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

Rdr. Arsenios

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

TheAnalogman

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:

Rdr. Arsenios

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.

Rdr. Arsenios

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.

Rdr. Arsenios

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."

Rdr. Arsenios

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, 06:00 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 point. The point of my previous post was not to discuss the reasons for intercessory prayer, or its efficacy. My point was only to demonstrate that, contrary to what elysian (and the Lutheran reformers before her) said, it is not an un-Scriptural practice. In fact, like the Trinity, you can see the elements of this doctrine in Scripture, even though the doctrine is not explicitly stated:

1. We are told to request intercessory prayer from each other, and to offer intercessory prayer on behalf of each other.
2. We are told that God is the God of the living (ie, that those who have died in Christ are still alive).

Point 1 tells us that we are to offer prayer for everyone, and ask fellow Christians to pray for us. Point 2 tells us that our fellow Christians are still alive. Put them together, and you get the doctrine of prayer to the saints.

It seems to me that you have bypassed this issue, and instead of arguing that the practice is non-Scriptural, you have argued that it is non-sensical. Before I move on to address this new objection, do you think you could answer the previous question: ie, do you still think that it is un-Scriptural, and if so, why?

Now to address your charge of the practice being non-sensical. By way of comparison, let us consider how an atheist might object to the concept of prayer: "If I may be a little crass, why would you waste your time talking to an omniscient God who already knows what you're going to say?" Now, you've probably dealt with this objection before when handling atheists, and you've probably attributed it to a superficial understanding of the purpose and efficacy of prayer. Well, the Orthodox and RCC understand your objection to the practice of "prayer to the saints" to be the result of a similar superficial understanding of its purpose.

I'm not quite sure what the efficacy in prayer to the saints is (though I offer some speculation, see below). However, it is a fact that many, many Christians throughout the ages have considered it an important way of enriching their spiritual life and Christian walk. This is something not to be dismissed lightly. If I don't get it, then I need to strongly consider the possibility that the fault lies is me and not in the multitudes in history who did get it. Just like the fault lies with the atheist who does not understand the efficacy of prayer to an omniscient, foreknowing God.

As to what the efficacy in prayer to the saints is: I suspect that in praying to saints, we acknowledge both their example and the fact that they are still alive. In doing so, we reflect on the lofty goals that we are seeking, and we also acknowledge the fact of our own salvation (past, present and future).

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".
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. :smile:

What is the earliest mention of the contrary idea (ie, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin). It is not found in Scripture that Mary was not perpetual virgin, so it comes from tradition. But if the tradition does not turn up for say the 16th century it is not reasonable to claim it was an Orthodox "invention".

So:
Earliest explicit claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin: 5th century.
Earliest claim that she was not: 16th century.

Scripture is sufficiently ambiguous on this point to be inconclusive on its own and consistent with either interpretation. So which claim should carry more weight?

How about it not having any warrant in scripture at all ?
Are you saying that if it's not found in Scripture, it isn't true???

I believe that everything found in Scripture is true. But I do not believe that every true thing is found in Scripture. That the perpetual virginity of Mary is not found in Scripture does not make it untrue - unless it is explicitly contradicted by Scripture (which it is not).

It is not an arbitrary rejection at all. It fails the Sola Scriptura test.
Sola Scriptura itself (in the sense that you are using it here) fails the Sola Scriptura test, so I'd be careful how far you want to push this argument. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is the source of all true information about the history of the Church and its principal characters (eg, Mary) from the NT period.

Jezz

April 4th 2004, 09:50 AM

Hey, Jezz...
Hey, George...

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...
I disagree with your friend - as I said, I believe that the Lutheran Reformation is "unfinished business". They got some things right, but other things wrong. I believe that it is the EO that need to correct the Lutherans, and not the other way around.

But I think you're being a little unfair in saying that the Lutherans split off from the Catholic Church. Luther never had any intention of splitting from the RCC - his intention was always to reform the RCC. In fact, it was in fact the RCC who excommunicated him when he wouldn't submit to their authority. This bears a striking resemblance to the way that the Eastern patriarchs were all "excommunicated" from the RCC... What else could Luther have done? The EO wouldn't argue that Luther shouldn't have tried to reform the RCC, even if the consequences would have been excommunication?

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....
Yes, and it was because Luther and others noticed this doctrinal drift that the Reformation happened. Did the Reformation bring the Lutherans closer to or further from Orthodoxy than the RCC? In some ways further away, but in the most important way (papal supremacy) it was closer.

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...
Again, this is unfair. It is true that the Orthodox Church has traditionally not tried to explain the "how" of some aspect of the faith. However, when heresy arose, how did the Church sort out Orthodoxy from heresy? Using words, explanations! What was important under such circumstances is not the words (or lack thereof) that were used - what was important was that false doctrine was identified, as it contaminates the faith.

The reason the Orthodox have never tried to explain the "true presence" is because they never had to deal with a false version of the teaching. If the false doctrine of transubstantiation had arisen within the Orthodox Church, then would they have dealt with it any differently to how the Lutheran reformers did (ie, with words and formulae)? Would such words used to demarcate the heresy be considered "spurious"? Is the phrase "being homoousios with the Father" a spurious addition? No, as it was necessary to combat a heresy.

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...
Yes, you will note by my responses to Elysian and Jason that I agree with you on this, against them and the Lutheran reformers.

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 position you have described is actually closer to hyper-Calvinism than the Lutheran position. The Lutheran position says that a saved person can still sin, but as they are sanctified this tendency will diminish (much like the Orthodox view of theosis, I think).

The main difference that I see between the Lutheran and Orthodox positions is (as I have noted in other posts) that the Lutherans see salvation as an instant, whereas the Orthodox see it as a process. Once this difference in terminology is understood, many (though I think not quite all) of the differences in soteriology disappear.

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]...
Hmm, as I understand it there is currently an Orthodox Church in America, although the situation in the US is still a bit non-canonical because there are diocese in the US that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the OCA. But Orthodox churches throughout history have often had to tolerate periods of non-canonicity - eg, when the Russian Church was forced to make do without a patriarch, and had to use a synodal form of government. The situation in the US will change eventually.

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...
Well, I think to suggest that the saints have only just started arriving in the US is to devalue the good work done by many Orthodox immigrants of the past to the US.

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...
Yes, I agree.

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]
But the quest for "pure reason" and faith are not opposed as you are making out here, George. What is faith? Faith is striving for the "nous of Christ". Who was Christ? He was the Logos - the divine Reason, from which we get our modern English word "logic". Striving for pure reason is the same thing as trying to acquire the nous of Christ.

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...
But the meaning of words sometimes changes, George. People have a habit of doing that with their language, and this is what the Protestants have done. Thus, it is not enough for the Orthodox to be happy that they decided on their terminology 1300 years ago - they need to adapt their terminology so that it best lines up with the usage of their target audience. As Paul said, become all things to all people, so that by all means, we may win some. There's no point using well-defined Orthodox terminology to explain concepts to Protestants, when the Protestants understand those terms differently. They might as well be speaking another language.

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...
I agree that this is the fundamental difference between Protestantism and Orthodoxy. I feel that the Orthodox could do a better job of convincing Protestants that their position is superior, though.

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...
Yes. And I think the way that the Orthodox could achieve that is if, intead of simply saying "You are wrong, submit to the councils" they actually show that the Orthodox position is better reasoned than their own. Fight fire with fire, as it were.

As Paul said, become all things to all people, so that by all means we may win some. The culture of the Lutherans is that they are convinced by their own reasoning - then to win them, we should show them that the Orthodox reasoning is better. Much as Saul won the Jews at Damascus shortly after his conversion. (Acts 9:22 Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.)

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

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...
Yes, this relates to the above - apprehend what with the nous? Apprehend Christ. Who was Christ? He was the Logos made flesh - the divine Reason. Striving for pure reason is thus the same thing as trying to acquire the nous of Christ.

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!!
I don't believe that anything can be proven by pure deduction, and as such I believe that all reasoning requires faith - faith in the ability to reason. But as for inductive reasoning (the type of reasoning that requires faith) - I think it is persausive. If inductive reasoning leads me to Orthodoxy, I will not be following a new path - I will be following a path that many great saints before me have walked (eg: Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria).

According to Fr Thomas Hopko (from here (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Spirituality/Faith.html)):

Genuine faith is not a blind leap in the dark, an irrational and unreasonable acceptance of the unreasonable and the absurd. Genuine faith is eminently reasonable; it is rooted and grounded in man's reasonable nature as made in the image of God.

The leap to faith is not a blind one in the dark - it is a leap that is illuminated (ie, supported) by the light of the world - the divine Reason Himself.

Also (from here (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Spirituality/Knowledge.html)):

Faith and hope go together with knowledge. They are built on knowledge and lead to knowledge. For what is "not seen" is believed and hoped on the basis of what is seen. And the understanding of what is seen depends on belief and hope in what is not seen. One's belief and hope in the ability to know, to trust his senses, his mind and the revelation of his God, are the foundations of all knowledge.

Fr Hopko states quite explicitly that faith is built on knowledge, which is in turn built on one's belief in his ability to know, to trust his senses, his mind and the revelation of God. I trust (ie, have faith in) my mind and my senses and my ability know and the revelation of God - that allows me to build knowledge. And this knowledge brings me to faith.

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...
Yes, I agree. I believe that I have experienced exactly what you are talking about (even though I am not under the tutelage of a face-to-face Orthodox priest). All the anti-Catholic polemics that as a Lutheran I used to employ against (eg) the veneration of the saints seem so obviously flawed to me now, and I wonder why I never noticed it before. I thank God for giving me the eyes to see, and pray that He might help me to help others see as I do.

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!
Yes - this is one of the many things that convinced me that Orthodoxy is the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith. But note: here you are saying that the difference of wording is not crucial, so long as the same faith is described. Why can't the same principle be applied as above to the Eucharist?

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...
I agree that the Lutherans were certainly at fault and had to submit to the councils before they could be accepted back into the Orthodox fold. However, I do not believe that Jeremias was blameless in this missed opportunity - I believe significantly better progress could have been made toward this goal if Jeremias had made more of an effort to understand where the Lutherans were coming from, so that he could explain their errors to them on their own terms. In short, Jeremias did not "become a Lutheran, so that he might win the Lutherans".

This is what made the 2nd century apologists such as Justin and Clement such fine apologists - they had an excellent understanding of Hellenistic philosophy, but instead of simply saying that they were wrong and needed to submit to Christianity, they sought to highlight the similarities and take what was good in Hellenism and make it their own.

Nor is the Pope willing to subject himself to those councils...
Yes, the pope is definitely in error there. This is one thing that the Protestants and the Orthodox have in common. :thumb:

Enough!
No, it is not enough. This is where I disagree with Jeremias strongly. It is never enough until all humanity are members of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and schismatics are brought back into the faith. I strongly feel that Jeremias should not have given up on the wayward Lutherans. He should have made more of an effort to be more understanding. His cry of "enough" demonstrates a lack of the virtue of patience. Of course, the Lutherans are also at fault for their own part in the lack of effort of understanding.

jason

April 5th 2004, 12:37 AM

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.Good. But do you affirm the primacy of scripture in settling the question ?

Realising that it's not so simple as using Scripture to correct tradition, how do you handle conflicting interpretations? Why, democratically, of course. Since when is truth decided by a vote ? If that was true, then Athanasius was wrong to oppose the Arians. If what you say is correct it never should have been Athanasius contra munde.

I don't see that it runs counter to scripture. At the close of Acts 10, it says:The problem is that already Cornelius has the Holy Spirity. He is already saved. Baptism is a sign of this, and an act of obedience, but it is not a requirement. If you see the distinction.

And don't forget, Paul explicitly says he did not come to baptise but to preach the word. If baptism is essential for salvation and you damned without it, then why would he say this is baptism is as important as you claim it is ? (1Cor 1:17).

This verse does not contradict the teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation.The problem is that it is nowhere afirmed directly as a requirement for salvation either. Dare we add to the Gospel once delivered ?

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.The problem is different uses of terminology. The EO seems to say "salvation", where as the Protestant says, "Justifcation", "Sanctification" and "Glorification". The EO has bundled three different ideas into one word (at least as far as I can tell), and so we have a disagreement although there is probably not any disagreement at all.

If Protestant faith in the authority of the Bible is axiomatic, then it is blind and therefore foolish.No because you can check the bible as discover that it is reliable.

But in terms of theology, the Bible is the primary source its authority is axiomatic. What else would suffice as a place to start the work of theology than the record of the revelation of the word of God ?

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.The scripture is only as authorative as the sources of the various books and the one who inspired the writing of the books.

Yes. But have you infallibly inferred the context? :wink:Have you ? Does it matter ?

I'm more interested in comparing those who manage to live up to them in their fullness.I would be impressed if the standard was as high as that set by the puritans.

Maybe, but we can pray.Yes.

Quite possibly, but there are certain forms of stupidity that one must be highly intelligent to commit. :wink:Try reading them before you attack them.

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 themWhat mistakes ? They were not perfect, as no group of mere men are, but they were certianly Holy sanctified men.

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.It depends on exactly what sort of unity is desired. We can come together as brothers and worship out common Lord even if one brother likes funny hats, incense and pictures and the other prefers plain walls and pews.

Particular, the argument over whether or not we are "saved by faith alone" or "saved by faith and works".Yep.

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.It depends on what the difference is.

Put them together, and you get the doctrine of prayer to the saints.Yeah I suppose. The question is, "Can they hear you and can they do anything about it ?". And should we really be addressing requests to saints to make on our behalf instead of making them to Christ directly ?

One question to ask it, "Is this a side issue" ?

Before I move on to address this new objection, do you think you could answer the previous question: ie, do you still think that it is un-Scriptural, and if so, why?Well if it is nosensical then is could not be scriptural. But i'll get back to you on this if that is ok. I have some verses in mind, but I had best check the context etc. Perhaps a new thread even to deal with these issues as they come up ?

If I don't get it, then I need to strongly consider the possibility that the fault lies is me and not in the multitudes in history who did get it. Just like the fault lies with the atheist who does not understand the efficacy of prayer to an omniscient, foreknowing God.Hey you can do it if it works for you. I'm not sure I could construct a case directly from scripture against it. I just don't see the point myself.

As a side note, for centuries man western christians "were enriched in their spiritual life" by buying indulgences from the Papists. Does that make it a good idea ?

As to what the efficacy in prayer to the saints is: I suspect that in praying to saints, we acknowledge both their example and the fact that they are still alive. In doing so, we reflect on the lofty goals that we are seeking, and we also acknowledge the fact of our own salvation (past, present and future).Thats cool. I'm not sure I would remember them in this way, but if it works for you.

What is the earliest mention of the contrary idea (ie, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin). It is not found in Scripture that Mary was not perpetual virgin, so it comes from tradition. But if the tradition does not turn up for say the 16th century it is not reasonable to claim it was an Orthodox "invention".Actually that isn't really going to fly.

If it was a really important idea then we should see it turning up earlier and not developing slowly over time. And i'll note, that the approval of indulgences predates their repudiation by the protestants as well. Are they now acceptable ? Should we have a new bunch of John Tetzel's roaming the country side selling salvation ?

If this is such an important idea then why is mary such a bit player in the Gospels ? I agree she is the mother of Christ and so set apart from other women in a unique way, but this does not make her something magical.

Scripture is sufficiently ambiguous on this point to be inconclusive on its own and consistent with either interpretation. So which claim should carry more weight?The claim that does not turn her into somethng she is not portrayed in scripture as.

I believe that everything found in Scripture is true. But I do not believe that every true thing is found in Scripture. That the perpetual virginity of Mary is not found in Scripture does not make it untrue - unless it is explicitly contradicted by Scripture (which it is not).My stance is, if in doubt pick the more conservative stand point.

Sola Scriptura itself (in the sense that you are using it here) fails the Sola Scriptura test, so I'd be careful how far you want to push this argument. I have argued elsewhere that Sola Scriptura is actually a meta-doctrine that is endorsed by scripture, and is essential today, but would not have been 1900 years ago. Hence you find no mention of it back then.

Jason

Maxentius

April 5th 2004, 08:41 AM

elysian

April 5th 2004, 10:42 AM

So far I have enjoyed this thread. I have interacted with Orthodox before and I enjoy doing so. I find that there can be genuine dialogue between "conservative" Lutherans and the Orthodox.

Anyway, I saw some items about Mary. Whether she had more children children after Jesus or not is an open question to some extent. The words used can mean cousins but usually means brothers and sisters. In the Lutheran Church one can hold either view. This is the rub here. Do the Orthodox require parishoners to believe Mary was always a virgin? Given that the tradition arose rather late I would find this a bit troubling. And , a first century married Jewish woman not having intercourse with her husband would be very, very odd--not impossible but odd.

Regarding the saints, I am not sue they are even aware of us down here, being in the presence of God and all. There is no sorrow in heaven.

The last part is intentionally short because I am still thinking about it. :smile:

I was raised Roman Catholic-but with half the family being Regular Baptist- so I had a lot of questions regarding the doctrines that Catholics and Baptists disagree on (and there is plenty to discuss there!) Because such an upbringing invites a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance regarding faith and doctrine I've found it necessary to have an open mind and to trust the Holy Spirit, that He would lead me in the right direction so that I may find out what is true.

When I was in high school I started to have a lot of questions regarding a number of Catholic teachings, including the veneration of Mary and prayer to the saints. So I began to investigate Protestants in general (not knowing about Orthodox- I thought then that Christians were either Catholic or Protestant...and I knew I wasn't Catholic...so which Protestant sect? - oh the naivete of youth :ahem: ) I went to a few Bible studies at the Southern Baptist church my sister went to (and though I appreciate their emphasis on learning the Bible, honestly I have just as many doubts about some SB teachings as I do Catholic ones.) I also went to Luther League with some Lutheran friends. I found I could agree with and more importantly understand the Lutherans far better than either the Catholics or the SB's. The SB's (and many Lutherans as well) teach that praying to anyone other than the Three Persons of the Trinity is idolatry, (and they will readily quote the passage from Deuteronomy I quoted above.) SB's do not recognize "joining the saints in prayer" as Lutherans do either, and though this has toned down in recent years, they seem to have a special disdain for anything that remotely seems "Catholic." Their emphasis on the end-times, and belief in the Rapture is some pretty strange stuff too that is not necessarily Scriptural. The Catholics aren't wrong about everything either- Baptism is one good example, and the importance of the Eucharist...so my search for understanding still continues!

Anyway the doctrine of prayer to the saints seems to contradict or at least raise serious questions in light of what most Lutherans believe regarding what happens when we die:

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 (NIV)

Ok, this verse really rings in my head, (not only because we used portions of Handel's Messiah in yesterday's Worship, :ahem: ) but for God time is not necessarily linear like time is for us. He is present now, in the past and in the future all at the same time! How God does this, that we all awake both in a twinkling of an eye and at the last trumpet as well I do not know. (that "mystery" concept again!)
So we will be raised and changed at the same time, meaning at the last trumpet.

"And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us." Luke 16:26 (NIV)

This raises the question- we know those believers who have gone before us are now or will be (according to our understanding of time) made alive in Christ. To them it will seem as in a twinkling of an eye perhaps similar to the way in which we sleep under anesthetic- "where did that two hours go?" So ultimately those who die in Christ have the same destination, but for now what? Are those who have departed still waiting? Is this the chasm Jesus speaks of in the above verse? More importantly, if there is indeed "no crossing over" then even if we are not specifically forbidden from it how effective are our prayers to/for the departed?

I understand that the knee-jerk reaction for most Protestants (and I include myself in this as well) is to completely avoid prayer or intercession involving the saints because of the danger of falling into idolatry. Prayer to and veneration of the saints was so misused by the RCC around the time of the Reformation- the RCC actually taught that through indulgences you could buy your loved ones out of Purgatory (another spurious doctrine) or you could offer devotions and prayer to St. so-and-so to get rid of whatever ails you, or to intercede for your dead loved ones. They were also teaching some really strange stuff about "holy relics" like saints' bones, etc. that hearkens more of pagan religions and voodoo.

It wasn't about praying for intercession or praying with the saints, both practices that appear to be OK. Over time it seemed that praying directly to God, knowing that Christ is our One Advocate and Mediator was being eclipsed, that in some respects the saints were not being correctly viewed as brothers and sisters in Christ but as lesser deities. Luther and other Reformers had a problem with this misuse, and to correct the use of saints-as-idols he chose to say "don't pray to saints at all." It was a better safe than sorry policy that was meant to correct the abuses of the RCC.

I would say that since we are not commanded to pray to or for the departed that it should be a matter of individual conscience and following the Holy Spirit's direction.

As to Mary I too agree with Maxentius- personally I believe the more human view of Mary, that she was blessed and chosen by God for a very special purpose. But what makes Mary more blessed and special to me was that IMO she was blessed and holy not because of her own merit but because of God- He chose her, and she was very human. Knowing that she lived and loved like the rest of us, that she likely bore other children, that she was highly involved in the early church (some archeological evidence suggests she went with Paul to Ephesus, and that she died there and was buried there) makes her example more poignant to me than viewing her as a sort of demi-goddess.
She was blessed because God chose to bless her, not because of any merit of her own. Either view- Mary as a very normal woman that God blessed in an extraordinary way, or Mary as a perpetual virgin who was assumed into heaven is accepted among Lutherans (as neither view is related to salvation or saving faith in Jesus Christ.)

themuzicman

April 5th 2004, 10:45 AM

elysian

April 5th 2004, 10:59 AM

OK, let me ask this, then:

Are we saved because we have the Holy Spirit sanctifying us, or are we saved because of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and we received this atonement through faith?

Michael

We are saved by Jesus' substitutionary death on the Cross. (Hebrews 10:14)

We are sanctified and transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit, which is a lifelong process. (Romans 12:1-2)

We can come to faith only by the power of the Holy Spirit, Who draws us to the Father (John 6:44)

themuzicman

April 5th 2004, 11:01 AM

OK, so, are we judged based upon the atonement or based upon our works, then?

Michael

elysian

April 5th 2004, 11:09 AM

We are "covered" because of Jesus' sacrifice for us- so yes, we are saved.
We cannot be saved on our own merit, or as a result of our works.

We are drawn to the Father because we have been washed, cleaned, saved, set apart. If we truly believe it is because God has given us the desire and the ability to do so. We are transformed, "made good trees" by His power, and it is because He saved us and He transforms us that we are able to bring forth "good fruit."

themuzicman

April 5th 2004, 11:36 AM

Then why does the Athanasian creed say:

# 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.

There is nothing here about grace or atonement or the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Just those who have done good [works] shall go into everlasting life.

If a creed is supposed to reflect doctrinal belief, there ought to be something here other than good works.

Michael

Maxentius

April 5th 2004, 11:40 AM

I was raised Roman Catholic-but with half the family being Regular Baptist- so I had a lot of questions regarding the doctrines that Catholics and Baptists disagree on (and there is plenty to discuss there!) Because such an upbringing invites a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance regarding faith and doctrine I've found it necessary to have an open mind and to trust the Holy Spirit, that He would lead me in the right direction so that I may find out what is true.

I was brought up Catholoc too. But in many ways I was an intuitive Lutheran all my life. like you, I didn't know about the Orthodox churches. What I did know and see seemed a bit incomprehensible to me. Even though I am Lutheran, I am still a son of the Western Church. I decided to attend a Lutheran Church--mainly because they tought the real presence--and I never looked back. Its been 13 years now!

I found I could agree with and more importantly understand the Lutherans far better than either the Catholics or the SB's.

Like I said, in many ways I was an intuitive Lutheran, so everything just clicked. I found the Baptists/Evangelicals a bit too strident, and they also disagreed a lot among themselves. There were logical problems too, like "We are non-denominational." But at the same time they would have a ststement of beliefs, which is a denomination in my book.

SB's do not recognize "joining the saints in prayer" as Lutherans do either, and though this has toned down in recent years, they seem to have a special disdain for anything that remotely seems "Catholic."

Two thoughts: When we receive Holy Communion we commune with Christ and the whole church, militant and triumphant.

Also, just because something comes from Tradition does not make it wrong to do. It seems to me that many Christians here in America assume that if Scripture does not tell you to do it, you can't. That seems wrong to me in a serious way because it works in the opposite way. We are free in Christ except what he has forbidden.

Their emphasis on the end-times, and belief in the Rapture is some pretty strange stuff too that is not necessarily Scriptural. The Catholics aren't wrong about everything either- Baptism is one good example, and the importance of the Eucharist...so my search for understanding still continues.

I agree re: the Rapture. Their focus is in the wrong place--Christianty is about the person and work of Jesus Christ, not inwhat particular way he will return.

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 (NIV)

Ok, this verse really rings in my head, (not only because we used portions of Handel's Messiah in yesterday's Worship, :ahem: ) but for God time is not necessarily linear like time is for us. He is present now, in the past and in the future all at the same time! How God does this, that we all awake both in a twinkling of an eye and at the last trumpet as well I do not know. (that "mystery" concept again!)
So we will be raised and changed at the same time, meaning at the last trumpet.

Some would say "soul sleep." Like you, I do not really understand how God will do all these things. I have speculated on this with my pastor and it is not really clear what will happen. We have passages saying we will be with the Lord, and ones that imply there is a sort of suspension. The closest we have to a resolution is that the dead are withGod,but so are we at the end of time because God is beyond time and he is not bound to it. Is our existence really meaningful without our bodies? Is there an Ed who is spirit and not flesh?

Of course,I would not dare say that is my final answer. As I said I am speculating.

I would say that since we are not commanded to pray to or for the departed that it should be a matter of individual conscience and following the Holy Spirit's direction.

This is my position also. We should not bind people's conciences in matters like this--but I lean to not praying to/through the saints and the dead.

As to Mary I too agree with Maxentius- personally I believe the more human view of Mary, that she was blessed and chosen by God for a very special purpose. But what makes Mary more blessed and special to me was that IMO she was blessed and holy not because of her own merit but because of God- He chose her, and she was very human. Knowing that she lived and loved like the rest of us, that she likely bore other children, that she was highly involved in the early church (some archeological evidence suggests she went with Paul to Ephesus, and that she died there and was buried there) makes her example more poignant to me than viewing her as a sort of demi-goddess.

In other words, she is a fine example of humility and godliness. But can/does she intercede with God for us? I have my doubts.

I think the RCC view is downright heretical.

Rdr. Arsenios

April 5th 2004, 12:05 PM

OK, let me ask this, then:

Are we saved because we have the Holy Spirit sanctifying us?

Yes.

Are we saved because of the atoning sacrifice of Christ?

Yes.

Do we receive this atonement through faith?

We receive the salvation available through this atoning sacrifice through faith... We receive the atonement no matter what, and for the saved, it will be heaven, and for those whose deeds are evil, the atonement will be hell. When Christ spread His loving arms upon the cross, He did so that all men might be gathered unto Him, and in so doing, He reclaimed His creation from the fall of Adam.

Atonement is harmonization, and for those of us who do not acquire harmony with God while we are upon the earth by living Godly lives in Christ, the harmonization that will take place at the Last Judgement between Christ and the un-Godly is of such a kind as to engender our fear and trembling, for there shall be rendered to each according to his deeds... And the harmonization of evil with good in God is not at all pleasant for the evil. That is why our earthly sojourn is so important, for we are born under the sentence of death, and must die to that death, which is sin, that we find life in Christ... And to the extent that we do so, we are reconciled to God in Christ's atoning sacrifice.

That is why a repentant life is so important, and the deeds thereof, for by our deeds, we test, try, and confirm our hearts' resolve - When Christ talked of those who came at the Last Judgement saying "Did we not cast out demons in Your Name? And do signs and miracles in Your Name?"... He cast them out... And why? Was it because they did works? And the answer is no... Was it because of their unbelief? Again, no... What reason did Christ give to them? "Depart from me ye workers of iniquity..." They were rejected because of their DEEDS... Indeed, because of their works... And His final reason, the one that comprehends the rest: "I never knew you..."

Now to know Christ is to become one flesh with Him, and this is the reason for the understanding of the Church as the Bride of Christ... For it is in the Church that we eat His flesh and drink His blood in communion, and it is His Church that prepares His holy Gifts... There is an intimacy of communion, where we actually ingest God and live... Yet if we fail to 'discern the Body of Christ' and still partake of the cup, we eat and drink judgement unto ourselves, and Paul reports some of the early believers actually getting sick and dying as a consequence...

So that knowledge and union are one thing, as Adam knew Eve, and the union of God and man in Christ, in Whom we seek reconciliation through the drinking of the cup that He drank, which is the suffering of the cross, is acquired through faith, and faith is here understood as belief plus action...

We are called, discipled, baptized, and then begin to enter the lifelong and arduous 'race set before us'... And this contest, this arena of conflict, is unto the death, the death of the 'old man', and the growth of the new creature that emerged new-born from above out of the waters of regeneration in baptism. For Christ said: "If anyone is willing to be my follower, let him deny himself, take up his own cross, and follow Me." And in the course of doing this, there will be opposition, and the intensity of that opposition is in direct proportion to the sincerity with which we commit ourselves to our task. And it is this opposition that must be overcome in the 'race set before us', and with God's help, by God's grace, nothing can oppose us successfully...

This is every Christian's struggle in discipleship, and those who overcome are made pillars of the Church. Prayer, fasting, and standing vigils are parts of this struggle, as are the giving of alms, participating in holy services, chanting of psalms, reading he Bible, studying the Fathers, reading the lives of those who have successfully overcome before us [the saints], obedience to our elders within the Body of Christ, the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the acquisition of the hardest and most blessed of all the virtues of a Christian life, humility...

This is all a part of what Christ meant when He gave the great commission to the Apostles: "Be discipling all the nations, baptizing them..."

Without the deeds of our belief, our so called 'faith' is but vain talk...

My patron saint, Arsenios, taught the two sons of the emperor at Constantinople in the 4th century, having been greatly educated in Rome in Latin and Greek, and when they finally became adults, he went to the Sainai desert and learned his already lifelong Christian faith anew under an illiterate hunchback father there. And someone asked him, "Are you not an educator of kings?" And his response was, "Indeed, I educate in all the classics written in Latin and Greek, but this man plays symphonies of which I do not even know the alphabet of the notes, so I come to him to learn..." For the grace of God is acquired in the praxis of the virtues of living a Christian life, and that means the doing of the faith, and not just the talking and believing of it...
[/QUOTE]

NOT 'nuff! :-)

geo-Arsenios

themuzicman

April 5th 2004, 12:09 PM

But do we receive life everlasting because we have been reconciled to God, or because of doing good works?

Michael

Maxentius

April 5th 2004, 12:31 PM

Hello George!

I do not mean to sound like I am interrogating you. :blush:

I have some questions too:

Would you agree that someone the Holy Spirit sanctifies would, by necessity, (NOT COMPULSION!) perform good works? My thoughts here are that after we are baptized, we have a new, godly nature that struggles with the old, Adamic nature.

Can we be godly wothout the Holy Spirit?

(By godly, I mean the ability to to works pleasing to God.)

Rdr. Arsenios

April 5th 2004, 12:37 PM

But do we receive life everlasting because we have been reconciled to God,

Yes.

Slowing down helps.

or because of doing good works?

Discipleship, living a life turned from the flesh and the world, and unto God - Being reborn in baptism - These deeds reconcile us to God...

We have within our power our own destruction, and this from our ability to do evil... Our Good deeds, done in discipleship, in obedience to Christ's commandments, living a Christian life... These are required of us for salvation, although in themselves, they are but worthless rags... We present our rags, and receive riches from God, but not according to the world...

It is not a matter of reconciliation OR works - They work together...

Reconciliation is a function of a repentant life, for we all sin, and if we confess our sins, repent of them, and ask God's forgiveness, the Apostolic Church is empowered to forgive us thos sins in Christ's Holy Name...

It has been doing so since 33AD...

Paul writes: "We hold the Mystery of the Faith in a pure conscience." It is the purification of the heart that makes pure a conscience, and it is in the holiness of a purified heart that we receive the Communion of the Mysteries and live spiritual and truthful Christian lives... And this purification is ongoing, for we are in the world, and we still sin, and need to confess and repent of our sins daily, in heartfelt contrition before God...

geo-Arsenios

themuzicman

April 5th 2004, 01:00 PM

Wait, now... you just said that atonement was for reconciliation, but not you're saying that works reconcile us to God.

Are you saying that atonement in and of itself is insufficent for reconciliation?

Michael

Rdr. Arsenios

April 5th 2004, 01:10 PM

Hello George!

Hey Max...

I do not mean to sound like I am interrogating you. :blush:

So why am I feeling paranoid?? :-)

I have some questions too:

There! I KNEW it!

Would you agree that someone whom the Holy Spirit sanctifies would, by necessity, (NOT COMPULSION!) perform good works?

I've seen some pretty seedy types receive spiritual awakenings, and they become pretty loving and holy folks for awhile, and then it slowly wears off, and the old ways reappear, and eventually take back over - Which is why discipleship within the Church is so important, because it establishes a prayerful, loving, and repentant life-style that is a reasonable service to the Lord, and this forms a bulwark against the re-emergence of our old and evil ways...

And even within this discipleship, grace withdraws, and this is the chastizement of the Lord, and the testing of the structure we have built, whether it is straw and mud, or solid, for we must build while there is Light, and when the darkness comes, we cannot build, but can only work patience in our tribulations... Yet longsuffering is greatly desired...

My thoughts here are that after we are baptized, we have a new, godly nature that struggles with the old, Adamic nature.

Yes...

Can we be godly without the Holy Spirit?

We can do nothing without God...

(By godly, I mean the ability to to works pleasing to God.)

The tree of which we are born in death bears the fruit of good and evil, and we indeed, in our natural and fallen state, eat of both, and Cain slew Abel... And the prophets were all killed, and so was Christ... Yet many do good works that are pleasing to God, and others do not, yet it is not our works that save, but God Who saves us IF we turn from our evil ways and unto good ways, and we are able to do both...

There is an ethics, a morality, a virtue, to Christian life, and that imeans in action, in deeds, in practice... We cannot divorce our will from salvation, because it is our will that needs saving, and we are born anew in the baptismal waters of regeneration in cleanness and purity of heart, and free to do good, and also evil, and some go back to evil right away, and some neveer look back, but only strive toward the good, and each is up to the will of the person, and this is the heart of a person - It is a willing obedience to Christ that saves, yet it is not our will that saves, but the transforming of our will, the renewing of our heart...

geo-Arsenios

Rdr. Arsenios

April 5th 2004, 01:41 PM

Wait, now...

Slowing down helps...

you just said that atonement was for reconciliation

OK... But try not to squeeze that into me saying that it is ONLY for reconciliation...

but now you're saying that works reconcile us to God.

Christ's atoning sacrifice was on the cross, yes?

And what does He tell us?

"IF anyone is willing" [ei tis thelei] - That places our willingness [thelei] at the center of following Christ, and I think you agree that anyone who does NOT follow Christ is neither righteous nor saved, yes?

So He says "If anyone is willing to be My follower"... That places the whole of salvation on that one little 'ei' [IF] word... Yes? And many are called... Not all that many are willing... So that this atoning sacrifice of our Lord, which was His cup, which He asked the Father to take from Him, yet received From Him anyway in willing obedience, this sacrifice was unto our reconciliation with the Father, which Christ attained in His passion... And it is this reconciliation that Christ makes available to each of us, "IF ANYONE IS WILLING"... And what is the MEANS of this reconciliation to the Father in Christ? He goes on in the same sentence, in the same breath: "Let him deny himself, take up his own cross, and follow Me." Those three works are needed for reconciliation...

Are you saying that atonement in and of itself is insufficent for reconciliation?

What does Christ say??
1: Deny yourself
2: Take up your own cross
3: Follow Christ

What does He not say?
1: Indulge your preferences
2: Thank Me for taking up your cross
3: Do whatever you feel like, for I have done all that needs to be done.

Is this making some sense?

Yes, Christ did it all, and you need to do it too, for you, like Christ, need to deny yourself in obedience, take up your cross, that you might drink the cup that is your portion, and follow Him Who is your Lord and Savior.

Because Christ did, you CAN... For those in Him, the world is changed...

The Fathers all teach this, from Paul to the present...

geo-Arsenios

themuzicman

April 5th 2004, 03:10 PM

That's... an interesting interpretation. I'm not sure it fits the context.

Jesus has just told his disciples that He will suffer and die at the hands of the high priests, and then rise again in three days. Peter then tells him that this should never happen. Jesus then rebukes Satan.

Finally, Jesus in the context of His suffering and dying, Jesus tells them that if they want to (literally) come after Him, that person would have to deny himself (as Jesus did), take up his cross (which Jesus did), and follow Him. But, in the end, they all deserted him, and Peter even denied Him.

I don't think this is specifically a portion of scripture about salvation, but Jesus' making clear to his disciples what will happen to Him, and challenging their faith in Him. He already knew they were going to desert him.

