Wrestlemania: TULIP (GrayPilgrim, Jaltus, Blake Reas and Pereynol) commentary

[GrayPilgrim]

Okay this thread is for commentary on the discussion between Jaltus, Blake Reas, Pereynol and Myself and Athanasius on the TULIP located here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4489

Bottles are prohibited, face paint is discouraged as the aim of this discussion is an irenic and amicable discussionin which we hope to heal some of the divide that has arisen in this often Acrimonious debate.

Please note that discussion participants are not permitted to post in the comments thread for their particular discussion until such discussion is over. At that time, they are free to post and address any spectator commentary that they choose.

[yxboom]

This is the BOMB!!!

:yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

I can't even believe this one slipped under the radar. Im excited Im pumped and I will be following this debate closely :bunny:

[Faramir]

Today @ 12:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95774#post95774)
yxboom:

This is the BOMB!!!

:yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

I can't even believe this one slipped under the radar. Im excited Im pumped and I will be following this debate closely :bunny:


Yep. This is going to be great.

[Blake Reas]

Hopefully this discussion will help me determine my theological point of view more clearly. This should be interesting and hopefully I can add something no matter how little that may be.

By His Grace,
Blake:spam:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hmmm Blake is already breaking the rules :whip:

[exegeter]

When will this start? Can someone give me background on the participants?

[exegeter]

If anyone is interested, this gives a concise and accurate history of the Synod of Dort which gave birth to TULIP

http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~gvcc/theology_notes/Calvin_and_Arminius.html

[GrayPilgrim]

DDW asked me to answer this question:


Today @ 11:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106120#post106120)
exegeter:

When will this start? Can someone give me background on the participants?


To give you a brief background to the four of us:


I am a five pointer Calvinsit (similar to the varient on that link you gave). I am an Hebraist who loves the OT. Jaltus and I met at Trintiy Evangelical Divinity School and are good friends
Jaltus holds to a Wesleyan view, he is the "Greek Geek" (I'd be the Hebrew geek but it doesn't have quite the ring)
Blake Reese is a student at Southern Baptist University (?) he holds to four of the five points for sure, but is questioning L
Pere holds a more eclectic view and comes from a more philosophical perspective


I hope that helps

GP

[exegeter]

Thanks GP. I'm looking forward to seeing someone support U without L. I guess I'll just sit back now. I'm still trying to figure out the rules here.

[Gavin]

I will be reading this debate with interest.

[in_terra_pax]

In pere's last submission to the debate, he (she?) clarifies the difference in degrees between Calvinism's and Arminianism's concept of Total Depravity (or "radical corruption" as RC Sproul terms it). The distinction is revealed in what it takes to be regenerated with the Calvinist requiring efficacious grace to take the sinner all the way from "spiritual death" to regeneration operatively (monergistically), whereas the Arminian believes in a prevenient grace that is but initially enabling, but which requires a synergistic or cooperative effort on the part of the sinner in order to be regenerated. (In other words, the grace that precedes faith for the Arminian is not efficacious or irresistable.)

This is a good distinction, but I can't seem to find any arguments for why this is really only an issue for the "I" in TULIP rather than the "T" as it is usually argued (and as it has been in the debate). In my reading of Augustine and Aquinas, and even Calvin and Spurgeon, all refer to a prevenient grace as a requirement for regeneration. It isn't merely an Arminian or Wesleyan or Catholic term. Obviously, the Arminian concept is that it isn't efficacious while the Calvinist believes it is, but for both, grace is necessarily prevenient ("coming before").

My question is how does the Calvinist conclude that this prevenient grace must be efficacious? In other words, though semi-pelagianism supposes that man has an "island of righteousness" that allows him to take the first step in regeneration, Arminianism agrees with Calvinism that no such "island" exists in fallen man. However; prevenient grace imputes this "island of righteousness" to man making him capable (but not irresistably) of cooperating. This isn't semi-pelagianism because grace is a prerequisite. But neither, as the Calvinist will claim, is man any longer Totally Depraved once God's grace takes effect.

I'm hoping to hear some explanations that address this nuance in the discussion. (It's so hard to read and not be able to jump in, but it's a great format. Thanks.)

[Zagnut]

I used to be totally Calvinist, but now I am much less so. I already reject "L," and I question other issues.

As for "T," most verses used to prove it are taken out of context. Ephesians 2 is a great example.

[Sheepdog]

sadly, i agree with Zagnut, that a many prooftexts have been taken out of context. my biggest pet peave is when 1Jn. 2:19 is used to support P (Hello!? the context is speaking of antichrists/false teachers. e.g. your every day Joseph Smiths and Watchtower Societies).

but, methinks the most conclusive passages on T are John 6:44, and Rom. 3:9-18. 1Cor. 2:14 is another good passage, but is best when understood in context.

[Sheepdog]

who is it who had something about T in their sig? something along the lines of "Total depravity is the only doctrine with 3500 years of evidence"?

[Faramir]

05-31-2003 @ 03:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113467#post113467)
Sheepdog:

who is it who had something about T in their sig? something along the lines of "Total depravity is the only doctrine with 3500 years of evidence"?

I can't remember who has the sig., but I think the quote is "original sin, is the only doctrine....."

[geebob]

wowzers! this looks like it will be an interesting discussion. But is corporate election going to be represented? :huh: If only two views are going to be presented with two partners each, I geuss it doesn't matter.

[doogieduff]

Are they saying that in Ephesians 2:8, it says "faith" is not of ourselves?

Ephesians 2:8
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Grace and faith are feminine, while that is neuter. So that is referring to salvation, not grace and faith.

[doogieduff]

I may be uneducated and young, but does that mean I'm less deserving than everyone else for an answer to my question?

[doogieduff]

BTW, why is there not a zero-point calvinist in this debate? That would have made it complete and fair. Now I have to see three people arguing in which I think are all wrong. Not every position is supported and that's not cool at all.

[Zagnut]

i can't find Arminian's last post on the topic of Ephesians 2 but after i read it i knew it was the only explanation that makes sense. if i can find it again i will post it. i am reading a printed copy of it however.

the point is the same in all Paul's writings. the law was unable to give life (Galatians 3:21) so those under the law waited for Christ to come to give life. all were dead but that meant that they did not have the Spirit, not that the were going to hell. so of course Christ made us alive while we were yet sinners. that doesn't refute the point that those who first had faith then received the Spirit. all were dead in their sins before Christ's arrival.

to make the point that being made alive means that they were then able to have faith begs the question and ignores Paul's point that everyone was dead prior to Christ but those who had faith waited for him to change that. the Second Adam did what the first couldn't do.

[geebob]

i can't find Arminian's last post on the topic of Ephesians 2 but after i read it i knew it was the only explanation that makes sense. if i can find it again i will post it. i am reading a printed copy of it however.

I think I've seen him argue to the effect that the gift is not faith nor grace but it is the type of salvation that is by grace through faith that is the gift. That it is not of ourselves is not to say that it is not something that is relevent to our free will but rather it is not of our flesh or our physical descent or the joining of the physical israel through the law.

[Zagnut]

geebob,

yes i know what you mean. but i am talking about the phrase 'dead in sins.'

[Arminian]

Zag's on to something here. He and Red have been great observers. I've been wanting to post on that topic for over a week. It's been a really bad week, due in part to my poor driving skills (again!!). :help:

[Arminian]

gee,


That it is not of ourselves is not to say that it is not something that is relevent to our free will but rather it is not of our flesh or our physical descent or the joining of the physical israel through the law.

Excellent observation, once again. Because of NP, we now have many Calvinists and Arminians reading these verses the same way. Things are going to get pretty boring when philosophy is no longer used to interpret Scritpure. :zzz:

[TedO]

“ That it is not of ourselves is not to say that it is not something that is relevent to our free will but rather it is not of our flesh or our physical descent or the joining of the physical israel through the law. ”

That is interesting...unfortunately, I see the Calvinist using the Paul's discussion of salvation by faith versus works, by grace rather than merit, and turning it into a question of monergism versus synergism. :bonk:

The debate really IS about the process of Salvation.

Paul argues extensively that salvation cannot come by works but does not say we can't/don't participate by responding to God's offer. He clearly says in Romans 7:18 (writing as one under the law) that the will to do good is within him (thanks to the light of the law) but that the ability to do it is not. The law shows us what sin is but gives no means to deal with it. After Jesus D,B,R,A, the Holy Spirit was sent into the world to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). The preaching of the gospel, of Jesus being lifted up for our sins draws all who hear it (John 12:32), and leads to the clear opportunity for salvation (Rom 10:17) for those who receive it (John 1:12).

All salvation requires is a willingness on our part to repent and receive, it is still God's plan (his sovereignty has not been diminished), God's work (we do nothing but respond to his call), and God's glory (we were lost without His salvation).

[Solly]

On prevenient grace, isn't it the case that "grace" is shorthand for what God does. Grace is his disposition in blessing us; but what is the blessing? For the Calvinist, it is regeneration by the Holy Spirit, it is life to the dead. For the Arminian it appears to be whispers in the ear. For the Calvinist it is overcoming the Totla Depravity by giving us a new heart that responds to God; for the Arminian it seems that heart is yet to come once we have responded; so what meaning does the term Total Depravity have for an Arminian, esp if, to quote Bernanos, "Grace is everywhere?" That surely cancels out the notion, and we are left with the old "catholic" idea of a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other.

[Solly]

Further to these thoughts, go here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8479) for weekend research

[Arminian]

Solly,


On prevenient grace, isn't it the case that "grace" is shorthand for what God does. Grace is his disposition in blessing us; but what is the blessing? For the Calvinist, it is regeneration by the Holy Spirit, it is life to the dead. For the Arminian it appears to be whispers in the ear. For the Calvinist it is overcoming the Totla Depravity by giving us a new heart that responds to God; for the Arminian it seems that heart is yet to come once we have responded; so what meaning does the term Total Depravity have for an Arminian, esp if, to quote Bernanos, "Grace is everywhere?" That surely cancels out the notion, and we are left with the old "catholic" idea of a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other.

I suppose it depends on the meaning within the context. Paul clearly refers to the "gifts" as a "grace," among which is speaking in tongues by the Spirit. It was that ability which was being abused in Corinth.

As for the Spirit giving "life" to the "dead," Paul is clear that that did not happen until the arrival of the Seed to whom the promise was made. The meaning you give the words is certainly different than Paul's, since he didn't think they mean that those under the old covenant were going to hell. I'm not sure what true Arminians would say about that, however. But Paul does clarify how one receives the Spirit in the same chapter that he explains how the law did not give life: Gal. 3:14.

Of course, if I were in a proof-text war, I'd use the following:

Woe to you Chorazin! Woe to you Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

How would it have been possible for them to have believed if not for grace? Either grace is operational or it isn't. I'll leave you philosophers to settle that. Phenomenologically speaking, it's pretty clear to me.

[Big Argon]

I am very much enjoying obsevring this debate. Good job

[Solly]

08-17-2003 @ 06:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=188252#post188252)
Arminian:

Solly,

I suppose it depends on the meaning within the context. Paul clearly refers to the "gifts" as a "grace," among which is speaking in tongues by the Spirit. It was that ability which was being abused in Corinth.

As for the Spirit giving "life" to the "dead," Paul is clear that that did not happen until the arrival of the Seed to whom the promise was made. The meaning you give the words is certainly different than Paul's, since he didn't think they mean that those under the old covenant were going to hell. I'm not sure what true Arminians would say about that, however. But Paul does clarify how one receives the Spirit in the same chapter that he explains how the law did not give life: Gal. 3:14.

Of course, if I were in a proof-text war, I'd use the following:

Woe to you Chorazin! Woe to you Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

How would it have been possible for them to have believed if not for grace? Either grace is operational or it isn't. I'll leave you philosophers to settle that. Phenomenologically speaking, it's pretty clear to me.


Arminian, Sorry, didn't see this post until today.

There was a thread started on that very verse by DD - here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=166694#post166694)

[Arminian]

Solly,


Arminian, Sorry, didn't see this post until today.

There was a thread started on that very verse by DD -

Yes, I see. But that's a different issue.....

[brett]

Hello everyone. I’m looking for some clarification on prevenient grace.

As I understand it, both calvinism and arminianism hold to a prevenient grace or “grace that comes before.” Calvinists say it’s efficacious, meaning it actually regenerates a person or radically changes their nature, while arminians say it enables without altering the fallen nature???? Am I understanding this correctly?

Are there any wesleyians or arminians that can clear this up for me?

This is my first post. Forgive me if I'm doing this wrong.

