thread.

I'm not really interested in hearing from Protestants who are not already orthodox Protestants. So if you deny the Deity of Christ, or the Trinity, or the resurrection of something like that, start your own thread.

Here is a quick test for orthodoxy for the purposes of this thread.

Could you agree to these three Creeds as written
The Apostles Creed (http://www.gty.org/~phil/creeds/apostles.htm)
The Nicene Creed (http://www.gty.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm) (With or without the filoque).
The Athanasian Creed (http://www.gty.org/~phil/creeds/athanasn.htm).

Anyway I am sure you know what I mean, the quick test is just in to remove any doubt.

So I guess the first round goes to our EO brothers.

What do orthodox protestants do that you think is wrong ?

Next question, What do orthodox protestants do that endagers their salvation ?

Obviously their are wacko protestants out their, but regular protestants would chuck them as well.

One thing to keep in mind though is one major difference in the eastern and western traditions. The west had to deal with the Pelagian heresy, and as such any understanding of the work of Christ on the Cross will be coloured by that event.

I know somebody is going to bring penal substitution and substitutionary atonement up vs the idea of theosis as a big difference. But I don't think it is. Both are clearly taught in scripture (feel free to demonstrate otherwise), and we really just have a difference emphasis, it is really one facet vs another, not different things all together. Or at least such is my understanding.

Anyway, I think I have waffled enough.

Jason

Amazing Rando

April 1st 2004, 11:45 AM

elysian

April 1st 2004, 05:04 PM

tizzidale

April 1st 2004, 06:04 PM

Well, this is from my perspective. I'm still protestant, but I'm an inquirer into Orthodoxy and my theology is conforming to that of the Orthodox church. There's just not a church to attend around here, and other barriers to my full conversion. . . anyway.

How divided are the doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Doctrines of the Protestant Churches ?
Very. The doctrines on the Eucharist, Baptism, Salvation, One-ness with God, the Trinity, veneration of Icons, veneration of Saints, prayers for the dead . . . Of course, there will be some areas of Protestantism where fewer of these are a problem.

What do orthodox protestants do that you think is wrong ?
Well, I'm by no means an orthodox "brother" but I no longer consider myself a Protestant doctrinally. Since there are so many variations among Protestants, let me paint the big picture as for as I'm concerned. . . . The Protestat churches are not part of THE Church. That's the major thing Protestatism has wrong in my opinion. They are not in the Holy and Catholic Orthodox Church. But that's the easy one. Let's get to specifics. . . . 1) The Eucharist. I've taken Communion once in three years at my Protestant church. I'm not saying that there aren't churches that take the Eucharist more often or more seriously, but it was this doctrine that led me to Orthodoxy.(2) Baptism. Like the Eucharist, I felt that baptism in Protestant churches was considered too symbolic - a picture I dont' feel portrays early Christianity accurately. (3) Veneration of Saints. Often, when a friend or loved one passes in the Protestant background I'm from, we praise God that he/she has passed, but in Orthodoxy they continue to remember. There is not difference in the Body of Christ present and past. That is a comforting thought and one I feel is right. (4) Salvation - although there are some sects of protestatism that "work out there salvation" - Orthodoxy's approach to one-ness with God finds no equal in Protestatism. Just a few of my thoughts.

George Blaisdell

April 1st 2004, 06:18 PM

I think the major difference between most Protestants and Orthodox would lie in the view of Communion.

Most Protestants believe that Communion is simply a memorial meal, celebrated because Jesus said to do it, and partaking in it is largely symbolic of unity in Christ. Lutherans believe those things too but we take it a bit further: we believe in the Real Presence, that Jesus is present in, with, under and through the elements of bread and wine. (consubstantiation) It is a mystery, something we cannot fully explain. From what I've gathered, regarding Communion, Orthodox adhere to a view very similar to the Lutheran understanding of what Communion is.

I must say that on another board we have a Lutheran Pastor [Missouri Synod, I believe] who believes that his Church is Orthodox, and that the only difference between us is that the Orthodox do not understand correctly the Lutheran faith, and that the differences are merely semantic... And having gone toe to toe with him for some time now, I can say that he is closer to right on that issue than most other Protestant churches...

The elements of Communion are bread and wine, and they are, in Communion, the body and blood of our Lord. There is no further explanation. Period...

And more generally, the whole Protestant notion of Holy Communion [koinonia] as "fellowship in the Holy Spirit" is not at all Orthodox...

Orthodoxy is also far more steeped in tradition than most Protestant sects (even Lutherans, for all of our history and ethnic undertones) and is even more of a "closed society" than Roman Catholics or Lutherans.

Well, there are pious and ethnic traditions, and there is Holy Tradition, and both are treasured... And regarding Holy Tradition, we regard the Bible as a part of it, for the New Testament was written by the Early Christian Church... And we keep faithfully to the first 7 ecumenical councils, for these are ours, and are the councils of the historic Church established at Pentecost...

I love to quote my priest on changing things in the faith: "We don't change nuthin'..." We have kept the faith unchanged from the time of the Apostles, to whom it was given once, for all - We have received it from them, and pass it on to those after us...

Closed society? The bar is kinda high, for we do not compromise the faith, and self-sacrifice is at the center... You really do need to "count the cost" of becoming a Christian in the Orthodox Tradition. We do not glad-hand you at the door of the Church with a sweeping welcome that greets you aaaboard the train of salvation... I happenned to be irrevocably called to Orthodoxy on my first encounter with it, and when I came to my Church for the first time, it was like this:

geo: I am here to become Orthodox.
Priest: I see...
geo: So what do I need to do?
Priest: Are you sure you want to become Orthodox?
geo: I'm HERE aren't I?
Priest: We'll see...

Four years later I was finally baptized... Hardest and most rewarding thing I have ever done, and the most unimaginable... I was an athiest for my first 36 years...

The Orthodox have done a great thing in maintaining their identity and tradition over hundreds of years- they have not compromised- and that is admirable in many ways.

Actually, 2000 years. We have not changed. The Pope calls us the "Primitive Church", and sees us as his 'missing lung', and wants us 'back'... You can go to Orthodox services in any country, and know the service, whether or not you know the language... And we are a persecuted Church, in the Middle East, in Russia in the 20th Century, in the Balkans, and on and on...

I am curious as to the Orthodox take on some of Luther's critiques of the RCC, especially regarding venerating Mary and praying to the saints.

The Roman Church apostasized from the whole rest of the communion of the Churches of the East, and attacked them, and it is this apostatic Church whose misdeeds birthed the Reformation. Now the problem with Protestants is their illegitimate birth, for they are so Romophobic and so adamant in their whole frame of mind in understanding matters of the faith that they have often become very knee-jerk anti-papists, and issues on the veneration of the God-birther and the God-bearing saints are not approached as matters of prayer and faith, but as issues of intellectual proof and disproof, and "Biblical proof and dis-proof" - And T-Web is proof positive that any position can be Biblically proven and dis-proven to the self-satisfaction of the one making the argument... And Truth is not found in proof, but in the Church, the pillar and ground of truth... In which we believe, according to the Creed "And [I believe in] one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church..."

We differ somewhat in the practice of our veneration, for we do not normally "pray to Mary", but instead ask the intercession to Christ [Who is our intercessor before the Father] of the God-birther [Theotokos] for us, and this is a very powerful intercession indeed... And we intercede for one another as well, as we are commanded to do so...

The biggest difference, however, is the neo-scholastic mindset of western Christians, where the intellect is exalted via Biblical exegesis, over [eg rather than] the reception of the faith from the Apostolic Church in obedience to Her elders and priests... We have no truck with this very western mindset that has to prove all matters of the faith to one's own intellectual satisfation... The Orthodox Church has been discipling believers for 2000 years now, and the matters of the faith have been pretty well worked out - Long debates and arguments on these matters are not a part of Her. They are in the past, and have been settled in ecumenical councils... Her job is the discipling of nations, the bringing of men and women to Christ... Doctrine is not still being figured out...

The Protestant west has been burned by their mother church, and are very chary of such claims [of truth being found within the historic and apostolic communion of Churches, which is Christ's Church on Earth], and want to have everything proven by human logic divining logically and intellectually the Biblical written word, and for the Orthodox, this is itself an assault on truth and faith... Yet utterly understandable given the history of Protestant origins in apostatic Roman abuses...

geo-Arsenios

Jezz

April 2nd 2004, 01:14 AM

Well, seeing as how this thread was started with me in mind, it's probably about time I said something in it.

I must say that on another board we have a Lutheran Pastor [Missouri Synod, I believe] who believes that his Church is Orthodox, and that the only difference between us is that the Orthodox do not understand correctly the Lutheran faith, and that the differences are merely semantic... And having gone toe to toe with him for some time now, I can say that he is closer to right on that issue than most other Protestant churches...
George, as you may remember I am also Lutheran (well, at the moment I'm kinda German Orthodox, I think!) I happen to agree to a large extent with your Lutheran Pastor friend. I think that, of all the Protestant churches, the Lutherans are the closest to Orthodoxy. This is because they are the denomination which changed the least when they split from the RCC.

Unlike your pastor friend I would not go quite so far as to say that the Lutherans are Orthodox - at least, not yet. The Lutheran Reformation is not yet complete. I would agree, however, that they are not far from Orthodoxy. For example, of the four issues that divide Protestants and Orthodox that tizzidale described above, most of them do not apply to Lutheranism:

1. Baptism: Lutheran and Orthodox (and RCC, for that matter) beliefs about baptism are identical, and I think both sides would acknowledge that.
2. Eucharist: Lutheran and Orthodox are very similar. In fact, the more I try and understand the difference, the more I fail to see an actual difference - only a semantic one. At the end of the day, both sides agree that the elements are both bread and wine and flesh and blood at the same time, without quite being able to explain how.
3. Veneration of the saints: this is an area of difference - and I am convinced of the correctness of the Orthodox on this. I believe (and pray) that Lutherans could be convinced too, as part of the completion of the Reformation.
4. Salvation: this one gets tricky. Lutheranism is one of those "sects" that believe that good works are somehow involved in salvation. There are differences here, but they are at least partly (if not entirely) semantic. For example, Luther and the reformers understood "salvation" as a binary state - saved/not saved - whereas Orthodoxy sees salvation as a process. I believe that these differences can be sorted out.

The elements of Communion are bread and wine, and they are, in Communion, the body and blood of our Lord. There is no further explanation. Period...
I thought that the analogy to the incarnation is often used - ie, in the same way that Christ was both divine and human, the elements of the Eucharist are both bread/wine and flesh/blood of Jesus.