Now, does this passage preach good? I suppose so. But I'm not convinced the context permits your interpretation. Maybe you could show where the context permits this to be understood as salvific.

Michael

Rusty T

April 5th 2004, 05:30 PM

Read Luke 9:18-27 for another instance of the "take up your cross" message.

Maxentius

April 5th 2004, 06:04 PM

Hello again George!

Thanks for answering my questions. As I said in another post I always found the Orthodox very interesting. Sometimes it can be difficult to understand where they are comming from because of the differences between the Western and Eastern churches, but you already know that.

I've seen some pretty seedy types receive spiritual awakenings, and they become pretty loving and holy folks for awhile, and then it slowly wears off, and the old ways reappear, and eventually take back over - Which is why discipleship within the Church is so important, because it establishes a prayerful, loving, and repentant life-style that is a reasonable service to the Lord, and this forms a bulwark against the re-emergence of our old and evil ways...

Such a person is of two types:

1) They never really believed in the first place and they just had a temporary emotional high.

2) They really believed but they left Christ. The point is that our emotional state does not tell us whether or not we are in Christ. Our actions and tangible things like Sacraments affirm/strengthen our sanctification.

I would say that there are more in the first group than in the second. The first group never had the Holy Spirit, the second group drove him away. Neither group would be sanctified in my opinion.

...the testing of the structure we have built, whether it is straw and mud, or solid, for we must build while there is Light, and when the darkness comes, we cannot build, but can only work patience in our tribulations... Yet longsuffering is greatly desired...

Yes, it is a marathon. This brings up anotgher issue. How can one know he is a child of God? How much good must one do to be sure? I believe we can know. In the Lutheran view, God promises to justify and sanctify us, and while we can wiggle free from his loving embrace, he makes that difficult. We now have a new nature and the Holy Spirit. We are not alone in our struggle. We also know that if we fall God will pick us up, dust us off and put us on the right path again. In this way God disciplines his children, we learn from our failures. We can be confident because Jesus' death and resurrection cover our sins, not our own works and deeds. This is what Lutherans mean by justification through faith. Because I believe in who Jesus is and what he did for me my sins are covered. He instituted the sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, confession, preaching of the word and the fellowship of believers etc. to feed me and strengthen my faith and that of the whole Church Militant. Notice that these are objective things--they do not depend on my feelings and I do not have to wonder if I worked enough. Like my faith(Eph. 2:8-10), they are God's gifts to me. I have done nothing to merit them and I do not even deserve them.

Trials do indeed build character and faith. I also believe that Jesus did not promise us a rose garden but a cross to bear.

We can do nothing without God...

And then you said

Yet many do good works that are pleasing to God, and others do not, yet it is not our works that save, but God Who saves us IF we turn from our evil ways and unto good ways, and we are able to do both...

Do you believe it is possible for us to do godly works without the Holy Spirit? (There is the Pelagian controversy again!) I do not. We can do things which our intellects can comprehend: pay our taxes, help our neighbors, love our children, refrain from stealing etc. etc. But without faith they do not please God because we are incapable of being unselfish or pure. St. Paul said the natural man connot be subject to God, and that everything done outside of faith is sin. Since we cannot have faith without the Holy Spirit, everything we do is sin unless he is in us.

We cannot divorce our will from salvation, because it is our will that needs saving, and we are born anew in the baptismal waters of regeneration in cleanness and purity of heart, and free to do good, and also evil, and some go back to evil right away, and some neveer look back, but only strive toward the good, and each is up to the will of the person, and this is the heart of a person - It is a willing obedience to Christ that saves, yet it is not our will that saves, but the transforming of our will, the renewing of our heart...

geo-Arsenios

So what kind of will do we have before baptism? I believe we cannot obey God before he regenerates us.

Maxentius

April 5th 2004, 08:08 PM

Here is a quote from Martin Luther regarding works, and even the Virgin Mary!

Who then can comprehend the riches and glory of the Christian life? It can do all things, has all things, and is in want of nothing; is lord over sin, death, and hell, and at the same time is the obedient and useful servant of all. But alas! it is at this day unknown throughout the world; it is neither preached nor sought after, so that we are quite ignorant about our own name, why we are and are called Christians. We are certainly called so from Christ, who is not absent, but dwells among us--provided, that is, that we believe in Him and are reciprocally and mutually one the Christ of the other, doing to our neighbour as Christ does to us. But now, in the doctrine of men, we are taught only to seek after merits, rewards, and things which are already ours, and we have made of Christ a taskmaster far more severe than Moses.

The Blessed Virgin beyond all others, affords us an example of the same faith, in that she was purified according to the law of Moses, and like all other women, though she was bound by no such law and had no need of purification. Still she submitted to the law voluntarily and of free love, making herself like the rest of women, that she might not offend or throw contempt on them. She was not justified by doing this; but, being already justified, she did it freely and gratuitously. Thus ought our works too to be done, and not in order to be justified by them; for, being first justified by faith, we ought to do all our works freely and cheerfully for the sake of others.

(emphasis added)

Here is what struck me regarding theosis, sanctification etc. Luther says we should each be a Christ to our neighbor, and that Mary was not justified by her actions, but did them because she was justified.

This sounds a lot like theosis, as far as I understand it.

jason

April 5th 2004, 09:30 PM

George this appears to be another of those miscommunication things again.

So He says "If anyone is willing to be My follower"... That places the whole of salvation on that one little 'ei' [IF] word... Yes? And many are called... Not all that many are willing... So that this atoning sacrifice of our Lord, which was His cup, which He asked the Father to take from Him, yet received From Him anyway in willing obedience, this sacrifice was unto our reconciliation with the Father, which Christ attained in His passion... And it is this reconciliation that Christ makes available to each of us, "IF ANYONE IS WILLING"... And what is the MEANS of this reconciliation to the Father in Christ? He goes on in the same sentence, in the same breath: "Let him deny himself, take up his own cross, and follow Me." Those three works are needed for reconciliation...But where do we get the ability to do those works from ?

What does Christ say??
1: Deny yourself
2: Take up your own cross
3: Follow Christ

What does He not say?
1: Indulge your preferences
2: Thank Me for taking up your cross
3: Do whatever you feel like, for I have done all that needs to be done.
But no protestant would deny that (well no orthodox protestant anyway).

But you do that in response to the gift of salvation and reconciliation with God, not as a requirement for it. It is not by works so that none may boast (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Yes, Christ did it all, and you need to do it too, for you, like Christ, need to deny yourself in obedience, take up your cross, that you might drink the cup that is your portion, and follow Him Who is your Lord and Savior.

Because Christ did, you CAN... For those in Him, the world is changed...Yes that is right. But I am not sure that Michael would disagree with you on this point.

But the way you say it, it comes across (at least to a protestant anyway) that you mean something that is in direct contradiction to Ephesian 2:8-10.

The Fathers all teach this, from Paul to the present...Agreed, but are you sure we actually disagree on this ?

As far as I can tell, the Protestant understanding of salvation as a 3 fold work of God (Justification/Sanctification/Glorification) vs the EO understanding of salvation as a process is actually in agreement, but that we come to blows because we are using different terms.

The EO is right to think, given the language and some poor Protestant examples, that the Protestant is claiming that works have nothing to do with salvation. The problem is that reformed theology does not hold to this idea at all. Just the reverse. It is just that works do not save as Paul clearly teaches.

By comparison, the Protestant is right to think, given the language in use plus experience with the RCC (and a confusion between the two, which is understandable both you guys have funny hats, so if nobody ever explained the difference what is a poor protestant to do ?), that the EO teaching looks awfully like the heresy of Pelagius, and that they are teaching that you are saved by what you do. Which if I understand EO theology correctly is horribly mistaken, and that works are what you do because you are saved, works are not something you do to get saved.

The problem is that, if I am reading the EO's correctly, we both agree on this topic, but our terminology is getting in the way and messing everything up.

Am I right ?

Jason

Rdr. Arsenios

April 6th 2004, 12:34 AM

George this appears to be another of those miscommunication things again.

We'll see - I don't think so...

I had written:

So He says "If anyone is willing to be My follower"... That places the whole of salvation on that one little 'ei' [IF] word... Yes? And many are called... Not all that many are willing... So that this atoning sacrifice of our Lord, which was His cup, which He asked the Father to take from Him, yet received From Him anyway in willing obedience, this sacrifice was unto our reconciliation with the Father, which Christ attained in His passion... And it is this reconciliation that Christ makes available to each of us, "IF ANYONE IS WILLING"... And what is the MEANS of this reconciliation to the Father in Christ? He goes on in the same sentence, in the same breath: "Let him deny himself, take up his own cross, and follow Me." Those three works are needed for reconciliation...

And you replied:

But where do we get the ability to do those works from ?

And the answer is from God - And even the will to do them...

And I went on:

What does Christ say??
1: Deny yourself
2: Take up your own cross
3: Follow Christ

What does He not say?
1: Indulge your preferences
2: Thank Me for taking up your cross
3: Do whatever you feel like, for I have done all that needs to be done.

And you replied:

But no protestant would deny that (well no orthodox protestant anyway).

Yet all in fact do, even though they deny that they do, for they all believe that the works of salvation, justification, and reconciliation are a consequence of having been *given* salvation as a free gift. As if the works are themselves but a spontaneous outpouring of the exuberance of the reception of God's grace, and hence are not works at all, but spontaneity and joyful exuberance... Sometimes they are, but there always comes a time...

For you go on:

But you do that in response to the gift of salvation and reconciliation with God, not as a requirement for it. It is not by works so that none may boast (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Now nowhere in this Ephesians quote do we find it written that works are a response to the gift of salvation... Salvation is a free gift, and there is absolutely nothing we can do to earn it, and certainly no work we do can earn us salvation - Yet there are works and there are works, and the work of, say, doing signs, or healing, is one kind of work, and the work of repentance is another, for one is the work of discipleship, and the other of apostleship - One is for the mature in the faith, which is the good works prepared by "Christ beforehand that we should walk in them, and the other is the work of conforming ourselves to Christ, to obeying His commandments. Now the fact that we DO the works of discipleship in no way EARNS us salvation, which is a free gift, but without our doing these works, we will never attain unto salvation, for if we do not deny ourself, take up our cross, and follow Christ, we will not find salvation... The faith through which we are saved by grace is the faith that takes action, that it be a saving faith...

But the way you say it, it comes across (at least to a protestant anyway) that you mean something that is in direct contradiction to Ephesian 2:8-10.

The reason Paul includes the reminder that our faith is not of works is because of the great amount of works engendered in discipleship, and the easy error that could be made by a hard working and exhausted and sleep deprived and hungered disciple that after all that effort he might somehow deserve salvation and have earned it... Yet without all that effort, there is no salvation, for that is the effort of discipleship, and if we are not willing to be discipled, we will not find salvation...

Agreed, but are you sure we actually disagree on this ?

What do you think?

As far as I can tell, the Protestant understanding of salvation as a 3 fold work of God (Justification/Sanctification/Glorification) vs the EO understanding of salvation as a process is actually in agreement, but that we come to blows because we are using different terms.

Different understandings... Methinks...

The EO is right to think, given the language and some poor Protestant examples, that the Protestant is claiming that works have nothing to do with salvation. The problem is that reformed theology does not hold to this idea at all. Just the reverse. It is just that works do not save as Paul clearly teaches.

Protestant theology teaches that works are a consequence of the posession of salvation that is itself freely given. Orthodoy says that the process of discipleship requires of us great and willing effort... eg works...

The works of discipleship lead us to salvation, yes? Do Protestants as a general rule agree with that statement?

By comparison, the Protestant is right to think, given the language in use plus experience with the RCC (and a confusion between the two, which is understandable both you guys have funny hats, so if nobody ever explained the difference what is a poor protestant to do ?),

Mitres??? Plus a bunch of bearded guys in dresses??? Whaddya mean we're weird lookin'???

that the EO teaching looks awfully like the heresy of Pelagius, and that they are teaching that you are saved by what you do.

Actually, it's just that you won't be saved if you don't do the works entailed by being discipled in the Church - The works of repentance, prayer, giving alms, confession, standing vigils, doing one's labors, etc... Turn your back on these works and you will not find salvation...

Which if I understand EO theology correctly is horribly mistaken, and that works are what you do because you are saved, works are not something you do to get saved.

Works ARE what you do to GET saved, and... They don't save you... But without them, you don't get saved... For salvation comes with discipleship in the apostolic Church, and discipleship teaches us the Christian actions needed to deny oneself, take up one's cross, and follow Christ...

I never said becoming a Christian was easy... You do the works in the expectation/faith/hope that God is faithful - And He is...

The problem is that, if I am reading the EO's correctly, we both agree on this topic, but our terminology is getting in the way and messing everything up.

Still think so??

Am I right ?

What do YOU think?

geo-Arsenios

Maxentius

April 6th 2004, 07:14 PM

Hello again George!

I think you badly misunderstand where I am comming from, and probably most other orthodox protestants as well.

And the answer is from God - And even the will to do them...

So, we receive the ability to do good works from God. Can someone without faith do godly, good works? Does someone without faith have the holy Spirit? Are we born with the ability to do these works apart from God's working on us? If you say "yes" to any of those questions, I would ask why God bothered to become man! If we can already obey God why all the fuss of incarnation and crucifixion, after all, we can already obey him. However, if we are so damaged by Adam's sin that we cannot by our own strength and reasoning have fellowship with God then it is clear what Jesus' work of salvation means--he died so we could be children of God again and he gives this gift to all thse who believe in who he is and in what he did.

..they all believe that the works of salvation, justification, and reconciliation are a consequence of having been *given* salvation as a free gift. As if the works are themselves but a spontaneous outpouring of the exuberance of the reception of God's grace, and hence are not works at all, but spontaneity and joyful exuberance... Sometimes they are, but there always comes a time...

I would like to know where you got this idea, because I have never heard of it. Our good works do not arise from exuberance. You make it sound as if after we are justified we feel good and so start to do good. It is not that way at all. After we are justified we have a new nature in addition to the sinful one we are born with. The old nature does not pass away until we are glorified at the end of our time on earth, and so we behave according to our new nature as well as the old Adamic nature while we are here. This has nothing to do with spontaneous feelings, but with the kinds of natures we have. Of course someone with the Holy Spirit will do godly works, often without even thinking about it, because it is part of his new nature.

I think you would agree that things behave according to their nature; a dog behaves as a dog and a fly as a fly. In the same way, before we are justified our will is opposed to God's will and he must do something to change our will. That something is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which comes to us through the means God has ordained.

Regarding Eph. 8:2-10

Now nowhere in this Ephesians quote do we find it written that works are a response to the gift of salvation...

No, it says our faith is a gift from God. We cannot even believe in him unless he awakens us!

Salvation is a free gift, and there is absolutely nothing we can do to earn it, and certainly no work we do can earn us salvation - Yet there are works and there are works, and the work of, say, doing signs, or healing, is one kind of work, and the work of repentance is another, for one is the work of discipleship, and the other of apostleship - One is for the mature in the faith, which is the good works prepared by "Christ beforehand that we should walk in them, and the other is the work of conforming ourselves to Christ, to obeying His commandments. Now the fact that we DO the works of discipleship in no way EARNS us salvation, which is a free gift, but without our doing these works, we will never attain unto salvation, for if we do not deny ourself, take up our cross, and follow Christ, we will not find salvation... The faith through which we are saved by grace is the faith that takes action, that it be a saving faith...

This why I think a lot of our "disagreement" is about terms and assumptions, not really substance.

Faith is not merely intellectual assent. When I speak of faith I mean what you call "saving faith." I believe that a "faith" that takes no action is not really faith at all. As St. James said, the demons know all kinds of things, but they tremble! Why is that? Because their faith does not produce works of righteousness.

Basically, you are using the word faith in a way I am not using it.

Yet without all that effort, there is no salvation, for that is the effort of discipleship, and if we are not willing to be discipled, we will not find salvation...

But if you agree that the effort, the will and the ability to be desciples, in your words, comes from God, where do we disagree?

Protestant theology teaches that works are a consequence of the posession of salvation that is itself freely given. Orthodoy says that the process of discipleship requires of us great and willing effort... eg works...

Lutheran theology (I will not speak for other Protestants) teaches that works are an outgrowth of our new, godly nature. Further, we cannot do any godly works without the Holy Spirit. Also, Christian=a person in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. Therefore, only Christians can do godly works. When you say good works are a consequence of our freely given salvation, you are correct, but you miss some very key points. For one, your statement implies we are on auto pilot after we are justified. On the contrary, after justification my will does cooperate with God, as he works with and on me, so I conform more and more to the image of Christ. The key point is that my will is active. Where you are partially correct is that because I am now a "good" tree, I will bear "good" fruit. As far as that is concerned I am passive. But I really don't think you would disagree with that either, after all, our Lord used that analogy himself! After justification we have two natures that contend for our outward behavior.
:ponder:

The works of discipleship lead us to salvation, yes? Do Protestants as a general rule agree with that statement?

If by "salvation" you mean what we in the west call glorification, yes. If by "salvation" you mean what we in the west call Justification, no. There can be no glorification without sanctification.

jason

April 6th 2004, 07:26 PM

And the answer is from God - And even the will to do them...Which of course is straight down the line Augustinianism/Reformed Theology.

the works of salvation, justification, and reconciliation are a consequence of having been *given* salvation as a free gift.The alternative is to believe that they are something you do. Which is the works salvation theology you yourself reject.

As if the works are themselves but a spontaneous outpouring of the exuberance of the reception of God's grace, and hence are not works at all, but spontaneity and joyful exuberance... No that isn't true George. The ability to do the works in question are a gift from God.

Sometimes they are, but there always comes a time...And the ability to do the works even when you don't want to, or don't feel like it, are also gifts from God. You have a misunderstanding here.

Now nowhere in this Ephesians quote do we find it written that works are a response to the gift of salvation...But nobody is claiming it in the sense you think they are. Well perhaps some are, but I am not.

but without our doing these works, we will never attain unto salvation, for if we do not deny ourself, take up our cross, and follow Christ, we will not find salvation...Because our faith is dead without these outward signs (James 2)? No kidding. But I am not denying that.

The reason Paul includes the reminder that our faith is not of works is because of the great amount of works engendered in discipleship, and the easy error that could be made by a hard working and exhausted and sleep deprived and hungered disciple that after all that effort he might somehow deserve salvation and have earned it... Yet without all that effort, there is no salvation, for that is the effort of discipleship, and if we are not willing to be discipled, we will not find salvation...But what do you mean by being descipled ? Is it not doing as we are commanded to do in the Bible ? And what if we fall short of the ideal ? Do we not have an advocate in heaven pleading our case ? (1John 1).

Different understandings... Methinks... I don't think so. Not as different as you seem to think anyway. Perhaps a different slant on things.

Protestant theology teaches that works are a consequence of the posession of salvation that is itself freely given. Orthodoy says that the process of discipleship requires of us great and willing effort... eg works... Are you saying that the works by themselves apart from the free gift of God in salvation are worth anything ?

The works of discipleship lead us to salvation, yes? Do Protestants as a general rule agree with that statement?This would be the process termed Santification by the Protestants if I understand you correctly. And if so, then yes.

Mitres??? Plus a bunch of bearded guys in dresses??? Whaddya mean we're weird lookin'???I said funny looking hats. I like the ZZ Top beards :tongue:

Actually, it's just that you won't be saved if you don't do the works entailed by being discipled in the Church - The works of repentance, prayer, giving alms, confession, standing vigils, doing one's labors, etc... Turn your back on these works and you will not find salvation...Must it be these works in particular ? Could you not simply attend to the works commanded in scripture. I don't think "standing vigils" is mentioend anywhere, although I will confess i'm not sure what you mean by that. Although I could probably guess.

Works ARE what you do to GET saved, and... They don't save you... But without them, you don't get saved... For salvation comes with discipleship in the apostolic Church, and discipleship teaches us the Christian actions needed to deny oneself, take up one's cross, and follow Christ...So nobody is saved who is not a member of the EO church body ? Are you really claiming that ?

I never said becoming a Christian was easy... You do the works in the expectation/faith/hope that God is faithful - And He is... Neither did I.

Still think so?? It depens on how you answer the last question. But no I really don't think we disagree as much as you seem to think we do.

Jason

Rdr. Arsenios

April 7th 2004, 11:08 AM

But what do you mean by being descipled ? Is it not doing as we are commanded to do in the Bible?

The Bible tells us that Christ commanded the Apostles to go forth into the world, discipling all the peoples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. So that it is the Apostles who disciple, just as Christ discipled the Apostles, and the Apostles in turn disciple the peoples... And the result is the creation of the people of God in Christ, which is His Church, the pillar and ground of truth.

Christ does NOT tell them to be doing what they read in the Bible to be doing. Discipling is done face to face, by the mature in the faith to the immature, and only the apostolic Church can do this, for only the apostles were discipled by Christ... And indeed, Paul enjoins us to be obedient to our elders, and if we are not, even with the witness of two or three elders in the Church, we are to be rejected from the Church...

In the gospels, we fing many places where Christ did signs, and people believed, and became His disciples, yet the believing did not constitute discipleship, and the Bible does not record the process and activity of discipleship, except by inclusion and almost casual references, for it was assumed that anyone hearing the words would be within the Church, and would know what discipleship was, and what it entailed...

I remember Peter being slipped out of prison by an angel, and making his way in the early morning hours to a Christian house, and knocking on the door, and the woman coming to the door, and reporting to the apostles within that Peter was at the door [do I have this story right?] - And they told her that it was not him, because he was in prison, but that it might be his apparition, knocking out of his desire to be with them [or some such] - And she finally ascertained that it was actually him, and let him in...

But whatever the story - my memory of it is sketchy at best - the fact is that they were up at 3-4AM praying, singing and rejoicing in the Lord - This is called an all night vigil these days [and nights!] in the Apostolic Orthodox Church -

Could you not simply attend to the works commanded in scripture. I don't think "standing vigils" is mentioned anywhere, although I will confess I'm not sure what you mean by that. Although I could probably guess.

It is simply a prayer service that extends on into the hours of darkness, done in candlelight and incense, in chanting and singing, in the holiness of God's Temple, and in joy and gladness...

Or you can bag the whole thing, order in a couple of pizzas, tune into your favorite programs on TV, and fall asleep on the couch around 11...

One is doing the works of discipleship, and the other is doing the works of the world. We can do either... [Regardless of whether or not we have been baptized...]

geo-Arsenios

elysian

April 7th 2004, 11:32 AM

The Great Commission is not "the Great Suggestion."

We are called to go out into the world, to make disciples for Christ one by one. Because we as Christians are called to do this the Holy Spirit enables us to, and He works through our witness.

We witness through acts of charity- such as creating housing for the homeless, feeding the hungry, comforting the bereaved, encouraging those who struggle, and in visiting the sick and lonely.

We witness in our home, in our workplace as we do our jobs faithfully and to God's glory, as we tend to the necessities of life, and in our character and our living.

We witness in our sharing, in our fellowship, in our conversation.

We witness in our prayer, as we intercede for others, and as we praise God.

We witness in our study and meditation, as we listen for God's voice.

ManM

April 7th 2004, 01:18 PM

For an example of Orthodox thought, take a peek at the work of Metropolitan Hierotheos.
http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b02.en.orthodox_psychotherapy.01.htm

Judge for yourself the number of differences.

Amazing Rando

April 7th 2004, 01:32 PM

I've been away for a while, so no idea how much of this thread I've missed, but here's a question I've been trying to figure out for a while: do Orthodox Christians (or the RCC) view Protestants as essentially no different than a Muslim or a Buddhist? How about a metaphysical naturalist? :nsm:

Rusty T

April 7th 2004, 02:22 PM

Okay, like I've said before "I'm not an Orthodox Christian." I am however an inquirer. In my opinion Orthodoxy looks at Protestants as a schism from a schism - that Protestatism is an off-shoot of Roman Catholocism and thus as separated from Orthodox Christianity as Roman Catholics. Now, do they view Protestants as they do a Muslim or Buddhist? I dont' think so. I've read many convert stories that thanked God they were led first to Christ in Protestant churches and then by God into the Orthodox Church. But I may be wrong.

tizzi

Maxentius

April 7th 2004, 04:54 PM

The Great Commission is not "the Great Suggestion."

We are called to go out into the world, to make disciples for Christ one by one. Because we as Christians are called to do this the Holy Spirit enables us to, and He works through our witness.

(snip)

We witness in our study and meditation, as we listen for God's voice.

I agree. While vigils etc. have value, chiefly in dicsiplining the flesh, I think raising godly children, or even every day work is a way we witness to Christ. As Luther said in my quote above, we should be little Christs to each other.

:offtopic:

I keep seeing more pearls and points. What are they and what do I do with them?

jason

April 7th 2004, 08:09 PM

You know George that you did not answer the most important question I asked.

So nobody is saved who is not a member of the EO church body ? Are you really claiming that ?

The Bible tells us that Christ commanded the Apostles to go forth into the world, discipling all the peoples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. So that it is the Apostles who disciple, just as Christ discipled the Apostles, and the Apostles in turn disciple the peoples... And the result is the creation of the people of God in Christ, which is His Church, the pillar and ground of truth. Yep. That is right.

Christ does NOT tell them to be doing what they read in the Bible to be doing.Paul seems to have plenty of really good advice on this issue though.

I remember Peter being slipped out of prison by an angel, and making his way in the early morning hours to a Christian house, and knocking on the door, and the woman coming to the door, and reporting to the apostles within that Peter was at the door [do I have this story right?]Yep Acts 12.

But whatever the story - my memory of it is sketchy at best - the fact is that they were up at 3-4AM praying, singing and rejoicing in the Lord - This is called an all night vigil these days [and nights!] in the Apostolic Orthodox Church - Sounds like a late night prayer meeting in a Protestant Church. Often we have prayer breakfasts. Sounds like the same thing at a different time of day.

Jason

ManM

April 7th 2004, 09:46 PM

elysian

April 8th 2004, 09:11 AM

From
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/status.htm

"The status of the heterodox is properly seen in two ways. When speaking of their ecclesial status-i.e., their relation to the Orthodox Church-we would say that the heterodox cannot be seen as Her members, because they have not been grafted into the one true Body of Christ through Holy Baptism. On the other hand, when speaking of their eternal status-i.e., the implications of this ecclesial separation-, we leave them to the mercy of God and do not judge them. To affirm their separation is not to imply their damnation."

This sounds very close to the "separated brethren" stance of the RCC, that Protestants can be Christians and be saved but they don't get the faith in what they consider to be its "completeness"- which is a lot better than the former (pre-Vatican II) opinion that my mother learned: all Protestants and heathens, i.e. anyone outside the Catholic Church goes to hell, but they never mentioned Orthodox specificially.

Rdr. Arsenios

April 8th 2004, 11:21 AM

You know George that you did not answer the most important question I asked.

I apologize, Jason. I had no idea that this question was the most important one that you asked...

So nobody is saved who is not a member of the EO church body ? Are you really claiming that ?

No. The Church makes no judgement of those outside Her. We know that we find salvation within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and we do not ourselves seek salvation outside Her, yet even so, we never say that those outside US are not saved... God is merciful and just, and judges the heart, and by that standard, there are doubtless many IN the Church not saved...

We judge ourselves, for this is essential for our living repentant lives, but if we catch ourselves judging our brother, we are enjoined to pray for him as if our salvation depended on his salvation.

We say of no one living "He is saved, and she is damned..." Instead we but pray for mercy for our own sins, and do not judge our brother...

We know whre God's grace is found, and where His saving grace abounds, and that is in the Orthodox Church, where souls have been being saved since 33AD... We do not know where God's grace is NOT... And would never claim that salvation is only found in the historic and apostolic Orthodox Church... Clearly God said "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy..."

Yep Acts 12.
Sounds like a late night prayer meeting in a Protestant Church. Often we have prayer breakfasts. Sounds like the same thing at a different time of day.
Jason

It is natural to try to frame what one reads in the Bible in terms of our own experiences, and the Orthodox doubtless do so as well...

Yet the issues involved here entail watchfulness and stillness and prayer, and spiritual vigilance, and wakefulness through the night, and the minimizing of sleep... Christ implored his disciples to remain awake the night he sweated clots of blood in the garden, and they failed to do so, and all turned from him and were scattered the following day... And the parable of the wise and foolish virgins comes to mind, and the oil the first had, and the latter did not, and the consequences ensuant for each...

These are works, without which we will find ourselves scattered and locked out of the kingdom... Prayer itself is a work... Everything we do is a work... THAT is why works are so critical unto salvation, and are not merely consequential actions of having been saved already... We are called to actions that we must needs do in order that we be saved from the bonds and the ravages of our sin-filled lives, and yet we must affirm that thre is nothing we can do that will of itself save us - THAT is the crucible of faith, for it is not a faith in our own efficacy, but in the efficacy of self-denial and God's mercy, and these two form the synergistic basis for salvation by faith.

There is no lack of God's mercy and grace unto salvation - He gave His Beloved Son up to the cross for us all... The lack is us... And it is not God that we have to blame for our lack of salvation, but ourselves, and our own unwillingness to turn from self and unto God in the faith given once for all to the apostles, and received in baptism into His holy body, the Church...

So to say that some works are the result of salvation is true, yet works are not ONLY the result of salvation, but are the very means of our appropriation of the salvation freely given to us by God, for if we do not do the work of self denial commanded by Christ, we will not find salvation following Him, for the cross, the one we are commanded ourselves to take up , is the cross of self-denial and self-sacrifice, and whereas this work commanded by Christ does not save us, it is necessary for us to do that we BE saved... For only God can save us... Yet we can turn from God...

geo-Arsenios

Rdr. Arsenios

April 8th 2004, 05:18 PM

Here is a quote from Martin Luther ...

Luther says we should each be a Christ to our neighbor, ...

This sounds a lot like theosis, as far as I understand it.

Luther: "...we believe in Him and are reciprocally and mutually one the Christ of the other, doing to our neighbour as Christ does to us."

This says that we are the Christ of each other, and I can tell you that I am not your Christ... And I am unable to do to you what Christ has done to me...

Theosis is the third and final stage of discipleship, and is indeed apostleship - The apostolic Church is apostolic not only because She began with the Apostles, but because She produces them from generation to generation... They are called saints...

The first stage is purification of the heart, and this one involves us in the grace of repentance. The second is the enlightenment of the nous, and it is this stage that was manifest when Peter confessed Christ as the Son of the Living God, for that had been revealed to him by the Father, and such revelation is the enlightenment of the nous. And remember, in western scholastic and intellectual terms, the nous can be thought of as the director of the intelligence, the part of man that discerns identities and differences, and is NOT man's thoughts, but is their originator and evaluater... This second stage is the illumination of the intelligence by God - It results in the understanding of scripture, among numberless other results...

As discipleship progresses, and according to the mercies of God, theosis, which is the participation of the whole person in the uncreated and divine energies of God, takes place... And in corporate terms, of course, it takes place at every divine liturgy of the Church... But is here much more subtle... That of the saints is miracle working, and a one minute encounter with one of these can turn a life around utterly and set it solidly upon the path of salvation...

geo-Arsenios

jason

April 8th 2004, 07:21 PM

I apologize, Jason. I had no idea that this question was the most important one that you asked...Thats ok. I should have bolded it :wink:

We say of no one living "He is saved, and she is damned..." Instead we but pray for mercy for our own sins, and do not judge our brother...So you would class my Protestant self as a brother ?

How can you evangelise without pointing out to someone they are not saved and are in need of repentance ?

It is natural to try to frame what one reads in the Bible in terms of our own experiences, and the Orthodox doubtless do so as well... I see the difference now.

So to say that some works are the result of salvation is true, yet works are not ONLY the result of salvation, but are the very means of our appropriation of the salvation freely given to us by God, for if we do not do the work of self denial commanded by Christ, we will not find salvation following Him, for the cross, the one we are commanded ourselves to take up , is the cross of self-denial and self-sacrifice, and whereas this work commanded by Christ does not save us, it is necessary for us to do that we BE saved... For only God can save us... Yet we can turn from God...This is that justification/sanctification vs process of salvation divide again.

There is not really a disagreement of fact just a disagreement of terminology and the way the argument is phrased.

Jason

Maxentius

April 8th 2004, 10:42 PM

Hello again George!

Just a quick item on my post you quoted and then to meatier theological issues. :smile:

Luther: "...we believe in Him and are reciprocally and mutually one the Christ of the other, doing to our neighbour as Christ does to us."

This says that we are the Christ of each other, and I can tell you that I am not your Christ... And I am unable to do to you what Christ has done to me...

I think you missed the context. Luther is talking about godly works here, not that we are all actually Christs, or that I could die for your sins. Basically he agrees with you, Christ is among us only if we believe in him and freely give to our neighbor as Christ gives to us. Those are works we do. Also, don't believers to many Christ-like things to each other out of love? Don't we forgive each other's sins, sacrafice for and love our neighbors, perhaps even to death? Isn't that what a Christian should DO?

Theosis is the third and final stage of discipleship, and is indeed apostleship - The apostolic Church is apostolic not only because She began with the Apostles, but because She produces them from generation to generation... They are called saints...

A saint is anyone set apart by God, one of his people.

The first stage is purification of the heart, and this one involves us in the grace of repentance.

This sounds like justification to me. I think you already agree we cannot repent without the Holy Spirit. Also, this usually happens in Holy Baptism with infants, with preaching to adults.

The second is the enlightenment of the nous, and it is this stage that was manifest when Peter confessed Christ as the Son of the Living God, for that had been revealed to him by the Father, and such revelation is the enlightenment of the nous. And remember, in western scholastic and intellectual terms, the nous can be thought of as the director of the intelligence, the part of man that discerns identities and differences, and is NOT man's thoughts, but is their originator and evaluater... This second stage is the illumination of the intelligence by God - It results in the understanding of scripture, among numberless other results...

I have no problem at all with this formulation. Of course we would expect someone to grow in understanding as the Holy Spirit because his nature was changed when God called him out. As you said, the originator of his thoughts changes. This is similar to my view that God gives us a new nature. If we add that it is impossible to do this withoug God first enlightening us I do not think the disagreement is insurmountable, if it even exists. When we are born, our nous is opposed to God, and so our thoughts are poopsed to God. The Holy Spirit changes our nous and so our thoughts begin to change, leading to sanctification.

Does that sound Orthodox to you? :idea:

As discipleship progresses, and according to the mercies of God, theosis, which is the participation of the whole person in the uncreated and divine energies of God, takes place... And in corporate terms, of course, it takes place at every divine liturgy of the Church... But is here much more subtle... That of the saints is miracle working, and a one minute encounter with one of these can turn a life around utterly and set it solidly upon the path of salvation...

My understanding of participation in the divine energies of God is that we behave more and more like God, or Christ. We become more holy through contact with God--it is a mystical union. You mentioned the liturgy, I would also add the sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. (We Lutherans define sacraments as something ordained by Jesus Christ, where the forgiveness of sins is offered and which is connected to physical means. So we have two, Holy Baptism and Holy Sommunion. Some add confession :smile:) These things unite us to God, and we also do good works and sacrafice time, wealth and perhaps our bodeis for each other as Christ did for his church. This is the meaning of Luther's "one the Christ of the other" statement and I still think it is very similar to the Orthodox concept of theosis.

I find your statement that an encounter with someone advanced in theosis can change a life. Does this mean that such a person is a means of salvation?

Allow me to cite the Greek Orthodox website:

THEOSIS

The fundamental vocation and goal of each and every person is to share in the life of God. We have been created by God to live in fellowship with Him. The descent of God in the Person of Jesus Christ has made possible the human ascent to the Father through the work of the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy believes that each Christian is involved in a movement toward God which is known as theosis or deification.

Theosis describes the spiritual pilgrimage in which each person becomes ever more perfect, ever more holy, ever more united with God. It is not a static relationship, nor does it take place only after death. On the contrary, theosis is a movement of love toward God which begins for each Christian with the rites of Baptism and which continues throughout this life, as well as the life which is to come. Salvation means liberation from sin, death, and evil. Redemption means our repossession by God. In Orthodoxy, both salvation and redemption are within the context of theosis. This rich vision of Christian life was expressed well by Saint Peter when he wrote in the early pages of his second Epistle that we are called "to become partakers of the Divine nature." It was also affirmed by Saint Basil the Great when he described man as the creature who has received the order to become a god.

These are certainly bold affirmations which must be properly understood. The Orthodox Church understands theosis as a union with the energies of God and not with the essence of God which always remains hidden and unknown. However, the experience of the Church testifies that this is a true union with God. It is also one which is not pantheistic, because in this union the divine and the human retain their unique characteristics. In this sense, Orthodoxy believes that human life reaches its fulfillment only when it becomes divine.

Wouldn't someone who was well advanced in theosis appear as a little Christ to someone else?