[geoff]

Arminian,

"Woe to you Chorazin! Woe to you Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago sitting in sackcloth and ashes"

Seems to me that if people see the works Jesus did, they should recognise who He is, and what He is here for, and act accordingly (repent). If Tyre and Sidon had recieved Jesus, and seen Him heal the sick, raise the dead, teach with authority, forgive sins, they would, according to Jesus, have repented.

[rhutchin]

07-21-2003 @ 08:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=154702#post154702)
TedO:

All salvation requires is a willingness on our part to repent and receive, it is still God's plan (his sovereignty has not been diminished), God's work (we do nothing but respond to his call), and God's glory (we were lost without His salvation).


We can illustrate the difference between the Arminian and the Calvinist in the following manner.

The Arminian looks at the whole world and says that man can choose whether to believe in Christ. As a consequence of this, the Arminian says that some accept Christ and some reject Christ. At some point, those decisions are set in concrete and final.

The Calvinist deals only with those people who, under the Arminian system, freely chose to reject Christ. It is this group that is said to be Totally Depraved (T). It is from this group that God extends grace (that must be unconditional (U) given the circumstances), to some but not all (thus the number that God chooses to save is limited). To provide the means whereby that limited number of people may be saved, God sends Christ to atone for their sins (L). God then effects the salvation of those by drawing them to Christ through a grace that is irresistable (I) and God preserves them from that point on (P).

With regard to those that, under the Arminian system, professed to believe in Christ, the Calvinist would identify them as those who say "Lord, Lord..." (Matt 7) at the judgement, or as the first three seeds from the parable of the sower and the seed (Matt 13). The Calvinist concludes that, in the final analysis, none actually accept Christ under the Arminian system.

[Tercel]

This is an interesting debate because I'm always struggled with the terminology in the Arminian vs Calvinist question because it has always seemed to me that both sides are wrong. The whole debate, IMO, is based on a large number of wrong assumptions. But then, it was for this reason that I rejected Protestantism. Suffice to say I am far far closer to Arminianism than Calvinism.

Brett, you asked for a clarification on prevenient grace. Well here is how I have always understood it:

God, because of His love, draws everyone to the point where they have true freedom to choose Him or reject Him. It is this grace that is acting in man that the Arminians mean by prevenient grace.

Calvinism denies God's will or ability to do this. The way I read the stronger formulation of the doctrine of Total Depravity, it says that God is incapable of giving such freedom to man. The position seems to be that if man were regenerated enough to have the freedom to choose God, he would already be regenerated and hence saved. In my opinion this blatently confuses two separate types of regenation, and is also denial of God's omnipotence/the existence of any sort of true free will (in saying He is incapable of bringing them to a point of true choice).

In other words Brett: Yes, your explanation was correct.


In the debate, GrayPilgrim wrote:

Okay, first TULIP rightly understood is predicated on the belief in the goodness of God. I don't mean by this that others are not, just that for me God's goodness is foremost when I think of God, and so when we discuss TULIP we must remember that it is predicated on this doctrine. Therefore, the idea of I or L must first of all be seen as predicated on God's goodness.I have to say, I always absolutely gape in my mind when I read Calvinists talking about their doctrines being based on goodness or love or suchlike. Here we have doctrines which are saying that God, rather than saving everyone or giving everyone the ability to choose their own salvation, has instead decided to let people burn for eternity.
:huh:
I cannot say I have ever ever ever understood how such a concept as deliberate predestination to eternal torture can be based on "love" or "goodness".


Jaltus: You see, if Total Depravity is not a true doctrine, then Jesus' death was for no apparant reason.

Blake: As Jaltus said(paraphrase), "Without this doctrine Christ death makes no sense." I must whole heartedley agree.:shocked:
This seems to me to be theology done out of ignorance. The reasoning seems to be "I can't think of other answers, therefore there are none." Isn't it just a wee bit suspect to be predicating doctrines on the inability to think of an alternative answer? Especially, when there is an alternative answer that all the ancient Christians authors give: death. Christ's incarnation was believed to be to save us from a very literal permanent physical death. This becomes very ironic when Pereynol later comments that Calvinists and Arminians have different ways of understanding 'the scriptural metaphor of their being "dead" in their sins (Ephesians 2:1-2)' - when the "metaphor" is meant semi-literally. (the rejection of God breaks the union with a God who is Life, causing humanity to be cut off from the source of life and come under the power of literal death, which has been solve by the joining of God and man in the God-Man Jesus Christ) I think the main reason why Arminians and Calvinists run into serious exegetical difficulties is because they both miss the difference between salvation from permanent physical death, and the heaven/hell salvation.

[rhutchin]

10-26-2003 @ 02:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=256846#post256846)
Tercel:

Brett, you asked for a clarification on prevenient grace. Well here is how I have always understood it:

God, because of His love, draws everyone to the point where they have true freedom to choose Him or reject Him. It is this grace that is acting in man that the Arminians mean by prevenient grace.



The problem for the Armenian on this point is that true freedom means that each person must be given the exact equal ability to choose to accept or reject Christ. Thus, all should choose to accept Christ or all should choose to reject Christ under the Armenian system.

If we find that one person was to accept Christ and one was to reject Christ, then we could define an issue that differentiates the separate decisions. The issue that caused one to accept would mean that the other was indifferent on that issue or rejected Christ based on that issue. That would mean that God differentiated in the grace bestowed to each making God the final arbitrater of each person's decision. Consequently, were we observe two people making opposite decisions about Christ, we know that we have the Calvinist system.

[Tercel]

Rhutchin,


The problem for the Arminian on this point is that true freedom means that each person must be given the exact equal ability to choose to accept or reject Christ. Thus, all should choose to accept Christ or all should choose to reject Christ under the Armenian system.:hrm:
Um, no. If everyone is given free will to accept or reject Christ as they choose then that doesn't at all imply that either all will accept Christ or all will reject Christ.


If we find that one person was to accept Christ and one was to reject Christ, then we could define an issue that differentiates the separate decisions.You are presuming human will is deterministic! I see no good reason to think that is the case.


That would mean that God differentiated in the grace bestowed to each making God the final arbitrater of each person's decision.Only if God knew in advance all possible worlds in foreknowledge and could select a possible world to actualise. You may be a molinist, but I am not. :ahem:

[rhutchin]

11-09-2003 @ 11:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=276762#post276762)
Tercel:


rhutchin
The problem for the Arminian on this point is that true freedom means that each person must be given the exact equal ability to choose to accept or reject Christ. Thus, all should choose to accept Christ or all should choose to reject Christ under the Armenian system.

Tercel
Um, no. If everyone is given free will to accept or reject Christ as they choose then that doesn't at all imply that either all will accept Christ or all will reject Christ.

rhutchin
Now we have defined two positions that we can test.
+++++++

rhutchin
If we find that one person was to accept Christ and one was to reject Christ, then we could define an issue that differentiates the separate decisions.

Tercel
You are presuming human will is deterministic! I see no good reason to think that is the case.

rhutchin
No, I am assuming that each person is absolutely equal in their ability to evaluate the evidence and is able choose either to accept or reject Christ. There is nothing deterministic about this. Each person is free to choose either way.
+++++

rhutchin
That would mean that God differentiated in the grace bestowed to each making God the final arbitrater of each person's decision.

Tercel
Only if God knew in advance all possible worlds in foreknowledge and could select a possible world to actualise. You may be a molinist, but I am not.

rhutchin
This has nothing to do with molinism. It is a problem in logic.

Let’s use an example (exaggerated for effect). Two people have the opportunity to accept or reject Christ. One was born into a Christian home, has knowledge of Christ, and is free of outside influence. He accepts Christ. The second lived in the Amazon jungle and never even heard of Christ. He does not accept Christ. God did not give these two equal ability to choose Christ. God favored one over the other and one person was saved (because ultimately he was one of the elect) and the other was lost (because ultimately he was not one of the elect). Any time two people make opposite decisions fro Christ, the basis for the opposing decisions reflects an inequality in the knowledge that each possesses and that inequality must be attributed to God who applied prevenient grace to each but maintained that inequality.

[Tercel]

Rhutchin,


I am assuming that each person is absolutely equal in their ability to evaluate the evidence and is able choose either to accept or reject Christ....

Let’s use an example (exaggerated for effect). Two people have the opportunity to accept or reject Christ. One was born into a Christian home, has knowledge of Christ, and is free of outside influence. He accepts Christ. The second lived in the Amazon jungle and never even heard of Christ. He does not accept Christ. God did not give these two equal ability to choose Christ. God favored one over the other and one person was saved (because ultimately he was one of the elect) and the other was lost (because ultimately he was not one of the elect). Any time two people make opposite decisions fro Christ, the basis for the opposing decisions reflects an inequality in the knowledge that each possesses and that inequality must be attributed to God who applied prevenient grace to each but maintained that inequality.Ah, I see the problem. You are presuming that salvation has something to do with a rational decision based on evidence. You are presuming that in order to accept Christ you must have intellectual knowledge of Him because you see "accepting Christ" as meaning a single act of commitment towards an intellectually known entity.

My POV:
Take the person living in the Amazon jungle. He has never heard of Christ, yet he lives his life in a godly way - he loves his neighbours, he is a compassionate person full of love, and he respects the authority of the gods. He dies and then in heaven he meets Christ who he instantly recognises as the One he had served all his life in truth, even though he did not know Him. And Christ responds "Come, receive your reward good and faithful servant, for you have done my will and walked in my ways."
Those who have never heard of Christ can follow his way and have the fruits of the spirit just as much as those who have. God is a God of all people and willing that all should come to salvation, but it is ultimately up to them to accept God's way or Satan's way.

Thus, God's grace brings all to the point where they can freely choose to go the way of God in love and truth or the way of the devil in hatred and lies.


Your point of view seems to raise a difficult question. When everyone stands before the throneroom of God to be judged, won't they all know Him them? And if they do, and salvation is merely a matter of saying "God, I accept you", won't they all do so? And if God really wants all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4) won't He accept them all? In your view it seems to me that to be consistent you must either be a universalist, or have a heartless God who refuses to save those who accept Him when they know Him.

[rhutchin]

Yesterday @ 10:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=280078#post280078)
Tercel:


rhutchin
I am assuming that each person is absolutely equal in their ability to evaluate the evidence and is able choose either to accept or reject Christ....

Let’s use an example (exaggerated for effect). Two people have the opportunity to accept or reject Christ. One was born into a Christian home, has knowledge of Christ, and is free of outside influence. He accepts Christ. The second lived in the Amazon jungle and never even heard of Christ. He does not accept Christ. God did not give these two equal ability to choose Christ. God favored one over the other and one person was saved (because ultimately he was one of the elect) and the other was lost (because ultimately he was not one of the elect). Any time two people make opposite decisions fro Christ, the basis for the opposing decisions reflects an inequality in the knowledge that each possesses and that inequality must be attributed to God who applied prevenient grace to each but maintained that inequality.

Tercel - My POV:
Take the person living in the Amazon jungle. He has never heard of Christ, yet he lives his life in a godly way - he loves his neighbours, he is a compassionate person full of love, and he respects the authority of the gods. He dies and then in heaven he meets Christ who he instantly recognizes as the One he had served all his life in truth, even though he did not know Him. And Christ responds "Come, receive your reward good and faithful servant, for you have done my will and walked in my ways."

Those who have never heard of Christ can follow his way and have the fruits of the spirit just as much as those who have. God is a God of all people and willing that all should come to salvation, but it is ultimately up to them to accept God's way or Satan's way.

Thus, God's grace brings all to the point where they can freely choose to go the way of God in love and truth or the way of the devil in hatred and lies.

rhutchin
You have an interesting philosophy. Sounds like a works-based system. The issue, then, is what happens if that person has sinned (which presumably he has no matter how good he was). How does that person escape the penalty for his sin? Do you believe that a person’s good works will absolve him from any responsibility for his sin.
++++++

Tercel
Your point of view seems to raise a difficult question. When everyone stands before the throneroom of God to be judged, won't they all know Him them? And if they do, and salvation is merely a matter of saying "God, I accept you", won't they all do so? And if God really wants all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4) won't He accept them all? In your view it seems to me that to be consistent you must either be a universalist, or have a heartless God who refuses to save those who accept Him when they know Him.

rhutchin
Under the Calvinist system, a person has until the point of death to seek salvation. After death, the judgment follows and a person is immediately expelled from God’s presence to serve the sentence. It is too late for a person to cry out for mercy. I see your point being addressed in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). On the suspicion that you are aware of this parable, can you describe your take on what Jesus was saying?

[Tercel]

rhutchin,


You have an interesting philosophy. Sounds like a works-based system.I prefer "nature-based" than "works-based". A works based system is where you've got to always keep some set Law to be saved, or where you've got to perform certain rituals in order to be saved. By contrast this is faith and grace based because it requires a complete change of the inner nature of a person to the things of God.