But anyway, I don't know of too many Lutherans who would disagree with the above statement - I think that is precisely what Luther meant when he said "in, with and under". It's a mystery as to how this happens.

And more generally, the whole Protestant notion of Holy Communion [koinonia] as "fellowship in the Holy Spirit" is not at all Orthodox...
That is not, to my knowledge, a Lutheran understanding - though I think you are correct in generalising as many Protestants dilute the meaning of the Eucharist to that extent.

Well, there are pious and ethnic traditions, and there is Holy Tradition, and both are treasured... And regarding Holy Tradition, we regard the Bible as a part of it, for the New Testament was written by the Early Christian Church... And we keep faithfully to the first 7 ecumenical councils, for these are ours, and are the councils of the historic Church established at Pentecost...

I love to quote my priest on changing things in the faith: "We don't change nuthin'..." We have kept the faith unchanged from the time of the Apostles, to whom it was given once, for all - We have received it from them, and pass it on to those after us...
The one major gripe I have with Orthodoxy is that they often intermingle and confuse their ethnic traditions with the Holy Tradition. This conservatism is a natural reaction to the oppression that they have suffered throughout the centuries, but it is an unfortunate one because it hinders the spread of Orthodoxy. This was not always the case with Orthodoxy and it is a product of our current day and age and the circumstances in which Orthodoxy finds itself. Fortunately, there are many within the Orthodox Church who recognise this and are working to correct it. However, I can understand and sympathise with this over-conservatism, because it is much preferable to the alternative error (ie, mistaking Holy Tradition for ethnic tradition, and compromising on the Holy Tradition as a result).

Other than that one (minor) complaint I have with Orthodoxy in the present day, I think you have nailed the fundamental difference between Protestantism and Orthodoxy. In answer to Jason's opening question, I think the answer needs to start here. All the other differences in doctrine between Orthodox and Protestants flow from this one fundamental difference. This difference is one of epistemology - ie, how does one determine correct doctrine? For the Protestant, the Bible is ultimately the sole source of all doctrine. For the Orthodox, the Church and its Holy Tradition the source of all doctrine. Of course, Holy Scripture holds the most important place within the Holy Tradition, but it is not the only source of doctrine. And interestingly enough (for Protestants), the Bible itself never makes the claim that it is the sole source of doctrine.

It is my firm belief that the Orthodox approach to epistemology is the much more sound of the two. Protestantism, with its emphasis on the authority of the Bible, does not account for how it is that the Bible received that authority in the first place. And the more that Protestantism takes context into account, the closer the "context" is to Tradition, and the closer their interpretation to the Orthodox one.

Closed society? The bar is kinda high, for we do not compromise the faith, and self-sacrifice is at the center... You really do need to "count the cost" of becoming a Christian in the Orthodox Tradition. We do not glad-hand you at the door of the Church with a sweeping welcome that greets you aaaboard the train of salvation...
This is another major difference between Protestantism and Orthodoxy - in Orthodoxy, faith is not merely (or not even principally) an intellectual pursuit and something you do on Sundays, but it is an entire way of life. Most Protestant denominations (especially the more mainline, traditional ones) will at least pay lip service to this ideal, but I don't think any of them quite reach the lofty standard set by the Orthodox.

Actually, 2000 years. We have not changed. The Pope calls us the "Primitive Church", and sees us as his 'missing lung', and wants us 'back'... You can go to Orthodox services in any country, and know the service, whether or not you know the language... And we are a persecuted Church, in the Middle East, in Russia in the 20th Century, in the Balkans, and on and on...
Indeed, when I went to an Orthodox service recently, I did not know the language, but I did know the service. They used the liturgy of St John Chrysostom - one that Lutherans also use. As I said, Lutherans and Orthodox have a lot in common.

Who knows - if the Lutherans and Anglicans manage to unite with the Orthodox, then perhaps Rome will have to rethink its claims to supremacy, swallow its pride, and come back into the fold. Let us all pray for that day to come because if Christianity were to heal its biggest schism, it would form a power far greater than the sum of its parts!

The Protestant west has been burned by their mother church, and are very chary of such claims [of truth being found within the historic and apostolic communion of Churches, which is Christ's Church on Earth], and want to have everything proven by human logic divining logically and intellectually the Biblical written word, and for the Orthodox, this is itself an assault on truth and faith... Yet utterly understandable given the history of Protestant origins in apostatic Roman abuses...
I agree with the idea that the Protestant reaction and wariness is to be expected, given Roman abuses. And I agree that in many instances it is an over-reaction. However, I disagree with you (and Tercel does too) that the demand to have everything proven intellecutally and logically is an anti-Orthodox sentiment. Orthodoxy has nothing to fear from honest intellectual and logical inquiry. Many of the great fathers of the church were extremely intellectual and logical people - people like Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr, whose works I hold in very high esteem. Indeed, honest intellectual and logical inquiry has led many Protestants to Orthodoxy - Tercel, tizzidale, myself, and countless others. After all, the divine Logos Himself is the source of all logic and reason, and therefore reason and logic is something to be embraced and not scorned. After all, faith is not meant to be blind - it is supposed to be supported by logic and reason. We shouldn't be drawn to Orthodoxy just because the Orthodox claim that we should be - we should be drawn to Orthodoxy because their claims stand up better under scrutiny than anyone else's.

I think that the problem with Protestantism is not its demand for intellectual and logical soundness per se - rather, that it lacks a key ingredient when it tries to apply its intellect and reason: humility. The key word I highlighted above: intellectual investigation must be honest. In trying to discern the truth out of two different points of view, it is imperative that one approaches them with a sense of humility - ie, with the understanding that some point of view other than your own might be the correct one, and not being too proud to admit it. I believe that the main problem with Protestant intellectualism is not the intellectualism itself, but the lack of humility that often accompanies it, and the dishonest reasoning that it can lead to.

To be fair, I often see this lack of humility in the Orthodox Church as well. In their efforts to safeguard the true faith (a noble and worthy objective), they sometimes throw out the baby with the bathwater - neglecting to acknowledge the kernel of truth in their "opponent's". I believe that the monophysite schism is an example of this - where a little bit more patience (on both sides of the argument) might have led to each side understanding the other, and schism being avoided in the first place. I also see this lack of patience (again on both sides of the argument) in the very first Lutheran-Orthodox dialog - where with a little more patience and understanding the two parties might have better understood where the other was coming from. Though I do believe there were some differences at that time between the two parties, I also believe that the differences were exaggerated by the parties involved, through their lack of patience with each other. Each side was trying to prove themselves to the other, rather than seeking to understand the other.

elysian

April 2nd 2004, 11:42 AM

Article XXI: Of the Worship of the Saints.

1] Of the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may follow the example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his country.
2] For both are kings. But the Scripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest, and Intercessor.
3] He is to be prayed to, and has promised that He will hear our prayer; and this worship He approves above all, to wit, that in all afflictions He be called upon, 1 John 2, 1:
4] If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, etc.
5] This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics.
6] There is, however, disagreement on certain Abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same;
7] although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. 8] For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches.
9] But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected.- from the Augsburg Confession, http://cat41.org/WhoWhat/Confessions/AC.htm

We are to look to the example of the saints, especially to the lives of those who have had similar vocations to our own. We are learn from their examples, we are to thank God for their example and faithful witness, and to thank God for His work through them. We can, and do even pray with the saints. When we worship we join in prayer and praise with the saints! The abuses Luther speaks of are well known- worshipping the saints or praying to the saints are specifically forbidden (Deuteronomy 18:9-13) as we are not permitted to contact the dead, and we are also taught that we have one Mediator between God and man, in Jesus (1 Timothy 2:1-6)

We are permitted and encouraged to indulge in intercessory prayer- praying to God for others.

Admittedly Lutherans get weird on the mention of Mary, Jesus' mother, (especially the ex-Catholics among us) though we aren't as ambivalent about her as many other Protestants are.

We do acknowledge Mary's role as defined in the Creeds: i.e. that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and that she was a virgin at the time of His birth. We acknowledge that she was chosen by God and that she was favored and blessed by Him. We thank God for her example of humility and for her surrender to God's will.

We do not believe Mary was sinless (she needed a Savior as much as the rest of us) nor to we believe she was assumed into heaven. We do not believe that Mary was a "perpetual virgin," as Scripture clearly states that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters, and that Mary and Joseph lived as a "normal" man and wife after Jesus' birth (Matthew 1:25.)

I believe much of the unease regarding Mary among Protestants (including most Lutherans) is that we regard the RCC veneration of Mary almost as idolatry. I do believe that the "co-Redemptrix" movement within the RCC is certainly over the line. In holding Mary up, we run the risk of losing our focus on Christ. But Protestants should not back down from being thankful for Mary, and we understand that she was given a very important place in God's salvation story.

Yes, one of the pitfalls of modern Protestantism is the idea of "cheap grace" as Dietrich Bonhoeffer called it. How valid is your faith if all you're doing is maybe showing up for worship on Sunday? In Revelation we learn of the Laodicean church that was lukewarm:

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne." Revelation 3:14-21 (NIV)

We don't get brownie points or do things to earn God's grace, but what good is your faith if it doesn't compel you to action? You can believe a parachute will break your fall, but your faith is worthless until you jump out of the plane. Luther taught that you can't separate works from faith any more than you can separate light and heat from fire. Your works and the way you live are the natural consequence of the transformation that God is working in you.

themuzicman

April 2nd 2004, 11:46 AM

# And shall give account for their own works.
# And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

#42 and 43 are ... interesting. I'd need some clarification on those.

Michael

Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman

April 2nd 2004, 12:26 PM

Jezz you stated:
This is another major difference between Protestantism and Orthodoxy - in Orthodoxy, faith is not merely (or not even principally) an intellectual pursuit and something you do on Sundays, but it is an entire way of life. Most Protestant denominations (especially the more mainline, traditional ones) will at least pay lip service to this ideal, but I don't think any of them quite reach the lofty standard set by the Orthodox.

IMO it is this distinction (a way of life) which classifies the believer. An intellectual pursuit alone is not Christianity, thats obvious. I do not understand how you came to a conclusion that Protestants "believe" in this fashion. We "Protestants" don't appreciate that broadbrush. So what is this lofty standard Orthodox has set?