Also, notice that the fundamental vocation, or calling, is for us to be in union with God. From my perspective, this is done through the means God has instituted--preaching the Gospel and receiving the sacraments. That is how he creates and sustains faith and he alone is responsible for that. When we grow in our faith, our wills work with the Holy Spirit and we become more godly through union with him. Maybe I am really off the wall here, but that sounds a lot like theosis to me.

Rdr. Arsenios

April 9th 2004, 01:34 AM

So you would class my Protestant self as a brother?

My brother, there is no man alive who is not my brother...

How can you evangelise without pointing out to someone they are not saved and are in need of repentance?
[QUOTE]

The witness of Christ was His life. Where in the Bible do you find Paul evangellizing by telling people they are not saved and are in need of repentance? The witness of Paul is Paul...

The saints are the spiritual Jedi of Christianity, for they embody physically the uncreated energies of God, and like Paul and the other Apostles, they can heal all manner of illnesses, cast out demons, and turn lives around in brief encounters. They evangellize just like Paul did, by walking the earth, and the faith and faithful follow in the wake of the power of their walk. Throw them in prison, and they will evangellize the guards and prisoners

[QUOTE]
Quote:[from geo]
So to say that some works are the result of salvation is true, yet works are not ONLY the result of salvation, but are the very means of our appropriation of the salvation freely given to us by God, for if we do not do the work of self denial commanded by Christ, we will not find salvation following Him, for the cross, the one we are commanded ourselves to take up , is the cross of self-denial and self-sacrifice, and whereas this work commanded by Christ does not save us, it is necessary for us to do that we BE saved... For only God can save us... Yet we can turn from God...

This is that justification/sanctification vs process of salvation divide again.

Protestants often see regeneration as justification - I think Lutherans for sure do, and that this regeneration is in the waters of baptism. Others regard it as the 'spirit baptism' apart from, though not necessarily apart from, what is then termed 'water baptism'... So that if someone has a profound spiritual experience, they can claim to have been baptized in Spirit and be reborn from above, yet for Lutherans, I think this is mostly understood in the regular Lutheran Church baptism...

Yet for the Orthodox, baptism is indeed a spiritual rebirth, but is only the beginning of justification, which is itself the being made right with God, and is the ongoing fruit of repentance and turning to God in all things, and God's response to one who does this... Righteousness and justification are, in the Greek, the same basic term - A better transliteration might be 'righteousness' and 'rectification', or 'righteousing', of 'the process of making righteous'. And the righteous ones of the Old Testament were those whose deeds made them righteous, and their deeds were reckoned and accounted as faith... It is not enough to say I believe God, but I must also DO what God tells me to do... It is the doing that confirms faith, that makes a wannabe-righteous man into an actually righteous one...

In baptism, for the Orthodox, one is actually made pure, and thereby is given the free gift of holiness in that purity, and the job of the newly illumined [baptized] is to keep and maintain the holiness [purity] given them at baptism, and in the course of 'running the race' set before him as a new-born babe in Christ, he gradually acquires, through the trials and struggles of the keeping of the faith, the ontological righteousness that if pursued successfully - eg that one overcomes the opposition of evils - leads to sainthood. And indeed the only thing holding anyone back is their SELF...

So that from the Orthodox pov, as I understand it, Protestant salvation theory has matters upside-down, thinking they are justified without trials, and saved prior to 'self-improvement' - meaning repentance and overcoming the actual evil of their own passions, which strive as their 'old man' to keep them from God. And it is the job of those who are experience in this kind of struggle, the ones who have overcome and are proven veterans in this warfare, to oversee their struggles, and bail them out when necessary, by teaching or by direct intervention, or by intercessory prayers [or some combination]...

We are saved as community, in the household of the Communion of Christ's holy body, the Church, and not separately according to self and God alone, for this is how Christ set up His salvation of humanity, through His apostolic Church, and person to person, and not the Holy Spirit alone to individual alone, for that is the meaning of communion, for in Christ, the many are one...

And so we can see that it is justification that is gradually acquired unto righteousness, which is rectitude of soul and body, and the sanctification is given up front, in the newness of the rebirth of the new creature in Christ that comes forth from the waters of baptism... For newborn babes are holy, but not yet righteous...

This is the best of my understanding of these matters so far... And it is the perseverence in the faith to the end that leads to salvation, and we are given an earnest of it in this present life... For we gradually acquire changed souls that are turned progressively unto God alone, and away from self and the world, and insofar as we are servants of God, we live in His rulership, and the rulership of God is the kingdom of God, and for those living unto God in obedience to Him, life on earth, tribulations and all, are the kingdom of God on earth, and are rejoiced...

Is this helpful?

geo-Arsenios

Jezz

April 9th 2004, 09:27 AM

Yet for the Orthodox, baptism is indeed a spiritual rebirth, but is only the beginning of justification, which is itself the being made right with God, and is the ongoing fruit of repentance and turning to God in all things, and God's response to one who does this... Righteousness and justification are, in the Greek, the same basic term - A better transliteration might be 'righteousness' and 'rectification', or 'righteousing', of 'the process of making righteous'. And the righteous ones of the Old Testament were those whose deeds made them righteous, and their deeds were reckoned and accounted as faith... It is not enough to say I believe God, but I must also DO what God tells me to do... It is the doing that confirms faith, that makes a wannabe-righteous man into an actually righteous one...
George is spot-on here. This is something that I realised myself from the Greek.

Here are the relevant Greek words:

righteous: dikaios (adjective or adjective used as a noun)
righteousness: dikaiosune (abstract noun describing the concept)
justify: dikaioo (verb describing the act of making someone/thing "dikaios")
justification: dikaiosis (abstract noun denoting the act of justifying)

("justified" is simply the past participle of "justify" - dikaioo)

The fact that we use unrelated English translation masks the tight relation between these three words (sometimes "dikaiosune" is actually translated "justice" in the OT...).

When the Greek fathers wrote of "theosis" (deification), it is quite clear that by this word they meant "the process of being made theos" (divine). They who were native Greek speakers did not simply mean a one-time act whereby God simply declares a person to be divine, but an actual ongoing process whereby God makes this happen (provided the person is willing).

So when the Bible talks of "dikaiosis" ("justification"), what reason do we have to suspect that it means anything other than "the process of being made dikaios" ("righteous")? This seems to me to be blindingly obvious from the Greek - "justification" is not a one-time act whereby God simply declares us to be righteous, but an actual ongoing process whereby God makes this happen (again, provided the subject is willing). We know from experience that noone is made righteous in an instant.

In fact, this is so blindingly obvious to me from the Greek that I can't quite understand how Protestant scholars have missed it for so long. Perhaps this is proof that tradition is more important than Scripture in Protestant interpretations after all...

So that from the Orthodox pov, as I understand it, Protestant salvation theory has matters upside-down...

[snip]

And so we can see that it is justification that is gradually acquired unto righteousness, which is rectitude of soul and body, and the sanctification is given up front, in the newness of the rebirth of the new creature in Christ that comes forth from the waters of baptism... For newborn babes are holy, but not yet righteous...
Ahh, this is a distinction that I had not yet picked up on, but it also makes a great deal of sense.

In the Greek we have a similar cluster of words:

holy: hagios (adjective or adjective used as a noun)
holiness: hagiasmos (abstract noun describing the concept)
sanctify: hagiazoo (verb describing the act of making someone/thing "hagios")
sanctification: this word does not appear in the NIV; in the KJV it is sometimes used as a translation for hagiasmos - which I think is a mistranslation (obviously, the NIV translators thought so too...). The proper Greek word for sanctification should be something like "hagiosis" or "hagiazosis".

"holy" as an adjective means "set apart". Therefore "holiness" is the state of being "set apart", and "to sanctify" means "to set apart". Obviously, the act of "setting apart" is an "instantaneous" act, and holiness is closely associated with ritual purity in the OT. The act of baptism is thus an act of sanctification - being made holy, ie, set apart; still in the world, but set apart from the world. What are we set apart for? Well, I guess the answer would be that we're set apart for justification - ie, for being made righteous, through faith. Is this close, George?

Jason mentioned in an earlier response to me, which I did not get around to dealing with (sorry Jason - though it was partly because we were covering similar ground in other threads):

The problem is different uses of terminology. The EO seems to say "salvation", where as the Protestant says, "Justifcation", "Sanctification" and "Glorification". The EO has bundled three different ideas into one word (at least as far as I can tell), and so we have a disagreement although there is probably not any disagreement at all.
Jason is correct that there is a problem here in the use of terminology, but I am now convinced that that is not the only problem. There is an additional problem in that the words for "justification" and "sanctification" have more-or-less reversed their meanings in Protestant theology. Thus when a Protestant says "we are justified by faith", they actually understand something different to the Orthodox, because what they understand as "justification" is actually closer to "sanctification".

Is this helpful?
It was very helpful to me, thankyou. I had realised the mistake in the terminology of "justification" some time ago from the Greek, but I hadn't quite latched on to the misunderstanding of the word "sanctification", until you ponted it out here. Now I can more properly appreciate the differences between Protestant salvation theory and Orthodox. It seems clear to me that the Protestants have got something back-to-front there somewhere.

Rdr. Arsenios

April 9th 2004, 10:49 AM

Here are the relevant Greek words:

righteous: dikaios (adjective or adjective used as a noun)

righteousness: dikaiosune (abstract noun describing the concept)

justify: dikaioo (verb describing the act of making someone/thing "dikaios")

justification: dikaiosis (abstract noun denoting the act of justifying)

("justified" is simply the past participle of "justify" - dikaioo)

It really is very obvious ffrom the actual words found in the original Bible in Greek that 'justification' means 'being made righteous'... God does not make us instantly righteous, nor does He declare us righteous who are not righteous, nor does He impute righteousness where there is none. In the Orthodox understanding, this belief mocks God, because it has Him holding up our sinfulness and calling it righteousness... And in the process, makes of anyone who should believe such a thing an automatic, because ideological, hippocrite - Indeed, it virtually institutionalizes hippocracy.

The Orthodox way involves a turn around in one's life unto repentance in discipleship into the Church, and then, when the ministers deem the person ready, baptism into the very Body of Christ, wherein a person is reborn into the newness of Life in Christ, a baby in the faith, sanctified, set aside unto God, and nurtured at its Mother's breast - In the early Church, the newly baptized would not physically leave the Church in which they were baptized for a week, but would be given a whole week devoted to the rooting of their rebirth into the now very fertilized soil of their newly illumined and purified hearts... Such as these grew rapidly in the acquisition of the faith, for the temptations of the world unto anger, self-indulgence, and judging others, were held in such glorious check, not having a chance at all to arise during that first week.

And the way the soft and cuddly newborn grows into righteous and withered and unshakeable pillar of the faith as are the mature in the faith is through trials, and this is the "race st before us" to which Paul refers, and is a very arduous and worthwhile enterprise, for the fruits of the faith do not come easily, but only in our struggle and contention with our own sinfulness, which keeps trying to re-enter our now clean souls, for they are accustomed to the presence of sin... And the virtue of being a Christian is the virtue of living a repentant life that keeps clean the soul cleansed and reborn in the regenerational waters of baptism... And it is this 'keeping of the faith' that makes righteous [eg 'justifies'] the soul so entered into the arena of contention that is the crucible of our salvation.

It is not for nothing that Christ advises us to "count the cost" of discipleship... For this conflict is for keeps, and we can lose, and outside of the body of Christ, we won't even have someone there to tell us that we are losing, and to pray for us, and to father us back on track... For a holy father does not only birth his/her children into the faith, but raises them too, and that is what you see happening in the Pauline epistles, for they are being raised as children in the faith by Paul, who scolds and admonishes and encourages and builds up and prays for and thanks God for them all...

This is Orthodoxy...

When the Greek fathers wrote of "theosis" (deification), it is quite clear that by this word they meant "the process of being made theos" (divine). They who were native Greek speakers did [i]not simply mean a one-time act whereby God simply declares a person to be divine, but an actual ongoing process whereby God makes this happen (provided the person is willing).

When Moses came down from the mount with the tablets, the people could not look at him, and he covered his face. The people were too sinful, and Moses was righteous, and it was his righteousness that made him ontologically able to be in the presence of God as he had been and not be consumed in that fire, and that fire was imparted to him by its presence in God's presence... That is the kind of purity and actual, [not merely imputed], righteousness that a Christian needs to experience theosis...

We know from experience that no one is made righteous in an instant.

Which is why the Orthodox regard 'forensic imputed righteousness' as but a legal fiction. It is real, ontological, tried in the baptism of the fire of contention righteousness that prepares us to be able to hold at all the uncreated energies of God that theosis of the person in Christ entails...

holy: hagios (adjective or adjective used as a noun)

holiness: hagiasmos (abstract noun describing the concept)

sanctify: hagiazoo (verb describing the act of making someone/thing "hagios")

sanctification: this word does not appear in the NIV; in the KJV it is sometimes used as a translation for hagiasmos - which I think is a mistranslation (obviously, the NIV translators thought so too...). The proper Greek word for sanctification should be something like "hagiosis" or "hagiazosis".

"holy" as an adjective means "set apart". Therefore "holiness" is the state of being "set apart", and "to sanctify" means "to set apart". Obviously, the act of "setting apart" is an "instantaneous" act, and holiness is closely associated with ritual purity in the OT. The act of baptism is thus an act of sanctification - being made holy, ie, set apart; still in the world, but set apart from the world. What are we set apart for? Well, I guess the answer would be that we're set apart for justification - ie, for being made righteous, through faith. Is this close, George?

Yes, through the trials that come with the running of the race set before us in the arena of conflict with the evil that seeks our souls... And the only chance we have is in Christ... Who overcame the world.

I didn't know that 'sanctification' was not really a biblical term - Justification sure is!

[QUOTE]
Thus when a Protestant says "we are justified by faith", they actually understand something different to the Orthodox, because what they understand as "justification" is actually closer to "sanctification".

Yes, it seems that Protestants commonly think that holiness is acquired, and that righteousness is instantaneous, and this is backwards... One can turn from the world in an instant, and be baptized within the hour unto and into a new life through Christ's death on the Cross, and in this they are consecrated, eg set apart from the world and unto God... Yet it is the perseverence unto the end that justifies them, that makes them righteous, and if they do not do so, they will fall away, and that is what the holy fathers are about, such as Paul, for they are the shepherds who tend the flock, feed Christ's sheep, and raise his lambs...

I thank God that this discussion has proved useful and helpful, at least to some...

geo-Arsenios

Rdr. Arsenios

April 9th 2004, 11:04 AM

The following just came in on another board, and I offer it as a much better account than anything I might come up with, especially in these last hours before Pascha, the glorious Resurrection of our Lord...
________________________________

My first encounter with Orthodoxy was in the Army. I shared Barrack quarters with a soldier who was an Orthodox Christian for about six months. There was nothing which impressed me during this time to desire or long for Orthodoxy. In fact, three things about him prevented any interest from developing.

1. His prayer habit.

Just prior to meeting Elijah, I had lost any interest in Pentecostalism and its child the charasmatic movement. I was however in search for a "True Historical Biblical Christianity." This search was undertaken with the belief and conviction that I was capable of discerning what was: true, biblical and historical, using my own uneducated intellegience. I was twenty years old and was undaunted by others who were leaving Christianity altogether, or simply leaving their "traditional" Protestant roots for Pentecostalism and/or the charismatic movement.

It was this search which would eventually bring me near to Orthodoxy, but it would take me seventeen more years before I yearned to become Orthodox. Meanwhile, my initial encounter with Elijah gave me no impetus to want to become Orhodox.

As I stated above, his prayer habits turned me off. He followed a rule of prayer, saying prayers written by others out of a book. This was quite disconcerting, for it appeared in my eyes contrary to sincerity and a denial of true love for Christ.

This was not the worst part of Elijah's habit, no, for me it was his use of Icons and a knotted rope. Often he would excuse himself from eating in the cafeteria with me, and I would return to find him saying the "Jesus Prayer" and kissing his Icons. This was a mind-bender, and many times I attempted to engage him in argument about this practice, but he never attempted to prove me wrong. He told me I was wrong, but never would he engage in debate about the correctness of his habits. He never offended me, but I was offended by his rule of prayer.

2. His refusal to debate.

I needed debate, and I attempted to engage anyone and everyone who gave me opportunity. It was through this means that I came to embrace a form of Calvinism called "Reconstructionism," and it would be through this same means that I eventually entered into Eastern Catholicism. I attempted to enter Orthodoxy in this same way. I learned about an Orthodox Monastery within a few hours of my home and frequently drove up to engage them in debate, at least I debated. They never attempted to prove my arguments wrong, but only stated what was the Orthodox Way. I visited several time over three years before I finally attended an Orthodox service.

Elijah's refusal to debate, and later this same quietness towards my argumentativeness was perceived by me as a kind of "anti-intellectualism." It appeared to me as if Elijah and these monks were Orthodox through default rather than by precision of reason. It was because of this, that I first opted for Eastern Roman Catholicism over the Western Roman Catholicism and over Orthodoxy.

3. Elijah's passivism.

Elijah was only half way through his enlistment period and he was desperately attempting to get a general discharge out of the Army. He would explain how his enlistment had been a mistake. He was supposed to be monk but had decided to enlist into the Army. Once he had gone through basic training he knew he could never kill anyone. After listening to his explanations, I surmissed his true reason was because he wanted to be a Priest, and killing someone would have prevented him from become one.

Eventually, all three of these things caused me to yearn for Orthodoxy. I ached for it and lamented in prayer with tears that I could not see how to become Orthodox. I wanted to be Orthodox, but my reasoning kept getting in my way. Yet, never had I attended an Orthodox service, though I thought my experience in the Eastern Roman Catholic to be Orthodox at that time.

After three years in the Uniate Church, I received permission to attend a retreat at the Monastery I had visited so often. Attending the services there stirred a yearning which caused my bones to ache and gave me insomia. I had made a mistake, using my best reasoning had brought me close to Orthodoxy, but attending these services had made my heart acutely aware that I was as yet so far from that which I had sought: "True, Historical, Biblical Christianity."

I shared my experience and resulting struggle with my Uniate Priest. He attempted to assure me that this experience was only because of the context of my experience, i.e., a Monastery. He explained to me how this kind of experience follows after being in a place of prayer. This answer was unsettling, because I truly believed every Church was to be a place of prayer. Something for me was missing in my Uniate experience, but my reason could not formulate the answer.

A few months later I traveled across the USA to visit my parents and while there I opted to attend an Orthodox vespers, without any plan to go to its liturgy that Sunday morning. That one service convinced me more than ever, I had to become Orthodox without resolving all the issues or questions raised in previous attempts to prove Orthodoxy to be the true Church.

I left Catholicism that day and never have I looked back longing for anything I left. For me, it became Orthodoxy or nothing. My heart had been overpowered by the quietness of a reasoned defense unexplained.

For me, the issue was, "Who else has the words of life." I see only religious bones elsewhere, nicely arrainged and even guarded with zeal, but the Resurrection of Christ for which I had sought, I only see in Orthodoxy.

And the Resurrection of Christ is the essense of True Historical Biblical Christianity, everything else deteriorates into dust without this one thing which seperates Orthodoxy from all other Christianities.

Certainly, other Christianities believe in the Resurrection, but only in Orthodoxy has my soul found the Resurrection as a living presence. It is this Living presence of the "Word(s) of Eternal Life" which binds me unfettered to Orthodoxy.

May all have a blessed and joyous Pascha in the prayerful, undisturbed quietness of their heart, expressed with the triumphalism of "He is risen indeed!"

[name of author witheld]

Maxentius

April 9th 2004, 03:16 PM

Hello again George!

The witness of Christ was His life. Where in the Bible do you find Paul evangellizing by telling people they are not saved and are in need of repentance? The witness of Paul is Paul...

I guess I'll bite here. :smile:

Christ preached to crowds.

Jesus said in effect "Repent or else."

You asked if St. Paul preached to people, telling them they are in need of salvation/repentance.

In Acts 17:30-31 Paul states "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whome he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising them from the dead." (shameless Easter plug too :smile:)

1) St. Paul was not just giving them a good example by his behavior.
2) St. Paul said God overlooked their ignorance before, but now they must repent, i.e. they are not saved.
3) God will judge the world, which means "unsaved" people will go to hell, otherwise why judge at all?

Paul's witness is about Christ, not St. Paul.

The saints are the spiritual Jedi of Christianity, for they embody physically the uncreated energies of God, and like Paul and the other Apostles, they can heal all manner of illnesses, cast out demons, and turn lives around in brief encounters. They evangellize just like Paul did, by walking the earth, and the faith and faithful follow in the wake of the power of their walk. Throw them in prison, and they will evangellize the guards and prisoners

But St. Paul evangelized through his message, not merely his holiness. I agree wholeheartedly that healings, exorcisms etc. can have a powerful effect. Unfortunately, the Apostles did not just go around performing wonders, they preached. This is also true of some great conversions, both Eastern and Western. St. Bonaface performed miracles and preached in Germany, and Sts. Cyrill and Methodius did the same for the Slavic peoples.

St. Paul again:

And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.(ESV)

He was not alone:

For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does. (ESV)

I think you will agree that the Gentiles St. Paul preached to, and the spiritually dead ones St. Peter mentions are not "saved." The point is that there is more than just a godly behavior component to spreading the Gospel, there is also a preaching component as well as an every day component, like caring for the sick or dying. What ever God calls us to in his grace is our vocation.

Protestants often see regeneration as justification - I think Lutherans for sure do, and that this regeneration is in the waters of baptism..(snip)..yet for Lutherans, I think this is mostly understood in the regular Lutheran Church baptism...

Yes, we are reborn and saved when God justifies us. For most people Christians this happens during Holy Baptism. Adults undergo instruction before Holy Baptism though. The difference between Lutherans and TULIP Calvinists and even some "Evangelicals" is that Lutherans believe one can lose his salvation.

Yet for the Orthodox, baptism is indeed a spiritual rebirth, but is only the beginning of justification, which is itself the being made right with God, and is the ongoing fruit of repentance and turning to God in all things, and God's response to one who does this... Righteousness and justification are, in the Greek, the same basic term - A better transliteration might be 'righteousness' and 'rectification', or 'righteousing', of 'the process of making righteous'.

I do not know Greek. But even in English the term "justification" means to make just. We also know that St. Peter preaches that Holy Baptism saves us--not that it begins to save us--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Shameless Easter plug II :smile:). Later you critiqued the idea of forensic justification. In context, especially in Romans, whe see St. Paul preach about the Law on one hand, and justification through faith in Jesus Christ on the other. Given St. Paul's emphasis on the Law, why should we automatically exclude a forensic meaning for justification?

And the righteous ones of the Old Testament were those whose deeds made them righteous, and their deeds were reckoned and accounted as faith...

I think you have it exactly backwards. Genesis 15:6 and St. Paul say that Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness, not the other way around. As a matter of fact, that is the starting point of St. Paul's discussion of righteousness, and that we have none without faith in Christ.

It is not enough to say I believe God, but I must also DO what God tells me to do... It is the doing that confirms faith, that makes a wannabe-righteous man into an actually righteous one...

No one is saying that we only have to "believe." I mentioned this earlier when I said that what you call "saving faith" I call "faith". Faith is alive--FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD, so please do not imply that I say that we do not have to do something after we are justified, that merely my intellectual assent or a warm fuzzy is required. :argh:

In baptism, for the Orthodox, one is actually made pure, and thereby is given the free gift of holiness in that purity...

So if I understand you correctly, when we are baptized we are a blank slate so to speak. When we sin after baptism it is out of our own resources and not any remnant of our sinful nature--in fact we no longer have a sinful nature? Is that a correct understanding?

I believe we still have our sinful nature. It is not expunged until we are glorified in heaven. St. Paul himself said that nothing good dwells in him, except Jesus Christ, that he still struggles with the sin that dewlls within him. In other words, I do not think the doctrine to describe is in accordance with St. Paul's teachings. St. Paul had indewlling sin, he is greater than I, I sure have indwelling sin too.

I would like to sum up my post:

Jesus, St. Peter and St. Paul threatened people who do not repent with severe punishment.

All three witnessed to the Gospel through their actions, but also through their preaching of judgement and salvation through Jesus Christ.

God accounted Abraham's faith as righteousness, not the other way around.

No one is preaching "cheap grace" here. We are not on autopilot after we are saved.

I am not sure I understood your post Re: baptism. If you believe as I think your post states, you are in contradiction to St. Paul's and others' teachings regarding indwelling sin.

Given St. Paul's emphasis on law and grace, I do not think it is safe to dismiss the forensic understanding of justification just because it raises intellectual questions.

Happy Easter!

Rdr. Arsenios

April 9th 2004, 04:43 PM

Hello again George!

Hey, Max - I am not flush on time. so this will be short.

The difference between Lutherans and TULIP Calvinists and even some "Evangelicals" is that Lutherans believe one can lose his salvation.

Then you are in agreement with the Orthodox, for we live in constant awareness of the very real possibility of the loss of our salvation, through our own sinfulness, turning from a life of salvation and unto a life of the world.

I do not know Greek. But even in English the term "justification" means to make just.

Therein lies the rub, for it does not mean to make right, but means, as you say, to make just, and in effect to 'prove right' - eg to 'justify' something, like an expense, or a person, by their action - Self-defense, in US law, is 'justified'... The person who acts in self defense is proved right to do so, for his action is just and right to do.

The Greek root is dik- and this means "right", and in Christian terms, it means right with God, either to be made right with Him [righteousing=justifying], or to BE right IN Him [righteousness=justification] - See Jezz's post.

We also know that St. Peter preaches that Holy Baptism saves us

Yes...

--not that it begins to save us--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Well, there is something to be said for dieing of a heart attack just as one emerges from the baptismal waters... So as not to risk losing our salvation... Yet for those of us who somehow manage to survive the waters of regeneration, we have a life to live, now that we have been reborn as babes in Christ, and are learning to walk following Christ and taking up our own cross... That is what makes us progressively more mature in Christ, and this more justified, more righteous. We are already set aside from the world in our new birth, our lives are consecrated to God, and sanctified in Him, and dedicated to Him, and we are clean, but it is still our house... The demons have been banished, and they are all around outside and banished and longing for the comfortable beds and tables and chairs and warm rooms of the house of our soul, and our taking up our cross entails our continuing efforts, in Christ, of keeping them out, of keeping pure the state of our souls that emerged from baptism, for as Paul writes: "We hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience"... And without this ACTUALLY pure conscience, we are unable to hold the mystery of the faith. And discipleship is all about attaining this purity, and then keeping it...

So if I understand you correctly, when we are baptized we are a blank slate so to speak. When we sin after baptism it is out of our own resources and not any remnant of our sinful nature--in fact we no longer have a sinful nature? Is that a correct understanding?

No. We have a new nature that is helpless and vulnerable and needs its Mother, the Church, to help it grow into adulthood... And the old nature is longing to get back into the house from which it has been expelled in the prayers of exorcism at the narthex of the Church at the foot of the cross at the beginning of the Holy Service of Baptism... And it [the old nature] will indeed re-enter the now clean house of our soul, and things will be much the worse for us, should we allow it to do so...

I believe we still have our sinful nature.

See above... gotta run...

geo-Arsenios

Rdr. Arsenios

April 9th 2004, 11:14 PM

Quote:Originally Posted by George Blaisdell
It is not enough to say I believe God, but I must also DO what God tells me to do... It is the doing that confirms faith, that makes a wannabe-righteous man into an actually righteous one...

No one is saying that we only have to "believe." I mentioned this earlier when I said that what you call "saving faith" I call "faith". Faith is alive--FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD, so please do not imply that I say that we do not have to do something after we are justified, that merely my intellectual assent or a warm fuzzy is required.

One of the things that happens is that I follow the implications of premises, and the person who holds the premises but does not hold what I am seeing as their implications takes me as saying that they believe something that they do not, and certainly you are not saying what you think I am attributing to you. And I apologize for sounding that way.

Now here, we are looking at the idea that God forensically imputes a righteousness to us that does not actually exist, for we still are sinning, and that He does so irrespective of our actions, as a free gift, indeed the free gift of salvation... Orthodoxy denies this, affirming that the gift of salvation is freely given to all, yet not all are willing to do what is required to receive it... And that to be saved, one must turn from the world, turn unto God, and enter into discipleship in His apostolic Church, and be baptized, denying oneself, and taking up one's own cross, and following Christ. Anyone who does this faithfully will be saved... And we affirm that righteousness is acquired as we enter and run the race set before us after baptism... [The ones overcoming will be made a pillars of the Church.]

So that you affirm that we already have righteousness imputed at baptism, and we affirm that we acquire it actually in the trials of post-baptismal life, and denying that we have it as newborns in Christ... What we have after baptism is the potential, the ability, to become righteous, for we are no longer, at that point, under the rulership of sin, but are a new creature, and free to live our lives apart from sin... And as well to sin... Whereas before, we were under the yoke of slavery to sin, as newborns in Christ, we are relieved of the burden of sin, and are capable of living righteously, which we now, in the body of Christ, begin to learn how to do...

Any help?

geo-arsenios

Maxentius

April 12th 2004, 05:44 PM

I hope you had a Happy Easter George!

One of the things that happens is that I follow the implications of premises, and the person who holds the premises but does not hold what I am seeing as their implications takes me as saying that they believe something that they do not, and certainly you are not saying what you think I am attributing to you. And I apologize for sounding that way.

OK, apology accepted, though I wasn't really angry with you. The Internet is useful but sometimes "the words get in the way."

Now here, we are looking at the idea that God forensically imputes a righteousness to us that does not actually exist, for we still are sinning, and that He does so irrespective of our actions, as a free gift, indeed the free gift of salvation...

Yes, and I think this is according to St. Paul. there is a temporal component though and Ithink we are speaking past each-other a little bit.

Earlier I said that I believe we can lose our salvation and you said that I was Orthodox as far as that is concerned. My point is, that if I lose my salvation, I must have had it or the statement makes no sense.

in Hebrews 6 we read:

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

The people in question have here

1) Repentance, which comes through the Holy Spirit
2) The Holy Spirit himself!
3) The powers of the age to come!

I submit that these people were saved but they lost their salvation because they apostated. And unfortunately there is no hope for them because they drive away the Holy Spirit and without him there can be no repentance and so no salvation.

This brings up another point regarding the Lutheran view. In our view we do not pop in and out of salvation as per the Roman Catholic doctrine of mortal sin; we are saved in Holy Baptism, but we can lose it, and if we do we are truly lost.

Orthodoxy denies this, affirming that the gift of salvation is freely given to all, yet not all are willing to do what is required to receive it... And that to be saved, one must turn from the world, turn unto God, and enter into discipleship in His apostolic Church, and be baptized, denying oneself, and taking up one's own cross, and following Christ.

You mention the gift of salvation. I assume you mean the final judgement when Christ returns? Is that the salvation you speak of?

If that is what it means, the problem is in our definition of salvation, Lutheran vs. Orthodox. In first Corinthians 6:11 St. Paul says that "you were washed..sanctified...justified..." This is what I mean by "saved." God has already done the work: He gave me the Holy Spirit and a new nature at baptism. He continues to work on me when I receive the sacraments, hear the Word of God, have fellowship with other believers or speak with you on this board. :smile: Am I a completed work? No, that doesn't happen until the last day.

Anyone who does this faithfully will be saved... And we affirm that righteousness is acquired as we enter and run the race set before us after baptism... [The ones overcoming will be made a pillars of the Church.]

I go back and forth on how must we agree or disagree. Sometimes it sounds like we are saying the same thingh, other times it sounds like we are not.

So, if you mean the final escathological event, I may agree with you, after we unpack what you say a little.

St. Paul says that we were justified when we were washed, that places justification before the final escathalogical event--the return of Christ. He also says that we should conform to our new natures. In Romans we read that sin no longer has dominion over the believers. If sin has no dominion over me am I not saved? I would answer yes, but I would also caution that since it is possible to lose my salvation, even though God las already done the work for me. God places salvation in my palm, but I can still cast it away.

So that you affirm that we already have righteousness imputed at baptism, and we affirm that we acquire it actually in the trials of post-baptismal life, and denying that we have it as newborns in Christ... What we have after baptism is the potential, the ability, to become righteous, for we are no longer, at that point, under the rulership of sin, but are a new creature, and free to live our lives apart from sin... And as well to sin... Whereas before, we were under the yoke of slavery to sin, as newborns in Christ, we are relieved of the burden of sin, and are capable of living righteously, which we now, in the body of Christ, begin to learn how to do...

OK, what do you mean by "righteousness?" Surely we can grow in the faith, even become powerful servants of God who have tremendous effects on people around them. (as you said earlier) but if St. Paul says I am washed, regenerated, sanctified, justified etc. isn't it true that I am "righteous" in a sense?

Regarding the tenses of the Greek words for justify, sanctify etc. I do not know Greek so I cannot really argue about that.

Any help?

Yes, very much so.

I have been very busy, so I may or may not write more later.

Rdr. Arsenios

April 12th 2004, 06:43 PM

Max wrote:
"I hope you had a Happy Easter George!"

And I you, Max - We Orthodox do not call it Easter, of course, but Pascha, which means passover, and celebrates the resurrection of Christ.

Easter is named after the pagan goddess Esther, who is the earth-goddess of female fertility, and whose name is found in our word for the female hormone "Estrogen"... The prolific Easter Bunny, together with it's offspring, the Playboy Bunny, is not on the radar of Orthodoxy...

And it was the best Pascha ever for me, despite my miserable effort on the fast - We fast for 54 days up to Saturday night, the last 40 of them strict, the first 14 progressively entering into the real fast, by which we participate in Christ's 40 day fast in the desert...

So after a full Saturday's work, I cleaned up, bathed, did the Vespers prayers of preparation for communion, and drove an hour to Church [67 miles away] and snoozed for 30 minutes, arose, and did the morning prayers that complete one's preparation for communion, showing up at 11:15 for services that start at 11:30.

And the services ran until 3:30, with no pews, standing and singing the prayers constantly, except for the homily and communion itself, followed by an hour of after-worship fellowship and the eating of the Paschal dyed eggs, and bread with 'pascha' spread. Bed by 4:30AM, and up at 7AM to fire up the grill to spit-roast the whole lamb, to be cooked by 1PM...

And we had our Bishop in attendance throughout...

And it was awesome!

And we were tired, and just kept on going...

All in unending prayer...

Holiest Church day of the year...

Poached eggs on toast this morning - first in two months...

Fasting and feasting - The liturgical cycle of the year...

More later...

geo-Arsenios

Rdr. Arsenios

April 13th 2004, 12:24 AM

Earlier I said that I believe we can lose our salvation and you said that I was Orthodox as far as that is concerned. My point is, that if I lose my salvation, I must have had it or the statement makes no sense.

I love the brutality of the logic of this argument - eg you can't lose what you don't have...

And in Christian terms, Christ has done His part, and the rest is up to us in Him, because we are called to the cross of self-denial and self-sacrifice, and not self-affirmation, and this is so contrary, so opposed, to the ways of the world that the Bible tells us that the gospel is foolishyness to the world.

So we live saved lives in Christ, in His Church, and if we persevere to the end, we *shall* be saved. And if we fall away, we are in big trouble.

in Hebrews 6 we read:

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

The people in question have here

1) Repentance, which comes through the Holy Spirit
2) The Holy Spirit himself!
3) The powers of the age to come!

I submit that these people were saved but they lost their salvation because they apostated. And unfortunately there is no hope for them because they drive away the Holy Spirit and without him there can be no repentance and so no salvation.

Repentance is not a possession, but an activity, it is something we do, and while you are right that without the Holy Spirit we canot repent, it is also true that even with the Holy Spirit we are fully able to choose NOT to repent...

Now the question is, were they saved? And clearly they were not, but are instead disciples on the path of and toward salvation, not yet perfected in the faith, but instead having the 'labor of love' that is the 'ministering to the saints'[6:10]... And indeed this theme is the intro to the section, where he says in 6:1 "Let us go on to perfection..."

And the big question is, HOW do we attain unto perfection? And we find the answer in the witness of Christ, for Christ was perfected as a man by His obedience, through the things He suffered [5:8-9] And we are called to take up our own cross, deny ourself, and follow Him, and this means moving on to perfection in the faith through longsuffering obedience.

Now one CAN say, in a way, that one who is perfected in the faith is 'saved', yet this is only true in that they have established in their longsuffering obedience the character that embraces Christian virtue. They can still fall away, but not all that easily. Unlike these milk-drinkers in the faith being addressed in Hebrews

6:6 does not rule out repentance, but repentance unto another baptism - You can't say "Oh gee, I guess I blew it this time - I'll just get baptized again..." That is just not an option. Instead we need a renewal of faith, for the radiance of soul that comes of the enlightenment of baptism is pure grace, not the product of our labors in obedience through sufferings, so that if we become old again in sins, we need repentance from our sins, and not another baptism...