The issue, then, is what happens if that person has sinned (which presumably he has no matter how good he was). How does that person escape the penalty for his sin?Easy: There is no penalty to escape.
You are thinking in a judical paradigm where God the judge punishes those who haven't kept His perfect laws. Sorry, but that's utterly wrong. Salvation is about grace and love and faith and is completely unrelated to the law.


Do you believe that a person’s good works will absolve him from any responsibility for his sin.There is no responsibility for sin. That was one of Paul's big points.


Under the Calvinist system, a person has until the point of death to seek salvation. After death, the judgment follows and a person is immediately expelled from God’s presence to serve the sentence. It is too late for a person to cry out for mercy. I see your point being addressed in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). On the suspicion that you are aware of this parable, can you describe your take on what Jesus was saying?Under the Orthodox system judgement also follows on death. The person is exposed to God's truth and love which shows up them as they truly are and presents them with the loving forgiveness of God, which they can accept or reject eternally as they choose. There is no point in crying out to God for mercy, because it is not God that is the cause of the problem, it is the person themselves. Only in your view where God is the willing cause of the suffering does the question of mercy become a problem.

[rhutchin]

Today @ 02:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=282952#post282952)
Tercel:


rhutchin
You have an interesting philosophy. Sounds like a works-based system.

Tercel
I prefer "nature-based" than "works-based". A works based system is where you've got to always keep some set Law to be saved, or where you've got to perform certain rituals in order to be saved. By contrast this is faith and grace based because it requires a complete change of the inner nature of a person to the things of God.

rhutchin
Under your system, how does the inner nature of a person change? Is the inner nature corrupt to begin with?
+++++

rhutchin
The issue, then, is what happens if that person has sinned (which presumably he has no matter how good he was). How does that person escape the penalty for his sin?

Tercel
Easy: There is no penalty to escape.
You are thinking in a judical paradigm where God the judge punishes those who haven't kept His perfect laws. Sorry, but that's utterly wrong. Salvation is about grace and love and faith and is completely unrelated to the law.

rhutchin
The law shows us what is wrong, so everyone sins and knows that they sin because of the law. Under your system how does God deal with the sin committed by that person in the Amazon jungle? Does God ultimately just ignore the sin that a person does?
++++++

rhutchin
Do you believe that a person’s good works will absolve him from any responsibility for his sin.

Tercel
There is no responsibility for sin. That was one of Paul's big points.

rhutchin
Is it your belief that a person is not responsible for their sin because Christ died on the cross? Is this true for everybody, so that no one is responsible for their sin? Under your system, are people free to behave any way they want? If the man in the Amazon jungle did not live a “godly” life, would he be penalized for his “ungodly” life under your system?
+++++

rhutchin
Under the Calvinist system, a person has until the point of death to seek salvation. After death, the judgment follows and a person is immediately expelled from God’s presence to serve the sentence. It is too late for a person to cry out for mercy. I see your point being addressed in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). On the suspicion that you are aware of this parable, can you describe your take on what Jesus was saying?

Tercel
Under the Orthodox system judgment also follows on death. The person is exposed to God's truth and love which shows up them as they truly are and presents them with the loving forgiveness of God, which they can accept or reject eternally as they choose. There is no point in crying out to God for mercy, because it is not God that is the cause of the problem, it is the person themselves. Only in your view where God is the willing cause of the suffering does the question of mercy become a problem.

rhutchin
What is the Orthodox system to which you refer? Are you saying that everybody can live as they desire because when they stand before God on Judgment Day, they have one final opportunity to accept salvation? Do you envision anybody not being saved?

[Tercel]

rhutchin,


Under your system, how does the inner nature of a person change? Is the inner nature corrupt to begin with?The inner nature can change over time according to our free will. We see it everyday in life: the criminal can struggle to reform themselves and suceed, or conversely a nice person can get themselves into a cycle of violence and destruction and are no longer the person they once were.

The inner nature is undefined to begin with. What we make of ourselves for good, or for evil is our choice. Though note that circumstances may alter how this choice is manifested in our lives - eg through bad social conditions such as a broken home an otherwise caring child can come to grow up with problems that are caused by the conditions (eg a tendency to manifest anger or violence) yet at heart have a tendency towards a Christ-like nature that has merely been covered over, not obliterated, by the circumstances. Similarly, vice versa: A person brought up in a lovely environment can still at heart be a devil, while manifesting comparative goodness simply because of their social conditioning. My point here is simply that the true inner nature is not a deterministic result of the life environment. However generally, the nature of a person will be reflected in their works.


The law shows us what is wrong, so everyone sins and knows that they sin because of the law. Under your system how does God deal with the sin committed by that person in the Amazon jungle? Does God ultimately just ignore the sin that a person does?Yes, God forgives all sin because He is loving and merciful.


Is it your belief that a person is not responsible for their sin because Christ died on the cross? Is this true for everybody, so that no one is responsible for their sin?"Responsibility" presupposes a judicial type understanding, since I deny any sort of legal paradigm, the word "responsibility" has little meaning when related to sin or salvation. This has nothing to do with Christ's work. God simply forgives sin because He's good and loving and kind and graceful.


Under your system, are people free to behave any way they want?I'm touched you call it my system, but really, I can't take all Paul's credit...
Again, this is exactly an issue that Paul deals with:
"Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" (Rom 6:15)
Paul's answer to your question in vs 16-23 is that no we shouldn't behave in any way we like, because to sin ultimately leads to our own destruction whereas to follow righteousness leads to life.
Not that this has nothing to do with God (he won't will destruction on us if we sin), it has simply to do with consequences. If we make ourselves completely evil and heartless and hateful through repeated sin and turn our inner nature to darkness as if "slaves" to the habits of sinfulness. Then what sort of person would we be? An absolute wretch who hates themselves and everyone else!
Similarly if we strive to do good, and love one another, and have compassion and mercy and turn our inner nature to light as if "slaves" to the habits of righteousness. Then what sort of person would we be? A Christ-like saint who enjoys their life and their fellowship with all!


If the man in the Amazon jungle did not live a “godly” life, would he be penalized for his “ungodly” life under your system?Yes, see my answer above. By his ungodly life he is in danger of destroying himself through sin.

A big problem with standard protestantism btw is that it doesn't take sin seriously. You guys seem to think that sin has no consequences beyond offending God, and as soon as you can unoffend God everything's okay again! Hence you not only blaspheme the love of God by denying that He would forgive out of love, you also miss the whole point of the Christian life which is to strive for godliness to avoid the real consequences of sin.


What is the Orthodox system to which you refer? Are you saying that everybody can live as they desire because when they stand before God on Judgment Day, they have one final opportunity to accept salvation? Do you envision anybody not being saved?I'm referring to the system expounded by the Eastern Orthodox church.

I'm saying salvation doesn't happen by saying "Hi God, I'd like to be saved now please". It happens by a process of the transformation of your inner being to Christ-likeness. There is no "final" opportunity for salvation, potentially there is all eternity for salvation (God isn't going to turn away anyone that comes to Him!), but in reality once people have gone far enough down the path of righteoussness or the path of destruction there is no real turning back - they are "slaves" of one or the other, whichever they have choosen, for the rest of eternity.

I certainly envisenge people not being saved. I have little hope for example for the salvation of the devil. Also, for example, such people as Stalin and Hitler certainly strike me as very far on the road to destruction. I hope they can be brought back by God to the path of life, but I doubt it. Apart from that, I see enough darkness within myself to keep me occupied for the rest of my life and beyond in trying to follow righteousness.

[rhutchin]

Today @ 01:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284624#post284624)
Tercel:


rhutchin
Under your system, how does the inner nature of a person change? Is the inner nature corrupt to begin with?

Tercel
…My point here is simply that the true inner nature is not a deterministic result of the life environment. However generally, the nature of a person will be reflected in their works.


rhutchin
I guess this is just a clear point of disagreement between the Eastern Orthodox and the Calvinist churches. Under Calvinism, the concept of Original Sin says that the true inner nature is the result of the life environment (i.e., Adam’s sin) and is corrupted as a result. The Calvinists understand the Bible to say that such corruption is complete.
+++++

rhutchin
The law shows us what is wrong, so everyone sins and knows that they sin because of the law. Under your system how does God deal with the sin committed by that person in the Amazon jungle? Does God ultimately just ignore the sin that a person does?

Tercel
Yes, God forgives all sin because He is loving and merciful.

rhutchin
Under the Orthodox system, does God automatically forgive the sins of all people (even a Stalin or Hitler), or does God require some act by a person prior to giving forgiveness of sin? Must a person do “good works (e.g., become Christ-like)” in order for God to forgive him?
+++++

rhutchin
Is it your belief that a person is not responsible for their sin because Christ died on the cross? Is this true for everybody, so that no one is responsible for their sin?

Tercel
"Responsibility" presupposes a judicial type understanding, since I deny any sort of legal paradigm, the word "responsibility" has little meaning when related to sin or salvation. This has nothing to do with Christ's work. God simply forgives sin because He's good and loving and kind and graceful.

rhutchin
Then, it sounds like everybody (even a Stalin or Hitler) should be saved under the Orthodox system. Are there any conditions under which, a person would actually end up in hell?
+++++

rhutchin
Under your system, are people free to behave any way they want?

Tercel
Again, this is exactly an issue that Paul deals with:
"Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" (Rom 6:15)
Paul's answer to your question in vs 16-23 is that no we shouldn't behave in any way we like, because to sin ultimately leads to our own destruction whereas to follow righteousness leads to life.

Not that this has nothing to do with God (he won't will destruction on us if we sin), it has simply to do with consequences. If we make ourselves completely evil and heartless and hateful through repeated sin and turn our inner nature to darkness as if "slaves" to the habits of sinfulness. Then what sort of person would we be? An absolute wretch who hates themselves and everyone else!

Similarly if we strive to do good, and love one another, and have compassion and mercy and turn our inner nature to light as if "slaves" to the habits of righteousness. Then what sort of person would we be? A Christ-like saint who enjoys their life and their fellowship with all!

rhutchin
However, under the Orthodox system, does not God forgive sins whether one is an absolute wretch (like a Stalin or Hitler) or a Christ-like saint?
+++++

rhutchin
If the man in the Amazon jungle did not live a “godly” life, would he be penalized for his “ungodly” life under your system?

Tercel
Yes, see my answer above. By his ungodly life he is in danger of destroying himself through sin.

A big problem with standard protestantism btw is that it doesn't take sin seriously. You guys seem to think that sin has no consequences beyond offending God, and as soon as you can unoffend God everything's okay again! Hence you not only blaspheme the love of God by denying that He would forgive out of love, you also miss the whole point of the Christian life which is to strive for godliness to avoid the real consequences of sin.

rhutchin
I do not think your characterization of Protestantism is accurate. You might read “The Motification of Sin” by John Owen to get a better grasp of how the Protestant views sin (not that all who claim to be Protestant are such). That is an issue for a separate discussion.

However, your point seems to be that sin has direct impacts on our life here on earth, but does not affect whether we go to heaven or hell. Do the Orthodox believe in a hell and that some people will end up there?
+++++

rhutchin
Are you saying that everybody can live as they desire because when they stand before God on Judgment Day, they have one final opportunity to accept salvation? Do you envision anybody not being saved?

Tercel
I'm saying salvation doesn't happen by saying "Hi God, I'd like to be saved now please". It happens by a process of the transformation of your inner being to Christ-likeness. There is no "final" opportunity for salvation, potentially there is all eternity for salvation (God isn't going to turn away anyone that comes to Him!), but in reality once people have gone far enough down the path of righteoussness or the path of destruction there is no real turning back - they are "slaves" of one or the other, whichever they have choosen, for the rest of eternity.

I certainly envisage people not being saved. I have little hope for example for the salvation of the devil. Also, for example, such people as Stalin and Hitler certainly strike me as very far on the road to destruction. I hope they can be brought back by God to the path of life, but I doubt it. Apart from that, I see enough darkness within myself to keep me occupied for the rest of my life and beyond in trying to follow righteousness.

rhutchin
Certainly the likes of Stalin and Hitler are on the road to destruction. However, under the Orthodox system, what exactly did these guys do to prevent God from forgiving them? What penalty do these guys incur after they die? Does God’s forgiveness for sin require that a person transform his inner being into Christ-likeness?