An extremely important issue that is sometimes overlooked is that the Holy Spirit actually INDWELLS the Christain. The Holy Spirit was given to us at conversion. If the Holy Spirit indwells us, it is a sure sign we are saved. Thats repeated throughout the NT.

elysian

April 2nd 2004, 12:41 PM

Well, I'm by no means an orthodox "brother" but I no longer consider myself a Protestant doctrinally. Since there are so many variations among Protestants, let me paint the big picture as for as I'm concerned. . . . The Protestat churches are not part of THE Church. That's the major thing Protestatism has wrong in my opinion. They are not in the Holy and Catholic Orthodox Church. But that's the easy one. Let's get to specifics. . . . 1) The Eucharist. I've taken Communion once in three years at my Protestant church. I'm not saying that there aren't churches that take the Eucharist more often or more seriously, but it was this doctrine that led me to Orthodoxy.(2) Baptism. Like the Eucharist, I felt that baptism in Protestant churches was considered too symbolic - a picture I dont' feel portrays early Christianity accurately. (3) Veneration of Saints. Often, when a friend or loved one passes in the Protestant background I'm from, we praise God that he/she has passed, but in Orthodoxy they continue to remember. There is not difference in the Body of Christ present and past. That is a comforting thought and one I feel is right. (4) Salvation - although there are some sects of protestatism that "work out there salvation" - Orthodoxy's approach to one-ness with God finds no equal in Protestatism. Just a few of my thoughts.

Tizzy, you sound like a Lutheran! :lol:

1. The Eucharist: In my church it is celebrated weekly, at every worship service.

2. Baptism: In Baptism we are named and claimed by God. It is a means of God's grace, which has to do with His mercy and not our merit. This is why we baptize children, usually as small infants. My son was three months old when he was baptized.

3. See here http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=501367&postcount=7 for Lutheran teaching on the saints and Mary.

4. We believe that salvation is God's gift- as well as a process (theology of the Cross) Lutherans are neither Arminian nor Calvinist.

In eternity God planned our salvation and chose us to be his own. In time he sent his Son to become fully human to live a perfect life under the law and to suffer and die for the sins of the world. God has justified and reconciled the world in Chirist. We receive the benefits of Chirist's work of redemption through faith which the Holy Spirit creates in us and preserves through the means of grace, the gospel in Word and sacraments. Good works flow from faith. Good works are the result of the Holy Spirit's work in our hearts and are not a cause of our salvation. http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=45&cuItem_itemID=2871

Happy investigating and discovering, and seek to glorify God in all things. :teeth: :pray:

Amazing Rando

April 2nd 2004, 01:14 PM

[Rodney King]Can't we all just get along?[/Rodney King] :hehe:

George Blaisdell

April 2nd 2004, 03:32 PM

George, as you may remember I am also Lutheran (well, at the moment I'm kinda German Orthodox, I think!) I happen to agree to a large extent with your Lutheran Pastor friend. I think that, of all the Protestant churches, the Lutherans are the closest to Orthodoxy. This is because they are the denomination which changed the least when they split from the RCC.

Hey, Jezz...

That is my friend's thought, but he takes it one further, and firmly believes that the Lutheran Church, having correctly reformed the Catholic Church, is THE apostolic Church, and is now in a 'position' to doctrinally correct the historic and apostolic Eastern Orthodox Church, just as the Lutherans 'corrected' the Catholic Church by splitting off from them and forming a different Church of their own...

Unlike your pastor friend I would not go quite so far as to say that the Lutherans are Orthodox - at least, not yet. The Lutheran Reformation is not yet complete.

lol! I may try running that one by him! Not YET complete... :-)

I would agree, however, that they are not far from Orthodoxy.

The RCC, doctrinally, is not 'far' from Orthodoxy, yet they have been out of communion with Her for a thousand years, becoming progressively more and more doctrinally distant....

For example, of the four issues that divide Protestants and Orthodox that tizzidale described above, most of them do not apply to Lutheranism:

1. Baptism: Lutheran and Orthodox (and RCC, for that matter) beliefs about baptism are identical, and I think both sides would acknowledge that.

Well, at least you do not try to divide the 'spirit baptism' from the 'water baptism', as if these are two different 'baptisms', and that the 'spirit baptism' is conferred individually and apart from the Mystery of Baptism conferred by the Apostolic Church...

2. Eucharist: Lutheran and Orthodox are very similar. In fact, the more I try and understand the difference, the more I fail to see an actual difference - only a semantic one. At the end of the day, both sides agree that the elements are both bread and wine and flesh and blood at the same time, without quite being able to explain how.

The 'how' was shown by Christ to the disciples at the Last Supper, and has been passed down within the Church from generation to generation, and all that is recorded in the Bible is that he "took the bread, and blessed it", and not the manner of the taking and of the blessing, and after this, He said "Take. Eat. This is My Body..." No more explanation is needed... Luther's 'in, under and around' is spurious, as is the RCC doctrine of 'trans-substantiation'... These are but intellectual constructs clustered around the most profound and holy Mystery of Christ's Church, which is the presence of our Lord God's holy body and blood, and our eating and drinking thereof...

So you see, Jezz, it is not that we are "not quite able to explain how" this is so, but that we DARE NOT...

3. Veneration of the saints: this is an area of difference - and I am convinced of the correctness of the Orthodox on this. I believe (and pray) that Lutherans could be convinced too, as part of the completion of the Reformation.

Prayer is asking, and the Church is One, for how can the Body of Christ be divided? So we recognize no division in the body of Christ, and communicate in Spirit in prayers with the Holy Saints who are no longer on the earth... Christians have been doing this from the beginnings, and you can see the evidence of this from as early as the second century in the catacomb inscriptions still existant... We ask their intercession before Christ, Who is our intercessor before the Father... Christians intercede for each other in prayer in the body of Christ... Even those no longer walking the earth...

4. Salvation: this one gets tricky. Lutheranism is one of those "sects" that believe that good works are somehow involved in salvation. There are differences here, but they are at least partly (if not entirely) semantic. For example, Luther and the reformers understood "salvation" as a binary state - saved/not saved - whereas Orthodoxy sees salvation as a process. I believe that these differences can be sorted out.

Lutherans seem to believe, if my friend is correct, that there is absolutely nothing one can do for their salvation, and that all the things that one does are a CONSEQUENCE of their ALREADY having been saved... That to think that anything one does has any merit whatsoever is to believe in the scorned and anathematic "works-righteousness"... And that IF one is 'saved', then the works will flow forth from God alone... etc etc...

So that a saved person will naturally and irresistably forgive those who trespass against him or her, and an unsaved person will not, and that it is all of God, and nothing of man. So that on this understanding, IF a person feels, saay, resentment toward someone who wrongs him, then this is evidence and even proof of one's lack of being saved, and there is nothing to do for it... Yet for the Orthodox, if I find myself "resenting that jerk", I have to grab that thought, arrest it, confess it, ask God's forgiveness of it, repent of it, and actually DO something about it, so that God will forgive ME my trespasses against Him, for all sin is trespass against God... And we both knowingly and unknowingly sin...

The one major gripe I have with Orthodoxy is that they often intermingle and confuse their ethnic traditions with the Holy Tradition.

When the Church is One, then the Body of Christ is a country becomes that country, in a lot of ways, and I had to laugh at one Russian Orthodox reaction to enquirers who came to their Church in the US to become Orthodox, and were asked politely: "Why do you want to be Russian???" And there is no 'American Orthodox' Church yet, for the Church here is a scandalously mixed bag of ethnic Churches and American converts in the mostly Russian, Antiochian, and Greek traditions. The time is approaching when this will all be sorted out, but in the meantime, it is pretty messy. So that you can often find in the ethnic Churches enclaves of 'old country' folks who see themselves as immigrants rather than Americans, and the expression of Orthodoxy definitely has varied ethnic traditions, and these are pious and holy, but are not the Holy Tradition of Orthodoxy defended in the ecumenical councils... Instead they are its outworking in particular ethnic communities [countries]...

This conservatism is a natural reaction to the oppression that they have suffered throughout the centuries, but it is an unfortunate one because it hinders the spread of Orthodoxy.

Well, in their countries, to be a Christian was to be Orthodox, and the spreading of Orthodoxy in their country had already been done... And you are right, they lost the habit of evangellizing... Yet the real evangellizing is done by the saints, and these are now arriving and emerging in the US, and their roots are growing in American soil...

This was not always the case with Orthodoxy and it is a product of our current day and age and the circumstances in which Orthodoxy finds itself. Fortunately, there are many within the Orthodox Church who recognise this and are working to correct it. However, I can understand and sympathise with this over-conservatism, because it is much preferable to the alternative error (ie, mistaking Holy Tradition for ethnic tradition, and compromising on the Holy Tradition as a result).

Properly understood, pious ethnic traditions are expressions of Holy Tradition, but you are right, they CAN become a vehicle of mis-direction, as can anything, for that matter... Yet the Faith is unchanging, and is guarded by the pillars of the Church, the saints, in whom it resides bodily... Those who overcome the passions, mortifying the [mind of the] flesh in askesis... Normally, these are holy and monastic Church Fathers...

All the other differences in doctrine between Orthodox and Protestants flow from this one fundamental difference. This difference is one of epistemology - ie, how does one determine correct doctrine? For the Protestant, the Bible is ultimately the sole source of all doctrine. For the Orthodox, the Church and its Holy Tradition the source of all doctrine. Of course, Holy Scripture holds the most important place within the Holy Tradition, but it is not the only source of doctrine. And interestingly enough (for Protestants), the Bible itself never makes the claim that it is the sole source of doctrine.

The epistemology of faith is not the epistemology of either 'pure reason', or of intellect, but is instead the purification of the heart in repentance and the instruction of the Apostolic Church - For this is the 'great commission' given to the apostles, to be discipling all the ethnicities, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The 'epistemology' of faith is the reception of the faith from the Apostolic Church... And even then, one does not know anything epistemologically, unless one overcomes oneself in self-denial, having taken up one's cross, for this is Christ's great command to anyone who is willing to be His follower, that he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Him... And THEN, those who are overcoming, are made PILLARS of the Church, of the Body of Christ, and thereby are pillars of the pillar and ground of truth, the Church, the Ekklesia - Only at that point, has the epistemological ground of faith been established in one so as to know the truth, for at that point, they have become pillars of the truth, bearing the gospel written in the very flesh of their hearts, and seeing God Who fills all in all... For "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God"...[Christ] And "We hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience [eg a purified heart]"... [Paul]

It is my firm belief that the Orthodox approach to epistemology is the much more sound of the two. Protestantism, with its emphasis on the authority of the Bible, does not account for how it is that the Bible received that authority in the first place. And the more that Protestantism takes context into account, the closer the "context" is to Tradition, and the closer their interpretation to the Orthodox one.