Yet Paul is here writing a pastoral epistle, and he writes as he does to sting his flock into compunction, coming right back with: "But beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak."

And then he immediately calls them to *diligence* unto the labors of salvation, "That ye be not slothful..."

So that salvation takes energetic diligence in the labors of obedience and long-suffering, and indeed, Paul elsewhere says that he who *endures* to the end will be saved.

This brings up another point regarding the Lutheran view. In our view we do not pop in and out of salvation as per the Roman Catholic doctrine of mortal sin; we are saved in Holy Baptism, but we can lose it, and if we do we are truly lost.

Yet what does this mean? We all sin, and the only cure for it is repentance, the living of a repentant life, keeping pure our conscience, for it is this conscience that is pure that holds in us the mystery of the faith. And indeed, confession of sins, repentance from them, and God's forgiveness of them, are central to the ancient practice of the faith.

You mention the gift of salvation. I assume you mean the final judgement when Christ returns? Is that the salvation you speak of?

The final judgement? No, that one is determined by our deeds. What is free to all is the God-given ability, subsequent to Christ's atoning sacrifice, to enter His death in baptism, and His Life in following Him. For we are sealed in the Holy Spirit, and must reckon ourselves dead to sin, that we not sin... For the whole point of discipleship is the eradication of sin from our members, and this is the acquisition of dispassion, the mortification of the flesh, of the fleshy mind, and the wholehearted turning of our entire being unto God. That will entail a lot of suffering, and Christ told us that in the world, we "WILL find tribulation..." And not "Oh, a few things might happen that are a little unpleasant..."

In first Corinthians 6:11 St. Paul says that "you were washed..sanctified...justified..." This is what I mean by "saved."

Intresting note here is the difference in the verbs washed, which is a middle [washed yourselves, or ye bathed], and the 'made holy' and 'made righteous', which are passive. There is a passive for washed which was not used. Hence, we have responsibility for the washing, with our tears of repentance, and in this we are made righteous and holy "in the Name of Christ, by the Spirit of our God."

And yes, this is what I mean by saved too, yet it ain't over till it's over... For whereas we are given holiness by grace in the laver of baptism, we acquire righteousness from God by mortification of the flesh as we 'run the race' set before us, that IF we persevere to the end, we SHALL be saved...

God has already done the work: He gave me the Holy Spirit and a new nature at baptism. He continues to work on me when I receive the sacraments, hear the Word of God, have fellowship with other believers or speak with you on this board. :smile: Am I a completed work? No, that doesn't happen until the last day.

Well, here we have the difference between Lutheran and Orthodox, for the Orthodox are serious about entering the race and persevering in trials unto the end, unto the perfection of the faith in the long-suffering of the tribulations of this life, and this takes great effort, indeed all our strength...

And for the Lutheran, as you say, "God has already done the work..."

St. Paul says that we were justified when we were washed, that places justification before the final escathalogical event--the return of Christ. He also says that we should conform to our new natures. In Romans we read that sin no longer has dominion over the believers. If sin has no dominion over me am I not saved? I would answer yes, but I would also caution that since it is possible to lose my salvation, even though God las already done the work for me. God places salvation in my palm, but I can still cast it away.

That sums it up nicely, yet the justification at baptism is pure grace, and that of the mature in the faith [the saints] follows years of tireless contention, and then it REALLY gets tough, for Paul writes of apostleship "[we] must be the most miserable of all men..." So what I am showing is the progressive nature of the faith, how it is that we advance in it, and how it is that there is no limit except our own willingness... We all come up short...

OK, what do you mean by "righteousness?" Surely we can grow in the faith, even become powerful servants of God who have tremendous effects on people around them. (as you said earlier) but if St. Paul says I am washed, regenerated, sanctified, justified etc. isn't it true that I am "righteous" in a sense?

This quote from Revelation is enlightening. The following is my hyperliteral translation from the Greek: Rev 3:12 "Him who is overcoming I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God." And the essential is that it does not say "He who overcame" but "Him who is overcoming..." It is not a finished matter, but ongoing... It is this overcoming that is the essential of Christian salvation... I did a search in the TMB in Apocalyptic Books on "overcometh", which is normally a translation of the ongoing present tense - Modern English would translate it as "is overcoming" - And the results astonished me, for I normally don't do this kind of a search - I just couldn't find the phrase to translate for you, and here they all are, and you can see the relationship of the work of overcoming to salvation:

Re 2:7 - He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the Tree of Life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.'

Re 2:11 - He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. He that overcometh shall not be hurt by the second death.'

Re 2:17 - He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it.'

Re 2:26 - And he that overcometh and keepeth My works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations,

Re 3:5 - He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life, but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

Re 3:12 - Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more; and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, which is New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from My God, and I will write upon him My new name.

Re 3:21 - To him that overcometh, will I grant to sit with Me on My throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with My Father on His throne.

Re 21:7 - He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Regarding the tenses of the Greek words for justify, sanctify etc. I do not know Greek so I cannot really argue about that.

No need - You have it right in terms of grammar...

geo-Arsenios

elysian

April 13th 2004, 09:17 AM

(George Blaisdell) Well, here we have the difference between Lutheran and Orthodox, for the Orthodox are serious about entering the race and persevering in trials unto the end, unto the perfection of the faith in the long-suffering of the tribulations of this life, and this takes great effort, indeed all our strength...

And for the Lutheran, as you say, "God has already done the work..."

Yes, God has done the work but we are called to salvation and freedom in Him for His purpose.

Martin Luther said:
"These two parts, to be sunk under the water and drawn out again, signify the power and operation of Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man, both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued. For this must be practised without ceasing, that we ever keep purging away whatever is of the old Adam, and that that which belongs to the new man come forth. But what is the old man? It is that which is born in us from Adam, angry, hateful, envious, unchaste, stingy, lazy, haughty, yea, unbelieving, infected with all vices, and having by nature nothing good in it. Now, when we are come into the kingdom of Christ, these things must daily decrease, that the longer we live we become more gentle, more patient, more meek, and ever withdraw more and more from unbelief, avarice, hatred, envy, haughtiness...

For this reason let every one esteem his Baptism as a daily dress in which he is to walk constantly, that he may ever be found in the faith and its fruits, that he suppress the old man and grow up in the new."
-Large Catechism, "Of Baptism" http://cat41.org/WhoWhat/Confessions/LC.htm

Putting on one's Baptism daily is hardly a life without the Cross- it is however a work of God that HE empowers us to do His will. We fail dismally on our own will alone, yet by His power and grace we can do all things that He has created us to do.

Faith without obedience is not faith. Jesus said "my yoke is easy and my burden light." That doesn't mean, "sit back and have a beer while I do everything for you." It does mean "surrender to God's will, and follow Him."

The Lutheran emphasis in this is that it's about God- that He empowers us and He transforms us. We do have to be obedient though! He empowers us but He does not force us. We have to be willing, and the irony of this is we can only be willing if He creates the desire in our hearts. This is an example of the grace imparted in Baptism, that we are named and claimed by God.

Martin Luther also emphasizes grace almost to the point of being misinterpreted as "cheap grace" (i.e. grace without discipleship) because of the cultural context of his time. The RCC was hawking indulgences and imposing penances, making people believe you "earned" forgiveness and grace instead of admitting the radical fact that nothing we can do will earn us salvation and that we are entirely dependent on God for everything. It's about Him! Here's an excellent description of Theology of the Cross. (http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar51.htm)

There is no cheap grace, there is no "free lunch." Because if you are truly in the process of salvation it is indeed a process: a work that God is doing in and through you daily. Your thoughts and works will reflect that transformation and they cannot be separated no more than heat and light are separate from fire.

Maxentius

April 13th 2004, 06:43 PM

Hello George!

BTW, I ahve been to Orthodox liturgies several times. They are interesting and the message of forgiveness is throughout the service. I especially like when the priest asks the congregation for forgiveness, I also like the chants.

If you have not done o, you may check our a Lutheran liturgy. It is not as long as the Orthodox liturgy, but there is quite a bit of overlap.

I love the brutality of the logic of this argument - eg you can't lose what you don't have...

It does have a nice symmetry to it. :wink:

And in Christian terms, Christ has done His part, and the rest is up to us in Him, because we are called to the cross of self-denial and self-sacrifice, and not self-affirmation, and this is so contrary, so opposed, to the ways of the world that the Bible tells us that the gospel is foolishyness to the world.

I do not disagree with this at all. A justified, "saved" person is not free to sit on his (or should I say God's) laurels. We have work to do, buiding the Kingdom, loving one another (agape of course:blush:). Just because God has justified us does not mean he is done with us, this is the process of "sanctification", whereby we become more and more Christlike. Finally, we enter into God's glory and that is the end of salvation, God's eternal plan for his people, the true Israel, domestic and wild figs. (Please see Elysian's post for more details)

So we live saved lives in Christ, in His Church, and if we persevere to the end, we *shall* be saved. And if we fall away, we are in big trouble.

If we are living "saved" lives, why are we not saved? Does someone who is living a saved life (I like that formulation BTW) go to heaven if he suddenly dies? If not, why not? Do you believe we lose our saved lives, but we never had salvation? What exactly do we lose when we apostacize?

Here is a place where I think the differences are semantic more than substancive. That is not to say there are no differences at all.

For Lutherans, a Christian is someone who has the Holy Spirit, given freely by God to him through the means God has instituted--what we call "Word and Sacrament", apart from anything we have done. Lutherans have assurance because, as Elysian said, when we stray we repent and return to our baptism, constantly drowning the old Adam. This is another description of sanctification.

Hebrews 6 snipped

Repentance is not a possession, but an activity, it is something we do, and while you are right that without the Holy Spirit we canot repent, it is also true that even with the Holy Spirit we are fully able to choose NOT to repent...

I agree 100%

Now the question is, were they saved? And clearly they were not, but are instead disciples on the path of and toward salvation, not yet perfected in the faith, but instead having the 'labor of love' that is the 'ministering to the saints'[6:10]... And indeed this theme is the intro to the section, where he says in 6:1 "Let us go on to perfection..."

I still think that it has to do with apostates. After all, they shared in quite a few things people living saved lives do. I don't think they just sort of withered, God does not let go too easily.

Now one CAN say, in a way, that one who is perfected in the faith is 'saved', yet this is only true in that they have established in their longsuffering obedience the character that embraces Christian virtue.

OK, as an example, the thief on the cross next to Jesus, how many works of righteousness did he do after Jesus told him he would be in paradise? Was he saved by cooperating with the Holy Spirit and performing godly works, or by a divine act by Jesus Christ? I would say by Jesus' divine, even juridical, act. Was he saved before he died or after? Clearly he was saved before. He had no time for the extensive theosis you outline, he died too quickly for that. Yet, he is with our Lord today. You see, I think there is a semantic wall here, because the Eastern Church has always seen salvation as a process but they never had occasion to unpack it.

Now I will try and re-formulate the Lutheran doctrine of justification as best I can:

"We are justified by grace through faith, because of the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf. We can never justify ourselves before God by what we do, say, think, believe etc. We are so encumbered by sin that God must raise us to new life in the Holy Spirit, because we are born spiritually dead, separated from our Creator-God. A dead thing can do nothing for itself.

When God raises us into new life in Jesus Christ, we can do works pleasing to him. We also must do works, because faith without works is dead, and God is life. But it is not our works that save us but our faith, which makes our works pleasing to God through the Holy Spirit working in and through us."

And then he immediately calls them to *diligence* unto the labors of salvation, "That ye be not slothful..."

So that salvation takes energetic diligence in the labors of obedience and long-suffering, and indeed, Paul elsewhere says that he who *endures* to the end will be saved.

Yes, we must constantly submerge the old Adam in the waters of Baptism, where God gave us his grace, his Spirit. No one claims we should be slothful and lay around and say "Hey, I don't have to DO anything!" That is not a living faith, we are not called to do that but to perform the works God ordained, as St. Paul says in Ephesians "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." We are new creatures, and certainly as new creatures we are justified?

Yet what does this mean? We all sin, and the only cure for it is repentance, the living of a repentant life, keeping pure our conscience, for it is this conscience that is pure that holds in us the mystery of the faith. And indeed, confession of sins, repentance from them, and God's forgiveness of them, are central to the ancient practice of the faith.

Repentance, confession, and forgiveness are key Lutheran teachings too.

What is free to all is the God-given ability, subsequent to Christ's atoning sacrifice, to enter His death in baptism, and His Life in following Him. For we are sealed in the Holy Spirit, and must reckon ourselves dead to sin, that we not sin... For the whole point of discipleship is the eradication of sin from our members, and this is the acquisition of dispassion, the mortification of the flesh, of the fleshy mind, and the wholehearted turning of our entire being unto God.

I think sin will only be eradicated when Christ returns. St. Paul struggled with his own sinfulness, not doing what he should, doing what he should not. Surely, fasting, prayer vigils, festivals etc. do indeed help us discipline our flesh. They are valuable but they do not cause our salvation.

That will entail a lot of suffering, and Christ told us that in the world, we "WILL find tribulation..." And not "Oh, a few things might happen that are a little unpleasant..."

I agree 100%. He promised us a cross, not a rose garden.

There is a passive for washed which was not used. Hence, we have responsibility for the washing, with our tears of repentance, and in this we are made righteous and holy "in the Name of Christ, by the Spirit of our God."

I see the washing as Holy Baptism, but I don't want to get too deep into exegesis right now. :smile:

And yes, this is what I mean by saved too, yet it ain't over till it's over... For whereas we are given holiness by grace in the laver of baptism, we acquire righteousness from God by mortification of the flesh as we 'run the race' set before us, that IF we persevere to the end, we SHALL be saved...

Again, how do you reconcile this with the thief on the cross? I would like to point out again that the works you describe have value--Lutherans do not gut the Church of all her piety and traditions.

If by "It ain't over 'till its over" you mean we could still lose our salvatuion I agree 100%. If I say I have faith yet I do not do works, I really have faith no better then the daemons', which is to say I will go to hell.

Well, here we have the difference between Lutheran and Orthodox, for the Orthodox are serious about entering the race and persevering in trials unto the end, unto the perfection of the faith in the long-suffering of the tribulations of this life, and this takes great effort, indeed all our strength...

And for the Lutheran, as you say, "God has already done the work..."

Please see Elysian's post. She hit the nail on the head.

That sums it up nicely, yet the justification at baptism is pure grace, and that of the mature in the faith [the saints] follows years of tireless contention, and then it REALLY gets tough, for Paul writes of apostleship "[we] must be the most miserable of all men..." So what I am showing is the progressive nature of the faith, how it is that we advance in it, and how it is that there is no limit except our own willingness... We all come up short...

But are we "saved' before we do these things or only after? Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus? (I would say yes, of course)

Regarding the Revalation quotes. I agree that we have work to do, but is it a "saved" person doing the work or not?

Can, or does, the Holy Spirit live in a non-Christian or apostate? I would say not at all.

BTW, still earning a lot from you!

Rdr. Arsenios

April 14th 2004, 01:44 AM

Hello George!

Hey, Max...

Check out a Lutheran liturgy. It is not as long as the Orthodox liturgy, but there is quite a bit of overlap.

There is a whole 'new' "Byzantine Lutheran" service in the Ukraine, I am told, complete with invocation of Mary and the saints, but toned down considerably...

If we are living "saved" lives, why are we not saved? Does someone who is living a saved life (I like that formulation BTW) go to heaven if he suddenly dies? If not, why not? Do you believe we lose our saved lives, but we never had salvation? What exactly do we lose when we apostacize?

Well, we ARE saved, and we have been saved, and we are being saved as we live and breathe, and we SHALL be saved ONLY IF we continue to live 'saved lives', and we CAN live such lives in Christ, but we can also fall away... And the reason this is so, is that it is the will that is in need of healing, and is the cause of the problem in the first place. [in the garden]

When we emerge from the waters of baptism, we are CLEAN... Newborn babes in Christ, and utterly clean and sanctified in Him, and sealed in the Holy Spirit, and no longer under the compulsion of sin, but still under its temptations... We begin to acquire righteousness when we first say no to an impulse to sin, to a passion, and this process of rectification of our soul goes on till we die, and the longer we live, the greater the righteousness we have the opportunity to acquire. John writes that those who are from God are unable to be sinning, and these are the mature in the faith, who have made it past the normal temptations of life, and are immune to them. Righteousness is the ontological condition of the soul that has established itself in the virtues that mortify the flesh, control the passions, and turn only to God in all things - Righteousness is an acquired virtue, and justification is God's granting of it to us in response to our efforts in Him. Synergy...

For Lutherans, when we stray we repent and return to our baptism, constantly drowning the old Adam. This is another description of sanctification.

What does that look like, Max? What are the deeds of repentance, and the deed that returns one to one's baptism? [In the Lutheran tradition] I know that for an Orthodox, repentance from sin looks one way, and for a Lutheran, I should think it looks different. Could you describe an example for me?

OK, as an example, the thief on the cross next to Jesus, how many works of righteousness did he do after Jesus told him he would be in paradise?

Fabulous image, yes? The thief on Christ's left, writhing in the agony of the cross, castigating Him for not being able to save them all, and the thief on the right confessing his own deeds that deserve his agony, and confessing that Christ's did not - Just like we are to do, yes? And on his own cross, in the agony of its death, he confesses Christ and calls upon Him to remember him in His kingdom...

I hope I can do as well... So far I have not...

And there are many martyrs who converted on hearing the gospel from the lips of a another martyr, who joined up with that martyr, and died right there... Precious in the sight of God is the death of His saints...

Was he saved by cooperating with the Holy Spirit and performing godly works, or by a divine act by Jesus Christ?

Yes.

I would say by Jesus' divine, even juridical, act. Was he saved before he died or after? Clearly he was saved before. He had no time for the extensive theosis you outline, he died too quickly for that. Yet, he is with our Lord today. You see, I think there is a semantic wall here, because the Eastern Church has always seen salvation as a process but they never had occasion to unpack it.

Two men, both criminals, both deserving the death that Christ did not deserve, both on their own cross, one accepting the cross, the other not, one confessing his sins, the other not, ond confessing Christ, the other mocking Him, one calling on Christ for salvation, the other mocking Him...It is not a matter of time, even, but of soul, and for most of us, we need the time God grants us for repentance, and for the saints who utterly avail themselves of salvation, they are needed to father those of us who are still floundering, after baptism, at the gates of repentance, and still are falling in sins... Who have not yet acquired REAL rightousness, and are struggling to acquire a Christian Life... That group is all of us who are not yet mature in the faith...

I'm out of time...

geo-Arsenios

elysian

April 14th 2004, 09:54 AM

(George Blaisdell): What are the deeds of repentance, and the deed that returns one to one's baptism? [In the Lutheran tradition] I know that for an Orthodox, repentance from sin looks one way, and for a Lutheran, I should think it looks different. Could you describe an example for me?

The word "repentance" means "to turn." We turn from our sin to God and ask His forgiveness. We also ask for the grace to stand up to temptation and to do whatever we need to do to keep from sin. Only by God's grace are we forgiven, and only by His strength can we do His will. Repentance also involves surrender: "drowning" the old Adam in the waters of Baptism, and coming up from the Living Water cleaned, renewed and willing to take up our cross.

Confession is also important for Lutherans, though we typically do not engage in formal confession like RC's there are two forms:

Corporate public confession at the beginning of Worship, which is usually in a petition (statement and response) format that the Pastor leads, and when we have all confessed the Pastor proclaims that in Christ we are forgiven (as Christ is the only Mediator between us and the Father, and it is only through Christ that our sins are forgiven.)

We may also confess privately to our Pastor(s) or to another Christian believer. We can forgive each other, (only because we can ask for and receive the grace to do so by the Holy Spirit's intervention) which is what we are commanded to do, but the authority and power to forgive sin always comes from Christ.

Spiritual disciplines can also be regarded as "fruits in keeping with repentance," not meaning that we earn favor or brownie points by doing them, but that we seek to serve and glorify God through spiritual disciplines because He empowers and motivates us to do so.

Spiritual disciplines include such things as:

Acts of charity and serving the poor (hospital visitation, helping with feeding the hungry, donating money or items for missions)
Daily personal devotions, meditation and Bible study
Daily "formal" prayer, especially prayers of thanksgiving and intercessory prayer for others
Informal prayers of thanksgiving and intercessory prayers throughout the day (praying without ceasing)
Fasting
Corporate worship
Group Bible study

A life of spiritual discipline is a life of repentance (turning from sin) and surrender, not a trial-free life by any means, but a life where the Cross of Christ is central.

Luke 17:33
Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

Fideist345

April 14th 2004, 10:36 AM

Hey, Max...

There is a whole 'new' "Byzantine Lutheran" service in the Ukraine, I am told, complete with invocation of Mary and the saints, but toned down considerably...
geo-Arsenios

George,

There are several Lutheran churches in the US. One is (oddly) The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) which doesn't do a great deal of evangelizing. :huh: It's a pretty liberal denomination. Another is The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It is more of a conservative bent. I suspect your interlocutor is of the Missouri Synod. It is highly unlikely they venerate Mary and the saints. :teeth:

Rdr. Arsenios

April 14th 2004, 10:56 AM

(George Blaisdell asked): What are the deeds of repentance, and the deed that returns one to one's baptism? I know that for an Orthodox, repentance from sin looks one way, and for a Lutheran, I should think it looks different. Could you describe an example for me?

The word "repentance" means "to turn." We turn from our sin to God and ask His forgiveness. We also ask for the [I]grace to stand up to temptation and to do whatever we need to do to keep from sin. Only by God's grace are we forgiven, and only by His strength can we do His will. Repentance also involves surrender: "drowning" the old Adam in the waters of Baptism, and coming up from the Living Water cleaned, renewed and willing to take up our cross.

Confession is also important for Lutherans, though we typically do not engage in formal confession like RC's there are two forms:

Corporate public confession at the beginning of Worship, which is usually in a petition (statement and response) format that the Pastor leads, and when we have all confessed the Pastor proclaims that in Christ we are forgiven (as Christ is the only Mediator between us and the Father, and it is only through Christ that our sins are forgiven.)

We may also confess privately to our Pastor(s) or to another Christian believer. We can forgive each other, (only because we can ask for and receive the grace to do so by the Holy Spirit's intervention) which is what we are commanded to do, but the authority and power to forgive sin always comes from Christ.

Spiritual disciplines can also be regarded as "fruits in keeping with repentance," not meaning that we earn favor or brownie points by doing them, but that we seek to serve and glorify God through spiritual disciplines because He empowers and motivates us to do so.

Spiritual disciplines include such things as:

Acts of charity and serving the poor (hospital visitation, helping with feeding the hungry, donating money or items for missions)
Daily personal devotions, meditation and Bible study
Daily "formal" prayer, especially prayers of thanksgiving and intercessory prayer for others
Informal prayers of thanksgiving and intercessory prayers throughout the day (praying without ceasing)
Fasting
Corporate worship
Group Bible study

A life of spiritual discipline is a life of repentance (turning from sin) and surrender, not a trial-free life by any means, but a life where the Cross of Christ is central.

I sympathize with your plight, Elysian - I can't just answer a simple question with a simple answer either - And I want to thank you for your response, and the fairly comprehensive list of Lutheran spiritual disciplines. I grew up in the 50s in North Dakota [a town of 25,000 souls] among American Norweigians [mostly] and they were virtually ALL Lutherans, and while there was a lot of Church attendance on Sunday, and a lot of Church socials, and charity drives, that pretty much exhausted the spiritual disciplines that were practiced there... Aside from saying grace at table before eating - Some did this...

So Lutherans must be getting better, or maybe it was just that in a rural farming community like North Dakota, the pressures to get the work done kinda precluded the really pretty extensive list of discipleship practices you enumerate... I was a Presbyterian as a child then, and I grew up with Lutherans and one Catholic, and attended Church with both, and never encountered much, if anything, beyond what I listed - Sunday attendance, Sunday schoool, table grace, charity drives, Church socials...

But what I was asking more had to do with taking an example of some particular miscreance, and the handling of it... Let's say a man gets into an argument with his wife, calls her a bunch of names, storms out of the house, and comes home at midnight drunk and surly and won't talk to her and goes to bed. He wakes up in the AM with a hangover, and is feeling generally bad, because he is a Lutheran disciple, and he knows that he has sinned.

So what does he do? What he has done is a very serious matter. And it is doubtless not the first time that he has done such a thing, yet as a Christian, he needs to eradicate this sinfulness from his life, yes? For if he does not, it will only grow worse and worse, and he will be a blathering hippocrite, professing but not doing the will of God...

So my question is the following: What does the Lutheran Body of Christ prescribe for him to *DO* that he should "return to the waters of baptism" and repent of this sinfulness that is so strong in him? For we can both agree, can we not, that true repentance is measurable, and that in this case, the measurement of true repentance is to NEVER commit this sin again, yes? And that Christ came into the world that He should take away the sins of the world, yes? And that if this man is in Christ, he can overcome this sin, yes? And that this sin is so terrible that its eradication from his soul should be the most important thing on earth for him, yes? And this because it takes him OUT of his good relationship with both wife and Christ, yes? For by scorning the one, he scorns the other... They are of a piece, yes?

And personal advice is not enough - Coming up to good ol' Fred and putting your arm around him and saying to him "Hey, Fred - I really feel for you, but don't worry, God forgives you, and so do I, and your wife will too, eventually, and you really do need to not do that anymore,"... This is not enough, nor is having several Church members do so enough, yes? For Fred has been admonished, and has been admonishing himself, for years, yes?

So what does the Lutheran Church prescribe for him to DO, so as to eradicate this sin from his life forever? Or do they have a whole different approach to this kind of miscreance...?

One of the stories from the desert involved a monk who felt a burning on his arm and looked down and saw a fly biting him, and in anger slapped and killed the fly... Then realized that he had succumbed to the temptation of anger, and it was not the first time, either... And so he disappeared for several days, and the brothers all noticed that he was not at services, and then he came back to his cell, and continued on as before, without a word, covered in the swollen stings and bites over all his skin of thousands of such flies, and many other kinds besides... And he never reacted in anger again to anything, ever, and he gave glory to God...

geo-Arsenios

elysian

April 14th 2004, 11:19 AM

I agree George, that in many Lutheran congregations the idea of being a disciple sounds almost like a foreign concept. I also forget that not all Lutheran churches are as faithful to the Great Commission as they should be, and this was indeed one of the drawbacks to Luther's intense emphasis on grace, that these days it's often misinterpreted as cheap grace. Dietrich Bonhoeffer had much to say about this, and it's not a new problem.

However if one upholds the Confessions (http://cat41.org/WhoWhat/Confessions/index.htm) you will find the Lutheran expression/interpretation of Christianity that I speak of. It is important as well to find a local church that has not caved into the "are you being entertained" mentality to the point of being a part of a church becomes nothing other than social hour.

In the event of a serious sin, one would be expected to seek private confession with a Pastor. We don't really get into "penance" like the RC's, but in such an instance a person who committed a grave sin would be expected to subject him/herself to a higher level of accountability and scrutiny. In the case of a sin such as adultery the Pastor may recommend they confess and work through reconciliation with the spouse, so they may find healing and forgiveness, and he may also recommend the person become accountable to either the Pastor or his/her small group.

The act of confessing one's sin brings sin into the light. Imagine the shame of confessing to the Pastor or your small group, "I got wasted and broke things and called my husband foul names." When we live transparently we understand that confession is part of the deterrence. When you have gone through the shame of confessing a sin not only to God but to those who walk with you and your Pastor as well, you don't want to let them down just as you don't want to let God down. My mother (who is RC) said that the Holy Spirit speaks to your conscience. So when we contemplate falling into sin it is helpful to remember "do I really want the shame of having to confess this again?" We are fallible and I know I sin many times every day. But knowing I must confess my sin does help work to deter me from it. The Holy Spirit will give us the grace we need to do whatever we need to do to avoid sinning.

Much of what I speak of, especially spiritual disciplines are widely taught and practiced in my church. We take the Great Commission very seriously, and we strongly believe that the only faith is an active faith- you can talk all day long but where does the rubber meet the road?

Maxentius

April 14th 2004, 11:36 AM

I agree George, that in many Lutheran congregations the idea of being a disciple sounds almost like a foreign concept.

I believe this is true too. And I don't think it is limited to Lutherans, CAtholics, Reformed or any other church. I also agree that some Christians functionally believe in "cheap grace."

In the event of a serious sin, one would be expected to seek private confession with a Pastor. We don't really get into "penance" like the RC's, but in such an instance a person who committed a grave sin would be expected to subject him/herself to a higher level of accountability and scrutiny.

I think that in the case of serious sin, the sinning party would have to make some kind of restitution to the aggreaved party. For instance, if I steal I make restitution, if I damage someone's reputation because of false witness, I publically retract my remarks. This is "pennance" in its best sense.

I should also point out that a possible abuse of spiritual discipline is ostentatious displays to show how holy one is. Each side of the coin has its own potential for abuse.

I will answer George's questions later. :smile:

elysian

April 14th 2004, 12:27 PM

(Fideist345):There are several Lutheran churches in the US. One is (oddly) The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) which doesn't do a great deal of evangelizing. It's a pretty liberal denomination.

I'll thoroughly admit that I am conservative for a Lutheran and especially so as my local church is affiliated with the ELCA. I will agree with you that the upper leadership is very liberal but the paradox is that many congregations (and I would say most in the Midwest) are moderate to conservative.

The reason why they allow so much freedom in the individual churches is because there is an incredible amount of conflict between the conservative, confessional factions and the liberal leadership. Rather than lose the more conservative congregations that compromise at least half of the church, the leadership allows them to set many of their own guidelines, so within the ELCA you will find an extreme range of variation. Some local churches are so conservative they are almost closed societies- ethnic German preservation halls but little else. Others have gotten so liberal it is scary- advocating the ordination of active homosexuals and blessing same-sex relationships are examples of activities that should never be condoned by a Christian church. This is a hot subject in the ELCA, as it is my belief that permitting or encouraging either of these things is against Scripture. Most other conservatives believe this as well. If they decide to openly condone and approve of these things they will lose many if not all of the conservative churches. They might lose my church which is the 5th largest ELCA church in the US. And such a decision might push me over into the Missouri Synod!

My church is not ultra-conservative (it is slightly conservative and openly confessional) but it is extremely evangelical. In order to be evangelical you have to be open- not open to the point of compromising the faith, but open to the point of welcoming people as Jesus did. That means welcoming people that other churches don't- youth in particular, but also the single person, the divorced person, the person in transition, the person who is a new Christian. It is amazing how much of our congregation consists of adult converts (and ex-Catholics :lol: like me.) Jesus came to save sinners! Our job as disciples of Christ is to proclaim His grace, and to be as Christ to others.

Max.- You're right about misusing spiritual disciplines to "look holy." Jesus said pray in your closet and do anonymous good works (don't let your left hand see what your right is doing.) The disciplines are between us :wink: and God, a "secret" we share.

Maxentius

April 14th 2004, 08:19 PM

Hey, Max...

There is a whole 'new' "Byzantine Lutheran" service in the Ukraine, I am told, complete with invocation of Mary and the saints, but toned down considerably...

Yes, I have read about that too. I have also read that Lutherans in the former Soviet Union/Russian Empire have been influenced by the doctrine of theosis, which is one reason I am not fully convinced the Orthodox and the Lutherans are too far apart. I think there is room for genuine dialogue between Lutherans and the Orthodox, moreso than between the Lutherans and the RCC, the Reformed or even the Anglicans. That is my personal opinion though. Here is a link to a website by a lutheran minister who is in Ukraine, there is some useful information there: http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.html

Well, we ARE saved, and we have been saved, and we are being saved as we live and breathe, and we SHALL be saved ONLY IF we continue to live 'saved lives', and we CAN live such lives in Christ, but we can also fall away... And the reason this is so, is that it is the will that is in need of healing, and is the cause of the problem in the first place. [in the garden]

OK, I agree 100%, again. :smile:

When we emerge from the waters of baptism, we are CLEAN... Newborn babes in Christ, and utterly clean and sanctified in Him, and sealed in the Holy Spirit, and no longer under the compulsion of sin, but still under its temptations...

Here I think we may disagree a little. This depends on what you mean by "compulsion of sin." Do you believe it is possible to lead a sinless life after Holy Baptism?(More below) I do not, as St. Ambrose said, "Because I am always sick, I am always liable to take the medicine."

We begin to acquire righteousness when we first say no to an impulse to sin, to a passion, and this process of rectification of our soul goes on till we die, and the longer we live, the greater the righteousness we have the opportunity to acquire.

The semantic wall again. If by acquire righteousness you mean sanctification, or being made holy, more Christ-like--I agree 100%. We say NO! to sin by the power of God's Holy Spirit. But I think more is going on than simply refraining from sin, and I suspect you will agree. Simply rfraining from theft, for example, is something we can do even before we have the Holy Spirit. What we cannot do is refrain from theft in a godly fashon, from the nous if you will. We can behave "righteously" in things that can be grasped by the intellect, but without God our actions are still tainted by sin and so are not really righteous in his sight.

John writes that those who are from God are unable to be sinning, and these are the mature in the faith, who have made it past the normal temptations of life, and are immune to them. Righteousness is the ontological condition of the soul that has established itself in the virtues that mortify the flesh, control the passions, and turn only to God in all things - Righteousness is an acquired virtue, and justification is God's granting of it to us in response to our efforts in Him. Synergy...

Where does John say this? I am intrigued. To be unable to sin sounds like a divine quality that we would not be able to share in until we are glorfied on the last day, when God wipes away every tear etc.

Here you seem to be using the word "righteousness" to refer to a Christian far advanced in sanctification

What does that look like, Max? What are the deeds of repentance, and the deed that returns one to one's baptism? [In the Lutheran tradition] I know that for an Orthodox, repentance from sin looks one way, and for a Lutheran, I should think it looks different. Could you describe an example for me?

The deeds of repentance can be varied. We do not have pennance per-se, but as I said in my earlier post we should also make things right as far as we can in the temporal realm. Pennance does not wipe away our sins, but it is very useful to train the flesh, as you might say.

We return to our baptism when we repent, after we are convicted by the Holy Spirit of what we have done wrong. It would depend on the individual sin and the individual sinner. I may donate time to the church, feed the hungry, pray, go on a retreat etc. As I said, this is not done to wipe away our sins but to train our flesh. Here is a good example. Say i said something bad, and wrong, about another person publically. I could ask him for forgiveness, and he can forgive me too. My sins are forgiven in Christ. But I think Ishould also set things right too, to remove some of the temporal damage I have done.

Fabulous image, yes? The thief on Christ's left, writhing in the agony of the cross, castigating Him for not being able to save them all, and the thief on the right confessing his own deeds that deserve his agony, and confessing that Christ's did not - Just like we are to do, yes? And on his own cross, in the agony of its death, he confesses Christ and calls upon Him to remember him in His kingdom...

Yes, it is a fabulous image, and one I find very humbling. Jesus forgives him right there, giving comfort to a sinner in distress, promising him salvation, and doing so authoritatively too!

And there are many martyrs who converted on hearing the gospel from the lips of a another martyr, who joined up with that martyr, and died right there... Precious in the sight of God is the death of His saints...

Yes, we are all precious in his sight, we were bough with his very blood. On a side note, few people meditate on the fact that the Son epmtied himself for us--Luther wrote a hymn that says in part "He whom all the universe cannot enclose, Doth now at Mary's breast repose." The creator as a helpless infant. WOW!

Two men, both criminals, both deserving the death that Christ did not deserve, both on their own cross, one accepting the cross, the other not, one confessing his sins, the other not, ond confessing Christ, the other mocking Him, one calling on Christ for salvation, the other mocking Him...It is not a matter of time, even, but of soul, and for most of us, we need the time God grants us for repentance, and for the saints who utterly avail themselves of salvation, they are needed to father those of us who are still floundering, after baptism, at the gates of repentance, and still are falling in sins... Who have not yet acquired REAL rightousness, and are struggling to acquire a Christian Life... That group is all of us who are not yet mature in the faith...

I would still say that the thief was saved even though he did not bear any fruit, there was no time. This is because salvation is pure grace, even his ability to confess Jesus as Christ was god's grace to him, but we already agree about that. I do not think he was too mature inthe faith either, since, again, he had no time. The same goes for infants who die, God takes care of them in his grace, which he gave (most of) them at baptism.

Is it better to lead a great Christian klife" Of course. That is the race you and St. Paul speak of. He who runs the race, more like a marathon, will be greatly rewarded according to his deeds done in Christ. A saint like that is a more godly person, but I do not think he is more saved than an infant or the thief.

Max.- You're right about misusing spiritual disciplines to "look holy." Jesus said pray in your closet and do anonymous good works (don't let your left hand see what your right is doing.) The disciplines are between us and God, a "secret" we share.