[Tercel]

rhutchin,


I guess this is just a clear point of disagreement between the Eastern Orthodox and the Calvinist churches. Under Calvinism, the concept of Original Sin says that the true inner nature is the result of the life environment (i.e., Adam’s sin) and is corrupted as a result. The Calvinists understand the Bible to say that such corruption is complete.Indeed, the Orthodox advocate a far more positive view of man than do the Calvinists. The Orthodox position is that man is basically good - being created in the image and likeness of God - but has been weakened and marred somewhat by the original sin. In Orthodoxy, "original sin" refers to the sin of Adam and Eve ie the sin that was originally performed. Orthodoxy does not consider the effects passed on to us by this to be particularly great (we even think that Roman Catholics go a bit far in their writings about the effects of OS (which are not much compared to Calvinists)) and we certainly don't have any doctrine of Original Guilt.
The Orthodox believe that God in His grace universally provides to man the ability to overcome the damage done by OS.


Under the Orthodox system, does God automatically forgive the sins of all people (even a Stalin or Hitler), or does God require some act by a person prior to giving forgiveness of sin? Must a person do “good works (e.g., become Christ-like)” in order for God to forgive him?Depends what you mean by "forgiveness"... you are doubtless reading your legal system into the word and hence thinking it's about God letting us off the punishment. There is no such corrosponding idea in Orthodox thought - such "forgiveness" is non-sensical in the Orthodox system.

If "forgiveness = having good-will towards someone despite their earlier action" (which is what we probably mean by "forgiveness" in everyday conversation) then all people have instant forgiveness always as God is love and forgives people immediately out of his infinite kindness and good-will. Jesus tells us at the end of Matthew 5 that God's perfection lies in the fact that he has good-will towards everyone, the righteous and sinners alike.

If "forgiveness = the resuming of a normal relationship between the parties" then all people were forgiven when Christ died (Rom 5:18) - when all were "justified" (which means "put into a right relationship"). The union of God and creation had been broken because of sin which had caused physical death, but now the restoration of the union through the person of Jesus Christ (God and man become one person) has reunited God and man thus putting man back into union with God and hence paving the way for the future resurrection to immortality.
This meaning also has a second application - if you turn away from God then obviously not until you turn back is the previous relationship resumed. Thus God could be said to "forgive" people whenever they turn back to Him. (Which of course He does instantly out of love)


If "forgiveness = sin having no effect on anything" then there is no forgiveness. Sin has real consequences and we do real damage to our spiritual selves by it just as we would hurt our bodies if we cut ourselves with a knife. God can't magic that away by declaring it gone, or having good will towards us! The best He can do is open His arms to us in love, which He does. If we continue forever in sin and eternally refuse God's love we surely cause our spiritual destruction just as we would eventually cause bodily death with a knife.

Hence a person cannot do good works in order to gain God's forgiveness. Only for the 3rd definition of forgiveness do good works help, and that definition had nothing to do with God.


Then, it sounds like everybody (even a Stalin or Hitler) should be saved under the Orthodox system. Are there any conditions under which, a person would actually end up in hell?Yes, they have the option of destroying themselves through sin as mentioned above.
"If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Mat 6:23)
Sin really is destructive and if we fill ourselves with it we destroy ourselves despite all that God can do.


However, under the Orthodox system, does not God forgive sins whether one is an absolute wretch (like a Stalin or Hitler) or a Christ-like saint?Of course, God is loving and righteous and kind and holy and merciful and gracious, and as such He will forgive (in the first two meanings of forgiveness) anyone's sin.


However, your point seems to be that sin has direct impacts on our life here on earth, but does not affect whether we go to heaven or hell. Do the Orthodox believe in a hell and that some people will end up there?The Orthodox firmly believe in heaven and hell and firmly believe that sin affects which we end up in. The Orthodox do not however believe that God chooses which one a person ends up in, the Orthodox believe that God provides the same New Creation and potentially joyous eternal life for all and the extent to which this eternity is heaven or hell for any given individual is determined by their subjective feelings, not anything done differently by God. God does not distinguish from one individual to another, for he is no respecter of persons, but He gives His love and truth and light and presence to all equally. Those who are righteous will be filled with the joy of this, those that are evil will not enjoy this. (See John 3:20-21) Remember that the sun shines on good and evil alike, those who are healthy rejoice and enjoy the world all the more because of the light it provides, those with diseased eyes feel naught but pain at its presence. So it is with God - His love does not distinguish, but the person does.


Certainly the likes of Stalin and Hitler are on the road to destruction. However, under the Orthodox system, what exactly did these guys do to prevent God from forgiving them? What penalty do these guys incur after they die? Does God’s forgiveness for sin require that a person transform his inner being into Christ-likeness?Hopefully, these questions have been answered by my discussion of forgiveness. To summarise: They incur no arbitrary penalty that is decided upon by God - whatever suffering (not "penalty" - it implies a judicial decision) they incur will be an inevitable result of the circumstances inherent in the New Creation their own inner condition. God's forgiveness does not require, nor is it relevant to, a person's Christ-likeness. Only the question of heaven/hell is relevant to that and that is nothing to do with God's forgiveness.

Still confused? I know grace is hard to understand when you're used to thinking about law. Paul had this very problem with the Jewish Christians. But it is a simple truth really: God is not going to reject anybody just because they do not meet some set standard, because there will always be people who fall short of that standard - He loves them nevertheless and it is God's love that ultimately prevails not the legal standard. For Paul that standard consisted of the keeping of the commandments given in the Torah, for protestants the law seems to be obedience to the commandment to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. Paul's point of course was that it was a person's true inner nature - their true spritual relationship with God - their "faith" and not the obedience to any particular law that was what matters. Ultimately both the Jews and Protestants seem to have missed the boat and not realised that God's love means He doesn't punish the sinner for failure, and that He gave the laws He gave out of a desire to protect us from our destruction, not as requirements. Go read Phillipians 3, that's a fairly hard to misinterpret passage on the matter.

[Tercel]

This is a clarification and expansion of my earlier discussion of “death” in Ephesians 2. In the debate I think that all sides are misinterpreting Eph 2 because they think the word “death” is somehow related to free will. The logic connecting death with free will seems to be a little loose – to interpret “death” as referring to the idea that as a result of our spiritual death we are no longer able to will for good and thus having effectively the volitional ability of a corpse, seems to be a fairly liberal handling of the text. But the Arminians seem stuck for any alternative interpretation and thus they seem happy to allow the Calvinists this fairly large logical leap. But I don’t think this interpretation stands up to close inspection – not only is it arbitrary and convoluted, it is not Pauline – Paul has a very definite understanding of “death” and this is not it.

In Paul’s view, the main thrust of Christ’s atoning work was directed at death. Whatever else Christ did, the most important thing to Paul’s mind was Christ’s conquering of death – real literal physical death. (Nothing metaphorical, nothing super-spiritual, nothing to do with the will) In Paul’s opinion, sin had caused real physical death. This was how he understood the Fall of Adam: That by sinning Adam had caused literal death and had died. Because of sin, all people subsequently died real literal physical deaths. Paul, being a Hebrew not a Greek, had a very limited idea of the immortality of the soul – at best they thought the bodiless soul might float about in the darkness of some eerie world of the dead at worst they felt there was no existence beyond death. That was it from the point of view of the Saducees, but the Pharisees hoped for something more – they hoped that God would resurrect people into their bodies again for a happy eternity with Him in a new creation.

Paul, who was previously a Pharisee, saw in Christ’s work and resurrection a sign of a defeat of death and a sure promise of a future bodily resurrection. To Paul, through Adam the human race had become subjected to death because of sin, but now through Christ a future resurrection had been made inevitable. Because we have all been taught to think that there is life after death, we often find it difficult to understand Paul’s elation in this instance, we often forget that it was this very life after death that was secured by Christ.

Paul sums this up in Romans 5-6:

Romans 5:12-18
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many.... If, because of the one man's trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.”

Romans 6:4-5
“Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.”

Romans 6:23
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”


Death is hence something that Christ has defeated. Many people find it hard to understand why Paul uses the word “sleep” as a metaphor for death, and 7th Day Adventists even take it to mean that the dead are unconscious between their death and the future resurrection. But Paul’s usage of this word is perfectly explicable – Death has been conquered by Christ. “To die” really means to cease to exist for eternity, but Paul knows that because of Christs work there will come a future resurrection – hence there is no such thing as real death because the people are not ceasing to exist but merely waiting for the future resurrection. Hence Paul uses the word “sleep” with its implication that they will “wake up” later rather than “death” to refer to dead people.

Yes, Paul sometimes uses “death” metaphorically when pontificating on the marvellous work of Christ and speaking of our sharing in Christ. (eg “we have died with Christ”) But he is being semi-literal here and saying that we were mystically united with the person of Christ and thus in some sense we died literally with Him on the cross, and that just as we share in Him in this way so we will share in His resurrection. But always to Paul “death” should be either be taken completely literally as referring to real physical death from which Christ saved us, or used as a metaphor to bring to mind this literal truth.

Hence the idea that Paul is thinking of the volitional abilities of corpses in Ephesians 2 is not worth seriously considering. Eph 2:2 says we were dead through our trespasses and sins, which is bang on standard Pauline thought and means that through sin we brought upon ourselves physical death. Eph 2:5 is similar: Because of our trespasses we die and because of the grace of God we were saved from this by Christ’s work. Eph 2:8 repeats the theme. I think that the chances are pretty high that the “faith” being referred to in vs 8 is the faithfulness of Christ, not our individual faith. That is why there is no boasting – because our salvation from death has nothing to do with us, it was accomplished entirely by God in His graciousness and faithfulness.

[Reader]

Tercel:

This is a clarification and expansion of my earlier discussion of “death” in Ephesians 2. In the debate I think that all sides are misinterpreting Eph 2 because they think the word “death” is somehow related to free will.

Admittedly entering upon this debate late.

I agree. "Free will" has nothing to do with death.

Sin is the cause of death.

Sin is primarily disobedience to God's will; not exercise of a human "free will."

Huge difference, that very few bother to ponder.

So this "free will" argument becomes a straw-man in debate. It is nothing at all substantial; a wishful dream; merely a distraction from Godly truth . . .and what a successful distraction it has proven to be!




The logic connecting death with free will seems to be a little loose – to interpret “death” as referring to the idea that as a result of our spiritual death we are no longer able to will for good and thus having effectively the volitional ability of a corpse, seems to be a fairly liberal handling of the text.

I contend that the will of man has never been "free," nor did God make man in His image to exercise a totally "free" will.

Yes, God made man with moral agency and with an intellect and will to make decisions (cause and effect powers), but that ability was commanded to be under subjection to God's superior will.

Jesus Christ was the only Man who perfectly subjected His will to the Father's (as all men should, according to God's eternal principles).

Man is not disabled from doing good because of spiritual death, but spiritual death was caused by man not doing good as commanded by God.




Paul has a very definite understanding of “death” and this is not it.

In Paul’s view, the main thrust of Christ’s atoning work was directed at death. Whatever else Christ did, the most important thing to Paul’s mind was Christ’s conquering of death – real literal physical death. (Nothing metaphorical, nothing super-spiritual, nothing to do with the will) In Paul’s opinion, sin had caused real physical death.

Indeed. However, the physical always reflects the spiritual. The first sin was spiritual in nature. The first sin came from the affections (or more correctly, the disaffections) of the first Adam. Adam "loved" a lie more than the truthful word and command of God. His sin was spiritual in nature, and separated him from God (Who is Spirit), but his sin was manifested in the physical.


Paul, being a Hebrew not a Greek, had a very limited idea of the immortality of the soul – at best they thought the bodiless soul might float about in the darkness of some eerie world of the dead at worst they felt there was no existence beyond death. That was it from the point of view of the Saducees, but the Pharisees hoped for something more – they hoped that God would resurrect people into their bodies again for a happy eternity with Him in a new creation.

I do not agree that the remnant of born again Jews, who lived before Christ during the O.T. era, under the Law, had vague understandings of resurrection and heaven.

I believe all the O.T. elect were given the faith of God and the Spirit of God, to understand the things of God and the promises, just like we N.T. believers. Example witness from Daniel:

"And many who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel 12:2




Paul, who was previously a Pharisee, saw in Christ’s work and resurrection a sign of a defeat of death and a sure promise of a future bodily resurrection. To Paul, through Adam the human race had become subjected to death because of sin, but now through Christ a future resurrection had been made inevitable.

This is so. Saying otherwise should not even warrant debate. The Scriptures you presented are indisputable. (Romans 5:6,12-18, 6:23)


Death is hence something that Christ has defeated.

Amen! (I recommend John Owen's exhaustive work on death in his writing, "The Death Of Death In The Death Of Jesus Christ."


Many people find it hard to understand why Paul uses the word “sleep” as a metaphor for death,

That is description of the body; the soul is alive being restored from spiritual death. (Note: Do you not include and consider spiritual death at all in your thinking?)

Spiritual resurrection has reconciled the soul of the sinner to Christ, even though the body "sleeps" at the end of physical life. However, on the last day, the body will be resurrected to join the soul in a glorified body, that will dwell with God forever.