The Orthodox have been discipling the nations for 2000 years now, and counting... The 'working out' of the words of the faith are pretty well attended to and complete... And the faith is not the words, but the words point toward the faith - Even the Creed is but the "Symbol" of the faith... For as Paul says, it is the *Mystery* of the faith that is held by the mature in Christ in a pure conscience... The Orthodox "epistemological approach" is discipleship unto baptism unto apostleship, for purification of the heart is followed by illumination of the nous [mind] unto a knowing intellect, which is followed by divinization of the person [sainthood], or theosis...

And self-denial is the key, and the key to this is askesis, obedience, and their mother, humility, meekness and lowliness of soul... All key elements to the living of a repentant life, turned repentant step by repentant step from the concerns of the world, and progressively more and more solely turned unto God alone in love, fear of the Lord, and prayer...

Iin Orthodoxy, faith is not merely (or not even principally) an intellectual pursuit and something you do on Sundays, but it is an entire way of life. Most Protestant denominations (especially the more mainline, traditional ones) will at least pay lip service to this ideal, but I don't think any of them quite reach the lofty standard set by the Orthodox.

Well, in Orthodoxy, there is a strong root, found also in Paul, that sees the acquisition of the faith in as few words as possible as a really good thing... And in most Protestantism, it is the words of faith that define doctrine that determines what one believes that determines one's faith, so the words, and especially those of the Bible, are the starting point of knowledge... In Orthodoxy, it is the turning away from the world and unto God by discipleship and baptism into the Apostolic Church that is the important thing... Sorting out all the possible interpetations of formulaics of doctrinal words is NOT a practice of faith - And yet in the Protestant millieu of the US at least, one finds oneself having to 'locate oneself' along the great meridians of possible doctrines, and is accountable to God for one's verbal understanding of ones "position" among all the possible "positions"... Such a practice is neither Orthodox nor Biblical... Yet it pervasively permeates the American Protestant scene... The first thing a Protestant does is to say "Well, what I believe is..." And the first thing the Orthodox does is to say "The Church teaches..."

Two different ways, you see, for the Orthodox change themselves to the Church, and this is not the way of the Protestant, who defines his faith in OPPOSITION [historically] to the apostatic Roman] Church... We believe IN the Church, for to do so is to believe in Christ, for the Church is the body of Christ, His Bride...

Lutherans and Orthodox have a lot in common.

Yup...

Who knows - if the Lutherans and Anglicans manage to unite with the Orthodox, then perhaps Rome will have to rethink its claims to supremacy, swallow its pride, and come back into the fold. Let us all pray for that day to come because if Christianity were to heal its biggest schism, it would form a power far greater than the sum of its parts!

For Lutherans as a Church to unite with Orthodoxy they would have to submit in obedience to and come under the homophoron of an existing Orthodox bishop... And from what I have seen, they are still too interested in "correcting" the historic Apostolic Church by their 'well reasoned' and 'theological' opinions...

I disagree with you (and Tercel does too) that the demand to have everything proven intellecutally and logically is an anti-Orthodox sentiment.

You will find Orthodox agreeing with you as well, just not this one...

Orthodoxy has nothing to fear from honest intellectual and logical inquiry.

Absolutely nothing, for the faith is logical, yet Mystery... And how on earth do you propose to PROVE a Mystery? The Faith is entered, not proven... When the two disciples of John assked Christ where He abided, he did not lay out a proof from the Bible, but simply said "Come... And see/know.." [The Greek means "apprehend with the nous", and it is the nous that directs the intellect] The faith cannot be proven to the carnal mind...

Many of the great fathers of the church were extremely intellectual and logical people - people like Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr, whose works I hold in very high esteem. Indeed, honest intellectual and logical inquiry has led many Protestants to Orthodoxy - Tercel, tizzidale, myself, and countless others. After all, the divine Logos Himself is the source of all logic and reason, and therefore reason and logic is something to be embraced and not scorned. After all, faith is not meant to be blind - it is supposed to be supported by logic and reason.

It is defended by logic and reason, but supported? If you approach Orthodoxy because you are but logically persuaded of its propositionally proven deductions, you will walk an interesting path!!

We shouldn't be drawn to Orthodoxy just because the Orthodox claim that we should be - we should be drawn to Orthodoxy because their claims stand up better under scrutiny than anyone else's.

You will be drawn to Orthodoxy because you are called to be drawn, and that calling can take many forms, even intellective ones, but what most find is that once they figure out, by hook or by crook, that Orthodoxy is THE Church, and begin the discipling process, the understanding with words comes pretty easily into focus, and is so due to the process of discipling, which is the epistemology of the Christian faith...

To be fair, I often see ... lack of humility in the Orthodox Church...

Me too - Yet I see it more repented there than anywhere...

In their efforts to safeguard the true faith (a noble and worthy objective), they sometimes throw out the baby with the bathwater - neglecting to acknowledge the kernel of truth in their "opponent's understanding".

I have seen it both ways, and neither are all that efficacious...

I believe that the monophysite schism is an example of this - where a little bit more patience (on both sides of the argument) might have led to each side understanding the other, and schism being avoided in the first place.

The remarkable thing about this split is the fact that the verbal misunderstanding is virtually the ONLY thing separating the two, that their praxis and their doctrine of the faith has been preserved identically throughout over a thousand years of separation... Orthodoxy does not change!

I also see this lack of patience (again on both sides of the argument) in the very first Lutheran-Orthodox dialog - where with a little more patience and understanding the two parties might have better understood where the other was coming from. Though I do believe there were some differences at that time between the two parties, I also believe that the differences were exaggerated by the parties involved, through their lack of patience with each other. Each side was trying to prove themselves to the other, rather than seeking to understand the other.

The Orthodox patriarch was receiving the Lutherans into obedience under him, and the Lutherans were there to argue their case, change the patriarch's mind, and gain another weapon against Rome... That encounter ended where it belonged... A very missed opportunity... The Orthodox do not change the faith, nor do they change the understanding of the faith - He took the Lutherans to the councils, and they were not willing to bring themselves and their Church under that kind of obedience...

Nor is the Pope willing to subject himself to those councils...

Enough!

geo-Arsenios

Maxentius

April 2nd 2004, 09:45 PM

#42 and 43 are ... interesting. I'd need some clarification on those.

Michael

OK, I'll bite. :hehe:

What do you find unclear?

From a Lutheran perspective we do good works because the Holy Spirit infuses our actions. We do good because God works in us to will and to do. Without God we cannot do anything good at all. By "good" I mean an action pleasing to God. Those outside of Christ cannot please God.

Now regarding my understanding of the Orthodox position, because they never really had a Pelagian controversy they never had to deal with the question "what do we do to become Christians?" They center on "theosis", or deification wheras the western churches emphasize justification and sanctification. Theosis is similar to my point above that the Holy Spirit infuses our actions when we are Christians. IOW, we behave more and more like Jesus Christ, but we do not share in God's divine essence, e.g. omnipotence, omnicience etc.

Regarding Orthodox and "generic" Protestant dialogue, I think there is a wide gulf because many Protestant churches almost assume that if Rome does or did it, it must be wrong. This leads to some interesting contradictions though. One of my friends asserted that in his church they change what they do periodically so as not to have any traditions. "Well," I said, "THAT is a tradition!" In the Lutheran church we do not reject traditions out of hand but they do not have the authority that they do in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. We are not allowed to bind conciences to traditions unless we have warrent from Scripture. We do believe that traditions are very useful though.

This is a potential problem, in my view, in the Orthodox approach to tradition. It is assumed that the tradition is correct, but we know from history that the tradition itself can become corrupt (e.g. the Roman church around the time of the Reformation.) This is a major reason I prefer the principle of Sola Scriptura as formulated by the Majesterial reformers.

themuzicman

April 2nd 2004, 10:14 PM

elysian

April 2nd 2004, 10:26 PM

themuzicman

April 2nd 2004, 10:35 PM

That's fine, but Romans 12:1-2 isn't speaking of how we are saved, but what we should do now that we ARE saved.

Michael

Maxentius

April 2nd 2004, 10:37 PM

Well, that's an interesting interpretation, but to read the creed on the face, there is nothing about salvation by grace through faith, as clearly taught in the word, but seems to lean towards salvation through good works.

I see what you mean about the Holy Spirit working through us, but where is grace?

Michael

Grace COMES WITH the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit we can do nothing, we cannot be Christians, we cannot choose God, we cannot believe in the Trinity etc. (This is where the Pelagian controversy comes in.)For Luther, a Christian is someone who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, a non-christian does not. There are some similarities with theosis, as far as I understand it. :blush:

Also, the Creed sets out to interpret the doctrine of the Trinity, not the doctrine of grace. In the context of the Creed I believe that the good deed is to believe in the Trinity.

Interestingly, this question comes up on Trinity Sunday because of the apparent contradiction between salvation by grace and what looks like we work our salvation in some way.

George Blaisdell

April 2nd 2004, 11:07 PM

Grace is in the fact that we are transformed and conformed to God's will-
He is the One Who "gives us new hearts."

See Romans 12:1-2.

So here is an Orthodox question for this understanding, elysian... Is this transformation, this conformation, this renewal of the heart, is this just done by God in an arbitrary manner, from a human perspective? [On the premise that God "will have mercy on whom I will have mercy!"] Or does it happen in discipleship?

And the answer is, "In discipleship." For in it, we are instructed by Paul in this passage to DO WORKS, that we receive these mercies from God... We are to:

1: Present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God
2: Give our reasonable service [translating 1]
3: Be not conformed to this world
4: Be transformed by the renewing of our mind
5: Prove what is... the will of God

These are matters of discipling, and discipleship is what we DO...

Everything we DO is a work, and the only question we should have is: "Whom does this doing serve?" It either serves Christ, or not, and if not, we are doing the works of sin...

That is why discipling is the great commission of the apostles...

geo-Arsenios

Jezz

April 2nd 2004, 11:07 PM

We are to look to the example of the saints, especially to the lives of those who have had similar vocations to our own. We are learn from their examples, we are to thank God for their example and faithful witness, and to thank God for His work through them. We can, and do even pray with the saints. When we worship we join in prayer and praise with the saints! The abuses Luther speaks of are well known- worshipping the saints or praying to the saints are specifically forbidden (Deuteronomy 18:9-13) as we are not permitted to contact the dead, and we are also taught that we have one Mediator between God and man, in Jesus (1 Timothy 2:1-6)

We are permitted and encouraged to indulge in intercessory prayer- praying to God for others.
This is one example where Luther and the Reformers just plain got it wrong. They misinterpreted scripture.