Yup. People being what we are, we manage to corrupt even the simplest and noblest ideas. That is why we are told we bear a cross. If you think about it, sin stops us from being what we really ought to be--where God wants us to be. It is good that he is patient and slow to anger. :smile:

Maxentius

April 14th 2004, 08:34 PM

I suspect your interlocutor is of the Missouri Synod. It is highly unlikely they venerate Mary and the saints. :teeth:

Heavens, you blew my cover! :eek:

Rdr. Arsenios

April 14th 2004, 10:39 PM

In the event of a serious sin, one would be expected to seek private confession with a Pastor. We don't really get into "penance" like the RC's, but in such an instance a person who committed a grave sin would be expected to subject him/herself to a higher level of accountability and scrutiny. In the case of a sin such as adultery the Pastor may recommend they confess and work through reconciliation with the spouse, so they may find healing and forgiveness, and he may also recommend the person become accountable to either the Pastor or his/her small group.

In Orthodoxy, the Church is the physician of souls, and the canons prescribe what is needed for various sins, the minimums... Yet these, while for practical purposes are binding, are all subject to the ekonomia of the priest to whom they are confessed. When I have screwed up badly, I have been taken out of communion for a week, so as to heal up enough not to partake of the Mysteries unworthily, [not discerning the body], and thereby eat and drink condemnation unto myself, as Paul warns about...

We are not merely 'expected' to seek confession with our pastor upon the commission of a serious sin, but are forbidden from communion until that wound in our souls is healed... In the case of serious sexual sins, we may end up not taking communion again for the rest of our lives until we are on our death-bed... Serious sins are serious wounds to our soul, and need to be brought to light in confession, and fought to the death, if that is what is needed, to utterly eradicate them from our souls, that our souls may heal... This has been the teaching of the Church for 2000 years since the beginnings... We do not take sin lightly, but endeavor in our discipleship to utterly eradicate sins from our lives - "Be ye perfected, as also your Father in Heaven is perfect... "

Two basic elements of Christian discipleship are sin and repentance, and we are called to live repentant lives, and in worldly terms, they never get better in worldly terms of success, meaning easier, less suffering, less effort, less pain, more pleasures, more ease, more adulation, etc...

Prayer and repentance, regarding our sins, are not optional in Orthodoxy. We are expected to be obedient to the Church, which is obedient to the 7 Councils, which approved the canons by unanimous consent, and then approved them by their acceptance over the next few hundred years or so... That is why we are not a faith of men, but of God, through the God-bearing elders [bishops] who established the Church in the Holy Spirit....

The act of confessing one's sin brings sin into the light. Imagine the shame of confessing to the Pastor or your small group, "I got wasted and broke things and called my husband foul names." When we live transparently we understand that confession is part of the deterrence. When you have gone through the shame of confessing a sin not only to God but to those who walk with you and your Pastor as well, you don't want to let them down just as you don't want to let God down.

Confession is the first step, and God's forgiveness is the second step, and this is the Mystery [sacrament for you more western folks] of Confession, obtaining from one's priest the release of one's sin, and these two constitute the first step in the process of dealing with the wound that one's sin has rended in one's soul. For minor sins, this along with a resolve to not do it again, is enough. The wound is healed.

For more serious sins, that take us from relationship with God, and into other [demonic] relationships in sins, we need serious help, and serious effort, and are in grave danger... Shame is a treasured commodity, for the sting of shame is a great help to repentance, but more than shame, we need something to ever remind us of our peril, and this can be a lot of things, each according to the person, the sin, and the situation. These days, in the west, an extra 50 prostrations morning, noon and night might be enough... In the early Church, it was much more severe, but those times themselves were hard - eg normal - And these days, we are coddled and soft and know almost nothing of self-denial...

My mother (who is RC) said that the Holy Spirit speaks to your conscience. So when we contemplate falling into sin it is helpful to remember "do I really want the shame of having to confess this again?" We are fallible and I know I sin many times every day. But knowing I must confess my sin does help work to deter me from it. The Holy Spirit will give us the grace we need to do whatever we need to do to avoid sinning.

One that I came up with was: "Geo, if you don't GO there [mentally or physically] you won't have to BE there..." It helped a lot. Yet to eradicate the sin, the inception of the thought of it must be eradicated, and such inceptions are often visual, so that we first sin with our eyes, then our thoughts, then with our imaginations, then with our deeds... Hence the need for stillness of soul, nepsis, the spiritual art of the hesychiast, that the lamp of the oil of vigilance be ever lit, and we not be surprised by the bridegroom with no oil, as the foolish virgins...

Much of what I speak of, especially spiritual disciplines are widely taught and practiced in my church. We take the Great Commission very seriously, and we strongly believe that the only faith is an active faith- you can talk all day long but where does the rubber meet the road?

At the intersect of time and eternity, in the grace we find in our loving embrace of our own cross...

The MS Synod seems more to your bent, yet the optional and humanly determined nature of the Church's role in repentance from serious sins would give me great concern. Do you think that the lack of the healing role of the Church as Hospital [via the Inn at the parable of the Good Samaritan] is, in the Lutheran Tradition, a function of the theology of forensic and substitutionary atonement, where Christ has already done all the work? [And thereby EARNED our salvation FOR us?]

geo-Arsenios

Jezz

April 14th 2004, 11:07 PM

Hey Max, a few comments:

Yes, I have read about that too. I have also read that Lutherans in the former Soviet Union/Russian Empire have been influenced by the doctrine of theosis, which is one reason I am not fully convinced the Orthodox and the Lutherans are too far apart. I think there is room for genuine dialogue between Lutherans and the Orthodox, moreso than between the Lutherans and the RCC, the Reformed or even the Anglicans. That is my personal opinion though. Here is a link to a website by a lutheran minister who is in Ukraine, there is some useful information there: http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.html
That is interesting, I'll have to check that stuff out.

OK, I agree 100%, again. :smile:
:thumb:

Here I think we may disagree a little. This depends on what you mean by "compulsion of sin." Do you believe it is possible to lead a sinless life after Holy Baptism?(More below) I do not, as St. Ambrose said, "Because I am always sick, I am always liable to take the medicine."
As for St. Ambrose's comments: They are not incompatible with what George is saying, nor do they necessarily reflect your view. I will note that "having an illness" does not equate to the same thing as displaying the symptoms of the illness. Eg, I know someone with manic depression. As long as they take their medicine, they display no symptoms of the condition.

Our illness (condition) is that we live in a state of selfishness and temptation. The symptoms are sin. But if we take our medicine properly, then the symptoms can be eliminated.

As for whether it is possible for human beings to not sin: Of course it is possible for a human being in this world to be sinless. If it is not possible, then either Jesus wasn't sinless, or He wasn't truly human. Neither option is acceptable to Christianity, I wouldn't have thought.

The semantic wall again. If by acquire righteousness you mean sanctification, or being made holy, more Christ-like--I agree 100%.
Yes, this is the semantic wall again. We Westerners tend to think of "holy" and "righteous" as being more-or-less the same thing. But in 1st century (and Orthodox) terms, they mean slightly different things. "holy" simply means "set apart". It does not mean "righteous". See here at Tektonics (http://www.tektonics.org/whatholy.html) for a Protestant who says the same thing. :smile: We can be set apart in an instant. But being set apart for and by God (as Israel was) does not immediately imply that one is righteous (though righteousness should come from holiness).

Lutherans say "we are declared righteous in baptism, and thereby made holy". Orthodox say "we are declared holy in baptism, and thereby made righteous." I am convinced that the latter is using the Biblical terminology correctly, however I think that the meanings might not be all that different under the surface. The only time I think it makes a real difference is when it says "we are justified by faith".

We say NO! to sin by the power of God's Holy Spirit. But I think more is going on than simply refraining from sin, and I suspect you will agree. Simply rfraining from theft, for example, is something we can do even before we have the Holy Spirit. What we cannot do is refrain from theft in a godly fashon, from the nous if you will. We can behave "righteously" in things that can be grasped by the intellect, but without God our actions are still tainted by sin and so are not really righteous in his sight.
I agree with this. "Righteousness" does not merely exist in the doing of the right actions, but also in doing them for the right reasons. If one does the right thing, but for selfish reasons (ie, their heart is not righteous), then one is not truly acting righteously. Only God can take away our selfishness.

Here you seem to be using the word "righteousness" to refer to a Christian far advanced in sanctification
Yes, that is how he is using it. Again, that's the semantic barrier that I talked about above. George's usage (the Orthodox) is, AFAICS, the more biblical of the two.

The deeds of repentance can be varied. We do not have pennance per-se, but as I said in my earlier post we should also make things right as far as we can in the temporal realm. Pennance does not wipe away our sins, but it is very useful to train the flesh, as you might say.
I don't think that the Orthodox would disagree with that.

Rdr. Arsenios

April 15th 2004, 01:35 AM

Where does John say this? I am intrigued. To be unable to sin sounds like a divine quality that we would not be able to share in until we are glorfied on the last day, when God wipes away every tear etc.

Max, I am sorry, I ran out of time today. The citation is from 1 John 3:9

3:9 Whosoever is born of God
doth not commit sin;
for His seed remaineth in him,
and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God.

[Nice chiastic structure, yes?]

And another little quotation regarding righteousness from this epistle:

3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you.
He that doeth righteousness is righteous,
even as He is righteous.

This answers the issue of righteousness being a gift of baptism and regeneration. It is clearly a function of DEEDS... Righteous IS as righteous DOES, for: "He that IS DOING righteousness IS righteous..."

And regarding works of purification [repentance]:
3:3 And every man that hath this hope in Him
purifieth himself,
even as He is pure.

More tomorrow, God willing...

geo-Arsenios

elysian

April 15th 2004, 10:27 AM

George-

The senior Pastor at my church says this a lot: "The church is a hospital for sinners, not a showcase for saints." I agree that much of this mentality has been lost not just for Lutherans but for American Protestants in general. We Americans take too much pride in our independence, and the authority of the church is a major issue with all Protestants, especially Lutherans. The Reformation began not with a humble dialogue but with a series of serious accusations (95 to be exact) nailed to the church door...

Protestants in general tend to distrust the hierarchy of a church body- we look more to our Pastor as our spiritual leader, and to other Christians, especially leaders and elders in the church for day-to-day accountability and guidance. This has advantages and disadvantages. Blind obedience to anything or anyone other than Christ Himself is a roadmap to disaster which the Reformation helped to point out (and it's still a major problem in the RCC today.) Leadership including Pastors as well as Bishops, must be accountable and subject to scrutiny as should everyone in a church community: open, transparent and accountable applies to everyone. Following Pope so-and-so is fine as long as Pope so-and-so is following Christ...but the minute Pope so-and-so starts acting on his own authority rather than as a vicar (shepherd or caretaker are other good words) of Christ's disciples this leads to trouble. And it's not just RC popes- we all know of cult leaders like Jim Jones and David Koresh who came from Protestant backgrounds but started teaching that they were gods. We question our leadership for good reason- just as the Bereans didn't just take Paul at face value but verified his words against Scripture. "Trust but verify," is a Russian proverb that Ronald Reagan quoted often. We trust our leadership but we do not follow them blindly, and we verify what they say against the word of God.

Verifying our leaders is not the same as anarchy or no leadership, but one concern in Protestant churches is the confusion inherent in building a church, i.e. creating a body of disciples of Christ, as opposed to simply getting posteriors in seats (and money in the plate) every Sunday. The aim of the church is NOT to entertain people or to act as a social club or ethnic preservation society, nor is it to raise money. The aim of the church is to create disciples for Christ and to serve Him- to do His good work in the world. Sadly what many churches have become are simply social centers or places for people to hang out to say "look how good I am." This misses the point entirely.

The church is a place of sanctuary, a place to come into the Presence of God - as you say a hospital for sinners. Yet Protestants really have a difficult time accepting authority perhaps because we are wary of the misuse of human authority. We sometimes even fall into the trap of using phrases like: "when I got saved," "when I made Christ my personal savior" which though heartfelt by those who say these phrases the theology behind them is flawed.

A very common Protestant "mistake" IMO is to give us wretched sinners too much credit. Many Protestants believe "you make a decision for Christ," as if we can choose to follow Him like we choose to buy a jar of peanut butter in the grocery. Fact is, we aren't capable of that! Without God we are capable of nothing. Lutherans do believe in what Calvinists call total depravity (meaning we are thoroughly sinful and CANNOT come to God or desire Him but by the power of the Holy Spirit.) Yet when we either disdain all human leadership (well, I'll just go to church XYZ because they have better music, or they let me do what I want) we deny God's challenge to bloom where we are planted, to work with the leadership in our church. We can also be disobedient to God if we blindly follow human leadership without questioning them or holding them accountable- looking the other way knowing that a priest or other minister is doing things or teaching things he shouldn't, simply because he's the one in authority.

We sing a hymn at my church called "The Church's One Foundation," (a common Lutheran hymn) that goes like this: "The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord/ She is His new creation, by water and the Word."
This is Christianity at its most essential level. Yes God works through our leaders, and yes we should respect the pastoral office, but Jesus Christ is our foundation. We are not there to follow a human leader nor are we part of the church because we are so good (NOT!) but because we are as Martin Luther says, beggars at the foot of the Cross, and sinners desperately in need of God's grace.

Rdr. Arsenios

April 15th 2004, 10:59 AM

I have also read that Lutherans in the former Soviet Union/Russian Empire have been influenced by the doctrine of theosis, which is one reason I am not fully convinced the Orthodox and the Lutherans are too far apart. I think there is room for genuine dialogue between Lutherans and the Orthodox,

I know one Lutheran who thinks that the Lutheran Church IS the Orthodox Church, and that the Orthodox Churches of the East need the correction of the Lutheran Orthodox Church, for they have slipped away from the Bible doctrinally. That John Chrysostom was a Lutheran, because the Lutheran Liturgy is taken from the Chrysostom Liturgy, etc.

Until Orthodoxy came out of hiding in the West, there was never any talk of any "doctrine of theosis" period... Yet after Fr. Romanides stood up in the WCC and proclaimed it as the 'centerpiece' of Orthodox theology that differentiates Orthodoxy from all other 'denominations' of religion and even 'Christian' religions, suddenly the RCC proclaimed that Theosis has always been a part of their teaching, and now the Lutherans are claiming it as their own... So maybe there is some hope for the Lutherans and the RCC after all! :-)

Do you believe it is possible to lead a sinless life after Holy Baptism?(More below) I do not, as St. Ambrose said, "Because I am always sick, I am always liable to take the medicine."

The medicine is Christ, the only sinless One. Yet we are called to "become perfect, as even your Father in heaven is perfect"... And this perfection, this completion, this maturity in the faith, is characterized by a very sinless life, and comes at great cost, which is one's earthly life, in a lifetime of repentance from the world... This results in our attainmment of righteousness as we mature in the faith, and the attainment of righteousness is justification, for they are the same thing. [justification = righteousing = rectifying]

If by acquire righteousness you mean sanctification, or being made holy, more Christ-like--I agree 100%.

We emerge from the laver of baptism cleansed, sanctified unto God, all our previous unrighteousness washed away, and the seal of the Holy Spirit is given us in Chrismation, and we are new-born in Christ, pure and holy, with no unrighteousness in us... That makes us NOT unrighteous, but does NOT make us righteous, except now as a potentiality, which is first actualized as we run the first lap of the race set before us, and begin the lifelong process of overcoming the habits of sin that are ours from our old self and the fallen world in which we live. It is ourselves that we need to overcome, and it is the process of overcoming our own sinfulness that establishes God's righteousness in us, and we can do this in Christ.. We but KEEP the purity we receive at baptism, by living repentant lives, and we grow unto maturity in the faith, which is righteousness.

The righteousness of the newborn is really the cleansing of his previous unrighteousness, and its absence. Maturity involves the acquisition of actual, ontological righteousness through the actions, the deeds, the praxis, of a person living a Christian life of discipleship in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church...

Here you seem to be using the word "righteousness" to refer to a Christian far advanced in sanctification.

Indeed so, for this is righteousness, which is the keeping pure of the holy and purified conscience one received at baptism, for as Paul says, "We hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience."

The deeds of repentance can be varied. We do not have pennance per-se, but as I said in my earlier post we should also make things right as far as we can in the temporal realm. Pennance does not wipe away our sins, but it is very useful to train the flesh, as you might say.

Penance trains the heart, and the mind, and the human spirit that has gone astray from the sinlessness of its emergence from baptism... It places matters in order that are in disorder from sin. It makes real what in the mind can so easily be self-justified, and but a head-trip... Christ came bodily, and bodily lived a sinless life, and this is why the body needs to be involved in the process of salvation, and not just the mind, and penance is egotistically humiliating [normally], which we all agree is a great blessing for humility...

The Holy Spirit rules the Human Spirit, which rules the soul, which rules the body... When we sin bodily, the body rules the mind, which rules the soul, wounding it. The healing of the soul requires the bringing of the body back under the rule of the mind that is in obedience to the Holy Spirit... It requires a total reversal of all the elements that went into the commission of the sin... In the absence of this, we are but fooling ourselves if we think we are living Christian lives...

Orthodoxy has been teaching this since 33AD... There is no rocket science to it...

Outta time again!

geo-Arsenios

Rdr. Arsenios

April 15th 2004, 06:09 PM

George-
The Reformation began... with a series of accusations...

I know - Which bothers me... Because of the importance of beginnings...

Protestants in general tend to distrust the hierarchy of a church body- we look more to our Pastor as our spiritual leader, and to other Christians, especially leaders and elders in the church for day-to-day accountability and guidance. This has advantages and disadvantages. Blind obedience to anything or anyone other than Christ Himself is a roadmap to disaster which the Reformation helped to point out (and it's still a major problem in the RCC today.) Leadership including Pastors as well as Bishops, must be accountable and subject to scrutiny as should everyone in a church community: open, transparent and accountable applies to everyone. Following Pope so-and-so is fine as long as Pope so-and-so is following Christ...but the minute Pope so-and-so starts acting on his own authority rather than as a vicar (shepherd or caretaker are other good words) of Christ's disciples this leads to trouble. And it's not just RC popes- we all know of cult leaders like Jim Jones and David Koresh who came from Protestant backgrounds but started teaching that they were gods. We question our leadership for good reason- just as the Bereans didn't just take Paul at face value but verified his words against Scripture. "Trust but verify," is a Russian proverb that Ronald Reagan quoted often. We trust our leadership but we do not follow them blindly, and we verify what they say against the word of God.

If I was a Protestant, I would not trust Church leadership either, and as an Orthodox Christian, I am called to follow with discernment, for while the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, particular people within Her are not necessarily right - We do not have any doctrines of Papal infallibility - Obedience to the Church is obedience to Christ, and that will normally involve ovedience to one's elders, as Paul enjoins us to be obedient to them because our souls are their accountability... This is the norm in Orthodoxy, and when things go wrong, there is oversight to correct and heal the problem, and when not, as with the conflict with the Roman See in 1054, withdrawal of communion and schizm are the only remedies, and their healing needs to be addressed, yet we know that healing is a function of willingness, as well as of power...

The aim of the church is to create disciples for Christ and to serve Him- to do His good work in the world.

Indeed, this is the primary focus of all Orthodox theology and praxis, and from it flow all the good social works...

The church is a place of sanctuary, a place to come into the Presence of God - as you say a hospital for sinners.

It is a house of prayer - Just learning how to pray normally takes years in Orthodoxy - I am still learning how to pray...

Yet Protestants really have a difficult time accepting authority perhaps because we are wary of the misuse of human authority.

The problem with protest against authority as your starting point is that the protestor then becomes the authority to replace the authority he is dis-placing... In a democratic and individual rights framework, this means that the individual is his own authority in matters of doctrine and praxis - In a word, each person is his or her own Pope... For the Roman Pope does not submit to the Roman Church as a whole, but the whole submits to Him, and in this sense, he is the first Protestant, asserting the rulership of the one over the whole... Orthodoxy is the rulership of the whole, with Christ at the Head, and the councils informing us of the rule of Christ, and even these, such as they were [unanimously voted], not necessarily accepted until accepted over a couple hundred years or so by the whole Church... This is how utterly afraid the Orthodox Church is of the Rule of Men... That they do not even fully trust the unanimous vote of all the heads of the Church as the truth, until their determination is tested for hundreds of years...

God is our head.

Period.

There is a bumper sticker that expresses some truth: "I Don't Believe in Organized Religion: I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian." When seen from the outside, we can seem eccentric and wierd - We cry easily - We kiss pictures of people long dead - One of the almost 2000 years dead - And we say He is very much alive, and indeed is our Life... And on and on...

Yet in terms of authority, Christ is the authority, and He is the Head of His Body, the Church, and His ministers and servants act in His Holy Name, and have been doing so for 2000 years now, and we are obedient to them... And yes, they can get off track, as we all can, and the Church knows how to handle what happens when they do, and when we fail, the correction of God is an awesome matter - The Islamic oppression in the Middle East and Thessalonika, and the Communist persecutions in Russia, to name a couple...

The birth of the Protestant reformation was in accusations, as you say, against an apostate Church that was some 500 years from any communion with the rest of the original Apostolic Churches, and falling further and further away from them, having persecuted them... What started out as an attempt to correct this Church ended up in the morass of individual conscience determining the meaning of scripture, with each person being under authority only to themselves for the meaning of God's written word, and all of them claiming the Holy Spirit... So that the elevation of Scripture above the Church [that wrote it and transmitted it] so as to 'correct' the Church, the very church that was not willing to be corrected by the communion of Churches that is the Church, and it failed, and many churches then proceeded to be born, under the banner of sola scriptura, and sola fide... Anything except the Church, the pillar and ground of truth... The Body of Christ Who is Her head...

And Hey! They were burned... And with the Gutenburg Printing Press, We've all got our very own Bibles now, so each person is responsible for his own salvation, and that by faith, and faith in correct doctrine, and that to be individually determined... None of which is all that Biblical, I should think you will agree...

geo-Arsenios

Maxentius

April 15th 2004, 08:07 PM

Hello George!

Please remember the semantic wall. :smile:

I know one Lutheran who thinks that the Lutheran Church IS the Orthodox Church, and that the Orthodox Churches of the East need the correction of the Lutheran Orthodox Church, for they have slipped away from the Bible doctrinally. That John Chrysostom was a Lutheran, because the Lutheran Liturgy is taken from the Chrysostom Liturgy, etc.

Of course, I believe the Lutheran Church is the true, visible church too, or I would be something else. :smile:

Until Orthodoxy came out of hiding in the West, there was never any talk of any "doctrine of theosis" period... Yet after Fr. Romanides stood up in the WCC and proclaimed it as the 'centerpiece' of Orthodox theology that differentiates Orthodoxy from all other 'denominations' of religion and even 'Christian' religions, suddenly the RCC proclaimed that Theosis has always been a part of their teaching, and now the Lutherans are claiming it as their own... So maybe there is some hope for the Lutherans and the RCC after all! :-)

I do hope the Church can be reunited, and I even believe it is possible.

Regarding theosis, it is possible for a doctrine to be "embedded", i.e. believed implicitly, without being formulated. A good example of this is the refinement of the doctrine of the Trinity over several centuries. The Trinity itself is implicit in Scripture, we are not told in so many words that God is three persons in one essence.

The medicine is Christ, the only sinless One.

See, we agree again, someone should keep score. :woohoo:

Yet we are called to "become perfect, as even your Father in heaven is perfect"... And this perfection, this completion, this maturity in the faith, is characterized by a very sinless life, and comes at great cost, which is one's earthly life, in a lifetime of repentance from the world...

I do not believe it is possible for us to be perfect until the escathon, we will always have this body of sin until that day. If St. Paul struggled, how likely am I not to struggle?

This results in our attainmment of righteousness as we mature in the faith, and the attainment of righteousness is justification, for they are the same thing. [justification = righteousing = rectifying]

Yes, at the escathon. In the meantime we are justified, awating God's final judgement, when our justification is proclaimed for all to see by God himself. In the meantime, we have to struggle with our body of sin. Also, if you say that justification takes time, then God saves non-justified people, e.g. new Christians or infants. I have another example below.

We emerge from the laver of baptism cleansed, sanctified unto God, all our previous unrighteousness washed away, and the seal of the Holy Spirit is given us in Chrismation, and we are new-born in Christ, pure and holy, with no unrighteousness in us...

Doesn't that sound like a justified person to you? In Holy Baptism I have been cleansed, sealed by the Holy Spirit, born again, pure and holy. If that is so, then when we repent we return to our justification in Holy Baptism, which is how we Lutherans understand repentance--we retuirn to our baptism and drown the old Adam in the life-giving waters found there.

That makes us NOT unrighteous, but does NOT make us righteous, except now as a potentiality, which is first actualized as we run the first lap of the race set before us, and begin the lifelong process of overcoming the habits of sin that are ours from our old self and the fallen world in which we live.

I know that hard cases make for bad law, but if your formulation is correct (and remember, I still think most of our differences are because of the semantic wall), then God saves people who are non-righteous (not UN-righteous!) if they have not advanced in the faith far enough. By righteous I use the definition you gave above. Does God save the non-righteous?

For Lutherans, God MAKES us righteous (i.e. right with God), and and the righteousness he gives us; our new nature, the Holy Spirit, the ability to do godly works etc. is present throughout our saved lives. During our saved lives God works with and in us so we "work out our own salvation in fear and trembling."

Given we have a semantic wall (i.e. try to understand how I am using the words), would you agree with my statement above?

It is ourselves that we need to overcome, and it is the process of overcoming our own sinfulness that establishes God's righteousness in us, and we can do this in Christ.. We but KEEP the purity we receive at baptism, by living repentant lives, and we grow unto maturity in the faith, which is righteousness.

I agree that we overcome our selves, or actually the sin that is in us, as per St. Paul. I think that God's righteousness in us is when we "work out our salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who works in us both to will and to do." I am not saying I necessarily disagree with your statement, but it seems to me that it gives us a little too much credit.

For Lutherans, God works with our wills, synergy, after we are justified, made right etc. typically in Holy Baptism, prior to that, it is 100% God ans 0% us.

The righteousness of the newborn is really the cleansing of his previous unrighteousness, and its absence.

If you understand "the clensing of his previous unrighteousness" to mean completely purging the sinfulness we inherit, I disagree. If you mean a clensing of the will so we cab do godly works, receive an new godly nature etc. I agree. :smile:

Indeed so (regarding my understanding of George's use of the word "righteous")

OK, now I am more confident I understand you. :woohoo:

Penance trains the heart, and the mind, and the human spirit that has gone astray from the sinlessness of its emergence from baptism... It places matters in order that are in disorder from sin. It makes real what in the mind can so easily be self-justified, and but a head-trip... Christ came bodily, and bodily lived a sinless life, and this is why the body needs to be involved in the process of salvation, and not just the mind, and penance is egotistically humiliating [normally], which we all agree is a great blessing for humility...

Wow, I actually think in EXACTLY THESE TERMS regarding our body and physicality in general! Some Christians, including RCC, Protestant and some EO I know, seem to have an almost Gnostic view of salvation and sanctification. The Gnosticization of Christianity can take the form of a denial of the Sacraments (because they have physical things attached, physical= bad, spiritual=good), the denial of our created uniqueness (because a person's soul is his true essence, why can't any two people marry since their souls seem to compatable?) and others.

The Holy Spirit rules the Human Spirit, which rules the soul, which rules the body... When we sin bodily, the body rules the mind, which rules the soul, wounding it.

This would be the conflict between the two natures we have been discussing, right?

--------
Regarding authority. In the Lutheran Church we have the Book of Concord, which contains the "official" Lutheran interpretation of Scripture. It goes a long way toward making it difficult for each believer to be his own Pope.

Each Synod in the Lutheran Church is also independent. In this way we are a little similar to the Orthodox, in that each synod determines which other synods it is in fellowship with.

My Partiarch resides in St. Louis, the Holy City. :hehe:

Maxentius

April 15th 2004, 08:45 PM

Hey Jezz!

As for St. Ambrose's comments: They are not incompatible with what George is saying, nor do they necessarily reflect your view. I will note that "having an illness" does not equate to the same thing as displaying the symptoms of the illness. Eg, I know someone with manic depression. As long as they take their medicine, they display no symptoms of the condition....Our illness (condition) is that we live in a state of selfishness and temptation. The symptoms are sin. But if we take our medicine properly, then the symptoms can be eliminated.

I think we should be careful about pushing analogies too far. Anyway, if we are always sick, whether or not we actually have symptoms, we are indeed sick. So, if one behaves sinlessly, as per George, it does not arise out of one's self, but because of the medecine, i.e Christ, correct? If that is true, then George and I do not disagree. In any case, sin is more than actions we perform or fail to perform. God demands perfection in mind, body and soul. I do not think that is possible until Christ returns. Until then we are all basically in the same boat, don't you think?

As for whether it is possible for human beings to not sin: Of course it is possible for a human being in this world to be sinless. If it is not possible, then either Jesus wasn't sinless, or He wasn't truly human. Neither option is acceptable to Christianity, I wouldn't have thought.

Jesus is a special case. :smile:

Here is what we mean by "sinful nature." The human nature itself is not sinful. The fall did not destroy our human nature, it marred it to such a degree that we are born separated from God, spiritually dead. All we can will is our own selfishness, we cannot love God.

Jesus Christ, as the "second Adam", is sinless because God is his father, the divine and the human nature mix in such a way so that the natures form one Person, but they do not mix. The person, the God-man Jesus Christ, is by nature sinless because the Person Jesus Christ is God--God cannot sin or be sinful.

Now, is it possible for us to lead sinless lives? No, I think not, simply because if we could, why would we need sacraments, fellowship etc. if we do not sin? And if you say "that is how we refrain from sinning" I will respond that if you are tempted even in the slightest, think a wicked thought for even an instant, refrain from helping someone in need when you could have, you have sinned. No one can be that good!

Lutherans say "we are declared righteous in baptism, and thereby made holy". Orthodox say "we are declared holy in baptism, and thereby made righteous." I am convinced that the latter is using the Biblical terminology correctly, however I think that the meanings might not be all that different under the surface. The only time I think it makes a real difference is when it says "we are justified by faith".

I agree tha a lot of "disagreement" is because of semantics, and that is something difficult to overcome in my view. but it is good, and interesting to at least try. :smile:

Have you followed George's and my discussion of when a person is "saved"? If we can only receive the benefits of Jesus' work by believing in who he is and in what he did, and we can only do that by the power of the Holy Spirit, are we not made just by faith, and faith alone because everything done outside of faith is sin?

I agree with this. "Righteousness" does not merely exist in the doing of the right actions, but also in doing them for the right reasons. If one does the right thing, but for selfish reasons (ie, their heart is not righteous), then one is not truly acting righteously. Only God can take away our selfishness.

Since you are still nominally Lutheran, I don't know if this is a real ecumenical agreement. :smile:

I don't think that the Orthodox would disagree with that. (regarding the proper use of pennance)

I thought so, since an Orthodox priest told me so once before. :smile:

Maxentius

April 15th 2004, 08:50 PM

George,

Regarding authority. In the Lutheran Church we have the Book of Concord, which contains the "official" Lutheran interpretation of Scripture. It goes a long way toward making it difficult for each believer to be his own Pope.

Each Synod in the Lutheran Church is also independent. In this way we are a little similar to the Orthodox, in that each synod determines which other synods it is in fellowship with.

My Partiarch resides in St. Louis, the Holy City. :hehe:

Max, please don't make consecutive posts in response to the same poster. I have combined the contents of this post with your last post to George.

Rdr. Arsenios

April 16th 2004, 12:04 AM

Max
I do not believe it is possible for us to be perfect until the escathon...

2Ti 3:17 "...that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for all good works."

I think you may be taking perfect in a possibly more western and English meaning of the term, rather than the Biblical one - Clearly the Bible calls us to maturity in the faith, and it is this maturity, wrought in the cross of discipleship [yes through faith...] that is the "equipment" of our doing the good works God has prepared for us from the foundation of the world...

And this maturity comes across time, in adversity and in struggle, contending for the faith in the face of opposition, struggling to keep the Mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.... Those overcoming in this struggle, those victorious time after time after time, attain unto perfection, which is maturity in the faith, where their own "issues" with sin are eliminated, and they move on to be able to really be a help to others, far beyond what you and I are able to do - These are the saints, the mature in the faith, the ones tried and proven in patience, humility, and longsuffering in discipleship in Christ's Church. They are glorified in their works which glorify God, for these truely are men of God, and "greater signs than these [of Christ's] will ye do...", and all this while they are still walking the earth, yet living in that walk, in the kingdom of heaven, who when they die are still alive... [Paul: "For to me, to die is gain..."]

So we are called to be perfect in this life, and the Orthodox take this commission of discipleship seriously, and know that it requires our greatest efforts and consecration to do so, that we avail God's mercy in our walk in Him Whom the Father perfected in suffering [Heb 2:10], so also are we to be perfected who take up our own cross and follow Him...

So Orthodoxy disagrees with your assessment on the need for 'perfection' in the faith and its attainment in this life - Indeed, without it, without our consecrated effort unto purity in the faith and the overcoming of our passions [eg the mortification of the old man of the flesh], [and our success in this effort], we but pursue hippocracy, and are rightly seen as cheap grace artists... For we thereby idealize perfection by moving it to the eschaton, and thereby excuse ourselves from the great effort our salvation requires that we attain unto perfection...

geo-Arsenios

Jezz

April 16th 2004, 03:47 AM

Hey Jezz!
Hey Max! I've responded to bits of both of your last two posts above. Hope you don't mind.

Of course, I believe the Lutheran Church is the true, visible church too, or I would be something else. :smile:
This is something else that Lutherans and Orthodox have in common. :smile: I find that Lutherans generally stick to their guns more so than many others. I think the difference can be defined as follows:

-Lutherans (at least, of the conservative type) are members of the Lutheran Church because they believe that confessional Lutheranism is the closest denomination of all to he truth.
-Protestants in general are members of the denomination that they are because they believe that it doesn't matter.

I do hope the Church can be reunited, and I even believe it is possible.
So do we all. Although the Orthodox would say that the Church was never divided - there were schisms from the Church, but never within the Church. When the RCC and the Orthodox split, the RCC ceased to be part of the Church. Consequently, the Lutherans were never part of the Church (or at the very least, their status as a true church in the Church was questionable).

Regarding theosis, it is possible for a doctrine to be "embedded", i.e. believed implicitly, without being formulated. A good example of this is the refinement of the doctrine of the Trinity over several centuries. The Trinity itself is implicit in Scripture, we are not told in so many words that God is three persons in one essence.
Yes, I thoroughly agree. The Faith is the important thing. The words and means used to express it are secondary.

See, we agree again, someone should keep score. :woohoo:
There is too much agreement to keep score. It's much easier to focus on that where we differ. :smile:

I do not believe it is possible for us to be perfect until the escathon, we will always have this body of sin until that day. If St. Paul struggled, how likely am I not to struggle?
Not only St Paul, but Christ Himself struggled with temptation - because if He didn't, then He wouldn't have been truly human. Being perfect, in the sense that Christ was perfect, does not mean that one does not struggle with temptation - it means that one does not succumb to it. Surely you think that, with the help of God, it is possible for us to avoid succumbing to temptation?

Yes, at the escathon. In the meantime we are justified, awating God's final judgement, when our justification is proclaimed for all to see by God himself. In the meantime, we have to struggle with our body of sin. Also, if you say that justification takes time, then God saves non-justified people, e.g. new Christians or infants. I have another example below.
You have attempted to dispute the Orthodox view of justification by a reductio ad absurdum with infants. A similar absurdity could be levelled at the Lutheran position: if you say that justification is instantaneous, then what is the point with continuing to live after being justified? Why would God continue to let us live if we were already justified? Shouldn't he take us - like the infant or the new Christian - and save us from the trials that life brings? What is the purpose?

One thing can be certain: God does not allow us to continue to live after baptism because He needs for part of His plan. This means that God is either frivolous (ie, He has no purpose), or He does it for our benefit. And that is the Orthodox position. He allows us to continue to live after baptism because it is part of the process by which we are made righteous.

Doesn't that sound like a justified person to you? In Holy Baptism I have been cleansed, sealed by the Holy Spirit, born again, pure and holy. If that is so, then when we repent we return to our justification in Holy Baptism, which is how we Lutherans understand repentance--we retuirn to our baptism and drown the old Adam in the life-giving waters found there.
No, it sounds like a sanctified person to me. :smile:

I know that hard cases make for bad law, but if your formulation is correct (and remember, I still think most of our differences are because of the semantic wall), then God saves people who are non-righteous (not UN-righteous!) if they have not advanced in the faith far enough. By righteous I use the definition you gave above. Does God save the non-righteous?
See above.