Spiritual truths are primary; physical manifestations are reflections of spiritual reality.


Paul’s usage of this word is perfectly explicable – Death has been conquered by Christ. “To die” really means to cease to exist for eternity,

Disagreement!

Death means to be separated from life. And life is found only in God. Thus, death denotes and is described in Scripture as existence suffering separation from God. (Both spiritual and physical existence.)

Death does not mean to cease to exist for eternity.

Those who have died physically, because of spiritual death, will suffer the "second death," which is an eternal existence of punishment in torment and Hellfire.




there is no such thing as real death because the people are not ceasing to exist but merely waiting for the future resurrection.

This "sleep" is only promised to those who are saved by the grace of God, and who are found to be in Christ Jesus. This promise of "sleep" in the grave is not promised to the reprobate, who are conscious and suffering in their graves.

This is evidenced in all the O.T. genealogies, that record the faithful lineage of God's people as "sleeping" after death, but the ungodly are spoken of as conscious in Sheol.



Hence Paul uses the word “sleep” with its implication that they will “wake up” later rather than “death” to refer to dead people.

Yes, the truly "dead" are those who remain spiritually dead. Only these "dead" will be resurrected to stand judgment and the "second death." (Rev. 20:12, 14)




Hence the idea that Paul is thinking of the volitional abilities of corpses in Ephesians 2 is not worth seriously considering. Eph 2:2 says we were dead through our trespasses and sins,


Paul is speaking of spiritual death. A man "dead" in sins may be alive physically, but he is non-functional (dead) spiritually, and unable to volitionally choose to act or decide to save himself in any way.




Because of our trespasses we die and because of the grace of God we were saved from this by Christ’s work. Eph 2:8 repeats the theme. I think that the chances are pretty high that the “faith” being referred to in vs 8 is the faithfulness of Christ, not our individual faith. That is why there is no boasting – because our salvation from death has nothing to do with us, it was accomplished entirely by God in His graciousness and faithfulness.

Amen, and Amen!

The faith men receive from God, is the faith of Jesus Christ!

Only His Spirit and His faith can restore spiriturally dead men to life. For the only source of life (spiritual or physical) is from Him!

[rhutchin]

11-21-2003 @ 11:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=304268#post304268)
Tercel:


The following will seem confusing to you. It is because I am confused about the Orthodox position. Rather than answering my questions individually, you might read through the following, see where I am confused and then write a paragraph describing what it is that the Othodox believe. The Orthodox concept of forgiveness and the application of forgiveness to sin in realtion to one's ultimate destiny of heaven or hell seems to be the most confusing to me.
+++++

rhutchin,
I guess this is just a clear point of disagreement between the Eastern Orthodox and the Calvinist churches. Under Calvinism, the concept of Original Sin says that the true inner nature is the result of the life environment (i.e., Adam’s sin) and is corrupted as a result. The Calvinists understand the Bible to say that such corruption is complete.

Tercel
…The Orthodox believe that God in His grace universally provides to man the ability to overcome the damage done by OS.

rhutchin
Does this mean that a person who overcomes the damage done by original sin goes to heaven and the person who does not ends up in hell? If yes, what do Eastern Orthodox teach a person to do to overcome the damage done by original sin?
+++++

rhutchin
Under the Orthodox system, does God automatically forgive the sins of all people (even a Stalin or Hitler), or does God require some act by a person prior to giving forgiveness of sin? Must a person do “good works (e.g., become Christ-like)” in order for God to forgive him?

Tercel
…
If "forgiveness = sin having no effect on anything" then there is no forgiveness. Sin has real consequences and we do real damage to our spiritual selves by it just as we would hurt our bodies if we cut ourselves with a knife. God can't magic that away by declaring it gone, or having good will towards us! The best He can do is open His arms to us in love, which He does. If we continue forever in sin and eternally refuse God's love we surely cause our spiritual destruction just as we would eventually cause bodily death with a knife.

rhutchin
You seem to be saying that God forgives sins but allows the effects of sin to continue. Are you? How does one continue forever in sin? What happens to the person after death?
+++++

rhutchin
Then, it sounds like everybody (even a Stalin or Hitler) should be saved under the Orthodox system. Are there any conditions under which, a person would actually end up in hell?

Tercel
Yes, they have the option of destroying themselves through sin as mentioned above.
"If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Mat 6:23)
Sin really is destructive and if we fill ourselves with it we destroy ourselves despite all that God can do.

rhutchin
So, God will not forgive sin? Or do you mean that forgiveness has nothing to do with whether a person goes to heaven or hell?
+++++

rhutchin
However, under the Orthodox system, does not God forgive sins whether one is an absolute wretch (like a Stalin or Hitler) or a Christ-like saint?

Tercel
Of course, God is loving and righteous and kind and holy and merciful and gracious, and as such He will forgive (in the first two meanings of forgiveness) anyone's sin.

rhutchin
Same question--Does this mean that God will forgive a person’s sin, but this does not mean that a person goes to heaven? Then must a person who is forgiven by God do something else to get into heaven?
+++++

Tercel
The Orthodox firmly believe in heaven and hell and firmly believe that sin affects which we end up in. The Orthodox do not however believe that God chooses which one a person ends up in, the Orthodox believe that God provides the same New Creation and potentially joyous eternal life for all and the extent to which this eternity is heaven or hell for any given individual is determined by their subjective feelings, not anything done differently by God. God does not distinguish from one individual to another, for he is no respecter of persons, but He gives His love and truth and light and presence to all equally. Those who are righteous will be filled with the joy of this, those that are evil will not enjoy this. (See John 3:20-21) Remember that the sun shines on good and evil alike, those who are healthy rejoice and enjoy the world all the more because of the light it provides, those with diseased eyes feel naught but pain at its presence. So it is with God - His love does not distinguish, but the person does.

Rhutchin
Can you tie three concepts together for me? How do (1) a person’s sin, (2) God’s forgiveness, and (3) a person’s subjective feelings fit together?

The Orthodox position sounds like the Arminian position. As far as it goes, the Calvinist has no problem with it. The Calvinist rejoices in those who “determined by their subjective feelings” choose heaven. However, why do the Orthodox oppose the Calvinist position that God may choose to save some from among those who who are evil? Why are the Orthodox so callous to resist the salvation of an evil person if it requires that God intervene to save that person?
+++++

rhutchin
Certainly the likes of Stalin and Hitler are on the road to destruction. However, under the Orthodox system, what exactly did these guys do to prevent God from forgiving them? What penalty do these guys incur after they die? Does God’s forgiveness for sin require that a person transform his inner being into Christ-likeness?

Tercel
Hopefully, these questions have been answered by my discussion of forgiveness. To summarise: They incur no arbitrary penalty that is decided upon by God - whatever suffering (not "penalty" - it implies a judicial decision) they incur will be an inevitable result of the circumstances inherent in the New Creation their own inner condition. God's forgiveness does not require, nor is it relevant to, a person's Christ-likeness. Only the question of heaven/hell is relevant to that and that is nothing to do with God's forgiveness.

rhutchin
Yes, you are still confusing me. What does your statement, “…whatever suffering…they incur will be an inevitable result of the circumstances inherent in the New Creation their own inner condition” mean?

Then, can you explain your next statements.

1. “God's forgiveness does not require, nor is it relevant to, a person's Christ-likeness.” Does this mean that a person does not have to be Christ-like to receive forgiveness? Hitler and Stalin were not Christ-like. Does God forgive them? If yes, does that mean that they will be in heaven?

2. “Only the question of heaven/hell is relevant to that and that is nothing to do with God's forgiveness.” Are you saying that a person whom God forgives does not go to heaven? Further that a person whom God forgives, must exhibit Christ-likeness in order to get into heaven? I am not sure what you are saying.
+++++

Tercel
Still confused? …God is not going to reject anybody just because they do not meet some set standard, because there will always be people who fall short of that standard - He loves them nevertheless and it is God's love that ultimately prevails not the legal standard…Ultimately both the Jews and Protestants seem to have missed the boat and not realised that God's love means He doesn't punish the sinner for failure,…

rhutchin
Yes, you are still confusing me. Given what you say, does God reject Stalin and Hitler? Does God punish them for failure to keep the law?

[rhutchin]

11-22-2003 @ 02:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=307022#post307022)
Tercel:


Tercel
…
…This was how he understood the Fall of Adam: That by sinning Adam had caused literal death and had died. Because of sin, all people subsequently died real literal physical deaths…

Because of our trespasses we die and because of the grace of God we were saved from this by Christ’s work.

rhutchin
Do you mean that prior to Adam’s sin, physical death did not exist, so Adam would have lived forever. However, when Adam sinned, he brought about his own physical death.

Are you also saying that physical death was not the effect of Adam’s sin for anybody other than Adam. It did not mean that Cain or Able or Seth, etc would have to physically die. They incurred physical death because they also sinned. Had they not sinned, they would not have died?

Then, in what manner do you mean that “because of the grace of God we were saved from this by Christ’s work.” Do you mean that we are saved from a literal, physical death by Christ’s work?

[Tercel]

Rhutchin,


Do you mean that prior to Adam’s sin, physical death did not exist, so Adam would have lived forever. However, when Adam sinned, he brought about his own physical death.
Yes.


Are you also saying that physical death was not the effect of Adam’s sin for anybody other than Adam. It did not mean that Cain or Able or Seth, etc would have to physically die. They incurred physical death because they also sinned. Had they not sinned, they would not have died?No. Once creation had become subject to the bondage of death, it remained that way. Paul comments in Romans 5:12ish that even those who did not sin in the same way Adam did were still subject to death.


Then, in what manner do you mean that “because of the grace of God we were saved from this by Christ’s work.” Do you mean that we are saved from a literal, physical death by Christ’s work?Effectively yes. We still die a literal physical death of course. But because of Christ's work we will not be eternally literally physically dead - God can now renew the world in immortality and He will resurrect us into immortal bodies never to die again.

[Tercel]

rhutchin,

Read this for answers (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13367).

The quick summary...

Important in Orthodoxy is the distinction between the effects of sin and the feelings of God. Sin has real destructive consequences far above and beyond "annoying God". The annoying God part isn't a problem - God is loving and happy to forgive. The problem is the real consequences which God would like to help save us from. Sin breeds hate and bitterness within us. Instead of being loving kind beings, we become full of hate and envy, anger and bitterness, wretchness and darkness. That is the consequences of sin - that we turn ourselves into wretches. God's not going to hurt us - He's not going to sadistically torture us for eternity. What hurts us is our own selves, we alone posses the power to turn ourselves into these wretched sub-human creatures. That's what hell is, and that's what the devil would like to see happen to us, because it's already happened to him and the only thing he can desire in his malice and hatred of everything is our destruction also.

The Orthodox believe God will do all He can to save everyone. We do not believe God can force the salvation of anyone (or if He can, we believe He considers free-will more important and would not do so). Orthodoxy thinks Calvinism goes wierd on this point: If we were to accept God is able and willing to force salvation then we would believe that He would force the salvation of everyone since He loves all equally. We are told this is not the case, hence we conclude that either He does not possible the ability to force people to be saved, or He does not use this ability.

[rhutchin]

Today @ 02:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=313552#post313552)
Tercel:


Rhutchin,
Are you also saying that physical death was not the effect of Adam’s sin for anybody other than Adam. It did not mean that Cain or Able or Seth, etc would have to physically die. They incurred physical death because they also sinned. Had they not sinned, they would not have died?

Tercel
No. Once creation had become subject to the bondage of death, it remained that way. Paul comments in Romans 5:12ish that even those who did not sin in the same way Adam did were still subject to death.

…We still die a literal physical death of course. But because of Christ's work we will not be eternally literally physically dead - God can now renew the world in immortality and He will resurrect us into immortal bodies never to die again.

rhutchin
I think you are saying that one effect of Adam’s sin is that all people now die. If a person did not sin (hypothetically), then he would still die. Is that true under your view of death? If yes, why would a person physically die if he had not sinned?

Also, when you refer to "we" above, do you mean all people or just the saved?

[rhutchin]

Today @ 02:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=313589#post313589)
Tercel:

Important in Orthodoxy is the distinction between the effects of sin and the feelings of God. Sin has real destructive consequences far above and beyond "annoying God". The annoying God part isn't a problem - God is loving and happy to forgive. The problem is the real consequences which God would like to help save us from. Sin breeds hate and bitterness within us. Instead of being loving kind beings, we become full of hate and envy, anger and bitterness, wretchness and darkness. That is the consequences of sin - that we turn ourselves into wretches. God's not going to hurt us - He's not going to sadistically torture us for eternity. What hurts us is our own selves, we alone posses the power to turn ourselves into these wretched sub-human creatures. That's what hell is, and that's what the devil would like to see happen to us, because it's already happened to him and the only thing he can desire in his malice and hatred of everything is our destruction also.