Elysian, you seem to believe that we are allowed to pray to God for others. I agree with you. It is probable, I think, that you also see nothing wrong with asking your Christian brothers and sisters to engage in intercessory prayer on your behalf - especially those who you think are more in tune with God (eg, your pastor). Indeed, in my Lutheran church, the pastor encourages people to give him their prayer requests, so that the congregation can all pray for them on their behalf. None of this is "mediation" in the same sense that Jesus was mediator between God and man - thus, this action of intercessory prayer and requesting intercessory prayer from others does not violate 1 Timothy 2:1-6. Similarly, the 1 Timothy passage carries no weight against the Orthodox and Catholic practice of requesting intercession from the saints.

So that leaves Deuteronomy passage:

9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
Note that this passage is specifically against divination and consulting the dead - ie, contacting the dead, and expecting them to respond to you. Divination is a practice of contacting the spirits of the dead in order to (eg) see the future. So again, this passage does not apply to the Orthodox and RCC practice of asking the saints for intercession.

But let us suppose, for a minute, that the above is an absolute black ban on all types of talking to the dead - including asking them for intercession. It still does not work as a ban against the Orthodox and RCC practice of asking the saints for intercession! Why? Because the saints are not dead, but alive in Christ!

34Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."
(Emphasis added; see also parallels at Matthew 22:31-32 and Mark 12:26-27)

The above passage is clear. Jesus is saying that those who have become children of God (and the saints definitely fall into this category!) are children of the resurrection, and thus they are considered "alive" by God. If God considers them alive, then why can't we? And if the saints are still alive, then using prohibitions about contacting the dead (like the Deuteronomy) are completely irrelevant to the practice. God is God of the living.

You undoubtedly have no problem asking your fellow Christians for intercession - so why do you have a problem with asking the saints (who are also still alive, and your fellow Christians) for intercession as well?

We do not believe Mary was sinless (she needed a Savior as much as the rest of us) nor to we believe she was assumed into heaven. We do not believe that Mary was a "perpetual virgin," as Scripture clearly states that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters, and that Mary and Joseph lived as a "normal" man and wife after Jesus' birth (Matthew 1:25.)
The term "brother" also means "cousin". Because it is never mentioned that Jesus and his "brothers" had the same parent, it is not clear from the text that they had the same parents. Celibacy was common in those days for those whose lives were dedicated to God, which makes Mary's perpetual virginity seem historically plausible. Add to this the fact that (to my knowledge) noone thought that Mary had other children until the Reformation - I find it odd that this fact would be hidden from Christianity for 1500 years. I find it more likely that the Reformers were in error here.

The bodily assumption of Mary likewise does not contradict scripture anywhere, so the Reformers cannot even appeal to Scripture to dismiss that claim. On what basis, then, do they reject it? Answer: they have no firm epistemological basis for rejecting it. Their rejection of it is arbitrary.

I believe much of the unease regarding Mary among Protestants (including most Lutherans) is that we regard the RCC veneration of Mary almost as idolatry. I do believe that the "co-Redemptrix" movement within the RCC is certainly over the line. In holding Mary up, we run the risk of losing our focus on Christ. But Protestants should not back down from being thankful for Mary, and we understand that she was given a very important place in God's salvation story.
I don't see that holding Mary up runs the risk of losing the focus on Christ necessarily - I mean, if it weren't for Christ and the role she had in bringing Him into the world, Mary would not even be remembered in history.

I've skipped your comments about "cheap grace", because I believe that's not an area where Lutherans and Orthodox differ significantly. Besides, I think I'll cover that in my response to George.

themuzicman

April 2nd 2004, 11:25 PM

Grace COMES WITH the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit we can do nothing, we cannot be Christians, we cannot choose God, we cannot believe in the Trinity etc. (This is where the Pelagian controversy comes in.)For Luther, a Christian is someone who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, a non-christian does not. There are some similarities with theosis, as far as I understand it. :blush:

Also, the Creed sets out to interpret the doctrine of the Trinity, not the doctrine of grace. In the context of the Creed I believe that the good deed is to believe in the Trinity.

Interestingly, this question comes up on Trinity Sunday because of the apparent contradiction between salvation by grace and what looks like we work our salvation in some way.

Well, the Pelagians were on the opposite extreme in terms of understanding the human condition. THere is obviously room between the Calvinist (and apparantly EO) view of Depravity and the Pelagian. This view seems to border on the Manacheans.

I understand the doctrine of the trinity,a nd that's all fine, but why include 42 and 43, then?

Michael

Maxentius

April 2nd 2004, 11:44 PM

Well, the Pelagians were on the opposite extreme in terms of understanding the human condition. THere is obviously room between the Calvinist (and apparantly EO) view of Depravity and the Pelagian. This view seems to border on the Manacheans.

I understand the doctrine of the trinity,a nd that's all fine, but why include 42 and 43, then?

Michael

He who believes in the Doctrine of the trinity "does good." The Athanasian Creed is not dealing with what we might call "global goodness" here, just specifically with believing in the Trinity. It is a trinitarian creed.

Re: Manicheans. In what way does what I wrote border on Manechean doctrines? The Manicheans believed in two God's who were equally powerful, and it was our job to help the good god win the cosmic struggle. All I say is that we do not have, by nature, the ability to be godly, and that includes believing in Jesus Christ.

BTW, I am not TULIP man. :teeth:

Maxentius

April 3rd 2004, 12:10 AM

So here is an Orthodox question for this understanding, elysian... Is this transformation, this conformation, this renewal of the heart, is this just done by God in an arbitrary manner, from a human perspective? [On the premise that God "will have mercy on whom I will have mercy!"] Or does it happen in discipleship?

And the answer is, "In discipleship." For in it, we are instructed by Paul in this passage to DO WORKS, that we receive these mercies from God... We are to:

1: Present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God
2: Give our reasonable service [translating 1]
3: Be not conformed to this world
4: Be transformed by the renewing of our mind
5: Prove what is... the will of God

I agree that discipleship has tremendous benefits. I also believe if we do not show the fruits of faith, what you call discipleship, we do not really have any faith at all. There is no "cheap grace." The renewal is a process we call sanctification. It has some similarities to theosis, but I am not familiar enough with theosis to feel really confident in saying they are the same. Justification is indeed an act outside our will and due to God's will alone. In fact, left to ourselves we can never will to believe in God and trust in his promises. Anything else we do outside faith (i.e. without the holy Spirit) is sin, as St. Paul said.

Our discipleship is the work of the Holy Spirit through us, St. Paul again "Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to do."

I could turn the question around: By whose power can we ever do any of the things you mention above? Is within our natural capacity to present our bodies, give reasonable service, not conform to the world etc. or do we depend on the power of the Holy Spirit to accomplish those things? Are our good works due to God's grace or due to our own will apart from God's working in us?

These are matters of discipling, and discipleship is what we DO...

Everything we DO is a work, and the only question we should have is: "Whom does this doing serve?" It either serves Christ, or not, and if not, we are doing the works of sin...

That is why discipling is the great commission of the apostles...

geo-Arsenios

You say "We do" and I agree, but I cannot accept that we can do anything pure and godly without God first changing our nature through the Holy Spirit. St. Paul has some harsh things to say about the "natural man." We make disciples through the means God has given the church, the sacraments of baptism and holy communion and the preaching of the Gospel. Until we are reborn in Jesus Christ we cannot ever be disciples.

Jawa Man

April 3rd 2004, 02:10 AM

George, it is funny how using just the Bible we get screwy ideas. At my church, we're told that once God forgives you the first time, you are completely forgiven. But this contradicts the internal-beat-up session I get from God when I sin and don't repent. I wonder, why would God, who thinks "Your sin is no biggy, you're forgiven," give me a butt-whoopin'?

Sometimes, even when I think I've got something pinned down logically, God ends up showing me my wisdom is worthless.

This at least leads me to believe the Orthodox are more correct in many ways than Protestants are.

I dare you to convert me!

jason

April 3rd 2004, 09:02 AM

Well, seeing as how this thread was started with me in mind, it's probably about time I said something in it.I guess I should finally respond to.

For the Protestant, the Bible is ultimately the sole source of all doctrine. For the Orthodox, the Church and its Holy Tradition the source of all doctrine. Of course, Holy Scripture holds the most important place within the Holy Tradition, but it is not the only source of doctrine. And interestingly enough (for Protestants), the Bible itself never makes the claim that it is the sole source of doctrine.The problem is, what do you do if you have a conflict. The claim will be made that their is no conflict between the two, but the Papists claim that as well while teaching things that are obviously contradictory.

What do you do in the case of a conflict ? One must take precedence over another. Anything like "equality" between the two as the Papists teach will result in the elevations of the Doctrines of Men over the Word of God.

In fact, noting with your earlier sections, we have a case to test.

You said the EO and the Lutherans agree upon Baptism. I presume this means that both teach baptismal regeneration ? It appears to run counter to scripture (Acts 10). How do you adjudicate ?

Protestantism, with its emphasis on the authority of the Bible, does not account for how it is that the Bible received that authority in the first place.Sure it does. It takes it as axiomatic that it is authorative because it is the revealed word of God. Direct revelation trumps the "vain speculations of men" any day of the week.

And the more that Protestantism takes context into account, the closer the "context" is to Tradition, and the closer their interpretation to the Orthodox one.Context in reading the Bible is always essential.

This is another major difference between Protestantism and Orthodoxy - in Orthodoxy, faith is not merely (or not even principally) an intellectual pursuit and something you do on Sundays, but it is an entire way of life. Most Protestant denominations (especially the more mainline, traditional ones) will at least pay lip service to this ideal, but I don't think any of them quite reach the lofty standard set by the Orthodox.I think that is a really unfair generalization. It is true that protestant pew warmers exist, but the same is true of the RCC and I would wager money it is true of the EO church as well because unless you get killed for being a christian their will always be those who do it as an empty ritual and formality.

Who knows - if the Lutherans and Anglicans manage to unite with the Orthodox, then perhaps Rome will have to rethink its claims to supremacy, swallow its pride, and come back into the fold. Let us all pray for that day to come because if Christianity were to heal its biggest schism, it would form a power far greater than the sum of its parts!Perhaps, but the Papists are unlikely to drop the most corrupt aberations that they hold as "truth" (Papal Infallibility anyone ? ).