For Lutherans, God MAKES us righteous (i.e. right with God), and and the righteousness he gives us; our new nature, the Holy Spirit, the ability to do godly works etc. is present throughout our saved lives. During our saved lives God works with and in us so we "work out our own salvation in fear and trembling."

Given we have a semantic wall (i.e. try to understand how I am using the words), would you agree with my statement above?
I think so. Except the Orthodox don't describe such a life as a "saved life". They would probably describe it as a "life with God". But I'll let George speak.

I agree that we overcome our selves, or actually the sin that is in us, as per St. Paul. I think that God's righteousness in us is when we "work out our salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who works in us both to will and to do." I am not saying I necessarily disagree with your statement, but it seems to me that it gives us a little too much credit.
In contrast, I think that the Lutheran view gives God too much credit - as it credits Him with stuff that is evil! For an example, see below. Your view comes close to crediting God with a person's failure to come to salvation.

For Lutherans, God works with our wills, synergy, after we are justified, made right etc. typically in Holy Baptism, prior to that, it is 100% God ans 0% us.
This is where the Orthodox and Lutherans sharply disagree, I think, and this was something that I was uncomfortable with even before I discovered Orthodoxy. This is because effectively it makes God 100% responsible for our desire (and more important, for our lack thereof) to be baptised. As a matter of fact, about 12 months ago, I held this position as a Lutheran! When it was pointed out to me that my position was un-Lutheran, and the Lutheran position explained to me, I tenatively accepted it, but was still uncomfortable with it. Then I discovered that Orthodoxy held the same position that I held prior to having the "correct" doctrine explained to me by my Lutheran friend...

I think that the Orthodox would agree that our ability to choose good. But I think they would argue that this is a gift He gives to all, and it is not a gift that we receive at baptism.

This comes down to the fundamental difference between the East and West in their doctrines of Original Sin - one that I believe is the most important difference. When Westerners speak of original sin, they are also (often explicitly) talking about original guilt. Somehow, we are guilty of sin even from birth. In the East, however, "Original Sin" means exactly that - the original sin that Adam and Eve committed. They hold that we still suffer the effects of that first sin (as every sin has consequences that ripple through all creation) - such effects like aging, disease, injury, food shortages, etc - these are all the ripple effects of that "original sin". However, "original sin" is not something that we are "guilty" of - not something that we need to be forgiven for. Of course, original sin leads us into temptation, and original sin is something that we still need to be saved from because if left unchecked it would lead to our eternal death. And we cannot save ourselves from original sin. But in Orthodoxy, original sin is not something that we as individuals deserve to be punished for.

Wow, I actually think in EXACTLY THESE TERMS regarding our body and physicality in general! Some Christians, including RCC, Protestant and some EO I know, seem to have an almost Gnostic view of salvation and sanctification. The Gnosticization of Christianity can take the form of a denial of the Sacraments (because they have physical things attached, physical= bad, spiritual=good), the denial of our created uniqueness (because a person's soul is his true essence, why can't any two people marry since their souls seem to compatable?) and others.
I think that you're spot-on with that Gnostic thing. I think that many Christians today have let neo-Platonic thought creep into their faith, with the attitude that matter is equal. I have seen many people on this forum who seem to think we will be bodiless come judgment day.

Regarding authority. In the Lutheran Church we have the Book of Concord, which contains the "official" Lutheran interpretation of Scripture. It goes a long way toward making it difficult for each believer to be his own Pope.
This is true. Although many both laity and clergy alike (especially in Europe) seem to disregard the BoC.

Each Synod in the Lutheran Church is also independent. In this way we are a little similar to the Orthodox, in that each synod determines which other synods it is in fellowship with.

My Partiarch resides in St. Louis, the Holy City. :hehe:
Actually, in that way the Lutherans are very much like the Orthodox - one of those "unwritten laws" that you referred to above like "theosis", perhaps. This is again something that I hadn't realised.

My "patriarch" resides in Adelaide - my home city! - the president of the Lutheran Church of Australia (LCA). We are currently not a part of the Lutheran World Federation because of their liberal stances on homosexuality, women's ordination, etc... though there is debate about this at present, and it could split our church...

I think we should be careful about pushing analogies too far. Anyway, if we are always sick, whether or not we actually have symptoms, we are indeed sick. So, if one behaves sinlessly, as per George, it does not arise out of one's self, but because of the medecine, i.e Christ, correct? If that is true, then George and I do not disagree. In any case, sin is more than actions we perform or fail to perform. God demands perfection in mind, body and soul. I do not think that is possible until Christ returns. Until then we are all basically in the same boat, don't you think?
I agree that we should be careful about pushing analogies too far. That was in fact the point that I was trying to make - you used Ambrose's analogy to support the Lutheran position, I merely pointed out that it was not inconsistent with the Orthodox position either.

As for the rest: this is again a difference in understanding of what "perfect" means. And now that I have properly explained the different between original sin doctrines, I think I can explain this differently (part of the reason I bothered to address your response to George first :smile:).

When the Orthdox say "Jesus was sinless" or "Jesus was perfect" (or even "Mary was sinless"), we do not mean that he was without original sin. In order to save us from original sin, Jesus had to be subject to the effects of original sin. His body aged, he went bald, he probably got ill, bruised his thumb with a hammer in his stepfather's carpentry shop, etc... That was the whole point of the incarnation - so that Jesus would be subject to the effects of original sin, and thereby overcome and reverse them. So in the sense that you are saying, Jesus was not "perfect" until He was resurrected - because he still had an imperfect body. However, He was still sinless in the sense that he was guilty of no sin - and thus in the more restricted sense of pertaining to sinlessness, he was "perfect".

Jesus is a special case. :smile:

Here is what we mean by "sinful nature." The human nature itself is not sinful. The fall did not destroy our human nature, it marred it to such a degree that we are born separated from God, spiritually dead. All we can will is our own selfishness, we cannot love God.
This is again where the difference is, and it comes down to "original sin" again. I am convinced that this is a Western misunderstanding of the doctrine that Lutherans inherited from the RCC (and from Augustine - Luther was, after all, an Augustinian monk), and it developed as the West forgot Greek and spoke Latin instead (Augustine couldn't speak Greek...).

Here's the problems that I see:
1. Humans were made to freely love God. God created us with the implanted nature to seek Him. This is the "sole purpose of man" (Ecclesiastes somewhere...). Of course, I will conceded that our attempts to love God are invariably imperfect. But if we cannot love God even the tiniest bit out of our own free will due to our nature, then it implies that we are not human.
2. As I noted above, it pushes responsibility for loving God away from us and onto Him. Our failure to love Him is really His failure. If a person does not love God, then that is because God failed to provide them with that ability.
3. It gives us an excuse for our sin. How can we be held accountable for doing something that by nature we can't help but do? And if we can overcome it, then it is not impossible to overcome, is it? :smile: Really, I think this is where the Western view of "original sin" came from - Augustine was a man who struggled with temptations of the flesh (as his "Confessions" will testify), and in developing the doctrine of "original sin" he was giving himself an "out", as it were.

Jesus Christ, as the "second Adam", is sinless because God is his father, the divine and the human nature mix in such a way so that the natures form one Person, but they do not mix. The person, the God-man Jesus Christ, is by nature sinless because the Person Jesus Christ is God--God cannot sin or be sinful.
You're mixing the natures. I don't think that would have gone down too well during the monophysite controversy. There is one Person in two natures. The divine nature is in every way God. The human nature is in every way like us. "Sinfulness" or "sinlessness" is not part of human nature - rather, they are states open to particular human beings.

Now, is it possible for us to lead sinless lives? No, I think not, simply because if we could, why would we need sacraments, fellowship etc. if we do not sin? And if you say "that is how we refrain from sinning" I will respond that if you are tempted even in the slightest, think a wicked thought for even an instant, refrain from helping someone in need when you could have, you have sinned. No one can be that good!
You anticipated my response. As for your counterargument - temptation is not the same thing as sin. Jesus was tempted, after all - and you don't reckon this to Him as sin. As for the rest - well, clearly some people are that good - Jesus was! Again, I think the claim "no one can be that good" is a way that people console themselves when they fall short of the target themselves...

Have you followed George's and my discussion of when a person is "saved"? If we can only receive the benefits of Jesus' work by believing in who he is and in what he did, and we can only do that by the power of the Holy Spirit, are we not made just by faith, and faith alone because everything done outside of faith is sin?
Yes. But I think that, wherever anyone is righteous, it is because they have the Holy Spirit. As Paul said about the Gentiles, who do the right thing because they have the law written on their hearts. Nor do I think that "faith" is "knowing what Jesus' did" - I don't think you need to know that Jesus was raised from the dead in order to be saved by the fact. You do need to have faith in what Jesus was (and is) - the Truth, God's Salvation, the Wisdom and Word of God, etc...

Since you are still nominally Lutheran, I don't know if this is a real ecumenical agreement. :smile:
True. :smile:

(regarding the proper use of pennance)

I thought so, since an Orthodox priest told me so once before. :smile:
Yes, penance is one area where I think the Lutherans are a lot closer to the EO than the RCC, with their very legalistic outlook on penance.

Rdr. Arsenios

April 16th 2004, 10:55 AM

Although the Orthodox would say that the Church was never divided - there were schisms from the Church, but never within the Church. When the RCC and the Orthodox split, the RCC ceased to be part of the Church. Consequently, the Lutherans were never part of the Church (or at the very least, their status as a true church in the Church was questionable).

That is correct, for who can divide the Body of our Lord? And who can defile His Bride?

Max queried:
Does God save the non-righteous?

Is He saving you and me?

And He saves us by making us righteous, and we become righteous in Him by living repentant lives, keeping pure in faithfulness the holiness we received in Holy Baptism where our UN-righteousness was taken from us, and we were reborn from above...

Not only St Paul, but Christ Himself struggled with temptation - because if He didn't, then He wouldn't have been truly human. Being perfect, in the sense that Christ was perfect, does not mean that one does not struggle with temptation - it means that one does not succumb to it. Surely you think that, with the help of God, it is possible for us to avoid succumbing to temptation?

Christ Himself was perfected according to the flesh by his sufferings [see Hebrews, chapter 3, I think]... And are we not to follow Him? And of course we will stumble, and fall, and be scattered, and we will get back up, and confess, and repent, and eradicate what caused us to fall from our souls... And doing that establishes in us another brick in the edifice of righteousness that is the temple of the Holy Spirit within... Just because we don't steal candy any more from the 7-11 coesn't mean that we love the person who just stole our car... Yet unlovingness is a greater sin than stealing candy... But if we do not get past stealing candy, we will have a hard time not 'progressing' to stealing cars, and are heading in the very wrong direction from ever acquiring the virtue of forgiving those who steal OUR cars...

This is why the acquisition of righteousness, which is the character of the praxis of Christian virtues, is progressive and directional, and is called maturity, and those who mature eventually become perfected in the faith, for they are overcoming their tendencies to sin one at a time, as they arise, for they live alerted lives to their sins, and they keep their oil jars filled, for they are ever watchful, tracing each sin back to its origin, and setting their guard right at the origin... There are many origins... We are sinful creatures...

I think so. Except the Orthodox don't describe such a life as a "saved life".

We are saved in the laver of baptism which cleanses us and gives us the seal of the Holy Spirit. After that, we CAN live repentant lives in the service of God, or we CAN fall away... The first is a life unto salvation, and we can say that we are living holy lives, for we are keeping the holiness bestowed at our rebirth in baptism, but the whole verbal formula of 'living a "saved life"' is pretty foreign to us - We don't even say we are living holy lives, for that would stumble us into vainglory and error... The truth is, we are living repentant lives, and everything that tempts us to sin is treasured because it affords us an opportunity eradicate impurity from its infectious incursion into our souls... "For all things are for the good to those who believe...", and the chastisements of sin are for our benefit, for they illuminate darkness that we cannot see, or are ignoring, that is within ourselves...

I think that the Orthodox would agree that our ability to choose good. But I think they would argue that this is a gift He gives to all, and it is not a gift that we receive at baptism.

When Christ appears to demons, they work Him for more victims - Legion asked to be turned loose on the herd of swine, and drowned them all...

But when He appeared to Saul, the persecutor and murderer of Christians, he was converted in Love.

The nature of man is to love God, and he is lost in the cares of this world, his nous scattered among all the concerns for trying to stay alive on this earth, laboring under the burden of sins, and the labors of this fallen world... But when God appears, even the evil men love Him, and this utterly aside from any involvement of the Mysteries of the Church, including baptism...

If what Max thinks is true, [that the unregenerated (in baptism) man is incapable of loving God] then baptism would have to be involuntary... Who would want it?

geo-Arsenios

Maxentius

April 16th 2004, 08:19 PM

Hey Max! I've responded to bits of both of your last two posts above. Hope you don't mind.

I don't mind at all.

This is something else that Lutherans and Orthodox have in common. :smile: I find that Lutherans generally stick to their guns more so than many others. I think the difference can be defined as follows:

-Lutherans (at least, of the conservative type) are members of the Lutheran Church because they believe that confessional Lutheranism is the closest denomination of all to he truth.
-Protestants in general are members of the denomination that they are because they believe that it doesn't matter.

I agree, the Confessions are normative for Lutherans, so if one wants to call one's self "Lutheran" there are some limits, even for "liberal' synods. I have seen how the Confessions correct doctrine and practice first hand.

So do we all. Although the Orthodox would say that the Church was never divided - there were schisms from the Church, but never within the Church. When the RCC and the Orthodox split, the RCC ceased to be part of the Church. Consequently, the Lutherans were never part of the Church (or at the very least, their status as a true church in the Church was questionable).

Beyond that, Lutherans see the "Church" as people gathered around the Word and the Sacraments, while the Orthodox see it as a visible institution, e.g. the Orthodox Church--a very significant difference. However, this means that e.g. the Roman Catholic church is part of the Church, because though they have false doctrines, they still have the Word and the Sacraments. The Reformed are part of the Church because they have the Word, though they do not fully understand the Sacraments.

Not only St Paul, but Christ Himself struggled with temptation - because if He didn't, then He wouldn't have been truly human.

More later on the two natures. :wink:

Being perfect, in the sense that Christ was perfect, does not mean that one does not struggle with temptation - it means that one does not succumb to it. Surely you think that, with the help of God, it is possible for us to avoid succumbing to temptation?

OK, you have me here, because God does not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to resist, so in each particular instance we can resist temptation, but I still do not think we can be perfect. Jesus said that sin is in the thoughts as well as in the deeds,and sometimes our thoughts will run ahead of where we want them to.

Jesus did not come to save us from our individual sins, but from the power of "sin, death and the devil" in Luther's words. When our thoughts are not aligned with God's will, we serve our old master, our flesh. I take it the EO believe one can actually master the flesh 100% and not do any actual sins, even inthought?

Now, I am prepared to agree that I see "perfect" in a stricter sense than the EO do, but that is part of the semantic wall again, which is why I am never sure we agree or disagree. George is obviously knowledgable in Orthodoxy, but it seems that both he and I cannot escape our "traditions."

You have attempted to dispute the Orthodox view of justification by a reductio ad absurdum with infants.

No, not really. George says that we are not righteous until we undergo a measure of deification. What logically follows from that is that righteousness is not necessary for salvation, especially if we can determine if some people who are not "righteous" from the Orthodox POV go to heaven.

By necessary, I mean the way Lutherans believe that baptism is necessary. The Church is bound to Holy Baptism, but God is not bound. That is the "out" I was waiting for George to use, that God has mercy on whom he wills--which makes salvation God's gift to us. :smile:

A similar absurdity could be levelled at the Lutheran position: if you say that justification is instantaneous, then what is the point with continuing to live after being justified? Why would God continue to let us live if we were already justified? Shouldn't he take us - like the infant or the new Christian - and save us from the trials that life brings? What is the purpose?

Because God has a plan, and as his slaves we should follow it. This does not imply need on God's part; as I said we are his slaves, bought with a priice to serve hm. He created us to do good works, not just to be justified and go to heaven. This brings up another issue, IMO. Lutherans believe God works through means, my understanding is that the EO believe the same. Means require a mediator, either Christians or ministers for example in the Church. We have work to do.

One thing can be certain: God does not allow us to continue to live after baptism because He needs for part of His plan. This means that God is either frivolous (ie, He has no purpose), or He does it for our benefit. And that is the Orthodox position. He allows us to continue to live after baptism because it is part of the process by which we are made righteous.

Or sanctified. It matters which side of the wall you are on. I have no problem with the concept that we become more "deified", I do with the concept that we are more "saved".

I think so. Except the Orthodox don't describe such a life as a "saved life". They would probably describe it as a "life with God". But I'll let George speak.

"Saved life" was George's formulation. I liked it quite a bit and so I used it. It is also a concept we both understand independant of our traditions so I find it useful.

It basically means a life lived for God, a holy sanctified life with the works that would entail, with our wills cooperating with God's will.

Your view comes close to crediting God with a person's failure to come to salvation.

That would be a full blown TULIP Calvinist, which I am not. Lutherans do not try to harmonize and make meta doctrines, for example, we leave the real presence where God's Word does. There is no "transsubstantiation" because Scripture does not say that--it is a doctrine of men. God's word says he saves us, and we can lose our salvation because of our choices. How that works he did not reveal to us, it is "hidden God" stuff that we should leave alone. Christ is the revelation of the Father, who has his own mysterious workings.
More below.

This is because effectively it makes God 100% responsible for our desire (and more important, for our lack thereof) to be baptised.

No one has a "desire" to be baptized, unless he already believes. For Lutherans, Holy Baptism is normally a completely external event, e.g. for infants.

I think that the Orthodox would agree that our ability to choose good. But I think they would argue that this is a gift He gives to all, and it is not a gift that we receive at baptism.

I use the words "godly works" instead of "good works" because "good works" is a loaded phrase now. Godly works are pleasing to God, good works are good in a temporal sense. So I will ask you (George already answered), can we perform godly works without the Holy Spirit? That is the framework for my comment before. Hence I do not think the Orthodox and Lutherans really disagree.

This comes down to the fundamental difference between the East and West in their doctrines of Original Sin - one that I believe is the most important difference. When Westerners speak of original sin, they are also (often explicitly) talking about original guilt. Somehow, we are guilty of sin even from birth.

We are guilty of our own sins, we do not inheret the guilt for Adam's particular sin. Here is a link, with audio! http://www.immanuelpeoria.org/teach/sin/sin.html

The word is sinfulness, not Adam's sin.

We are sinful, out of this sinfulness come our actual sins. Jesus came to take away the sin (sungular!) of the world, as per John the Baptist. No one is guilty of Adam's particular sin except Adam. I have heard your formulation though, but I do not think it is the "official" Lutheran doctrine.

Of course, original sin leads us into temptation, and original sin is something that we still need to be saved from because if left unchecked it would lead to our eternal death. And we cannot save ourselves from original sin. But in Orthodoxy, original sin is not something that we as individuals deserve to be punished for.

I agree, unless I have the Lutheran position terribly wrong.

I would add to the effects though; we cannot love God as we ought because of original sin, so we are separated from our Creator from birth. (Another time I said we could not love God, now I am "revising" what I meant.)

I think that you're spot-on with that Gnostic thing. I think that many Christians today have let neo-Platonic thought creep into their faith, with the attitude that matter is equal. I have seen many people on this forum who seem to think we will be bodiless come judgment day.

How can they believe such a thing? I have had run-ins too. Speaking with these people is one reason I have trouble believing that an "Ed" without a body is "Ed" at all. But that is another thread.

Actually, in that way the Lutherans are very much like the Orthodox - one of those "unwritten laws" that you referred to above like "theosis", perhaps. This is again something that I hadn't realised.

The main difference is that the Orthodox believe in Apostolic Succession. For Lutherans that is optional, though cool. :smile: That is a significant differebnce IMO, but otherwise you are right.

BTW, I "learned" that a few years ago speaking with another Orthodox believer, DrGeorge107a on AOL. :hehe:

My "patriarch" resides in Adelaide - my home city! - the president of the Lutheran Church of Australia (LCA). We are currently not a part of the Lutheran World Federation because of their liberal stances on homosexuality, women's ordination, etc... though there is debate about this at present, and it could split our church...

I pray for you and your church regarding that debate. BTW, I believe I can receive communion in an LCA church, and you can receive in mine--though the LCA is leary of meta-organizations. Interesting.

I agree that we should be careful about pushing analogies too far. That was in fact the point that I was trying to make - you used Ambrose's analogy to support the Lutheran position, I merely pointed out that it was not inconsistent with the Orthodox position either.

It is an open question whether the difference is real or semantic. That is why we all keep writing reams of posts on this topic. :smile:

When the Orthdox say "Jesus was sinless" or "Jesus was perfect" (or even "Mary was sinless"), we do not mean that he was without original sin. In order to save us from original sin, Jesus had to be subject to the effects of original sin. His body aged, he went bald, he probably got ill, bruised his thumb with a hammer in his stepfather's carpentry shop, etc... That was the whole point of the incarnation - so that Jesus would be subject to the effects of original sin, and thereby overcome and reverse them.

So far so good. I do not believe in a silent infant Jesus who never wet his drawers. :bawl: Also, I do not subscribe to the OS doctrine you stated above.

So in the sense that you are saying, Jesus was not "perfect" until He was resurrected - because he still had an imperfect body. However, He was still sinless in the sense that he was guilty of no sin - and thus in the more restricted sense of pertaining to sinlessness, he was "perfect".

I pretty much agree with what you say here, but when I was thinking of "perfect", I was thinking in terms of actual sin, not of a glorified body.

You see, if Jesus was already perfect in his flesh, his body could not possibly get better, or he would be "more perfect." :huh:

So I think you over-read my use of "perfect" here.

Now, if George means by perfect the type of perfection Jesus underwent, we do not disagree.

Here's the problems that I see:
1. Humans were made to freely love God. God created us with the implanted nature to seek Him. This is the "sole purpose of man" (Ecclesiastes somewhere...). Of course, I will conceded that our attempts to love God are invariably imperfect. But if we cannot love God even the tiniest bit out of our own free will due to our nature, then it implies that we are not human.

OK, but weren't humans created to be bodily immortal? And since we die, even if we are raised again, wouldn't that imply that we are not human too?

We cannot love God as we should, that and death are some of the things Jesus came to set right.

2. As I noted above, it pushes responsibility for loving God away from us and onto Him. Our failure to love Him is really His failure. If a person does not love God, then that is because God failed to provide them with that ability.

Our failure to love God is due to our wills. We cannot love him properly, and this is what Jesus came to rectify. God has a solution in the person and work of his Son Jesus Christ--I certainly do not blame God!

3. It gives us an excuse for our sin. How can we be held accountable for doing something that by nature we can't help but do? And if we can overcome it, then it is not impossible to overcome, is it? :smile: Really, I think this is where the Western view of "original sin" came from - Augustine was a man who struggled with temptations of the flesh (as his "Confessions" will testify), and in developing the doctrine of "original sin" he was giving himself an "out", as it were.

Well, psychoanalyzing a man who is dead for ca. 1600 years is not really fair. You may be right about his doctrines though.

Anyway, though St. Augustine is a father of the Western Church, and I do not subscribe to his doctrine of original guilt. He is also an Orthodox saint.

You're mixing the natures. I don't think that would have gone down too well during the monophysite controversy. There is one Person in two natures. The divine nature is in every way God. The human nature is in every way like us. "Sinfulness" or "sinlessness" is not part of human nature - rather, they are states open to particular human beings.

OK, did God suffer? Yes, according to his human nature. Is Mary theotokos? Yes, according to Jesus human nature. Does God have ancestors? Yes, according to his human nature. Did God die for our sins? Yes, according to his human nature.

The answer to those questions is "no" according to his divine nature, but since there is one Jesus Christ, what we say about one we also say about the other, else we divide the person Jesus Christ.

Can Jesus sin? No, because God cannot sin, and in the man Jesus Christ God is man. I do not mix the natures, nor do I divide the person. That makes me Orthodox in all senses of the word. :smile:

Anyway, sinfulness is not part of human nature, it adheres to it and criples it to a very large degree, bringing death, sin etc. etc. Jesus' nature is human, but his human nature does not have sinfulness.

You anticipated my response. As for your counterargument - temptation is not the same thing as sin.

What about the other examples I gave? Jesus said that to lust after a woman is adultery. What about fleeting thoughts?

Again, I think the claim "no one can be that good" is a way that people console themselves when they fall short of the target themselves...

Actually, I use St. Paul as my example here. He is certainly a great saint, yet even he struggled.

Yes. But I think that, wherever anyone is righteous, it is because they have the Holy Spirit.

OK, then we agree. But how does one reveive the Holy Spirit?

As Paul said about the Gentiles, who do the right thing because they have the law written on their hearts.

I think Paul was making a comparison between the Hebrew Law from Moses and the natural morality we are all born with. Paul's point is that the Gentiles have a law too. Since he said the Hebrew Law did not save we can infer that our natural morality does not either. BTW, the natural morality is what we Lutherans call "Civil Righteousness." It is "good' but it does not save.

Nor do I think that "faith" is "knowing what Jesus' did" - I don't think you need to know that Jesus was raised from the dead in order to be saved by the fact.

You are technically correct, we do not need to know every detail, otherwise infants could not have faith. I was really addressing adults there, so I will reformulate:

If we can only receive the benefits of Jesus' work through faith in him, and we can only have faith through the Holy Spirit, are we not made just by faith, and faith alone--because everything done outside of faith is sin?

But hey, steel sharpens steel :smile:

You do need to have faith in what Jesus was (and is) - the Truth, God's Salvation, the Wisdom and Word of God, etc...

No problem there. Please see above.

More TOMORROW~~~

Rdr. Arsenios

April 17th 2004, 10:45 AM

I have no problem with the concept that we become more "deified", I do with the concept that we are more "saved".

Quote:
I think so. Except the Orthodox don't describe such a life as a "saved life". They would probably describe it as a "life with God". But I'll let George speak.

Max
George says that we are not righteous until we undergo a measure of deification.

It is really easy, when dialoguing across two fundamentally different mind-sets, to say something and have someone who knows and speaks the same language to understand one's words utterly differently than what one intends. And there is a huge phronetic divide between East and West, betseen Orthodox and Protestant. Indeed, one of the things seen often in Orthodoxy is the phenomenon of a protestant approaching Orthodoxy, and actually entering the Church in Baptism and/or Chrismation and not shedding his olod clothes at the door, the clothes of his whole, previous, way of understanding, his whole previous 'psycho-epistemology' that tells him when something is true and when it is not...

"Saved life" was George's formulation. I liked it quite a bit and so I used it. It is also a concept we both understand independant of our traditions so I find it useful.

It basically means a life lived for God, a holy sanctified life with the works that would entail, with our wills cooperating with God's will.

The path of salvation has three basic stages of development, and the first is the purification of the heart. This is repentance, and leads us to Baptism, which itself gives us the ontological basis in which we can then efficaciously undertake the 'house-cleaning' that is so essential, the sinlessness that only a repentant life can abide within. [We hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience" (Paul)] For after baptism, we can avail ourselves of confession and communion and the ascesis appropriate to those born from above. This stage can go on for years, as we work our way through the struggles with sin that mark the ordinary life of a Christian. There will come a time when God will illumine the mind of such a person, and this stage is called the illumination of the nous, and such a person lives in the radiance of an understanding of mind that prior to that he could only speculate about. It is not just reasonable, but is super-reasonable, and indeed informs the reason [speaking philosophically]... The character of one's understanding when one reads the Bible, for instance, is changed, and ones ascetic labors [eg one's taking up of the cross] increase after this, and one enters the whole next 'level' of Christian life.

Now the grace that calls a person to Christ, and the grace that rebirths him from the laver of Baptism, and the grace that illumines his nous, is the same grace, the uncreated energies of God, just received differently according to purity and impurity of heart... We have been having our entire discussion solely at the level of the purification of the heart, for without this basis, there is nothing further except error and deception.

Now I know that chomping at the back of your mind is the burning question: "I know, I know, but is a person at this stage SAVED???" And the answer is, if he is babtized and struggling in his contention for the faith found in the purity of soul initiated in baptism, he will be saved... [at the last judgement] And right now, he is but a penitent, struggling to make firm his new birth, growing in the faith, struggling against his passions, learning the first few steps, baby steps, of the askesis of struggle that will bring hem eventually to maturity in the faith, which is a sinlessness of soul that not only does not commit physical sin, but lives in constant alertness to the very mental inception of it thrown at us in the trials of faith, and proclaiming the cross [of askesis] as ones defence, for upon our cross, we scorn the pleasures of this world, its comforts, its allures, and are turned in love and the agony of struggle only unto God... Such is the nature of the Christian struggle, for it is in askesis that we take up our cross, and it is the discipleship [the discipline] that shames the demons who would seduce us with pleasures and our fears of pain, and our normal and worldly avoidance of discomforts...

All that we should purify our hearts... And acqquire sin-free lives...

This is what Orthodox mean by "living a saved life", which is better expressed by saying "living a life unto salvation"... For we do not claim to be saved, but to be sinners seeking repentance... eg purity of heart, that we may receive illumination of the nous, and following the extablishment of this illumination, theosis, or divinization of the person, sainthood, the God-bearers and miracle-working holy men and women of God, the apostolic level of discipleship, and the most agonizing, for such is the cross for these, as Paul write: "Those called to be apostles are the most miserable of all men..." Yet to each is given according to the measure of the faith allotted him, and not all are called to apostleship, yet all are living lives unto salvation, if they persevere unto the end...

And the grace of theosis is the same grace that calls us to the faith, just differently received according to the condition of the soul receiving it... Being a Christian is ALL about the acquisition of one's Christian quality of soul in the face of challenges and temptations, and these do not go away except at death, but become more and more severe, as we become more and more Christ-like, and ascend unto God in spirit and in truth, glorying only in our infirmities...

Make more sense? This only barely brushes the surface, and the only way to know is to do... You cannot see the end from the beginning...

geo-Arsenios

Fideist345

April 17th 2004, 11:25 AM

George,

I could be all wet, but I think where the struggle is for the average Protestant is that the focus is largely on the rewards of the next life. Could you explain how Orthodoxy sees the benefits (for lack of a better term) of not only belief or faith, but the actual putting to work of that belief or faith? I think that might help distinguish a few things.

Also, on a personal note, I’m trying to investigate the meaning and significance of “Economy” as used in theological discourse. I seem to remember your tradition using that term. Could you send me a PM on some sources, please? Mine are insufficient. :sad:

Rdr. Arsenios

April 17th 2004, 05:50 PM

I could be all wet, but I think where the struggle is for the average Protestant is that the focus is largely on the rewards of the next life. Could you explain how Orthodoxy sees the benefits (for lack of a better term) of not only belief or faith, but the actual putting to work of that belief or faith? I think that might help distinguish a few things.

A Christian seeks, with all the effort he can muster, to enter the kingdom of heaven while still walking upon the earth, and a kingdom has a King, and subjects who serve Him and act in His Name, and are obedient to Him, and insofar as Christians are able to do so, they are in the Kingdom of Heaven, while walking the earth... We do have bodies, and our bodies need to be brought under the rulership of the person who obeys Christ... This is one facet of attainment of the kingdom.

Protestants focus on what Christ has done for them, thinking that it is all done, and they only have to believe to be saved, and hence are very alert to issues of doctrine, because it is the doctrines that determine what one believes, and it is one's beliefs that either attain or fail to attain salvation given by God... [Calvinists see all this as the RESULT of salvation that is already in possession, because pre-determined by God.]

So that the focus is on what God has done for us, and our understanding of doctrine. Orthodoxy focuses on discipleship, on what it is that we should do in order that we conform ourselves to Christ in obedience to Him, taking up our own cross, and following Him, being discipled by the Apostolic Church that began, and is passed down, in the discipleship of the apostles under Christ.

Failure to do the discipling results in loss of salvation - I can prove to you that I am NOT a Christian, and that I have NO faith, and you can prove the same thing to yourselves about yourselves by simply completing the sentence [over and over again differently] "IF I really were a Christian, and if I REALLY did have faith, then I would do:.........." That is a long, indeed endless list...

And the faith is held in purity of conscience - That's Biblical...

And the rewards are life in the kingdom of heaven while on earth, and life in the age to come... Of the first, we have an earnest, but not the peace of the world, but of Christ, and of the second, we have the expectation and hope, having had the earnest, at least in some measure...

So we have no holier calling that the purification of our hearts, from which both good and evil come forth, that only good comes forth, and that only as commanded by Christ, living lives saturated daily in the prayers of the Church...

And it is a narrow way... and a hard way... And is taken by force, against oneself...

geo-Arsenios

Maxentius

April 17th 2004, 07:18 PM

Hello George!

I combined two of your posts, it makes things a little easier.

Is He saving you and me?

Yes, but if I die today, I will go to heaven, so I am "saved" now, in temporal terms. I am also "saved" at the final judgement, when everyone is raised again. If I am going to heaven, I am "saved." The only thing is that I could lose my salvation, or status as a "saved" person.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are using at least two different meanings for "saved."

1) At the Judgement, when our deeds are weighed, we are saved because we have done well in Christ, we have run the race.

2) We are saved at Holy Basptism because God takes away our previous unrighteousness, gives us the Holy Spirit and places us on the path to heaven.

Am I at least in the ballpark?

And He saves us by making us righteous, and we become righteous in Him by living repentant lives, keeping pure in faithfulness the holiness we received in Holy Baptism where our UN-righteousness was taken from us, and we were reborn from above...

See, here I see our different traditions running into each other. As I said earlier, it is possible for a doctrine to be embedded, but not explicit until we hear it out loud.

You say God saves us by making us righteous, yet we also become righteous. I don't think we are that far apart. I say God makes us righteous, typically at Holy Baptism. That seems to corespond to your first statement about God making us righteous. But I also believe that we are sanctified by God, who works in us to will and to do--synergy. That coresponds to your second statement where we become righteous.

Do I understand you correctly, and do you find my analogies useful?

This does not mean I am saying theosis is really sanctification, because my understanding is that for the Orthodox theosis is the whole kit and kaboodle, justification, sanctification and glorification.

And are we not to follow Him? (Christ) And of course we will stumble, and fall, and be scattered, and we will get back up, and confess, and repent, and eradicate what caused us to fall from our souls...

If you believe we will still sin by necessity and not compulsion, we do not disagree.

Just because we don't steal candy any more from the 7-11 coesn't mean that we love the person who just stole our car...

Precicely! And I agree that sin can become habitual, just like roghteousness can.

This is why the acquisition of righteousness, which is the character of the praxis of Christian virtues, is progressive and directional...

If you mean here the second use of "righteousness" above, I agree. It all matters what words we are using and how we are using them.

We are saved in the laver of baptism which cleanses us and gives us the seal of the Holy Spirit. After that, we CAN live repentant lives in the service of God, or we CAN fall away...

I agree we can fall away, but I also believe that God does not let his children go so easily. The Holy Spirit will convict us of our sins and we can repent of our sins. We can also turn away from God and his convictions and be lost. Our loss can happen in an instant, if we apostacize, or we can slowly get choked by the world, as per Jesus' parable.

If what Max thinks is true, [that the unregenerated (in baptism) man is incapable of loving God] then baptism would have to be involuntary... Who would want it?

I answered this in my post to Jezz, I think. Anyway, yes, baptism is involuntary, unless we already believe. We are born carnally minded, without the ability to obey God. This is basically what St. Paul says in Romans:

For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
(emphasis added)

We are in the Spirit if the Spirit of God dwells against us, otherwise we are in the flesh, and we are in deep trouble.

So yes, we cannot choose to follow God, obey him, love him, or even do godly works without him. Only Christians have his Spirit.

It is really easy, when dialoguing across two fundamentally different mind-sets, to say something and have someone who knows and speaks the same language to understand one's words utterly differently than what one intends. And there is a huge phronetic divide between East and West, betseen Orthodox and Protestant. Indeed, one of the things seen often in Orthodoxy is the phenomenon of a protestant approaching Orthodoxy, and actually entering the Church in Baptism and/or Chrismation and not shedding his olod clothes at the door, the clothes of his whole, previous, way of understanding, his whole previous 'psycho-epistemology' that tells him when something is true and when it is not...

Yes, that is why we need to be very careful. That is one reason I ask questions. :wink: You are correct that it is difficult to leave our assumptions behind. But we have to try! For centuries the East and the West were divided and developed in different directions--even more than they had before. This is largely due to the Pope's desire to rule over all Christians, but sometimes the EO just demand that Protestants submit to the Ecumenical Creeds and be done with it. That is why I am glad you have been patient so far.

Now the grace that calls a person to Christ, and the grace that rebirths him from the laver of Baptism, and the grace that illumines his nous, is the same grace, the uncreated energies of God, just received differently according to purity and impurity of heart... We have been having our entire discussion solely at the level of the purification of the heart, for without this basis, there is nothing further except error and deception.