The Orthodox believe God will do all He can to save everyone. We do not believe God can force the salvation of anyone (or if He can, we believe He considers free-will more important and would not do so). Orthodoxy thinks Calvinism goes wierd on this point: If we were to accept God is able and willing to force salvation then we would believe that He would force the salvation of everyone since He loves all equally. We are told this is not the case, hence we conclude that either He does not possible the ability to force people to be saved, or He does not use this ability.

Thanks for the reference. Hope to get to it soon.

Would it be accurate to conclude that, under the Orthodox system, man operates with free will but God cannot? In your statement above, you seem to be saying that God must treat all equally with respect to any action He takes and cannot do something for one person unless He does it for all. Effectively, the Orthodox would view God as winding up the system (creating the universe) and then letting things unwind without further intervention by Him.

[Tercel]

Rhutchin,


I think you are saying that one effect of Adam’s sin is that all people now die. If a person did not sin (hypothetically), then he would still die. Is that true under your view of death? If yes, why would a person physically die if he had not sinned?I think I am saying all that, yes. The traditional Orthodox answer to the question of why people physically die if they have not sinned is because they are born of mortals: Like begets like - we are mortal because we are born of a mortal. I personally prefer the idea that it is because the entire creation has become subject to decay and death. The original sin separated the creation from God and the entire creation suffers as a result.

I used "we" to refer to all people. The bible says that all will be resurrected into immortal bodies prior to the final judgement. Also that Christ's work is effective for all in this manner (See Rom 5:18 for example). Romans 5 makes it clear that the effects of Christ's work are at least as far reaching as Adam's sin.

I would never say that God does not have free will. He does however act in accordance with His nature. How His actions are manifest would differ from individual to individual according to circumstance - just as the same landscape can evoke in different humans a different reaction, so the same God can act differently in different circumstances. Orthodoxy is certainly not deistic and we believe in the effectiveness of prayer and the possibility of supernatural intervention. We however see no reason why God might force one person to be saved but not another - the reason would be dependent upon the circumstance which would effectively depend upon the person themselves. But this is the opposite to what I understand the Calvinists to mean by "unconditional election", our line of thought seems to lead to "conditional election". Nevertheless, I do not know if such election is possible, it may well be that God does not have the power or the will to force salvation in such a manner.

[rhutchin]

11-26-2003 @ 12:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=316440#post316440)
Tercel:


Tercel
…The traditional Orthodox answer to the question of why people physically die if they have not sinned is because they are born of mortals: Like begets like - we are mortal because we are born of a mortal. I personally prefer the idea that it is because the entire creation has become subject to decay and death. The original sin separated the creation from God and the entire creation suffers as a result.

rhutchin
So, people die because Adam’s sin made him mortal and all born of Adam are mortal so they also die. Do the Orthodox believe that the innocent (babies, the mentally retarded) are free of sin and not subject to judgment?
+++++

Tercel
I would never say that God does not have free will. He does however act in accordance with His nature. How His actions are manifest would differ from individual to individual according to circumstance - just as the same landscape can evoke in different humans a different reaction, so the same God can act differently in different circumstances. Orthodoxy is certainly not deistic and we believe in the effectiveness of prayer and the possibility of supernatural intervention. We however see no reason why God might force one person to be saved but not another - the reason would be dependent upon the circumstance which would effectively depend upon the person themselves. But this is the opposite to what I understand the Calvinists to mean by "unconditional election", our line of thought seems to lead to "conditional election". Nevertheless, I do not know if such election is possible, it may well be that God does not have the power or the will to force salvation in such a manner.

rhutchin
The Orthodox believe that God can intervene but that He would never intervene to save any particular person. How do the Orthodox view the experience of Saul on the road where he was confronted by Christ? It appears that that experience led directly to Saul’s salvation. Do the Orthodox believe that Saul/Paul was saved as a consequence of that confrontation? If yes, do the Orthodox believe that it was unfair of Christ to force Himself on Saul and not take similar action with respect to all other people?

[Tercel]

Rhutchin,


Do the Orthodox believe that the innocent (babies, the mentally retarded) are free of sin and not subject to judgment?Yes such people could be free of sin, because they are not capable of sinning. Everyone will be judged in the same fashion - exposure to the truth and love of God. Just because such people are free of sin does not mean that they are saved: innocence does not equal deification.


The Orthodox believe that God can intervene but that He would never intervene to save any particular person.We believe God wills the salvational of all. What He can do, He does do, for everyone.


How do the Orthodox view the experience of Saul on the road where he was confronted by Christ? It appears that that experience led directly to Saul’s salvation.Your understanding of "salvation" seems different to an Orthodox view. In Orthdoxy there is no point in anyone's life where you can pronounce that you were "saved". We were saved in potentiality by Christ's work which paved the way for a resurrection to immortality, we will be saved in actuality on the last day when that resurrection actually occurs, and all the time we work with God to be saved from sin and renewed in the likeness of Christ. As far as I can see there is no reason to think that Paul was "saved" by his experience in any soteriological significant way. Salvation from sin and taking on the likeness of Christ is something that is always happening now, and will continue over an infinite period of time, and occurs within the innermost self. Single events such as Paul's have little imact on this process: Our environment does not determine the way that the innermost self chooses to follow.

If it had been the case that God could truly save people simply by revealing Himself to them, then He would certainly do so. In fact, there would be no problem as everyone will know God in Truth after the final resurrection and so everyone would be saved then if salvation really happened in such a way.

[rhutchin]

11-29-2003 @ 03:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319987#post319987)
Tercel:


rhutchin
Do the Orthodox believe that the innocent (babies, the mentally retarded) are free of sin and not subject to judgment?

Tercel
Yes such people could be free of sin, because they are not capable of sinning. Everyone will be judged in the same fashion - exposure to the truth and love of God. Just because such people are free of sin does not mean that they are saved: innocence does not equal deification.

rhutchin
I do not understand how innocence could not equal deification. If a person is free of sin (has not sinned), then what is their situation. The Orthodox say that such are not saved. Yet, without having sinned, they cannot be lost. What happens to them when they die and stand before God? What would the innocent have to do to move from a position of being without sin to a position of being deified (and I am not sure what the Orthodox mean by that term - Does it mean saved?)
+++++

rhutchin
How do the Orthodox view the experience of Saul on the road where he was confronted by Christ? It appears that that experience led directly to Saul’s salvation.

Tercel
We believe God wills the salvation of all. What He can do, He does do, for everyone.

Your understanding of "salvation" seems different to an Orthodox view. In Orthdoxy there is no point in anyone's life where you can pronounce that you were "saved". We were saved in potentiality by Christ's work which paved the way for a resurrection to immortality, we will be saved in actuality on the last day when that resurrection actually occurs, and all the time we work with God to be saved from sin and renewed in the likeness of Christ. As far as I can see there is no reason to think that Paul was "saved" by his experience in any soteriological significant way. Salvation from sin and taking on the likeness of Christ is something that is always happening now, and will continue over an infinite period of time, and occurs within the innermost self. Single events such as Paul's have little impact on this process: Our environment does not determine the way that the innermost self chooses to follow.

If it had been the case that God could truly save people simply by revealing Himself to them, then He would certainly do so. In fact, there would be no problem as everyone will know God in Truth after the final resurrection and so everyone would be saved then if salvation really happened in such a way.

rhutchin
Paul seems to provide an example of salvation (if not then of "something"). He was doing and thinking one way and then he completely changed. The effect was noticeable and recorded in the Scriptures. What do the Orthodox call the transformation that Saul/Paul underwent? Did Paul’s experience with Christ have anything to do with his ultimate salvation from the Orthodox perspective? Do the Orthodox see anything unfair in what happened to Paul?

Regarding your statement, “Salvation from sin and taking on the likeness of Christ is something that is always happening now, and will continue over an infinite period of time, and occurs within the innermost self.” Can you apply that to Paul and then to people in general, in the extreme cases (ie., How does it apply to Hitler vs Mother Theresa vs the ordinary non-church goer)?

[Tercel]

Rhutchin,

Your questions here are getting quite specific, and I do not know the "official" Orthodox answers. The answers I have been giving and continue to give here are my own answers which (I believe) flow naturally out of my Orthodox beliefs.


I do not understand how innocence could not equal deification.An analogy:
A baby can grow up to be a saint or a hitler. The baby itself is neither a saint nor a hitler, but it has the potential to become either. The baby's character has not yet been defined and its definition is something that will occur over the course of the baby's lifetime.
The baby is free from sin, but it has not dedicated its life to God, it is not striving every moment to be more like God, it has not developed its character into a Christ-likeness. It is innocent of sin, but it is not deified.


If a person is free of sin (has not sinned), then what is their situation. The Orthodox say that such are not saved.Kind of. In the afterlife they will have an infinite amount of time for growth (like everyone else) towards one extreme or the other (deification vs evil).


Yet, without having sinned, they cannot be lost.They can be lost. Just because they haven't yet had the opportunity to sin, doesn't mean they have the perfect nature of God. When given the opportunity they may turn either way, to wickedness or righteousness.


What happens to them when they die and stand before God? What would the innocent have to do to move from a position of being without sin to a position of being deified (and I am not sure what the Orthodox mean by that term - Does it mean saved?)Deification is synonymous with "being saved". "Saved" refers to the salvation from death that Christ accomplished. The ongoing process of sanctification, character growth into a Christ-likeness etc is "being saved" or "deification".

The "innocence" or otherwise of a person is really quite irrelevant in my opinion. If their innermost self can accept the loving and truthful presence of God then they will be in heaven, and if not then they will be in hell. If those innocent can accept God's love then they will have eternity to grow in that love, and if not then they will have eternity to grow wretched.


Paul seems to provide an example of salvation (if not then of "something"). He was doing and thinking one way and then he completely changed. The effect was noticeable and recorded in the Scriptures. What do the Orthodox call the transformation that Saul/Paul underwent?As far as I know there is no name for it. I have not encountered a soteriological discussion of it in any Orthodox writings. I would presume it is felt to be irrelevant to salvation - I certainly think it is.
Obviously, Paul was converted to Christianity by his experience. Orthodoxy doesn't link conversion with salvation though.


Regarding your statement, “Salvation from sin and taking on the likeness of Christ is something that is always happening now, and will continue over an infinite period of time, and occurs within the innermost self.” Can you apply that to Paul and then to people in general, in the extreme cases (ie., How does it apply to Hitler vs Mother Theresa vs the ordinary non-church goer)? For Paul, this salvation was something he continually strived for. (See Phil 3:12 onwards). For the ordinary person, they tend to spend most of their lives swinging between sin and righteousness. (I personally believe that the vast majority of people will enter heaven. They are not too far gone in sin that they will not be drawn back to God when they feel His love.)
For Hitler, (let us assume that Hilter is going to hell for the sake of this discussion, though I certainly hope otherwise) sinfulness had consumed him. Sin becomes a habit and it multiplies more and more. Hilter over the course of his life made himself something that was full of sinfulness. When he meets the love and compassion of God he will perceive it as something entirely alien to his sinful nature, and will reject it for eternity, and spend that eternity growing in his own darkness and wretchedness.

Have you read CS Lewis' The Great Divorce? That's a reasonable illustration of what I'm thinking of.
I also like the depiction in Howard Storm's NDE (http://www.near-death.com/storm.html). (I'm agnostic about the truth of all NDE's, this included. But its depiction of the conditions of the damned and deified meets with my approval)

[rhutchin]

12-02-2003 @ 02:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=322665#post322665)
Tercel:


Tercel
Kind of. In the afterlife they will have an infinite amount of time for growth (like everyone else) towards one extreme or the other (deification vs evil).

…

For Paul, this salvation was something he continually strived for. (See Phil 3:12 onwards). For the ordinary person, they tend to spend most of their lives swinging between sin and righteousness. (I personally believe that the vast majority of people will enter heaven. They are not too far gone in sin that they will not be drawn back to God when they feel His love.)
For Hitler, (let us assume that Hilter is going to hell for the sake of this discussion, though I certainly hope otherwise) sinfulness had consumed him. Sin becomes a habit and it multiplies more and more. Hilter over the course of his life made himself something that was full of sinfulness. When he meets the love and compassion of God he will perceive it as something entirely alien to his sinful nature, and will reject it for eternity, and spend that eternity growing in his own darkness and wretchedness.


rhutchin
The idea of an afterlife had not even entered my thinking. The Orthodox philosophy makes more sense now. The basic issue is whether it is true and I doubt that either of us will convince the other of their position until we enter the afterlife where the answer will be obvious.