I think that the problem with Protestantism is not its demand for intellectual and logical soundness per se - rather, that it lacks a key ingredient when it tries to apply its intellect and reason: humility.Again I think this is an unfair generalisation. May I suggest you actually go and look at the works of the Puritans. They were incredibly intelligent and incredibly humble and spiritual men.

I believe that the main problem with Protestant intellectualism is not the intellectualism itself, but the lack of humility that often accompanies it, and the dishonest reasoning that it can lead to.This will be true of any intellectual pursuit persued wrongly. But look at the puritans for examples of men that do it properly. Others as well, but I am reading some of their stuff of late and it really comes through.

I think the problem is that we concentrate on what divides us and ignore what unites us. And then as you note, terminology gets in the way.

After all, we all agree on the Deity of Christ, The Trinity, The Incarnation and The necessity of faith in Christ. No doubt everybody agrees with the 3 creeds I mentioned above (if not get out of my thread !).

I think on the whole we disagree over side issues.

And terminology gets in the way as well. I noticed somebody commented that Protestant ideas of salvation vs EO ideas are different. One is a process the other is instant.

But this seems much more like a confusion between the ideas of justification & sanctification rather than an actual disagreement.

I've also heard tercel claim the EO church is synergistic in their theology of salvation, whereas most protestants (well the good ones IMO :wink: ) are strict monergists. But again, I suspect the problem is another one of those semantic questions rather than an actual disagreement.

Both churches have their strengths and weaknesses and both bring these strengths to the table when they discuss things. If only the other side can be made to see the strengths and not just the weakenesses in the brother across the table.

Jason

But let us suppose, for a minute, that the above is an absolute black ban on all types of talking to the dead - including asking them for intercession. It still does not work as a ban against the Orthodox and RCC practice of asking the saints for intercession! Why? Because the saints are not dead, but alive in Christ!
I don't get this practice. Seriously. It makes no sense at all to me.

If I may be a little crass, what would you waste time talking to lackeys when you can talk direct to the boss ?

It isn't like an omniscient God can't listen to everyone at once. He doesn't need "prayer waiting".

Celibacy was common in those days for those whose lives were dedicated to God, which makes Mary's perpetual virginity seem historically plausible. Add to this the fact that (to my knowledge) noone thought that Mary had other children until the Reformation - I find it odd that this fact would be hidden from Christianity for 1500 years. I find it more likely that the Reformers were in error here.
Easy test for this. What is the earliest mention of this idea. It is not found in scripture that mary was perpetually a virgin so it comes from tradition. But if the tradition does not turn up for say the 5th century it is not reasonable to claim it was a protestant "invention".

The bodily assumption of Mary likewise does not contradict scripture anywhere, so the Reformers cannot even appeal to Scripture to dismiss that claim. On what basis, then, do they reject it? Answer: they have no firm epistemological basis for rejecting it. Their rejection of it is arbitrary.How about it not having any warrant in scripture at all ?

It is not an arbitrary rejection at all. It fails the Sola Scriptura test.

Jason

jason

April 3rd 2004, 09:08 AM

But let us suppose, for a minute, that the above is an absolute black ban on all types of talking to the dead - including asking them for intercession. It still does not work as a ban against the Orthodox and RCC practice of asking the saints for intercession! Why? Because the saints are not dead, but alive in Christ!
I don't get this practice. Seriously. It makes no sense at all to me.

If I may be a little crass, what would you waste time talking to lackeys when you can talk direct to the boss ?

It isn't like an omniscient God can't listen to everyone at once. He doesn't need "prayer waiting".

Celibacy was common in those days for those whose lives were dedicated to God, which makes Mary's perpetual virginity seem historically plausible. Add to this the fact that (to my knowledge) noone thought that Mary had other children until the Reformation - I find it odd that this fact would be hidden from Christianity for 1500 years. I find it more likely that the Reformers were in error here.
Easy test for this. What is the earliest mention of this idea. It is not found in scripture that mary was perpetually a virgin so it comes from tradition. But if the tradition does not turn up for say the 5th century it is not reasonable to claim it was a protestant "invention".

The bodily assumption of Mary likewise does not contradict scripture anywhere, so the Reformers cannot even appeal to Scripture to dismiss that claim. On what basis, then, do they reject it? Answer: they have no firm epistemological basis for rejecting it. Their rejection of it is arbitrary.How about it not having any warrant in scripture at all ?

It is not an arbitrary rejection at all. It fails the Sola Scriptura test.

Jason

Please do not make back-to-back posts in response to the same poster, Jason. I have combined the contents of this post with the previous one.

jason

April 3rd 2004, 09:17 AM

Lutherans seem to believe, if my friend is correct, that there is absolutely nothing one can do for their salvation, and that all the things that one does are a CONSEQUENCE of their ALREADY having been saved... That to think that anything one does has any merit whatsoever is to believe in the scorned and anathematic "works-righteousness"... And that IF one is 'saved', then the works will flow forth from God alone... etc etc...

So that a saved person will naturally and irresistably forgive those who trespass against him or her, and an unsaved person will not, and that it is all of God, and nothing of man. So that on this understanding, IF a person feels, saay, resentment toward someone who wrongs him, then this is evidence and even proof of one's lack of being saved, and there is nothing to do for it... Yet for the Orthodox, if I find myself "resenting that jerk", I have to grab that thought, arrest it, confess it, ask God's forgiveness of it, repent of it, and actually DO something about it, so that God will forgive ME my trespasses against Him, for all sin is trespass against God... And we both knowingly and unknowingly sin...George this is a really anemic and erroenous understanding of Protestant theology in this regard.

It would do you well to understand it before you blindly attack a strawman.

Jason

themuzicman

April 3rd 2004, 11:47 AM

He who believes in the Doctrine of the trinity "does good." The Athanasian Creed is not dealing with what we might call "global goodness" here, just specifically with believing in the Trinity. It is a trinitarian creed.

But 43 says that those who do good will go on to life everlasting. Where is atonement? Grace? Faith? Justification? All the things that are the foundation of salvation in scripture?

It would seem that theosis is the EO way of integrating works as a condition of salvation.

Michael

elysian

April 3rd 2004, 11:52 AM

So here is an Orthodox question for this understanding, elysian... Is this transformation, this conformation, this renewal of the heart, is this just done by God in an arbitrary manner, from a human perspective? [On the premise that God "will have mercy on whom I will have mercy!"] Or does it happen in discipleship?

And the answer is, "In discipleship." For in it, we are instructed by Paul in this passage to DO WORKS, that we receive these mercies from God... We are to:

1: Present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God
2: Give our reasonable service [translating 1]
3: Be not conformed to this world
4: Be transformed by the renewing of our mind
5: Prove what is... the will of God

These are matters of discipling, and discipleship is what we DO...

Everything we DO is a work, and the only question we should have is: "Whom does this doing serve?" It either serves Christ, or not, and if not, we are doing the works of sin...

That is why discipling is the great commission of the apostles...

geo-Arsenios

:thumb:
In all things we should strive to glorify God. We can do these things because God gives us the clean heart and right spirit (see Psalm 51) to do so.

Yes we should cultivate discipline- but we cannot even do that unless we are empowered by the Holy Spirit. He gives us the desire, the passion, the fire to do His work, to glorify Him in all things and to grow in faith and grace: to truly be His disciples- and to "remain in the Vine." (John 15:4-8) We can't do this on our own steam, but only by the grace and power of God.

A tree is known by its fruit!

"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit." Matthew 12:33 (NIV)

Only the Holy Spirit can "make us good trees" and give us the heart and will to bring forth good fruit. This means that we take up our Cross daily, to serve God and to bring glory to Him.

George Blaisdell

April 3rd 2004, 12:10 PM

Jason wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Blaisdell
Lutherans seem to believe, if my friend is correct, that there is absolutely nothing one can do for their salvation, and that all the things that one does are a CONSEQUENCE of their ALREADY having been saved... That to think that anything one does has any merit whatsoever is to believe in the scorned and anathematic "works-righteousness"... And that IF one is 'saved', then the works will flow forth from God alone... etc etc...

So that a saved person will naturally and irresistably forgive those who trespass against him or her, and an unsaved person will not, and that it is all of God, and nothing of man. So that on this understanding, IF a person feels, saay, resentment toward someone who wrongs him, then this is evidence and even proof of one's lack of being saved, and there is nothing to do for it... Yet for the Orthodox, if I find myself "resenting that jerk", I have to grab that thought, arrest it, confess it, ask God's forgiveness of it, repent of it, and actually DO something about it, so that God will forgive ME my trespasses against Him, for all sin is trespass against God... And we both knowingly and unknowingly sin...

George this is a really anemic and erroenous understanding of Protestant theology in this regard.

It would do you well to understand it before you blindly attack a strawman.

I think it's pretty anemic too - Yet it seems to be a necessary consequence of total depravity theology.

It came up on the issue of works in the Lord's Prayer, where the argument was that what Christ really meant when He taught us to pray "And forgive us our sins as we are forgiving all our debtors" was that because we are already saved, we naturally forgive others, and this is evidence that we are the elect who are saved, and our already saved good works are flowing from our salvation in our now generous and forgiving hearts... And that we cannot judge our brother, because he cannot help himself from being unforgiving, because he has not been regenerated and saved by God, and so he MUST be unforgiving...

And the simple fact is, that we will sometimes feel judgemental, and that when we do, this feeling, which comes from our hearts, is not evidence of lack of regeneration, but is a part of the strengthening race into which we are entered as Christians, wherein we struggle with and overcome, all with God's synergistic help, our own worldly and fleshy ways...

Sorry for the straw-man portrayal, Jason - I was writing in a previous context of reporting a conversation on another board, and forgot that someone might be reading this message first...

Would you forgive the old sinner Arsenios?

geo

Maxentius

April 3rd 2004, 12:16 PM

But 43 says that those who do good will go on to life everlasting. Where is atonement? Grace? Faith? Justification? All the things that are the foundation of salvation in scripture?

It would seem that theosis is the EO way of integrating works as a condition of salvation.

Michael

As I said, the creed is dealing with the Trinity. It is designed to explain the orthodox (note small 'o' ) understanding.