OK, you say that the grace that rebirths us is the same grace that illuminates etc. No problem there. So, if I understand you correctly, a person who receives God's grace with a pure heart is deified over time. I don't have a problem with that either if you agree that the grace that initially calls us to Christ is one sided, that we cannot by our own understanding reach out to God and choose to believe him, for instance.

Now I know that chomping at the back of your mind is the burning question: "I know, I know, but is a person at this stage SAVED???"

Thank goodness you noticed that bit in my mouth! It was getting dry and my teeth were beginning to ache. :hehe:

And the answer is, if he is babtized and struggling in his contention for the faith found in the purity of soul initiated in baptism, he will be saved...[at the last judgement]

OK, so we agree then. :smile: Of course we still have our cross to bear after baptism, and we may fall away. But we are the people with Christ's Spirit St. Paul describes above, we can be subject to God, but he does not compell us.

Stated another way, before we have the Holy Spirit we do not really have free will--we cannot choose fellowship with God. After we become Christians we do have free will. In other words, Christ sets us free from our bondage to sin. Israel's bondage in Egypt was a type of this bondage to sin. God saved his people Israel by his mighty hand, and so he saves the new Israel, the church, by his mighty hand.

Make more sense? This only barely brushes the surface, and the only way to know is to do... You cannot see the end from the beginning...

Yes, thank you very much.

I also do not expect you to give an exhaustive description of theosis either, since it is the theological center of the Orthodox faith.

There are likely many books written about it. :smile:

Rdr. Arsenios

April 17th 2004, 11:32 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are using at least two different meanings for "saved."

1) At the Judgement, when our deeds are weighed, we are saved because we have done well in Christ, we have run the race.

2) We are saved at Holy Basptism because God takes away our previous unrighteousness, gives us the Holy Spirit and places us on the path to heaven.

Am I at least in the ballpark?

We are also being saved every time we turn from sin, and we are being lost each time we embrace a sin, and that last meaning is the one that counts, for we are free, following our salvific calling, and following our sallvific discipling unto baptism, and following our salvific baptism, and following all manner of God's graciousness toward us, after all these 'saveds' are ducked up in a row, even then, we are still being saved and still losing our salvation according to our actions with respect to the race 'set out before us' - eg according to our actions with regard to sin. If we overcome sin, we are being saved, and if we succumb to sin, we are being lost, and in this regard, we are free, even though without Christ we can do nothing, neither to will nor to do, yet it is not God Who wills and does FOR us regarding sin, but who gives us freedom TO will and TO do...

You say God saves us by making us righteous, yet we also become righteous. I don't think we are that far apart. I say God makes us righteous, typically at Holy Baptism. That seems to corespond to your first statement about God making us righteous. But I also believe that we are sanctified by God, who works in us to will and to do--synergy. That coresponds to your second statement where we become righteous.

This is our old [by now] saw, for by Orthodox standards, Lutherans have sanctification confused with righteousness, and by Lutheran standards, the Orthodox think sanctification is justification, and vice versa. But if you simply look at baptism, that we are baptized into Christ's death, that we are washed in the holy waters of baptism and emerge from them clean, and this clean is spiritually clean, for we are in them cleansled from all sin and all unrighteousness, and emerge purified and holy, with no unrighteousness at all, then this is the result of baptism, purity and holiness, and the ABSENCE of unrighteousness... Now the absence of unrighteousness is NOT righteousness, I think you will agree, yes? We are made right by God as we overcome in the battle against sin to which we are called out of baptism, because the enemies of mankind want us to go back to our sinful ways, and bring forth temptations, and in order to keep the purity we were given at baptism, we have to overcome them, and that is the great work of the human soul unto the attainment of righteousness... And inasmuch as we overcome, God makes us righteous, one overcoming at a time...

This does not mean I am saying theosis is really sanctification, because my understanding is that for the Orthodox theosis is the whole kit and kaboodle, justification, sanctification and glorification.

Did you read my last post on this? Paul writes: "Moreover, whom He predestined, those He also called; and whom He called, those He also justified; and whom He justified, those He also glorified."
It is the glorified saints that refer to the last, for God glorifies the righteous, and justification is God making a penitent righteous, one overcoming at a time... And to answer your question directly, theosis does NOT refer to thewhole package, but to glorification, for the glorification refered to in this Romans passage is theosis...

If you believe we will still sin by necessity and not compulsion, we do not disagree.

Then we disagree, because sin is a moral category, and we sin by choice, and by default, sins known and sins unknown, deliberate sins, and inadvertent ones... We sin through knowledge, and we sin through ignorance, and the question is not do we live sinless lives, for we do not, but what do we DO about the sins we find ourselves doing? If we find ourselves laughing at off-color jokes among our fellow workers, let us suppose, then what do we DO about it? Do we just blow it off and say "Oh well, I am saved, and God forgives me..."??? Do we confess the sin to someone we feel safe with from the congregation, and then go back to sinning? Or do we throw down the gauntlet, take a stand, and actually DO something about our miscreance? Like imposing a penalty on ourselves if we 'go along' with another joke and laugh at it? The last is Orthodox... For that is how we overcome sins... Outside of this intense effort against sin, we are but head-tripping Christians who claim righteousness without the fact of it, then slip off into hippocritical notions of "imputed righteousness", whereby we can claim righteousness and still have our sins, and we become Christians who SAY that Christ takes away the sins of the world, but our sins somehow don't count...

But sometimes the EO just demand that Protestants submit to the Ecumenical Creeds and be done with it. That is why I am glad you have been patient so far.

Until you do, you cannot be Orthodox... It is the Church that is the ground and pillar of truth, not the pope, not the patriarchs, and certainly not the Lutherans or the Pentecostals, or anyone else that does not submit to the 1st 7 ecumenical councils... The Church submits to them, and if you wish to enter Her, you must also... That part is pretty simple... The Church is not corrected from those who are outside the Church...

Stated another way, before we have the Holy Spirit we do not really have free will--we cannot choose fellowship with God. After we become Christians we do have free will. In other words, Christ sets us free from our bondage to sin. Israel's bondage in Egypt was a type of this bondage to sin. God saved his people Israel by his mighty hand, and so he saves the new Israel, the church, by his mighty hand.

That's almost Orthodox!

There are likely many books written about it. :smile:

Not all that many - "Deification in Christ" by Panagiotis is one, as I recall...

geo-Arsenios

Jezz

April 18th 2004, 03:03 AM

Beyond that, Lutherans see the "Church" as people gathered around the Word and the Sacraments, while the Orthodox see it as a visible institution, e.g. the Orthodox Church--a very significant difference. However, this means that e.g. the Roman Catholic church is part of the Church, because though they have false doctrines, they still have the Word and the Sacraments. The Reformed are part of the Church because they have the Word, though they do not fully understand the Sacraments.
The Orthodox belief about the Church is not really all that different once you scratch the surface. I think the Orthodox view of the Church is perhaps one of the most misunderstood doctrines of the Orthodox Church.

Yes, the Orthodox believe that Orthodoxy is the true Church - the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, so that anyone who is not Orthodox is not truly part of the Church. But (if I've understood them correctly), what they really mean by this is that the communion of Orthodox churches together form the visible face of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. However, they hold that there may be those who are not visibly joined to one of these churches who are still invisibly joined to the Orthodox Church in a way that only God knows - in spite of the fact that some of them belong to churches who have non-Orthodox doctrines. In this sense, the Orthodox Church is both visible and invisible. This is why they do not judge the "heterodox", as they call them, or even Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, or atheists - they leave this judgment to the mercy of God.

And in fact, this is not so different from the Lutheran view - Lutherans hold themselves to be the visible face of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But they also hold that members of this church can be found in denominations other than their own - even if those denominations hold incorrect (ie, non-orthodox) doctrines.

OK, you have me here, because God does not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to resist, so in each particular instance we can resist temptation, but I still do not think we can be perfect. Jesus said that sin is in the thoughts as well as in the deeds,and sometimes our thoughts will run ahead of where we want them to.

Jesus did not come to save us from our individual sins, but from the power of "sin, death and the devil" in Luther's words. When our thoughts are not aligned with God's will, we serve our old master, our flesh. I take it the EO believe one can actually master the flesh 100% and not do any actual sins, even inthought?

Now, I am prepared to agree that I see "perfect" in a stricter sense than the EO do, but that is part of the semantic wall again, which is why I am never sure we agree or disagree. George is obviously knowledgable in Orthodoxy, but it seems that both he and I cannot escape our "traditions."

No, not really. George says that we are not righteous until we undergo a measure of deification. What logically follows from that is that righteousness is not necessary for salvation, especially if we can determine if some people who are not "righteous" from the Orthodox POV go to heaven.
I think here another semantic barrier that is coming up is over the word "salvation". In Greek, the word "salvation" literally meant "rescue from a difficult situation", and it was not specifically a theological term. For example, a peasant family might have their crops destroyed by some natural disaster and have no means of supporting themselves. They would have to appeal to a wealthy patron to supply them with means to survive. That patron would be their saviour. Thus, the word "salvation" always implies the existence of something from which we are saved.

In Orthodoxy, "salvation" doesn't mean "go to heaven". Salvation means being rescued from the effects of sin - including death. Obviously, it makes no sense to talk about being saved when we are still under the effects of sin and subject to death. We are not saved until final judgment - when we are raised to life in incorruptible bodies and all creation is cleansed from the effects of original sin. It is this salvation that we work towards.

Also note that the Orthodox never (to my knowledge) speak of "going to heaven". Heaven is not a place in the afterlife. "Going to heaven" is one of those neo-Platonic doctrines that have again crept into Christianity. In Orthodoxy, they speak of the kingdom of heaven (synonym: kingdom of God) - which is present here and now on Earth already, and is found wherever God's will is done. In the afterlife, we will all (righteous and unrighteous alike) be saved from the effects of original sin - incorruptible bodies, cleansed creation. But not all will be part of the kingdom of heaven - those who hate God will try and flee God's presence, and being unable to will make it as hell for them.

By necessary, I mean the way Lutherans believe that baptism is necessary. The Church is bound to Holy Baptism, but God is not bound. That is the "out" I was waiting for George to use, that God has mercy on whom he wills--which makes salvation God's gift to us. :smile:
Indeed, God as our patron gives us salvation when we have no means of achieving it on our own. I don't think that the Orthodox would disagree with that.

Because God has a plan, and as his slaves we should follow it. This does not imply need on God's part; as I said we are his slaves, bought with a priice to serve hm. He created us to do good works, not just to be justified and go to heaven.
Ok, I think you missed the thrust of my point so I'll try and explain it more methodically.

1. God commands us to do good works.
2. God does not need us to do good works, because He could achieve the same good works by His own power directly.
3. If good works are not needed to help God, then either: a) God's command is aimed at benefitting someone other than Himself, or b) God's command benefits nobody (ie, it is arbitrary and frivolous).
4. God does not give frivolous commands.
5. Therefore, God's command is aimed at benefitting someone other than Him.
6. The only person left that obedience to God could help is the one that is obeying.

In short, God commands us to do good works so that we might be righteousified.

This brings up another issue, IMO. Lutherans believe God works through means, my understanding is that the EO believe the same. Means require a mediator, either Christians or ministers for example in the Church. We have work to do.
I agree that God works through means, and I think that the EO do to. But the point is that God could choose any means to achieve His goals. The point I was trying to make above is that He chooses us as the means to achieve this goal because the act of doing so makes us righteous. In other words, we are the benefactors of the great Commission - not God.

Or sanctified. It matters which side of the wall you are on. I have no problem with the concept that we become more "deified", I do with the concept that we are more "saved".
I think this comes back to a misunderstanding of the term "salvation". If "salvation" is understood in terms of "salvation from sin", then because obviously some people sin less than others, some people are more saved than others.

"Saved life" was George's formulation. I liked it quite a bit and so I used it. It is also a concept we both understand independant of our traditions so I find it useful.

It basically means a life lived for God, a holy sanctified life with the works that would entail, with our wills cooperating with God's will.
I'll let George continue with that one.

That would be a full blown TULIP Calvinist, which I am not.
No actually - to be a full blown TULIP Calvinist, you need to believe in the "I" part - "irresistable grace". Lutherans believe that one does not have the free will to accept God's grace, but they have the free will to reject it once God has given it to them. Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that one does not have the free will to accept God's grace or to reject it, ever. It is irresistable. Thus, in the Calvinist viewpoint, God alone determines everyone's will for them - thereby predestining everyone to heaven or hell. I grant that the Lutheran view is not quite so bleak, but it is still not real flash - in summary, the difference is that God predestines some people to hell, and the rest go there of their own free will.

Lutherans do not try to harmonize and make meta doctrines, for example, we leave the real presence where God's Word does. There is no "transsubstantiation" because Scripture does not say that--it is a doctrine of men. God's word says he saves us, and we can lose our salvation because of our choices. How that works he did not reveal to us, it is "hidden God" stuff that we should leave alone. Christ is the revelation of the Father, who has his own mysterious workings.
More below.
I know that Lutherans say that "we do not try to harmonize and make meta doctrines", and this is what frustrates me about Lutheranism. For one thing, it is false, because Lutherans for example accept the Trinity. Lutherans do not leave the description of God where God's word does, because if they did they would reject the Nicene and Apostle's and Athanasian Creeds (and they don't). The Trinity is a metadoctrine which results from the harmonisation of various passages in God's word.

And for another thing: to say "we don't try and harmonise" is basically saying "we don't care if what we say is blatantly contradictory". I cannot stand this type of thinking, because accepting logical contradictions means that one will blindly accept anything to be true.

It is one thing to accept incomplete doctrines. I completely agree that we shouldn't try to completely explain the mysteries of God - we should just accept that they are mysteries and will never be able to fully explain or understand them. Real presence, the incarnation, the Trinity - these doctrines all fall into these categories. But these doctrines, while strange and contradictory to our experience, are not in themselves logically contraditory.

It is another thing altogether to accept inconsistent doctrines - ie, doctrines that are mutually contradictory. For example, if we said both that Jesus was fully man and that He was not fully man - that would be a direct contradiction, and one or the other of these two doctrines must be incorrect.

Let us take it as a given that Lutheran position is correct - ie, that noone has free will until He has given us His Spirit. There are two possible views:

The first is that God gives the Spirit in sufficient measure to bring them to faith to only a select few and at certain times. These elect then have the free will to continue to accept His Spirit, or they may reject it. As for those who God did not choose to give His Spirit to, or for those who rejected it and God chose not to give it to them again - in doing so, God has chosen for those people to be damned. This is a logical consequence of His choice not to give them the ability to choose.

I found that the above did not sit comfortably with the idea of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God - that he would choose some to give the gift of choice, and not others. The only way I could reconcile this with the Lutheran doctrine is to conclude that God must give the gift of choice/free will (via the Spirit) to everyone, continuously, at all times and in all places. In short, everyone has the free will to choose God or not choose Him, because God Himself has given everyone that ability from birth. None of us are totally depraved, because God sends His Spirit to all. As God said in the vision he gave to Peter: Do not call "unclean" that which God has made clean. In a similar way, I say that it is not right to call humans "totally depraved", because God has made us clean by giving everyone the will and the means to seek Him, if the individual should choose to do so.

It was after I did this bit of thinking to reconcile the Lutheran doctrine on total depravity with the idea of a loving and omnipotent God that I actually realised that my idea was Orthodox (capital O)... as has happened with a number of pet doctrines that I have had. In effect, I was actually coming to believe that Orthodoxy was true even before I actually knew what Orthodoxy was... it couldn't have been a coincidence...

No one has a "desire" to be baptized, unless he already believes. For Lutherans, Holy Baptism is normally a completely external event, e.g. for infants.
I disagree - see above for a full explanation. God gives everyone the desire to seek Him.

[quote]I use the words "godly works" instead of "good works" because "good works" is a loaded phrase now. Godly works are pleasing to God, good works are good in a temporal sense. So I will ask you (George already answered), can we perform godly works without the Holy Spirit? That is the framework for my comment before. Hence I do not think the Orthodox and Lutherans really disagree.
No, we cannot do godly works without the Holy Spirit. But I would say this the other way around: whoever is doing godly works - that person must have the Holy Spirit. Who knows if works are done for godly or selfish reasons? Well, we can take a guess, but only God who knows the heart of a man can know for sure. Maybe a person, perhaps even if a professing atheist, actually has faith in God in a way that is not visible to us, but that God knows...

We are guilty of our own sins, we do not inheret the guilt for Adam's particular sin. Here is a link, with audio! http://www.immanuelpeoria.org/teach/sin/sin.html

The word is sinfulness, not Adam's sin.

We are sinful, out of this sinfulness come our actual sins. Jesus came to take away the sin (sungular!) of the world, as per John the Baptist. No one is guilty of Adam's particular sin except Adam. I have heard your formulation though, but I do not think it is the "official" Lutheran doctrine.
It is possible that I got confused. I'm actually not sure where I got that idea from, but I'll take your word for it that it is not official Lutheran doctrine. Actually, I think it might be an RCC formulation that has stuck in my head - I think it has something to do with Mary (and Jesus as well) being somehow saved from original sin, which allowed her to remain sinless.

I agree, unless I have the Lutheran position terribly wrong.

I would add to the effects though; we cannot love God as we ought because of original sin, so we are separated from our Creator from birth. (Another time I said we could not love God, now I am "revising" what I meant.)
I agree that we cannot love God as we ought, but we can never be fully separated from our Creator because to do so would be to cease to exist. If we are not fully separated from Him, then we have in some measure a capacity to love Him, and thus a capacity to seek Him. Which is not to detract from the fact that these capacities are God-given.

How can they believe such a thing? I have had run-ins too. Speaking with these people is one reason I have trouble believing that an "Ed" without a body is "Ed" at all. But that is another thread.
I think it's an example of modern secular and philosophical opinions about Christianity infiltrating Christianity.

The main difference is that the Orthodox believe in Apostolic Succession. For Lutherans that is optional, though cool. :smile: That is a significant differebnce IMO, but otherwise you are right.

BTW, I "learned" that a few years ago speaking with another Orthodox believer, DrGeorge107a on AOL. :hehe:
Yes, I think you are right. I think that this is a case where the Orthodox have (understandably) erred on the side of caution. The Lutherans were obviously forced to eschew the idea of apostolic succession when they were excommunicated from the RCC without having any bishops follow them... But I think that the aim of apostolic succession (ie, preservation of the true faith) is really the most important thing, rather than apostlic succession per se. In fact, mere fact of apostolic succession does not make a church part of the Church (witness the RCC and Anglicans). What is important is that a church's doctrine and faith is recognised as the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith by the communion of churches that have always recognised each other as such - in other words, apostolic succession is a succession of faith, not of bishops.

I think the solution to this in terms of unification would be for the Orthodox to appoint a bishop to oversee the Lutheran Church, thereby granting apostolic authority to that branch of the Church. This could even be done retroactively - in the same way that the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches retro-actively acknowledged each other's Orthodoxy dating back to the time of the original schism.

I pray for you and your church regarding that debate. BTW, I believe I can receive communion in an LCA church, and you can receive in mine--though the LCA is leary of meta-organizations. Interesting.
The problem is that there is a push to join the LWF by pro-women's ordination groups so that we will have to accept women's ordination. But this will mean that we have to accept a whole bunch of other stuff too.

I pretty much agree with what you say here, but when I was thinking of "perfect", I was thinking in terms of actual sin, not of a glorified body.

You see, if Jesus was already perfect in his flesh, his body could not possibly get better, or he would be "more perfect." :huh:

[snip]

So I think you over-read my use of "perfect" here.

Now, if George means by perfect the type of perfection Jesus underwent, we do not disagree.
Hmm, it could be an agreement...

OK, but weren't humans created to be bodily immortal? And since we die, even if we are raised again, wouldn't that imply that we are not human too?
I think that we were created with the potential to become bodily immortal - one that Adam forfeited by his disobedience. After all, I cannot understand the purpose of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden if Adam and Eve were by nature immortal.

Our failure to love God is due to our wills. We cannot love him properly, and this is what Jesus came to rectify. God has a solution in the person and work of his Son Jesus Christ--I certainly do not blame God!
See above for a more thorough discussion. I think that the natural extension of "not blaming God" is to admit that God gives the gift of free will to all even prior to baptism.

Well, psychoanalyzing a man who is dead for ca. 1600 years is not really fair. You may be right about his doctrines though.
Possibly that is unfair, but I think accurate - given that so many of the other Fathers (particularly Eastern) disagreed with him. I can't think of another reason why Augustine would have strayed so much from Church consensus (well, apart from the fact that he couldn't read the original Greek).

Anyway, though St. Augustine is a father of the Western Church, and I do not subscribe to his doctrine of original guilt. He is also an Orthodox saint.
True. Augustine was a great and godly man. Unfortunately, I think that the Western church has relied on him too heavily, and I think that's the reason for much of the differences between East and West (as the Eastern Church never relied on him so much).

[snip dual natures]

Anyway, sinfulness is not part of human nature, it adheres to it and criples it to a very large degree, bringing death, sin etc. etc. Jesus' nature is human, but his human nature does not have sinfulness.
Very good. I agree. But then if you acknowledge that sinfulness is not part of human nature, then you must acknowledge that when we sin, it is not due to our nature - it is due to our free will. It thereby follows that we also have the ability to remain sinless.

What about the other examples I gave? Jesus said that to lust after a woman is adultery. What about fleeting thoughts?
I'm not sure. I don't think "fleeting thoughts" really count as "sin". I mean, how can one truly be tempted to do X without giving thought to what it would be like to actually do X? I don't think it's possible. So if Jesus was truly tempted, then He must have had fleeting thoughts. Indeed, we see evidence of them in the Gospels - where He is challenged by the devil, or where prior to His crucifixion He pleads with the Father to remove the cup of suffering from His lips.

I think the difference between fleeting thoughts and "sins of the heart" (eg, "looking lustfully at a woman") is when you dwell on the fleeting thoughts instead of dismissing them immediately - you plot ways you could meet those ends. Although Jesus was tempted to find a way to escape His crucifixion, He did not dwell on the possibility. Rather, He immediately accepted the fate that God had put before Him, when He said - "yet not my will, but yours."

Actually, I use St. Paul as my example here. He is certainly a great saint, yet even he struggled.
Yes, he struggled - but he overcame. That's why he was made a saint. :smile:

OK, then we agree. But how does one reveive the Holy Spirit?
As I pointed out above, I think God gives the Holy Spirit to everyone, everywhere, at all times, continuously. People then accept/reject Him of their own free will, to a greater or lesser extent.

In baptism, we don't receive the Holy Spirit - rather, our reception of the Holy Spirit is confirmed by the Church (this actually takes place in the sacrament of "chrismation", in the Orthodox Church - which happens just after baptism). Note that in Acts 10:44-48, the Gentiles whom Peter orders baptised - he orders them baptised because he recognises that they have already received the Holy Spirit.

I think Paul was making a comparison between the Hebrew Law from Moses and the natural morality we are all born with. Paul's point is that the Gentiles have a law too. Since he said the Hebrew Law did not save we can infer that our natural morality does not either. BTW, the natural morality is what we Lutherans call "Civil Righteousness." It is "good' but it does not save.
Yes, I agree. And I think that that "natural morality we are all born with" is the gift of the Holy Spirit working in all of us. See above and below.

You are technically correct, we do not need to know every detail, otherwise infants could not have faith. I was really addressing adults there, so I will reformulate:

If we can only receive the benefits of Jesus' work through faith in him, and we can only have faith through the Holy Spirit, are we not made just by faith, and faith alone--because everything done outside of faith is sin?
As per above, I would say that God gives the Holy Spirit to everyone, and that some people reject it more than others, but that noone can reject it fully. To the extent that a person accepts (alternatively: does not reject) the Holy Spirit - to that extent they have faith, and to that extent they may do genuine good works.

But hey, steel sharpens steel :smile:
Indeed. :smile:

Maxentius

April 18th 2004, 05:04 PM

This is our old [by now] saw, for by Orthodox standards, Lutherans have sanctification confused with righteousness, and by Lutheran standards, the Orthodox think sanctification is justification, and vice versa. But if you simply look at baptism, that we are baptized into Christ's death, that we are washed in the holy waters of baptism and emerge from them clean, and this clean is spiritually clean, for we are in them cleansled from all sin and all unrighteousness, and emerge purified and holy, with no unrighteousness at all, then this is the result of baptism, purity and holiness, and the ABSENCE of unrighteousness...

By "absence of unrighteousness" I take it you mean the absence of actual sin? For I agree that an infant has very little opportunity for actual sin. However, our little bundle of joy still has his adamic nature. If I understand you correctly, you believe that after baptism the infant is already in the race? That would mean that the infant's will is already cooperating with the Holy Spirit. In a sidebar, Lutherans believe infants can have faith, but it is a faith suited to an infant.

I don't really have a problem, though one or more may crop up later. :smile:

Now the absence of unrighteousness is NOT righteousness, I think you will agree, yes?

Given what you mean by righteousness, I guess I agree. But be careful, because you are coming close to saying that unrighteousness has an ontological existence, which it does not. Unrighteousness is a lack of righteousness--it does not exist on its own, but must necessarily be parasitic on righteousness--just like evil has no ontological existence, it is necessarily parasitic on the good. All things in th einiverse are ontologically good, but evil is not a thing.

We are made right by God as we overcome in the battle against sin to which we are called out of baptism, because the enemies of mankind want us to go back to our sinful ways, and bring forth temptations, and in order to keep the purity we were given at baptism, we have to overcome them, and that is the great work of the human soul unto the attainment of righteousness... And inasmuch as we overcome, God makes us righteous, one overcoming at a time...

This sounds like the Lutheran concept of returning to our baptism and drowning the old Adam.

Yes, we struggle, yes we may fall into temptation, but God gave us his Spirit, so that we may overcome.

Did you read my last post on this? Paul writes: "Moreover, whom He predestined, those He also called; and whom He called, those He also justified; and whom He justified, those He also glorified."
It is the glorified saints that refer to the last, for God glorifies the righteous, and justification is God making a penitent righteous, one overcoming at a time... And to answer your question directly, theosis does NOT refer to thewhole package, but to glorification, for the glorification refered to in this Romans passage is theosis...

OK, I was wrong about theosis. I don't pretend to understand it well. :smile:

If you believe we will still sin by necessity and not compulsion, we do not disagree.

Then we disagree, because sin is a moral category, and we sin by choice, and by default, sins known and sins unknown, deliberate sins, and inadvertent ones...

If I say we sin by necessity, it means we will, sin under normal circulstances, mostly because we have to struggle. We have our sinful nature, and the new natute God gave to us. But are we compelled to sin? No, because we have a godly nature too.

I thought you would agree with that.

If we find ourselves laughing at off-color jokes among our fellow workers, let us suppose, then what do we DO about it? Do we just blow it off and say "Oh well, I am saved, and God forgives me..."??? Do we confess the sin to someone we feel safe with from the congregation, and then go back to sinning? Or do we throw down the gauntlet, take a stand, and actually DO something about our miscreance? Like imposing a penalty on ourselves if we 'go along' with another joke and laugh at it? The last is Orthodox...

Obviously, the last, and it is Lutheran too. I am not sure we really disagree here. I do not believe in cheap grace, though some Lutherans do, and I wager we can find them in any church. I have had similar experiences to your example where I work. When I do something wrong, I change my behavior, and I explain to others around me that I do not think this or that behavior is proper and I will not participate. If I just shrug my shoulders and say "ha ha, I repent.." it is questionable whether I have really repented.

Outside of this intense effort against sin, we are but head-tripping Christians who claim righteousness without the fact of it, then slip off into hippocritical notions of "imputed righteousness", whereby we can claim righteousness and still have our sins, and we become Christians who SAY that Christ takes away the sins of the world, but our sins somehow don't count...

That is not Lutheran teaching so I will not defend it. What you describe is what we call "cheap grace" and it is a false doctrine.

(Regarding submission to the Ecumenical Creeds)Until you do, you cannot be Orthodox...

I think I am orthodox already, so I am in acordance with the Creeds. A demand like that sounds tautological to me.

That's almost Orthodox!

Thanks George! Which part is not Orthodox?

(PS, I will adress the issue of a sinless person in this life in my reply to Jezz)

Maxentius

April 18th 2004, 06:32 PM

The Orthodox belief about the Church is not really all that different once you scratch the surface. I think the Orthodox view of the Church is perhaps one of the most misunderstood doctrines of the Orthodox Church.

I think the Lutherans would have a difficult time accepting that one must have Apostolic Succession. As a matter of fact, this very thing almost split the ELCA (the more "liberal" of USA's Lutheran bodies). But we are far away from that alone being church-dividing.

Ok, I think you missed the thrust of my point so I'll try and explain it more methodically.

Having read your latest, I did misunderstand you.

1. God commands us to do good works.

Here we agree 100%

2. God does not need us to do good works, because He could achieve the same good works by His own power directly.

I am not sure this is true. Even if we allow that God does not need us to do this or that ontologically, by God's choosing to have a church etc. he is bound to his own choices. If God decided to use means he also needs intermediaries. Intermediaries means doers, we are the doers.

3. If good works are not needed to help God, then either: a) God's command is aimed at benefitting someone other than Himself, or b) God's command benefits nobody (ie, it is arbitrary and frivolous).
4. God does not give frivolous commands.
5. Therefore, God's command is aimed at benefitting someone other than Him.
6. The only person left that obedience to God could help is the one that is obeying.

There are more choices here:
7. God benefits from our good works because they accomplish his purpose. I speak temporally, not ontologically.
or
8. The recipient receives the benefits of our good works.

Good works need not only benefit the doer. They don't even have to benefit the doer, they just have to be in accordance with God's will. Again, I speak temporally.

In short, God commands us to do good works so that we might be righteousified.

Please see my reply above.

I agree that God works through means, and I think that the EO do to. But the point is that God could choose any means to achieve His goals. The point I was trying to make above is that He chooses us as the means to achieve this goal because the act of doing so makes us righteous. In other words, we are the benefactors of the great Commission - not God.

But God did not choose any means, he chose the Church to spread his kingdom. The great comission is to bring as many people as possible into the Church--that benefits those brought in by the works of the evangelists, and it benefits God because his plan is being accomplished. So I do not think we are the main beneficiaries of our works. I do not work so I can be a greater saint to benefit myself, but to be a faithful servant (slave!) of God. We cannot demand a reward because Good works are what we are supposed to be doing good works.

I know that Lutherans say that "we do not try to harmonize and make meta doctrines", and this is what frustrates me about Lutheranism. For one thing, it is false, because Lutherans for example accept the Trinity.

The Trinity is not a meta-doctrine, it is implicit in Scripture. We are told there is one God. We are told the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God and we see that the "persons" are distinct, yet there is one God. It is just not stated as such in Scripture. (more)

Lutherans do not leave the description of God where God's word does, because if they did they would reject the Nicene and Apostle's and Athanasian Creeds (and they don't). The Trinity is a metadoctrine which results from the harmonisation of various passages in God's word.

Not really, because those Creeds describe what Scripture teaches.

Let us take it as a given that Lutheran position is correct - ie, that noone has free will until He has given us His Spirit. There are two possible views:

The first is that God gives the Spirit in sufficient measure to bring them to faith to only a select few and at certain times. These elect then have the free will to continue to accept His Spirit, or they may reject it. As for those who God did not choose to give His Spirit to, or for those who rejected it and God chose not to give it to them again - in doing so, God has chosen for those people to be damned. This is a logical consequence of His choice not to give them the ability to choose.

I have been through this before with Calvinists.

Here you try to pry into the Father's perogatives. The Father's election is inscrutable, "Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated", before either of them even did anything, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will condemn whom I will condemn", it is God's choice, "I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me." The Children suffer for their Fathers' sins. Like it or not, that is part of God's revelation. He tells us he elects his people, but he does not elect the damned to hell because he wants all people to be his people. God will solve the "contradiction" on his own terms in his own time.

How do you reconcile these with the idea that God gives everyone the ability to believe and obey him? What did Esau do to deserve God's hatred? What about those the Father chose to condemn?

But that is God the Father. His solution is in his Son Jesus Christ, who reveals the Father to us. What are we supposed to do? Love the Son and we will love the Father. Look upon the Son and we look upon the Father, because he reveals the Father to us. We don't have Scriptural warrent to pry into such things. We are told to concentrate on the Son.

None of us are totally depraved, because God sends His Spirit to all. As God said in the vision he gave to Peter: Do not call "unclean" that which God has made clean. In a similar way, I say that it is not right to call humans "totally depraved", because God has made us clean by giving everyone the will and the means to seek Him, if the individual should choose to do so.......

No, we cannot do godly works without the Holy Spirit. But I would say this the other way around: whoever is doing godly works - that person must have the Holy Spirit. Who knows if works are done for godly or selfish reasons? Well, we can take a guess, but only God who knows the heart of a man can know for sure. Maybe a person, perhaps even if a professing atheist, actually has faith in God in a way that is not visible to us, but that God knows...

I agree, if we have the Holy Spirit we can do godly works. The question is, who has the Holy Spirit? St. Paul says that Christians have the Holy Spirit, and no one else. Those without the Spirit cannot please God, if I have the Spirit I belong to Christ and I can please God.

According to you, everyone has the Spirit, so who is Paul speaking about regarding those in the flesh? (Rom 8:6-9)

The problem is that there is a push to join the LWF by pro-women's ordination groups so that we will have to accept women's ordination. But this will mean that we have to accept a whole bunch of other stuff too.

Like I said, I will pray for your church. This is a bit off topic though. :offtopic:

Very good. I agree. But then if you acknowledge that sinfulness is not part of human nature, then you must acknowledge that when we sin, it is not due to our nature - it is due to our free will. It thereby follows that we also have the ability to remain sinless.

We sin because we have a sinful nature that adheres to our human nature, we are unable to do godly works until God does something. Do we want to "seek" God? Yes, but we cannot really discern him, so we make idols or deny his existence all together. It is a fleshy seeking unless we have the Holy Spirit, who I believe is only present in believers.

In baptism, we don't receive the Holy Spirit - rather, our reception of the Holy Spirit is confirmed by the Church (this actually takes place in the sacrament of "chrismation", in the Orthodox Church - which happens just after baptism). Note that in Acts 10:44-48, the Gentiles whom Peter orders baptised - he orders them baptised because he recognises that they have already received the Holy Spirit.

Holy Baptism is not the only means for us to receive the Holy Spirit. There is preaching and seeing/hearing about God's acts in history etc. It is possible that God has unrevealed means, but I wouldn't hang my hat on that--by definition we can't know about them.

As per above, I would say that God gives the Holy Spirit to everyone, and that some people reject it more than others, but that noone can reject it fully. To the extent that a person accepts (alternatively: does not reject) the Holy Spirit - to that extent they have faith, and to that extent they may do genuine good works.

George, do you believe that we all have the Holy Spirit from birth? By "have the Holy Spirit" I mean the ability to do godly works, as per my citation of St. Paul above and yesterday.

Now, regarding "sinless" existence. I asked an Orthodox priest about it this morning. I said "Is it true that we can lead sinless lives if we advance in the faith?" He answered that it is possible to lead a sinless life, but that it is a special grace from God and not due to our efforts. His examples were Mary the Mother of God and St. John the Baptist. It is possible I misunderstood, but my impression was that some Christians achieve this through disciplining the flesh. That is not what the priest said.

Rdr. Arsenios

April 18th 2004, 09:20 PM

Jezz writes:

"In short, God commands us to do good works so that we might be righteousified."

I'm glad I was not sipping my coffee when I read that - Pronounced righteossified?? [As in rye-chossif-eye] There really is not a good English way to do the Greek...

Then Max: "George, do you believe that we all have the Holy Spirit from birth? By "have the Holy Spirit" I mean the ability to do godly works, as per my citation of St. Paul above and yesterday."

That is not an Orthodox question... We are created in the image of God, and that image is the nous, for it can apprehend the reality of spiritual and the reality of material existences, and is the part of us that apprehends God, and we all have this nous, for it is variously referred to as the "eye of the heart", where the heart is the core of the person, the seat of the intellect. And our unsaved condition lies in the scattered nous that we have divided in a thousand earthly concerns... - ten thousand for some... bizillions for others... [like me!] So that the running of the race set before us is the work of gathering the nous, and strengthening it, and concentrating it, into a clarity and a purity of focus that can 'see' [eidomai] God, and this requires purification of the heart, and until one is actually and ontologically purified in heart, one cannot attain to theosis... And God watches over us from birth, both the baptized and the not-baptized...

Then max wrote:
"Now, regarding "sinless" existence. I asked an Orthodox priest about it this morning. I said 'Is it true that we can lead sinless lives if we advance in the faith?' He answered that it is possible to lead a sinless life, but that it is a special grace from God and not due to our efforts. His examples were Mary the Mother of God and St. John the Baptist."

He answered the question of "Is it possible to live one's ENTIRE life without sinning?"