However, Regarding your statement that “For Paul, this salvation was something he continually strived for,” and that Hitler will “…spend that eternity growing in his own darkness and wretchedness.”

When the Orthodox talk about a person striving for salvation, does that mean that his salvation is not achieved until he accomplishes some “feat” (for lack of a better word)? If a person goes into the afterlife with the ability to still ensure his salvation, at what point does the person become "saved" (and no longer have to strive for salvation) and what happens to them at that time?

[Tercel]

:doh: The internet ate my post to you. It was a good post too.
:shocked:

The short answer to your questions is: no, and never.

[rhutchin]

12-11-2003 @ 03:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=333761#post333761)
Tercel:

:doh: The internet ate my post to you. It was a good post too.
:shocked:

The short answer to your questions is: no, and never.

Bummer. It was getting interesting.

[Tercel]

The idea of an afterlife had not even entered my thinking.Hmm... I always seem to leave something out. Maybe I need to make a list of points for myself that it is essential to cover when explaining Orthodox doctrine...

As far as the afterlife thing goes, I think it was Irenaeus in the 2nd century that first pointed out that “God will always have something more to teach man, and man will always have something more to learn from God”. Orthodox theology has followed this theme ever since, and considered the afterlife as an extension of the present world in terms of our maturing in the divine likeness. I think that’s typical of Orthodoxy in general that it doesn’t have any point of no return with regard to the New Creation – apart from the fact that God remakes the world in immortality and incorruption nothing else changes much. In Protestantism there is the big judgement event and the damned are exiled and the righteous sanctified. Whereas Orthodoxy is just as happy to speak of heaven and hell in the here as now as it is of them in the afterlife and the words are used in the same sense. ie someone who is full of hate and darkness is “in hell” now during their life, just as much as they will be in the afterlife – it’s merely the case that given eternity their condition will become indescribably worse to the point where they are no longer human at all, being consumed utterly by evil and retaining only an infinitely small remainder of the image of God that they had in the beginning. Similarly, those who are filled with God’s light and love in the present world are already in the kingdom of heaven now, just as they will still be in the kingdom of heaven when they die. And given eternity, they will be increasingly sanctified and perfected in union with God, becoming ever more filled with the love and compassion of Christ.


When the Orthodox talk about a person striving for salvation, does that mean that his salvation is not achieved until he accomplishes some “feat” (for lack of a better word)?Nope. In Orthodoxy the striving extends to eternity – the full and complete likeness of God is never gained, it is approached like a mathematical limit. The reality of the goodness of God is always greater and more full that can be experienced. Before the world was created, the timeless God had an eternity of love in the Trinity, why should it take us anything less than eternity to fully comprehend that love and manifest it in ourselves? Thus through all eternity we keep on being transformed “from glory to glory” (2 Cor 3:18) into the ever-increasing image of God. To say “is salvation achieved?” gets to be a bit of a meaningless question after a while, because it both is and isn’t... in one sense it is achieved because sin has had its potential for destruction reduced to be infinitesimally tiny, but on the other hand salvation isn’t achieved because the saint is still not perfect. So, no, a static state of perfection is never achieved.

Orthodoxy speaks not of a state of perfection, but a “way” – an “infinite way of deifying union” to quote a current Archbishop. In a sense you are perfect if you are continually striving for perfection, if you are growing further and further into God’s love and increasingly putting on His nature, then you are in a state of dynamic perfection. After all, perfection lies not in a static changelessness, but in something that is ever-new. (And it’s a good thing too, or else eternity would be rather boring!) Hence, trying to rest on your laurels doesn’t work, because as soon as you do that your laurels no longer exist.

[rhutchin]

Yesterday @ 10:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=353847#post353847)
Tercel:


Tercel
When the Orthodox talk about a person striving for salvation, does that mean that his salvation is not achieved until he accomplishes some “feat” (for lack of a better word)?
”
Nope. In Orthodoxy the striving extends to eternity – the full and complete likeness of God is never gained, it is approached like a mathematical limit. The reality of the goodness of God is always greater and more full that can be experienced. Before the world was created, the timeless God had an eternity of love in the Trinity, why should it take us anything less than eternity to fully comprehend that love and manifest it in ourselves? Thus through all eternity we keep on being transformed “from glory to glory” (2 Cor 3:18) into the ever-increasing image of God. To say “is salvation achieved?” gets to be a bit of a meaningless question after a while, because it both is and isn’t... in one sense it is achieved because sin has had its potential for destruction reduced to be infinitesimally tiny, but on the other hand salvation isn’t achieved because the saint is still not perfect. So, no, a static state of perfection is never achieved.

Orthodoxy speaks not of a state of perfection, but a “way” – an “infinite way of deifying union” to quote a current Archbishop. In a sense you are perfect if you are continually striving for perfection, if you are growing further and further into God’s love and increasingly putting on His nature, then you are in a state of dynamic perfection. After all, perfection lies not in a static changelessness, but in something that is ever-new. (And it’s a good thing too, or else eternity would be rather boring!) Hence, trying to rest on your laurels doesn’t work, because as soon as you do that your laurels no longer exist.

rhutchin
Let me see if I understand what you have said to date.

Each person lives a life on earth. Then they die and basically continue that earlier life. The bad get badder and the good get gooder, but both live side-by-side as before (?). This existence never really ends.

The penalty for sin is that some people have a rotten life after death that gets worse and worse. There are "good" people who somehow get on the right path (although I am not sure how this comes about).

[Tercel]

Rhutchin,

:hrm:
I'm used to seeing theology dressed up in flowery language and I'm still not used to people giving me "the boiled down version" like you have here. What would you say if I asked if you believed that "God killed Himself to save us from Himself so that He didn't have to torture us for eternity for our sinfulness that we couldn't avoid?"
:nc:

As to what you said, it sounds like you've kind of got the gist of it, but your choice of words to express it leaves something to be desired...

"but both live side-by-side as before"
===> I consider this unlikely, as the damned are likely to want to flee from the saints.

"There are "good" people who somehow get on the right path (although I am not sure how this comes about)."
===> God created everyone in His image and likeness and gave them consciences to discern good from evil. This inherent gift of God in man is enough grace for some to get on the right path. (At least I presume this is what JC is saying in that verse) Obviously they cannot save themselves and their salvation along that path depends on the joint will of themselves and God, the point is merely that they have found the path without any major intervention on the part of God.

[rhutchin]

Yesterday @ 08:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=354683#post354683)
Tercel:


Tercel
I'm used to seeing theology dressed up in flowery language and I'm still not used to people giving me "the boiled down version" like you have here. What would you say if I asked if you believed that "God killed Himself to save us from Himself so that He didn't have to torture us for eternity for our sinfulness that we couldn't avoid?"

rhutchin
Interesting way you put it. Do you really understand some people to believe that God will torture people for eternity? How do you picture this occurring? In the Orthodox belief, something happens to those who reject God’s love. Do you see these people enjoying something other than “torture”? What exactly happens to such people?

Why did you you use the term, “sinfulness that we could not avoid,” rather than something like “for detesting God’s love that we did not even desire”? Isn’t the problem ultimately not so much our sinfulness but of our refusal to accept God’s offer for forgiveness?
++++++

Tercel
As to what you said, it sounds like you've kind of got the gist of it, but your choice of words to express it leaves something to be desired...

"but both live side-by-side as before"
===> I consider this unlikely, as the damned are likely to want to flee from the saints.

rhutchin
That makes sense. In line with my question above, what do the Orthodox see happening to the damned during this time? Are they living in a world like the present earth? Are they in agony or in any discomfort? What do the Orthodox tell people to describe the impacts of their sin on themselves?
++++++

Tercel
"There are "good" people who somehow get on the right path (although I am not sure how this comes about)."
===> God created everyone in His image and likeness and gave them consciences to discern good from evil. This inherent gift of God in man is enough grace for some to get on the right path. (At least I presume this is what JC is saying in that verse) Obviously they cannot save themselves and their salvation along that path depends on the joint will of themselves and God, the point is merely that they have found the path without any major intervention on the part of God.

rhutchin
You say, “This inherent gift of God in man is enough grace for some to get on the right path.” Why do you think only some people get on the right path? Is there something that differentiates the person who gets on the right path from the person who does not get on the right path? How would the Orthodox explain this to a person who wanted assurance that he is really on the right path? What do you tell such people?

[Tercel]

Rhutchin,


Interesting way you put it.That's precisely what I was thinking about your summary of Orthodox beliefs! :wink:


Do you really understand some people to believe that God will torture people for eternity? How do you picture this occurring?Yes, I really understand some people to believe this, because I've heard it preached. (I've attended Baptist churches for 20 years) Well the last time I heard it preached upon we were asked to close our eyes and imagine ourselves alone in a place of pitch blackness and seering physical pain for eternity. Other common imagery tends to include burning fire. Of course, I am fully aware that not all Protestants subscribe to the above. The two most common varients I have encountered are annihilationism, and the idea of hell as exile from God's presence (which seems to be increasingly popular to the point of becoming standard). Occaisionally I have also come across universalists - though only online - I have never met one in person nor read any theological book arguing for universalism.


In the Orthodox belief, something happens to those who reject God’s love. Do you see these people enjoying something other than “torture”? What exactly happens to such people?Well the Bible calls it "punishment" sometimes, but the Orthodox would object to reading into this the notion that it is a suffering caused voluntarily by God, they would say it's an inevitable consequence of the situation.
The damned have destroyed themselves through sin: Their hate, spite, malice has so consumed them that there is nothing left of their original humanity - they are in their own darkness where no amount of external light can help. Their suffering comes as an inevitable result of their condition. Their condition itself is wretched. And anything that shows up their wretchedness they will hate and flee from - the presence of the saints or of God.
(Consider: "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." (John 3:20))
Many Orthodox writers have speculated that the love and light of God will be revealed to all at the "judgement" (and continued to be revealed to all), and that this light will reveal the truth of men's hearts to all, and that thus -for the damned- they will know fully their own corruption and destruction, their conscience will be full of their wickedness and the hurt that their deed have caused, and yet at the same time they will know the complete love of God and His endless mercy and yet they will reject it as foreign and alien to them -for they have only hate and can neither know nor accept His love- and they will flee to the fartherest corners of the New Creation to the outermost darkness (and dwell in "shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan 12:2)), trying to escape His presence and His love and the truth, which they never can. Much of that is speculation. But I think the Orthodox theologians build a good Biblical case that the suffering of the damned will be inflamed by the presence of God (rather than His absence as the Protestants seem to be drifting towards).


Why did you you use the term, “sinfulness that we could not avoid,” rather than something like “for detesting God’s love that we did not even desire”? Isn’t the problem ultimately not so much our sinfulness but of our refusal to accept God’s offer for forgiveness?I used the term because it was the first that came to mind. I was not meaning it to be a 100% perfect portrayal of Calvinistic theology, but rather a unsympathic gross simplification that shows one has grasped the basics.
I'm not sure I agree. It's not our refusal to accept forgiveness that offends God - it's the sin itself. God isn't going to say "You didn't accept my forgiveness, and for that offence I'm going to punish you", but rather the punishment will take place because of our sinfulness.


In line with my question above, what do the Orthodox see happening to the damned during this time? Are they living in a world like the present earth? Are they in agony or in any discomfort? What do the Orthodox tell people to describe the impacts of their sin on themselves?Both damned and saints will live in the New Creation, in which we are told the natural order of things will be immortal, incorruptible and beautiful: It is the Protestant's "heavenly paradise" that the Orthodox think both the damned and the saints will go to. In Orthodoxy God wants the best for the damned and saints alike, thus He provides them with the nicest conditions, even though nothing can be done to save the deteriotation and increasing self-destruction of the damned. Hopefully God's love and the beauty of the creation will win many off that path back to Him - but the power of sin is great and with free will nothing is certain: Orthodoxy thus concludes it is legitimate to hope that all might be eventually saved, but rejects any doctrine that says all will be saved as an impossible assertion given the assumption of free will.
So the world they are living in is far better than the present earth. The damned are in mental discomfort/agony caused by their sins, and the presence of God and His love and truth, and probably the presence of the saints and possibly for some, even the indestructible creation - it they got their kicks out of damaging living things, they won't be able to. Daniel classifies their condition as "shame and contempt", Jesus as "wailing and gnashing of teeth", and elsewhere likens it to a "burning fire" or "outer darkness". The Orthodox position is that these things should be all taken as references to the mental state - except maybe "outer darkness" which could indicate a physical location in the New Creation - ie as far as possible from the light of the presence God and the saints. (I'm not sure where the presence of God might be localised or not - well of course God is present everywhere, but his presence doesn't always manifest iteself in the same way)
I'm not quite sure I understand your final question, but I think I might have answered it earlier this post.