Here are the first three parts of the creed:

ATHANASIAN CREED

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

According to the introduction, the catholic faith is to believe in the Trinity. The creed is only authoritative as far as its intended purpose, and here its intended meaning is to describe the Trinity. That is why in context I believe "do good" means believe in the Trinity.

Good questions though. :wink:

Regarding works, works are necessary for salvation because if we do not do good works we do not have faith, as per St. James. So as a Lutheran works are integrated into my salvation, but I can only do good works because I already have faith. As the Orthodox might say, I participate in God's divine energy. This why I think in some ways theosis combines justification and sanctification. But since theosis is a major, if not the major, part of the Orthodox tradition I like to tread lightly whenI discuss it.

themuzicman

April 3rd 2004, 12:26 PM

Well.... If we study James 2 carefully, we find that he isn't talking about salvation per se, but is challenging his readers to act in response to their faith. He's not integrating works as a condition of salvation.

Furthermore, believing isn't works. It should result in a change in our actions, but the belief itself does not earn anything.

Finally, you cannot just combine justification and sanctification. Yes, they are both elements of salvation, but justification is complete. There is nothing more to be done for justification. Sanctification is a lifelong process that is completed when we our salvation is finalized.

IMHO, this is the major problem with the EO and the RCC: they have reintegrated works as a condition of salvation.

Michael

elysian

April 3rd 2004, 12:49 PM

Well.... If we study James 2 carefully, we find that he isn't talking about salvation per se, but is challenging his readers to act in response to their faith. He's not integrating works as a condition of salvation.

Furthermore, believing isn't works. It should result in a change in our actions, but the belief itself does not earn anything.

Finally, you cannot just combine justification and sanctification. Yes, they are both elements of salvation, but justification is complete. There is nothing more to be done for justification. Sanctification is a lifelong process that is completed when we our salvation is finalized.

IMHO, this is the major problem with the EO and the RCC: they have reintegrated works as a condition of salvation.

Michael

Luther had problems with the Book of James because in his time one of the major errors of the RCC was the teaching of indulgences, i.e. you can earn brownie points and "buy your way to heaven" with indulgences. Luther did not want any confusion: we are saved by God's grace alone, and even coming to faith in God is a work of the Holy Spirit- no one can come to faith unless the Father draws him (John 6:44.) James teaches (correctly) that good works are the result and the proof of saving faith. If you aren't doing good works you don't have saving faith, you're just talking the talk without walking the walk.

"You will know them by their fruits!" :smile:

themuzicman

April 3rd 2004, 04:44 PM

However, we are not judged based on our works, but on the justification that comes through the atonement provided by Christ on the cross. This is in direct conflict with the creed.

Michael

Maxentius

April 3rd 2004, 06:04 PM

Well.... If we study James 2 carefully, we find that he isn't talking about salvation per se, but is challenging his readers to act in response to their faith. He's not integrating works as a condition of salvation.

Hmmm. Faith without works is dead, i.e. it is not faith--and so if I do not have good works I am not really a child of God. Good works are necessary but they do not cause our salvation. The question is, do my works make me more justified? I would answer no. As you said, we are freely justified by grace. Are the works mine? Yes they are. Just as before I was justified I willed evil, now that I am justified I can will good. It is through the Holy Spirit of course but it is still my will to do this thing or that thing. I think this is where theosis comes in. In theosis we learn through discipline to be more and more godly. You see, because Pelagius was a western monk and the controversy was keener in the west we had to formulate exactly how much and in what way we participate we participate in our own salvation. The answer in the west was basically not at all. It is God who saves through his own acts in history.

Furthermore, believing isn't works. It should result in a change in our actions, but the belief itself does not earn anything.

I agree, our belief does not cause God to be a debtor to us because he has to allow us into his kingdom. This is a question for the Orthodox here. I would really like an answer. Do we by nature have the ability to please God with our acts or must God do something beforehand?

Finally, you cannot just combine justification and sanctification. Yes, they are both elements of salvation, but justification is complete. There is nothing more to be done for justification. Sanctification is a lifelong process that is completed when we our salvation is finalized.

OK, suppose I said "God saved me, and I become more and more godly every day through his grace." Would you consider such a statement orthodox as it stands? I would. In a nutshell I think that is the Orthodox view of salvation. They just never asked the questions regarding justification because they never really came up for them.

Also, if our salvation is not finalized untill we are completely sanctified, that is not the orthodox Protestand tview, we are saved when we are justified. :uhoh:

IMHO, this is the major problem with the EO and the RCC: they have reintegrated works as a condition of salvation.

Michael

I agree regarding the RCC, but I would like an informed Orthodox to answer my question above before I decide. :innocent:

themuzicman

April 3rd 2004, 06:15 PM

Hmmm. Faith without works is dead, i.e. it is not faith--and so if I do not have good works I am not really a child of God. Good works are necessary but they do not cause our salvation.

Nor are they the basis upon which we are judged.

OK, suppose I said "God saved me, and I become more and more godly every day through his grace." Would you consider such a statement orthodox as it stands? I would. In a nutshell I think that is the Orthodox view of salvation. They just never asked the questions regarding justification because they never really came up for them.

I would agree with that as it is, but I wouldn't make that the basis for judgment to eternal life/death.

Also, if our salvation is not finalized untill we are completely sanctified, that is not the orthodox Protestand tview, we are saved when we are justified. :uhoh:

The protestant view is that we are justified because of Christ's sacrifice, and is ours when we receive grace. We are being sanctified through the Holy Spirit as we live here on earth, and our salvation is complete when we are judged and receive our incorruptible bodies. However, nowhere are we judged by our works.

Michael

jason

April 3rd 2004, 06:16 PM

I think it's pretty anemic too - Yet it seems to be a necessary consequence of total depravity theology.Not at all.

It came up on the issue of works in the Lord's Prayer, where the argument was that what Christ really meant when He taught us to pray "And forgive us our sins as we are forgiving all our debtors" was that because we are already saved, we naturally forgive others, and this is evidence that we are the elect who are saved, and our already saved good works are flowing from our salvation in our now generous and forgiving hearts... And that we cannot judge our brother, because he cannot help himself from being unforgiving, because he has not been regenerated and saved by God, and so he MUST be unforgiving...That is a very whacky understanding of Total Depravity. Although a typical misunderstanding.

And the simple fact is, that we will sometimes feel judgemental, and that when we do, this feeling, which comes from our hearts, is not evidence of lack of regeneration, but is a part of the strengthening race into which we are entered as Christians, wherein we struggle with and overcome, all with God's synergistic help, our own worldly and fleshy ways...Yes exactly. But this is perfectly compatible with Augustinian or Calvinist Theology.

There is a difference between the idea of justification and sanctification that seemed to be confused in your earlier point.

We are justified by God. Which is the setting apart and the election by God's soverign will, this is entirely monergistic. And we are then sancified by God, and this is a synergistic work that takes the rest of our lives. We are free from sin, but we still live in the world and do sin.

We actually agree here, it is just a question of terminology and some (assuming you were talking to protestants) typical ignornace.

Would you forgive the old sinner Arsenios?I will happily forgive you brother, but I am not sure their is anything that needs to be forgiven.

Jason

jason

April 3rd 2004, 06:29 PM

It would seem that theosis is the EO way of integrating works as a condition of salvation.I will think you'll find that the EO don't believe in salvation by works at all.

Just that their is a confusion between the EO idea and the protestant distinction between justification and sanctification. Or at least, such is my understanding.

Perhaps we need to sort this out, as it would appear that confused terminology is the problem and not a real difference in doctrine.

The EO never had a "Pelagiuan Controversy" so they never had the need to figure this out in detail like the west did.

If you look at the long history of the church, idea really get nailed down and hammered out when a heretic comes along and "tips over the apple cart".

So if no such heretic comes along then the idea is never hammered out because there is nobody running around teaching otherwise.

Their are scores of examples in church history.

Jason

themuzicman

April 3rd 2004, 06:32 PM

So, the EO hasn't hammered out it's soteriology? Great. :ahem:

Michael

Maxentius

April 3rd 2004, 06:35 PM

Yes exactly. But this is perfectly compatible with Augustinian or Calvinist Theology.

There is a difference between the idea of justification and sanctification that seemed to be confused in your earlier point.

Jason

Jason,

As a confirmed monergist I agree with your position above. In the Lutheran Church we are tought that we are at the same time justified and sinner. This means we continue to sin even after rebirth or regeneration. I always think of St. Ambrose of Milan who said "Because I am always sick, I am always liable to take the medecine."

George Blaisdell

April 3rd 2004, 06:36 PM

Well.... If we study James 2 carefully, we find that he isn't talking about salvation per se, but is challenging his readers to act in response to their faith. He's not integrating works as a condition of salvation.

James2:24 "You are seeing correctly now that out of works a man is being justified and not out of faith alone." [my very literal translation]

He is very clearly saying that works justify the man... I cannot imagine a clearer way to say this than the very words here used...

And as well, the PROCESS of justification by works is stressed, for the Greek is using the ongoing present tense... edikaiwqh...

Furthermore, believing isn't works. It should result in a change in our actions, but the belief itself does not earn anything.

You are right, believing is not works... Yet faith is the doing of what you believe - If you don't DO what you believe, then you are faithless...

Finally, you cannot just combine justification and sanctification. Yes, they are both elements of salvation, but justification is complete. There is nothing more to be done for justification. Sanctification is a lifelong process that is completed when we our salvation is finalized.

The James 2:24 quote above disagrees with this idea, for justification is itself a lifelong process that comes with works, for he says: "...out of works a man is being justified and not out of faith alone." So that even if you do not wish the ongoing present to translate edikaiwqh, you cannot argue that works are themselves ongoing, and are themselves DOING the justification...

IMHO, this is the major problem with the EO and the RCC: they have reintegrated works as a condition of salvation.

The historic and apostolic Church has integrated works with belief as a condition of salvation from the very beginnings, for belief + works = faith, and there is no salvation outside of faith. The demons believe, but do not DO what they believe, and they are not 'saved' because of their 'belief'... If we think we can be saved by belief alone, without the actual doing of what we believe, then we are advocating a theology of demons... A theology of the damned... If you don't walk the talk, you don't "get there"...

geo-Arsenios

jason

April 3rd 2004, 06:40 PM

The historic and apostolic Church has integrated works with belief as a condition of salvation from the very beginnings, for belief + works = faith, and there is no salvation outside of faith. The demons believe, but do not DO what they believe, and they are not 'saved' because of their 'belief'... If we think we can be saved by belief alone, without the actual doing of what we believe, then we are advocating a theology of demons... A theology of the damned... If you don't walk the talk, you don't "get there"...I think you guys are miscommunicating to some extent.