Max continues: "It is possible I misunderstood, but my impression was that some Christians achieve this through disciplining the flesh. That is not what the priest said."

It is not the flesh that needs disciplining, but the penitent, and the discipline is not punitive, but corrective, and more than anything helps us to remember not to sin, for there comes a point where we sin inadvertantly, and not deliberately, and we simply forget God for awhile - I mean, if you actually count minutes during the day when you are consciously putting God at the forefront of your thoughts, you might get lucky and find 10 or 15 such minutes, yet a saint has God first in his thoughts ALL the time... And the path from here to there is gradual, struggle, and agony...

Even while we are praying, we lose focus - We say grace and smell the food and wonder if there is salt set out on the table... And forget God even while praying...

geo-Arsenios

Maxentius

April 19th 2004, 09:06 AM

"George, do you believe that we all have the Holy Spirit from birth? By "have the Holy Spirit" I mean the ability to do godly works, as per my citation of St. Paul above and yesterday."

That is not an Orthodox question...

Well, it is my question. :smile:

So that the running of the race set before us is the work of gathering the nous, and strengthening it, and concentrating it, into a clarity and a purity of focus that can 'see' [eidomai] God, and this requires purification of the heart, and until one is actually and ontologically purified in heart, one cannot attain to theosis... And God watches over us from birth, both the baptized and the not-baptized...

So, the Orthodox understanding is that we all have the Holy Spirit, but after baptism, we are purified and we begin to be able to focus on God as we should?

Also, of course God waches over everyone, but he obviously does not save everyone. I said this before but this seems like a good place to repeat it.

In matters of salvation, justification, sanctification, glorification etc. God bound his Church to the means he instituted. We are bound to preach Christ and him cricified, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost etc. This binds the church, but God is not bound. He is free to use any means he wishes to save who ever he wishes, but since these are not revealed means, we stick to the means he has revealed and we do not teach any other means than those.

Then max wrote:
"Now, regarding "sinless" existence. I asked an Orthodox priest about it this morning. I said 'Is it true that we can lead sinless lives if we advance in the faith?' He answered that it is possible to lead a sinless life, but that it is a special grace from God and not due to our efforts. His examples were Mary the Mother of God and St. John the Baptist."

He answered the question of "Is it possible to live one's ENTIRE life without sinning?"

Yes, Mary and John were examples of a life of sinlessness. He said that some could achieve a sinless state, but that was not because of striving but it just happens, and that is a special grace from God too. Our conversation was about 10 minutes.

His example was of a monk from Mt. Athos. There was a Russian, who would later be a saint; the monk asked to accompany him to another monastary a few miles away. When they arrived the Russian did not look particularly interested in what was going on, so the monk asked him that if he was not really interested, why did he come? The Russian answered "Because you asked me to." This was the example of sinlessness priest gave me, and he repeated it was not because of striving, it just happens.

Rdr. Arsenios

April 19th 2004, 11:11 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Blaisdell

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxentius
"George, do you believe that we all have the Holy Spirit from birth? By "have the Holy Spirit" I mean the ability to do godly works, as per my citation of St. Paul above and yesterday."

Quote:
That is not an Orthodox question...

Well, it is my question. :smile:

Can three angels dance together on the head of a pin?

I mean, it is a question utterly saturated in western and in your case specifically Lutheran presuppositions, and I am really unqualified to even begin to address it, so I tried to demur, and get into some little corner where I might have some small chance of being if even so little a bit useful...

Is it a Godly work to respond positively to the calling of God? Is our response to God calling us a work? We have a nous, being created in the image of God, and it is scattered, yet when God calls us, our nous temporarily abandons its scattering and attends solely unto God in a great and divinely enabled concentration of focus that we only know as holiness - God's holiness - within ourself... And you want to know if it is the Orthodox position that we have the Holy Spirit from birth...

I don't know how to answer you, Max... I mean, do we HAVE the Holy Spirit when God calls us to repentance? I mean, it really is not an Orthodox question, and I understand that it is YOUR question, and I guess that I am suggesting that you think about things from a different cognitive frame...

Quote:
So that the running of the race set before us is the work of gathering the nous, and strengthening it, and concentrating it, into a clarity and a purity of focus that can 'see' [eidomai] God, and this requires purification of the heart, and until one is actually and ontologically purified in heart, one cannot attain to theosis... And God watches over us from birth, both the baptized and the not-baptized...

So, the Orthodox understanding is that we all have the Holy Spirit, but after baptism, we are purified and we begin to be able to focus on God as we should?

We emerge from the waters of baptism focused in Christ, and we are immediately then subject to the temptations of the world. When Christ emerged from the waters of the Jordan, He went into the wilderness and was tempted for 40 days, and ministered by angels... [Matthew chapter 1] We are to follow Christ, and overcome our temptations, reclaiming our souls that were fallen in sins, and that are now no longer under the rulership of sin, but of Christ, yet the new creation that emerges from baptism is but a baby, needing milk and care, until it can grow and be strong in Christ, and eat the meat of the faith, and not just the soft foods...

So does this mean that the Orthodox position is that we HAVE the Holy Spirit from Birth?

Can you see why I am avoiding that question? It is a question addressed to intellective theory, rather than the pressing need of man for God...

Yes, Mary and John were examples of a life of sinlessness. He said that some could achieve a sinless state, but that was not because of striving but it just happens, and that is a special grace from God too. Our conversation was about 10 minutes.

His example was of a monk from Mt. Athos. There was a Russian, who would later be a saint; the monk asked to accompany him to another monastary a few miles away. When they arrived the Russian did not look particularly interested in what was going on, so the monk asked him that if he was not really interested, why did he come? The Russian answered "Because you asked me to." This was the example of sinlessness priest gave me, and he repeated it was not because of striving, it just happens.

Great story - The pilgrim was arrogant, and the monk scalded his arrogance in that incredibly humble action, and then, of course, in the 3 word explanation ["Because you asked." (maybe two words, and maybe only one)]. Monks know how to help pilgrims become saints, and they do it by what they DO, and not by a long lecture on humility, for instance, as would havedone no good whatsoever here... It is not by accident that a whole book of the New Testament is titled: PRAXES [ACTS]... For it is by deeds that Christians communicate, and not by words, except insofar as they support deeds... Christ's criticism of the Pharisees was their disconnect between words and deeds, and between visible deeds and the hidden heart and the hidden deeds...

Great story - And yes, a God bearing life in many ways does indeed "just happen", but it does not happen outside of repentance, and monks live repentant lives - Hang with those guys for three months doing what they do, eating what they eat, sleeping when they sleep and working when they work, and praying when they pray, and you will begin to appreciate the meaning of turning from the world in repentance... And the humility entailed therein. I sure don't have it!

geo-Arsenios

Maxentius

April 19th 2004, 02:01 PM

Hello George!

Can three angels dance together on the head of a pin?

I take your point, George. It matters how big the angels are. :hehe: That is why the cliche does not really "work." If we say yes or no to the question, we make implicit statements about the nature of angels.

I mean, it is a question utterly saturated in western and in your case specifically Lutheran presuppositions, and I am really unqualified to even begin to address it, so I tried to demur, and get into some little corner where I might have some small chance of being if even so little a bit useful...

Fair enough, I did not mean to push you. I was just wondering because St. Paul's statement seems to be a clear statement of my doctrine to me, and I wondered if by asking a direct question like that I could understand better. I am sorry if I offended you even slightly.

From our previous corespondence I gathered that you believe we need the Holy Spirit to do everything. As far as that limited statement goes we agree. But if everyone already has the ability to serve/believe in/love/obey God, however attenuated, we do not agree because Lutherans believe we are born spiritually dead and unable to obey God. Also, a person with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a Christian, one without him is not a Christian. So from my POV, saying that everyone has the Holy Spirit from birth implies that everyone is a Christian from birth.

I know the Orthodox do not really have the exact same understanding of the fall as we do. The priest I spoke with yesterday explained that broadly, the Orthodox have a more optimistic view of human nature than we in the West do, and that goes for the RCC too! That sounds very accurate to me, because what you wrote implies that we still can seek out God and God's will, but it is burdened by our wounded nature. The ability to obey is there, but it is not gone. The Western understanding is that we cannot do any of those things until God himself regenerates us. This is true of the Lutherans, RCC, Calvinists and even the Arminians! I think this is mainly because we had our Pelagian controversy and the East did not. As Jason said, often a doctrine is not fleshed out until a heresy tries to pervert a doctrine of the Church. No one in the East came out and baldly stated that we can by our own nature obey God, among other things.

In 529 AD, there was a council held at Orange to refute Pelagianism and its little brother, semi-Pelagianism. Here is a link to the various canons in the Council:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/council.orange.txt

Please especially see Canons 4,5,7 and 8.
This is where I come from. I am trying to understand where you are coming from to see if we really disagree, or we just have a semantic wall.

Is it a Godly work to respond positively to the calling of God? Is our response to God calling us a work?

From a Western perspective, we cannot respond positively to God unless we are regenerated, or converted by his Holy Spirit. While our response is not a work per se, because our response is due to the new godly nature he gives us soley by his grace, we cannot do so by nature becuse God demands that we love him with our whole heart, mind, soul and body. This is impossible without his regeneration of us and so we are "in the flesh" and not "in the Spirit." The flesh is death and the Spirit is life.

We have a nous, being created in the image of God, and it is scattered, yet when God calls us, our nous temporarily abandons its scattering and attends solely unto God in a great and divinely enabled concentration of focus that we only know as holiness - God's holiness - within ourself... And you want to know if it is the Orthodox position that we have the Holy Spirit from birth...

I think I understand the concept here. Our ability is wounded, and because of that wound we cannot focus, or obey, love, fear etc. God properly. When we are baptized that which stops us from focusing on God is washed away, and we can focus on God.

I assume this increased ability to focus happens through theosis? Do I understand you correctly?

If I understand you correctly I think I can ask my question in a more "Orthodox" way. But I want to make sure I understand first. :smile:

So does this mean that the Orthodox position is that we HAVE the Holy Spirit from Birth?

Can you see why I am avoiding that question? It is a question addressed to intellective theory, rather than the pressing need of man for God...

I see why you find the question difficult, it is in terms that your tradition does not use and addresses an issue your tradition never really had to address. The Lutheran doctrine does addresse man's need for God because without regeneration through God's grace we will all perish, be dead in tresspasses and sins and never have fellowship with/love our Creator, or each other, as we should. We will never be all we can be. Is there an intellectual component? Of course there is, but that is because we try to use our God-given intellect to understand the revelation he gave to us.

Great story - And yes, a God bearing life in many ways does indeed "just happen", but it does not happen outside of repentance, and monks live repentant lives - Hang with those guys for three months doing what they do, eating what they eat, sleeping when they sleep and working when they work, and praying when they pray, and you will begin to appreciate the meaning of turning from the world in repentance... And the humility entailed therein. I sure don't have it!

geo-Arsenios

Nor do I! :smile:

Rdr. Arsenios

April 20th 2004, 11:05 AM

Hello George!

Max: Do you believe that we have the Holy Spirit from Birth?
geo: That's not an Orthodox question.
Max: Well, it is MY question.
geo: Can three angels dance together on the head of a pin?
Max: I take your point.
geo: I am really unqualified to answer you.
Max: I was just wondering...

"Philosophy begins with wonder..." Aristotle - 5th century BC...

Speculative Theology is Philosophy.

The theology of the Orthodox fathers is descriptive... And there are only a very few, a mere handful, across 2000 years... In the west, anyone and everyone who reads the Bible is an instant "Theologian", but in the east, we simply purify our hearts in lives of repentance calling on the name of the Lord, and try to keep ourselves from the temptations to intellective self-exaltation that speculative philosophy inexorably wreaks...

The western father, of course, of speculative theology was the Orthodox Saint Augustine, and while he was a marvelous spiritual father to many, and is a wonderful saint to us all, he was NOT a theologian, but a speculator in the realm of ideas, and repeatedly asked for, and did not receive, correction from the eastern fathers regarding his views.

I am sorry if I offended you even slightly.

That would indeed be a great blessing, that I be offended, for such offence is so wonderfully and easily and efficaciously repented from, even by such unregenerates as I am...

My concern has more to do with the whole penchant for theory that I keep encountering, and how you keep trying to tie what you are reading from me in the knots of Lutheran theories, and trying to 'understand' the Orthodox 'position' so that it somehow can be comprehended in thought, and thereby acquired... So that when I tell you that the epistemological prerequisite for theological knowledge, for instance, is illumination of the nous in a purified heart, you will likely come back with "Well, does this mean that the Orthodox think that we have the Holy Spirit from birth?"

And I suspect, but do not know, that the reason for this is that Lutherans focus on the presence vs the absence of the Holy Spirit on the two sides of baptism, and regard the work of the Holy Spirit after regeneration as outside their control [correctly, btw], and see their spiritual lives as thereafter in the hands of the Holy Spirit, and that their sanctification will progress according to the Holy Spirit as long as they behave themselves fairly well...

And the result of this is a cognitive disconnect between an intensively active life of repentance and the acquisition of the Holy Spirit Whose indwelling seal we have received at baptism... And there is a very real sense for the Orthodox that the job of the Christian in his practice of the faith in repentance from the world is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit. There is another sense in which it is understood that the Church incarnates the Logos...

For us, spiritual growth is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit that occurs each time we overcome sin and temptation and our passions... That is why Paul writes of the importance of working out our salvation, of running the race, of mortifying the flesh, for to do so is beneficial, and acquires in us growth in the Holy Spirit, which is the acquisition thereof... Not that we earn it, or get paid daily, but that without this, we do NOT acquire God within us, eg we do not grow spiritually in God, and become more and more God-bearing across our lives...

But if everyone already has the ability to serve/believe in/love/obey God, however attenuated, we do not agree because Lutherans believe we are born spiritually dead and unable to obey God.

Then we disagree - Demons are unable to obey God, and God does not reform them - We ARE able to obey God, which is why we are first called to obedience, and THEN, having been called and having responded, and having been baptized and instructed, we are made righteous [in lifelong repentance, which is perseverence in the faith], and the elders are the righteous holy and God bearing fathers, and the rest of us are babies and adolescents and even adults in the faith, but not yet fathers...

I am out of time...

geo-Arsenios

Maxentius

April 20th 2004, 12:37 PM

Hello George!

Thanks for explaining things to me.

Then we disagree - Demons are unable to obey God, and God does not reform them - We ARE able to obey God, which is why we are first called to obedience, and THEN, having been called and having responded, and having been baptized and instructed, we are made righteous [in lifelong repentance, which is perseverence in the faith], and the elders are the righteous holy and God bearing fathers, and the rest of us are babies and adolescents and even adults in the faith, but not yet fathers...

Yes, I think we disagree here, in more than a semantic way too. That is why I asked so many questions and sought to "understand." I was thinking of the reunification of the EO and the Coptic Church--the schism went on for centuries and I am sure the differences were semantic and not real. I believe it is sinful to remain separated for reasons that do not touch on real doctrins.

Our differences go to anthropology however. We Western Christians have a different anthropology vs. the Orthodox. I sort of knew this already when the priest I spoke with explained the relatively optimistic view the EO have of human nature compared with the Western view. From our different anthropologies arise the different ways we believe God interacts with the individual and what the individual person is capable of regarding Holy Things. Whether one or the other is correct is not what this thread is about. Suffice it to say that if you are a Protestant who is a monergist, the differences between the Orthodox and you go much further than terminology. I suspect the same is true of Arminians.

I will post more if some interesting issues come up, but I am satisfied that the thread question has been answered.

Dominus vobiscum!

(Et cum spiritu tuo!)

Jezz

April 20th 2004, 10:48 PM

Then we disagree - Demons are unable to obey God, and God does not reform them -
Didn't one of the Eastern Fathers claim that we could hope for the salvation of all - even of the Devil himself? Not that the Devil actually will be saved, but that we can hope for his salvation?

Rdr. Arsenios

April 21st 2004, 12:28 AM

Christ is Risen!

Hello George!

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Blaisdell
Then we disagree - Demons are unable to obey God, and God does not reform them - We ARE able to obey God, which is why it is that first we are called to the faith, and THEN, having been called and having responded, and having been baptized and instructed, we are made righteous [in lifelong repentance, which is perseverence in the faith], and the elders are the righteous holy and God bearing fathers, and the rest of us are babies and adolescents and even adults in the faith, but not yet fathers...

Yes, I think we disagree here, in more than a semantic way too. That is why I asked so many questions and sought to "understand." I was thinking of the reunification of the EO and the Coptic Church--the schism went on for centuries and I am sure the differences were semantic and not real. I believe it is sinful to remain separated for reasons that do not touch on real doctrines.

Well good for you! I know other Lutherans who like the conservatism and the liturgical beauty of Orthodoxy who think our differences are mostly just semantic, and that all the Orthodox need to do is revise a few minor discrepencies and we can join churches!

The Orthodox - Coptic split is a great gift, if it proves out as we all hope it will, for here we have two Churches, both Orthodox, both "developing" separately, neither keeping track of the other at all, and 1500 years pass in separation, and they are, for all pradctical purposes, identical... I can tell you, I read Matthew the Poor's "The Communion of Love" and got my first real basic understanding of what it means to be a Christian. I had been struggling out of athiesm into deism and on to Orthodoxy, and just did not 'get' what worship actually is, and what we do, and what results, and Matthew the Poor, a Coptic monk living on Mt. Sainai, put out that book, and it brought those issues into blessed focus... We put on Christ, that we might live Him, for it is the attainment of living Christ that is the object of discipleship in Christ's Holy Body, the Apostolic Church... I had never understood that in any way previous to Matthew the Poor, and am still acquiring the understanding of it...

And what can we take from this 1500 year separation that finds us both faithful at the end and identical? And especially when the Roman Church has "grown" so prodigally 'ahead' of the 'primitive church' that Orthodoxy surely is?? And western Protestants have grown WAY beyond Rome? Yet these two kept the faith independently the same, and so did, in large and as well independent measure the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. All three have a stromg monastic tradition, and I can tell you that the piety of the Ethiopians shames most everybody in orthodoxy, except the monks... And there are the Eiritrians, and on and on, and they are all the same, and they have not changed in 1500 years as much as Lutherans have in the last 150...

There is a reason for this, because Orthodoxy is utterly voluntary - The reason does not lie in the compulsion of the state, but instead it lies in the faithfulness of the Church, and the grace of the Holy Spirit...

And you are right, this is not the kind of thing that divides Orthodoxy from Protestant confessions, even Lutheran ones... And the Lutherans are the most orthodox of the Protestants, I should think, with the possible exception of the British Reformed Church, yet the praxis of either is clueless in Orthodox terms that have a 2000 year history, beginning with the events desribed in the Book of Acts.

Our differences go to anthropology however. We Western Christians have a different anthropology vs. the Orthodox. I sort of knew this already when the priest I spoke with explained the relatively optimistic view the EO have of human nature compared with the Western view.

Well bless you for identifying anthropology as the appropriate category for our differences to come to light! Man walking the earth hungers for God, and his whole fallen and miserable life is a failing quest to feed himself what only God can satisfy, and Christians eat God... And drink Him... This is the basis for Orthodox anthropology, that man instinctively knows his loss, and hungers to recover it, without knowing what it is, and acts out in the world to get what he needs, for he knows he needs... And when God reveals Himself to man, man responds utterly and positively, at least WHILE God is revealing Himself to the man, and this can be called "irresistable grace", for while it is in effect, a person is drawn without desire to turn away...

I have seen real sociopathic types, stalkers and haters and manipulaters, humbled into loving and caring persons in this grace. A lot of criminals have experienced it, and as a result are believers, but not doers, of Christ, or at least of God... Others have taken up their cross... It is what a person does when that grace withdraws, when it 'fades away' and takes on a kind of dream-like quality, lost in the mists of time, that matters, and what a person does during that grace matters most, forthat is what will enable by strengthening or cripple by weakening the person so called... Yet all respond the same, the Lutherans and the sociopaths, the Orthodox and the criminals, when the grace of God manifests His holy presence, we all are drawn, and the demons are not... So that the Orthodox never give up hope for the lost, and always pray for them, and greet them in love and hope, [unless we are having a bad week!!] for we know that they are made in the eikon [image] of God, and can turn from their ways....

And yes, Jezz, it is appalling to contemplate the plight of demons... And some Orthodox fathers pray for them, even if without much hope... We even have a children's book about a demon who tried to go straight, and no, I didn't read it, so I can't give you the story!

From our different anthropologies arise the different ways we believe God interacts with the individual and what the individual person is capable of regarding Holy Things.

Orthodox see the person in Christ, and not the individual, believing that we are one in Christ as persons, and not as individual, that indeed it is the individuation of man that is the playground of demons... For God is not an individual, but a communion, a unity of three hypostatic Persons, and in like manner, we are one in each other in ways that we cannot even imagine, and for those who are one in Christ, even more so... We believe in personal communion, not individuated separation... We tend to be more formal with each other than some for exactly this reason...

Thank you for a most interesting exchange - I wasn't buying all those "questions" by which you were "trying to understand" Orthodoxy, and I appreciate your sensing that and owning your ground...

You take good care!

[ps - Do I pray for "Max"??]

XPICTOC ANECTi !!

Geo-Arsenios

Jezz

April 21st 2004, 08:55 AM

Well good for you! I know other Lutherans who like the conservatism and the liturgical beauty of Orthodoxy who think our differences are mostly just semantic, and that all the Orthodox need to do is revise a few minor discrepencies and we can join churches!
Well, I think that most of our doctrinal differences are semantic, though (as I think this discussion has resolved) there are some genuine differences too.

However, in terms of praxes, I think there are significant differences (as you mentioned elsewhere in your post). Some of these stem from the doctrinal differences.

The Orthodox - Coptic split is a great gift, if it proves out as we all hope it will, for here we have two Churches, both Orthodox, both "developing" separately, neither keeping track of the other at all, and 1500 years pass in separation, and they are, for all pradctical purposes, identical...
Indeed. I have been thinking that for some time. Behind the curse of the division, God has turned this curse into a blessing that witnesses to the faithfulness of Orthodoxy.

This was the primary thing that convinced me of the truth of Orthodoxy. As for people who know about this fact, yet don't stop to appreciate the significance of it - well, I don't understand it. It is proof that is nigh-on irrefutable that the Orthodox have preserved the faith for 1500 years. Either that, or they independently made the same alterations to it (which at any rate would be equally miraculous and evidence of divine Providence... :smile:).

And what can we take from this 1500 year separation that finds us both faithful at the end and identical? And especially when the Roman Church has "grown" so prodigally 'ahead' of the 'primitive church' that Orthodoxy surely is?? And western Protestants have grown WAY beyond Rome?
To be fair, I don't think that all Protestants have grown beyond Rome - I think that the Lutherans, for example, have gone mostly sideways - closer to Orthodoxy in some ways, further away in others.

Yet these two kept the faith independently the same, and so did, in large and as well independent measure the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. All three have a stromg monastic tradition, and I can tell you that the piety of the Ethiopians shames most everybody in orthodoxy, except the monks...And there are the Eiritrians, and on and on, and they are all the same, and they have not changed in 1500 years as much as Lutherans have in the last 150...

You can add the Assyrian Church of the East (somewhat misleadingly known as the Nestorian Church) to that list as well, I think. As for their piety - during WWI, the British asked their fellow Christians (the Assyrians) living in what is now Iraq to attack the Turks. Their patriarch was head of their nation-state. Only problem is that his brother was studying at a university in Istanbul. The Turks threatened to assassinate his brother if the Assyrians did as the British asked. Knowing this, the Assyrians fulfilled their commitment to the British anyway (playing a small but important role in the overall war), and the patriarch's brother was assassinated. The pious patriarch would not even put his own family's welfare above his obligations.

Add to that, the British abandonded the Assyrians who were then massacred by the Iraqi government. And then come WWII, the British asked for their help again... and despite having every reason in the world to refuse to help after the bitterness of their past experience, they still fulfilled their obligations...

I'm tipping that the Assyrians will be the next Orthodox church to rejoin the EO communion after the Orientals (ie, Copts/Syriac). I even think that for a brief period between the two world wars they were actually in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church.

And yes, Jezz, it is appalling to contemplate the plight of demons... And some Orthodox fathers pray for them, even if without much hope... We even have a children's book about a demon who tried to go straight, and no, I didn't read it, so I can't give you the story!
That would be an interesting story to hear!

Orthodox see the person in Christ, and not the individual, believing that we are one in Christ as persons, and not as individual, that indeed it is the individuation of man that is the playground of demons... For God is not an individual, but a communion, a unity of three hypostatic Persons, and in like manner, we are one in each other in ways that we cannot even imagine, and for those who are one in Christ, even more so... We believe in personal communion, not individuated separation... We tend to be more formal with each other than some for exactly this reason...
Minor correction: "hypostatic Persons" is a tautology. The word Greek word translated "person" in the formula "one God in three persons" is hypostasis.

Rdr. Arsenios

April 21st 2004, 11:03 AM

Jezz writes:
"Minor correction: 'hypostatic Persons' is a tautology. The word Greek word translated 'person' in the formula 'one God in three persons' is hypostasis."

There is a book awaiting your discovery, Jezz. Titled: "Being as Communion" by Zizoulas... Not a big thick tome, mind you, somewhat smallish, and paperback, and not very pricey, but definitely a harder read, say, than Joseph Owen's doctoral thesis published by the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto titled "The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics." [which I would recommend to very few!]... Hardest book I ever read, [Being as Communion] and the most rewarding, not counting the Bible, of course, and it would fulfill your intellectual voraciousness straight into the Orthodox baptismal font! :-)

In it he discusses Christian anthropology, and writing in Greek [translated, of course, into English] he talks about the Greek words person and hypostasis, and how prior to Christianity, the term personna meant mask, and came from the great stage dramas of Greece 500 years before Christ, and amounted to acting, to the enacting of a roll... A role that lived a life on stage... And then vanished, having entered the memory...

So that the pre-Christian meaning of the term person is mask. And the term hypostasis [under-standing, or that which stands under] would in earlier understandings refer to the actor on the stage as he 'really' is, the father, the idol-worshipper, the husband, the land-owner, or whatever...

And as Christians entered this pagan culture, they brought these two terms together into one, where the mask becomes the hypostasis, because they are one, genuine, and authentic [meaning not-pretended] being, and this is what we call today the 'real person'...

So that understood as you understand 'person', you are standing on the shoulders of a Christian revision and transformation of language... And certainly we can see, looking about us, the great and many personnas of people playing roles in their living of their lives... One monk I know had the role of student, father, preacher, pastor, educator, husband, and on and on, never knowing that in each of these he was a personna, and not an hypostasis, not even when he became Orthodox, and became an author, a priest, and finally a monk... He learned genuine personhood alone, in his cell, away from all the insistences of the world, with the closet door closed, and with only the kingdom of God before him in prayer and the tears of gratitude and repentance...

I would send you that book - if you pm me with a snail...

geo-Arsenios

Maxentius

April 21st 2004, 03:49 PM

Hello George!

Christ is Risen!

He is risen indeed!

Well good for you! I know other Lutherans who like the conservatism and the liturgical beauty of Orthodoxy who think our differences are mostly just semantic, and that all the Orthodox need to do is revise a few minor discrepencies and we can join churches!

I do think (like Jezz) that many, if not most, are semantic in nature. Take Holy Communion for instance. I also do not see a significant difference between most aspects of theosis and the Western concepts of justification, sanctification and glorification. We both practice infant baptism, though for slightly different reasons. These are areas where discussion can continue and really bear fruit. Regarding the state of mankind however, we have differences that are pretty great and also affect many other areas of practice and doctrine.

The Orthodox - Coptic split is a great gift, if it proves out as we all hope it will, for here we have two Churches, both Orthodox, both "developing" separately, neither keeping track of the other at all, and 1500 years pass in separation, and they are, for all pradctical purposes, identical...

This is true, but it is also true that for centuries the two bodies basically anathematized each other. It is possible, though I do not see how, that the East and West can come together again. Just like the Copts and the EO did not see their agreement for various reasons, the same could possibly be the same regarding the state of man between our confessions.

I can tell you, I read Matthew the Poor's "The Communion of Love" and got my first real basic understanding of what it means to be a Christian. I had been struggling out of athiesm into deism and on to Orthodoxy, and just did not 'get' what worship actually is, and what we do, and what results

When we worship, we communicate with our Creator, we praise and we ask for his forgiveness and he forgives our sins and renews us; we thank him and he "charges us up" for the comming week with his power throughthe Holy Spirit.

All three have a stromg monastic tradition, and I can tell you that the piety of the Ethiopians shames most everybody in orthodoxy, except the monks... And there are the Eiritrians, and on and on, and they are all the same, and they have not changed in 1500 years as much as Lutherans have in the last 150...

I am not sure the Lutherans have changed that much in the last 500 years. :smile: We still sing many of the same hymns and have much the same liturgy as we have had in the West for many centuries.

And you are right, this is not the kind of thing that divides Orthodoxy from Protestant confessions, even Lutheran ones... And the Lutherans are the most orthodox of the Protestants, I should think, with the possible exception of the British Reformed Church, yet the praxis of either is clueless in Orthodox terms that have a 2000 year history, beginning with the events desribed in the Book of Acts.

Regarding church history--Lutherans and the Episcopalians do not assume that the church more or less disappeared for centuries, like many Reformed/Calvinist churches do. The RCC is still "church", but has false doctrines. I cannot speak for the Episcopalians, but Lutherans see themselves as a confessional movement within the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church--definitaly not outside it!

Well bless you for identifying anthropology as the appropriate category for our differences to come to light! Man walking the earth hungers for God, and his whole fallen and miserable life is a failing quest to feed himself what only God can satisfy, and Christians eat God... And drink Him...

Just to clarify, Lutherans do not believe that people do not seek God, just that they cannot rightly believe in him and serve him because we are spiritually dead. We don't "find" Jesus, he finds us! We all have a God-shaped hole inside us, but by nature we make idols and worship the creature rather than the Creator. But we have been here before. :smile:

Thank you for a most interesting exchange - I wasn't buying all those "questions" by which you were "trying to understand" Orthodoxy, and I appreciate your sensing that and owning your ground...

Yes, it was interesting!

You take good care!

[ps - Do I pray for "Max"??]

XPICTOC ANECTi !!

Geo-Arsenios

You can pray for me as Max, or as Ed. Either way, it goes through the Holy Ghost Prayer Correction Algorithm. :pray: Even our groans are prayers to him! :pray:

Rdr. Arsenios

April 21st 2004, 04:33 PM

"as Max, or as Ed. Either way..."

Saul became Paul, Simon became Peter, names are important... Therefore:

Servant of God Edward writes:
"Lutherans see themselves as a confessional movement within the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church--definitaly not outside it!"

Well, if they do so on the basis of their Roman Catholic origins, then they originated from a Church that has now been out of communion with the eastern Churches for a thousand years, and not on the basis of semantics...

"It is possible, though I do not see how, that the East and West can come together again. Just like the Copts and the EO did not see their agreement for various reasons, the same could possibly be the same regarding the state of man between our confessions."

The key is the first 7 ecumenical councils - If you can accept these, you can come under the homophoron of Orthodoxy... But it involves coming under obedience to an eastern Bishop... The CCC struggled greatly with this, and blessedly overcame...

geo-Arsenios

Maxentius

April 21st 2004, 08:13 PM

Servant of God Edward writes:
"Lutherans see themselves as a confessional movement within the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church--definately not outside it!"

Well, if they do so on the basis of their Roman Catholic origins, then they originated from a Church that has now been out of communion with the eastern Churches for a thousand years, and not on the basis of semantics...

BTW, Edward means "Blessed Guardian."

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the whole Church militant; North, South, East and West. Interestingly, Luther said it was wrong for the Pope to anathimatize half of the Church, i.e. the Greek Church as he called it. He also said it was the better half, which is where our saying comes from. :hehe:

"It is possible, though I do not see how, that the East and West can come together again. Just like the Copts and the EO did not see their agreement for various reasons, the same could possibly be the same regarding the state of man between our confessions."

The key is the first 7 ecumenical councils - If you can accept these, you can come under the homophoron of Orthodoxy... But it involves coming under obedience to an eastern Bishop... The CCC struggled greatly with this, and blessedly overcame...

geo-Arsenios

Lutherans accept the first five, of course. There is that filioque though. :smile:

How did the Orthodox place a bishop over the Copts? Was a Coptic bishop ordained or somehow brought into communion, or was an Orthodox bishop brought in? I ask out of pure historical curiosity.

A group of immigrants from Ghana searched the Scriptures and asked to join our church body after looking at different confessions. After some questions, we said "You're in!". They kept their leader, but we supplied a trained pastor from their home country to over see the new congregation. It was a real blessing! Africa is a great mission field for our church as well as others. Do the Orthodox have missions around the world?

Anyway, Jezz said that the Orthodox would have to appoint a bishop over the Lutherans if the two churches united. But as I said, we have a different understanding of what the Church is.

Rdr. Arsenios

April 21st 2004, 11:11 PM

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the whole Church militant; North, South, East and West.

If you believe what you wrote above, then you would certainly seem to be denying that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church exists in heaven...

The Orthodox do not divide the Church into two, the militant and the triumphant, but understand the Bride of Christ to be One... "As in the heavens, also upon the earth..." [literal translation of the center of the Lord's Prayer.]

[/QUOTE]
Quote: geo
The key is the first 7 ecumenical councils - If Lutherans can accept these, you can come under the homophoron of Orthodoxy... But it involves coming under obedience to an eastern Bishop... The CCC struggled greatly with this, and blessedly overcame...

Lutherans accept the first five, of course. There is that filioque though. :smile:
[/QUOTE]

The body of Christ does not have the option of choosing to affirm or not affirm the councils - To insist upon doing so is to insist upon the doctrines of men, and not of the undivided Church of the first millennium...

How did the Orthodox place a bishop over the Copts? Was a Coptic bishop ordained or somehow brought into communion, or was an Orthodox bishop brought in? I ask out of pure historical curiosity.

The reunification has not occurred, but there would be no need to place an Orthodox bishop over the Copts - They are already Orthodox. The communion of Orthodoxy would simply include them, and they would include in their communion the Eastern Orthodox Church, which itself is a communion of Churches. The issue between them is schism, and when the dividing issues are resolved, communion is resumed.

Lutherans, on the other hand, have never been within the communion of the EOC, and so would have to be 'sponsored' into her through one of the Churches that is a part of that communion. And that means taking charge of the Lutheran Church, and catechising Her and baptizing Her into Orthodoxy. That is what had to happen with the CCC - They were self-confessing Orthodox, had their own priests, and bishops, and several thousand members, and those clerggy who wished to become Orthodox priests were allowed to do so, but no bishops, and they were all brought in to the Antioch communion over several months, and it took them years to figure it all out, the CCCers, for they were all gung-ho evangellizers thinking they were going to teach Antioch what real Christians looked like... iow, they were recovering evangellicals, and the humbling process of learning obedience in the hierarchy of the Church was lengthy and extensive and a big struggle - The acquisition of that blessing of humility comes slow to the logic-oriented can-do independent minded evangellical western Protestant mindset. The stories that emerge flat out leave me breathless, both in mirth, for I always had taken a dim view of the Campus Crusade for Christ in the first place when I got back from Vietnam, and with compassion, for they were entering into the reality of spiritual life, and were unprepared...

And I can tell you without quibble, they succeeded gloriously, and the Christian lives that flow forth from them is awe-inspiring... I am lucky to be a part of their Church...

A group of immigrants from Ghana searched the Scriptures and asked to join our church body after looking at different confessions. After some questions, we said "You're in!". They kept their leader, but we supplied a trained pastor from their home country to over see the new congregation. It was a real blessing! Africa is a great mission field for our church as well as others. Do the Orthodox have missions around the world?

Jezz, can you give Ed the link to your posting on Orthodox missions in Africa? It was impressive in that only a couple of them passed through, set it up, got it started, and left, and some time later, they found an Orthodox bishop, and entered the Church properly... Jezz has the details... Maybe even earlier this thread... But there are Orthodox missions throughout Africa, in the Congo, - A friend of mine just got back - Conditions are wondrously primitive...

Anyway, Jezz said that the Orthodox would have to appoint a bishop over the Lutherans if the two churches united. But as I said, we have a different understanding of what the Church is.

Indeed you do, and a different understanding of what man is, as you know, so that it will be very difficult... Without an Orthodox understanding of man and the Holy Church and the means of salvation, I do not see the Lutheran Church coming home anytime soon... We have a lot of Lutheran converts, and a disproportionate number of them from the clergy - In fact, it is clergy that seem disproportionately represented among Protestant converts to Orthodoxy in the US...

Catholics, on the other hand - Well, I have only known one, a priest, who converted to Orthodoxy, and then returned to the Roman Church, and is not involved in ecumenics...

geo-Arsenios