James is right, salvation without works is not salvation at all.

But Paul is right also, salvation is by grace through faith alone.

Why pit these two great apostles against one another ?

It is the very word of God we are talking about here, so it cannot be in conflict with itself.

The most likely culprit is our misunderstanding.

Jason

jason

April 3rd 2004, 06:45 PM

So, the EO hasn't hammered out it's soteriology? Great. :ahem:
Not quite what I meant. They do have a soteriology and it is probably well defined, it just hasn't had the same challenge such a thing had in the west, do you don't have it being refinied quite as carefully.

Its not a problem, it just means you need to keep these things in mind when talking to people different traditions.

Be careful with your use of terminology, and make sure you define it, because you'll end up arguing with each other while talking about unrelated things.

Justification and Sanctification are technical concepts that mean very specific things, and George has always been an EO (IIRC) and so may be giving different shades of meaning to the word because his tradition is very different.

Don't presume doctrinal error or heresy until you are sure a miscommunication is not first to blame. A lesson we could all perhaps learn a little better.

Jason

themuzicman

April 3rd 2004, 07:03 PM

James2:24 "You are seeing correctly now that out of works a man is being justified and not out of faith alone." [my very literal translation]

He is very clearly saying that works justify the man... I cannot imagine a clearer way to say this than the very words here used...

And as well, the PROCESS of justification by works is stressed, for the Greek is using the ongoing present tense... edikaiwqh...

The context in James 2 is not salvation. James is addressing Christians and how Christians should live, now that they believe.

Paul addresses justification directly in Romans:
Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

This more direct didactic teaching about justification clearly indicates that justification is past tense and completed for the believer.

You are right, believing is not works... Yet faith is the doing of what you believe - If you don't DO what you believe, then you are faithless...

However, our actions are not the basis for our judgement.

The James 2:24 quote above disagrees with this idea, for justification is itself a lifelong process that comes with works, for he says: "...out of works a man is being justified and not out of faith alone." So that even if you do not wish the ongoing present to translate edikaiwqh, you cannot argue that works are themselves ongoing, and are themselves DOING the justification...

The example is specifically of Abraham, and didn't refer to the works of his entire life, but a single event the result of his faith in being willing to kill his own son. So, even your interpretation doesn't fit the context.

The historic and apostolic Church has integrated works with belief as a condition of salvation from the very beginnings, for belief + works = faith, and there is no salvation outside of faith. The demons believe, but do not DO what they believe, and they are not 'saved' because of their 'belief'... If we think we can be saved by belief alone, without the actual doing of what we believe, then we are advocating a theology of demons... A theology of the damned... If you don't walk the talk, you don't "get there"...

geo-Arsenios

Your error is that the demons only believe in the existance of God. James' point is that we put our faith IN God for our salvation, and that we should act from that believe.

Furthremore, James never says that we will be judged in the end based upon our works, which is the error in this particular creed.

Michael

Jezz

April 4th 2004, 07:00 AM

The problem is, what do you do if you have a conflict. The claim will be made that their is no conflict between the two, but the Papists claim that as well while teaching things that are obviously contradictory.

What do you do in the case of a conflict ? One must take precedence over another. Anything like "equality" between the two as the Papists teach will result in the elevations of the Doctrines of Men over the Word of God.
Ok, I agree in principle that Scripture should be used to correct tradition - in the sense that no correct doctrine should be in contradiction with Scripture.

The problem is that there is no such thing as the pure (written) word of God - Scripture means nothing without interpretation. So it's never a matter of simply "correcting tradition using Scripture".

Realising that it's not so simple as using Scripture to correct tradition, how do you handle conflicting interpretations? Why, democratically, of course. An individual can err, but if you believe that the Holy Spirit guides the entire Church so that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it (as Jesus himself promised) then you believe that on the whole the Church must be infallible. So you determine this infallible teaching by taking the average position of all those in the Church (past and present). And in taking this average, you give greater heed to 1. those who were closer in time and culture to Jesus Himself (note: this reduces the importance of Augustine, who could not read Greek), and 2. those whom the Church has traditionally recognised as being great theologians. This "weighted average" is exactly that which constitues the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church.

In fact, noting with your earlier sections, we have a case to test.

You said the EO and the Lutherans agree upon Baptism. I presume this means that both teach baptismal regeneration ? It appears to run counter to scripture (Acts 10). How do you adjudicate ?
I don't see that it runs counter to scripture. At the close of Acts 10, it says:

47Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. ...
Note what Peter did not say: "These people do not need to be baptised, because they have already received the Holy Spirit." This verse does not contradict the teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation.

I think that the problem here is that the Protestants and Orthodox understand the meaning of the word "salvation" differently. Protestants see "salvation" as an instantaneous event - the instant in time at which a person "becomes saved". The Orthodox understand salvation as a process - one that continues throughout life, before and after baptism, and onward to the end of eternity.

Sure it does. It takes it as axiomatic that it is authorative because it is the revealed word of God. Direct revelation trumps the "vain speculations of men" any day of the week.
If Protestant faith in the authority of the Bible is axiomatic, then it is blind and therefore foolish. They are certainly in no position to criticise the Muslims, who take it as axiomatic that the Qu'ran is the revealed word of God, or the Mormons with the BoM. Neither are they in a position to criticise the (hypothetical) new sect that I set up, who take it as axiomatic that the collection of writings I gave them are the inspired word of God.

The reason we know that Scripture is the revealed word of God is because the Holy Tradition declared it to be so. If you don't trust these "traditions of men", as you call them, then you are undermining the very Tradition that gave you Scripture. Scripture can only be considered as authoritative as the Tradition which produced it. And the Tradition is authoritative because of the One who gave it to us.

Context in reading the Bible is always essential.
Yes. But have you infallibly inferred the context? :wink:

I think that is a really unfair generalization. It is true that protestant pew warmers exist, but the same is true of the RCC and I would wager money it is true of the EO church as well because unless you get killed for being a christian their will always be those who do it as an empty ritual and formality.
I don't disagree that there are pew warmers in all denominations. But what I really meant was that the goals that Orthodoxy sets for its members seem to be much higher than most Protestant denominations. I'm not interested in comparing those who fail to meet the standards set by their denomination - I'm more interested in comparing those who manage to live up to them in their fullness.

Perhaps, but the Papists are unlikely to drop the most corrupt aberations that they hold as "truth" (Papal Infallibility anyone ? ).
Maybe, but we can pray.

Again I think this is an unfair generalisation. May I suggest you actually go and look at the works of the Puritans. They were incredibly intelligent and incredibly humble and spiritual men.
Quite possibly, but there are certain forms of stupidity that one must be highly intelligent to commit. :wink:

I don't know much about the Puritans, but from what I do know they were operating in an era and a region where the works of the Greek Fathers and the Orthodox tradition had been lost. I can't fault them for their mistakes if they did not have access to the works of those who had preserved the tradition before them - no matter how smart they were. Modern day scholars have less excuse here (although due to bias in Western scholarship, it is still possible that many Western scholars are still quite ignorant of the Eastern position).

This will be true of any intellectual pursuit persued wrongly. But look at the puritans for examples of men that do it properly. Others as well, but I am reading some of their stuff of late and it really comes through.
See above. Bear in mind when you read it that much of the early Eastern works had been lost to them by that stage.

I think the problem is that we concentrate on what divides us and ignore what unites us. And then as you note, terminology gets in the way.

After all, we all agree on the Deity of Christ, The Trinity, The Incarnation and The necessity of faith in Christ. No doubt everybody agrees with the 3 creeds I mentioned above (if not get out of my thread !).

I think on the whole we disagree over side issues.
As I said, there is some truth it what you say. However, there is a good reason for why we focus on what divides us and ignore what unites us: If we want to be united again, there's no point dwelling on those points on which we agree! We need to focus on those areas where we disagree - in the hope that the disagreements can be resolved. I do not think it is an acceptable solution to simply ignore the disagreements. To do so would bring about a false unity.

However, I agree there is no sense in remaining in schism over side issues. The Orthodox would agree with this too. The only difference here is that the various denominations either side of the schisms disagree over what the side-issues are. If the differences between Orthodox and other denominations were only in "side-issues", in the opinion of the Orthodox, then they would start to restore communion with the other denominations.

And terminology gets in the way as well. I noticed somebody commented that Protestant ideas of salvation vs EO ideas are different. One is a process the other is instant.

But this seems much more like a confusion between the ideas of justification & sanctification rather than an actual disagreement.

I've also heard tercel claim the EO church is synergistic in their theology of salvation, whereas most protestants (well the good ones IMO :wink: ) are strict monergists. But again, I suspect the problem is another one of those semantic questions rather than an actual disagreement.
This is true. EO (and RCC, for that matter) see salvation as a process, whereas Protestants see it as an instant. This is a complicated topic that I don't want to get into here, but I do think (as you say) that a large amount of the disagreement here is one of semantics. Though depending on which particular view of salvation you subscribe to, there are some real differences. And as you quite rightly point out, one of the fundamental terminology differences here is that the Protestants see "salvation" as an instant in time, a singular act (which they dub "justification" - a term that, in my estimation, they have misappropriated) - whereas the Orthodox see salvation as a life-long (and afterlife long) process of deification. When you understand this difference in terminology, much (though in some cases not all) of the difference disappears. Particular, the argument over whether or not we are "saved by faith alone" or "saved by faith and works".

Both churches have their strengths and weaknesses and both bring these strengths to the table when they discuss things. If only the other side can be made to see the strengths and not just the weakenesses in the brother across the table.
As I said above, it's not that simple. I think that most sensible Protestant and Orthodox would recognise that there is far more that unites us than divides us. But ignoring the differences is not the way to bring about unity - any unity brought about in this way would be a false unity. In fact, it was the East and West ignoring their differences that led to their eventual schism, which although made official in 1054, in reality started happening much earlier than that.

For true unity, we must not allow our differences to go unaddressed. The key, though, is to focus on differences with a view to resolving them - not reinforcing them. I agree that all-too-often parties on both sides of the equations do the latter, not the former.

I don't get this practice [of intercessory prayer requests to the saints]. Seriously. It makes no sense at all to me.

If I may be a little crass, what would you waste time talking to lackeys when you can talk direct to the boss ?

It isn't like an omniscient God can't listen to everyone at once. He doesn't need "prayer waiting".
Jason, it seems to me that you have skipped over my main p