You say, “This inherent gift of God in man is enough grace for some to get on the right path.” Why do you think only some people get on the right path?Free will and different environmental circumstances.
In terms of foreknowledge I'm personally an anti-molinist, ie by that I mean that I believe that knowledge of environmental conditions is insufficent to perfectly predict the behaviour of a given person. Thus I think, that God cannot predict perfectly what environment conditions are required to produce a given outcome (such as a person's deification).


Is there something that differentiates the person who gets on the right path from the person who does not get on the right path? How would the Orthodox explain this to a person who wanted assurance that he is really on the right path? What do you tell such people?I don't think there's anything inherently "better" about the person who "gets on the right path" from one that doesn't. (I should note that all discussion of "right path" in this conversation has been based on my own personal thoughts on the passage about the narrow gate and wide road, 'cos I don't know what the standard Orthodox exegesis is nor have I encountered the terminology of "right path" before.)
Orthodoxy's generally been 100% against any sort of definite assurance of salvation. Assurance that you are on the "right path" (by which I take to mean that you are heading in the right direction) though, I don't see a problem with: I think such an assurance comes through seeing an increasing manifestation of the fruits of the spirit and love in your heart as you keep striving to search out and do the will of God - and of course an inner peace with the Spirit.

[rhutchin]

12-26-2003 @ 10:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=355478#post355478)
Tercel:


rhutchin
Do you really understand some people to believe that God will torture people for eternity? How do you picture this occurring?

Tercel
Yes, I really understand some people to believe this, because I've heard it preached. (I've attended Baptist churches for 20 years) Well the last time I heard it preached upon we were asked to close our eyes and imagine ourselves alone in a place of pitch blackness and seering physical pain for eternity. Other common imagery tends to include burning fire.

rhutchin
I also attend a Baptist Church, so I agree with your description. However, if a person has no desire to be in the presence of God and then God removes that person from His presence with the result as you describe above, why do you phrase it as, God is torturing that person? Did not God warn that person that he would cast that person out of his presence because of his sin? Did not God provide a means to escape that outcome through Christ? After all this, if a person despises God and God then casts that person from His presence and has nothing more to do with him, why does the Orthodox say that God is torturing that person? If we throw a person into prison for breaking the law, are we said to torture that person because they no longer have the amenities of non-prison life?
+++++

rhutchin
In the Orthodox belief, something happens to those who reject God’s love. What exactly happens to such people?

Tercel
Well the Bible calls it "punishment" sometimes, but the Orthodox would object to reading into this the notion that it is a suffering caused voluntarily by God, they would say it's an inevitable consequence of the situation.
The damned have destroyed themselves through sin:…But I think the Orthodox theologians build a good Biblical case that the suffering of the damned will be inflamed by the presence of God (rather than His absence as the Protestants seem to be drifting towards).

rhutchin
A key distinction - Are the damned in the presence (Orthodox) or the absence (Calvinist) of God? Maybe fodder for a new thread.
+++++

rhutchin
Why did you you use the term, “sinfulness that we could not avoid,” rather than something like “for detesting God’s love that we did not even desire”? Isn’t the problem ultimately not so much our sinfulness but of our refusal to accept God’s offer for forgiveness?

Tercel
I used the term because it was the first that came to mind. I was not meaning it to be a 100% perfect portrayal of Calvinistic theology, but rather a unsympathic gross simplification that shows one has grasped the basics.
I'm not sure I agree. It's not our refusal to accept forgiveness that offends God - it's the sin itself. God isn't going to say "You didn't accept my forgiveness, and for that offence I'm going to punish you", but rather the punishment will take place because of our sinfulness.

rhutchin
Certainly, we cannot avoid our sinfulness. However, Calvinist Theology recognizes that God has provided a means of escape and that escape is not just rejected but despised. Why not give full credit to those who clearly hate God. Why sympathize with them? Are they worthy of sympathy? Pity maybe, but sympathy???
+++++

rhutchin
In line with my question above, what do the Orthodox see happening to the damned during this time? Are they living in a world like the present earth? Are they in agony or in any discomfort? What do the Orthodox tell people to describe the impacts of their sin on themselves?

Tercel
Both damned and saints will live in the New Creation, in which…the natural order of things will be immortal, incorruptible and beautiful: It is the Protestant's "heavenly paradise" that the Orthodox think both the damned and the saints will go to…even though nothing can be done to save the deterioration and increasing self-destruction of the damned. Hopefully God's love and the beauty of the creation will win many off that path back to Him - but the power of sin is great and with free will nothing is certain: Orthodoxy thus concludes it is legitimate to hope that all might be eventually saved,...
So the world they are living in is far better than the present earth. The damned are in mental discomfort/agony caused by their sins, and the presence of God and His love and truth, and probably the presence of the saints and possibly for some, even the indestructible creation - it they got their kicks out of damaging living things, they won't be able to. Daniel classifies their condition as "shame and contempt", Jesus as "wailing and gnashing of teeth", and elsewhere likens it to a "burning fire" or "outer darkness". The Orthodox position is that these things should be all taken as references to the mental state - except maybe "outer darkness" which could indicate a physical location in the New Creation - ie as far as possible from the light of the presence God and the saints. (I'm not sure where the presence of God might be localized or not - well of course God is present everywhere, but his presence doesn't always manifest iteself in the same way)

[rhutchinYou say, “This inherent gift of God in man is enough grace for some to get on the right path.” Why do you think only some people get on the right path?]

Free will and different environmental circumstances….I think, that God cannot predict perfectly what environment conditions are required to produce a given outcome (such as a person's deification).

rhutchin
Earlier you said that God will not (cannot?) influence one person without also influencing all people equally. Can I conclude that environmental circumstances are the sole influence on a person and his deification? Cannot a person say that he is free to sin in this life and hope that environmental conditions will improve in his second life allowing him to seek God? Even a Hitler could reason such. If environmental conditions determine a given outcome (such as a person's deification) and different people experience different environmental conditions, how does the Orthodox conclude that God treats all the same? If God allows differing environmental conditions, hasn’t God treated some people differently than others?
+++++

Tercel
…
Orthodoxy's generally been 100% against any sort of definite assurance of salvation…I think such an assurance comes through seeing an increasing manifestation of the fruits of the spirit and love in your heart as you keep striving to search out and do the will of God - and of course an inner peace with the Spirit.

rhutchin
How does the Orthodox view the operation of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer? Would I be correct in thinking that the Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit can be resisted at any point of a person’s life both in this life and the continuance of that life after death? Does the Orthodox believe that people could generally spend eternity bouncing from periods of love for God and hate for God depending on, basically, the environmental conditions in which they find themselves [would not the next life be no different than the present life?]?

[Tercel]

Rhutchin,


However, if a person has no desire to be in the presence of God and then God removes that person from His presence with the result as you describe above, why do you phrase it as, God is torturing that person? Did not God warn that person that he would cast that person out of his presence because of his sin?I see somewhat of a contradiction in these questions. Assuming a doctrine of exile from God's presence, it would seem to be the case that this exile either occurs voluntarily or involuntarily on the part of the person. Your first question implies a voluntary exile, your second question an involuntary one.

Now I have seen both regularly advocated. However, I believe that a doctrine of voluntary exile requires a gross rewriting of related salvic doctrines under Arminianism (I realise of course, that you are not approaching it from this angle, but I am). If you hold that it is only those who want to escape from the presence of God that God lets leave His presence, then to describe it as "toture" is a bit of an exaggeration as it certainly gets God "off the hook" as it were. But on the other hand it would seem to imply inclusivism - any person could be saved if they didn't want to leave the presence of God. The only way an exclusivist could get around this would be to say (somewhat arbitrarily) that everyone who's not already saved by acceptance of Christ would choose exile. Basically, I think if you started with Arminianism and added this doctrine, and were prepared to accept the logical consequences, you would end up at an inclusivist Orthodox position such as I hold.

I admit that under Calvinism, the situation is not so clear as you could quite reasonably hold, I suppose, that the non-elect will hate the presence of God and want to leave it.

If the exile is involuntary on the other hand, then I don't think a warning helps. "Be warned: I'm going to torture you if you do X" does not justify the torture that occurs when X actually occurs.


Did not God provide a means to escape that outcome through Christ?No: According to Calvinism God knows that mankind is not capable of taking this means of escape. If a means of escape is unusable then it is worthless. God only provided a means of escape for the elect - that is, after all, the point of "L".


After all this, if a person despises God and God then casts that person from His presence and has nothing more to do with him, why does the Orthodox say that God is torturing that person?I said what I said as a Protestant. I do not recall saying that exile from God's presence was necessarily toture - looking at the relevant bit in my previous post, it seems to me I distinguished the traditional torture-in-literal-hellfire doctrine from the nicer exile doctrine.


If we throw a person into prison for breaking the law, are we said to torture that person because they no longer have the amenities of non-prison life?I think this is an invalid comparison... unless you hold that the only cause of torment in Hell will be removal of external freedoms?? Most people seem to think that exile would result in direct mental anguish because of the lack of the presence of God.


A key distinction - Are the damned in the presence (Orthodox) or the absence (Calvinist) of God? Maybe fodder for a new thread.Not necessarily...
It is almost universally accepted by modern Orthodoxy that the damned will be in the presence of God. But it is not strictly speaking a necessary doctrine of faith, nor is the rest of Orthodoxy's system of thought dependent upon it - many of the earlier Orthodox theologians (4-8th cent.) held beliefs about hell that were the same as the standard western ones. Similarly, nothing says that Calvinists have to subscribe to the doctrine of the absence of God - many of course subscribe to the traditional torture-in-literal-hellfire, others to annihilationism, and there would be nothing (that I can see) inherently contradictory about a Calvinist subscribing to the modern Orthodox view of hell.

Certainly though, the question of whether the damned are in the presence or absence of God is one certainly worth exploring. Personally, I am inclined to think that it is something the Bible contradicts itself on...


Certainly, we cannot avoid our sinfulness. However, Calvinist Theology recognizes that God has provided a means of escape and that escape is not just rejected but despised. Why not give full credit to those who clearly hate God. Why sympathize with them? Are they worthy of sympathy? Pity maybe, but sympathy???Since we cannot avoid our sinfulness, I do not see we can be held responsible for our actions. If there was no avoiding something there was no avoiding it and it is silly to say "you should have done better, therefore you will be punished". If gravity makes a stone fall it is neither good nor bad, just inevitable. If we cannot avoid our sinfulness, I don't see us as any different - if it is inescapable it is neither good nor bad, just inevitable. Yes, I would have a lot of sympathy for people who are trapped in inevitability, who have no ability to escape from their situation, who have no means of escaping the darkness that is engulfing them. These are children of God, made in His image, and they can do nothing to stop their own destruction. And if I can have sympathy, compassion and love, I think God the one who "is love", who created them all in the first place would have infinitely more for them. This is one of the reasons I have never taken Calvinism seriously: The things it says about the character of God are not worth considering.


Earlier you said that God will not (cannot?) influence one person without also influencing all people equally. Can I conclude that environmental circumstances are the sole influence on a person and his deification?The only influences I can think of are the person themselves, their environment and God. So, yes, God influences all people equally. (will not vs cannot: I see as the same thing, since God can't/won't do that which is contrary to His nature) Thus environment would be the sole external influence that is different from person to person. I am tempted to say that environment is irrelevant to salvation (I have seen one Orthodox theologian take that line before), but I suspect it is more likely that environment is relevant. Given free-will, the person themselves also has an influence. Of course, if one is a compatiblist then that influence is determined by the environment. I'm somewhat on the fence between compatiblism and LFW... if I had to guess I'd say I'd go with compatiblism (but my condition for acceptance of that position would be affirmation of the complete inability of God to predict our choice - thus I would be a compatiblist open-viewer!).


Cannot a person say that he is free to sin in this life and hope that environmental conditions will improve in his second life allowing him to seek God?He'd be stupid in my opinion - it's of course possible, but by engaging more in sin now he is reducing the probability of his eventual salvation from it.


If environmental conditions determine a given outcome (such as a person's deification) and different people experience different environmental conditions, how does the Orthodox conclude that God treats all the same?God wills all to salvation, and the activity of God's spirit is not arbitrarily greater or less from person to person - from God's point of view, He loves all equally and wants all to be saved equally. He doesn't set out to say "right I'm going to make them all exactly the same" - which would only be possible if we all lived the same life - He simply doesn't love anyone more than another. Thus it is impossible (for example) that He would choose some to irresistibly save while leaving others doomed to perish.
Since God doesn't know what outcome a given environmental condition will produce for a given person, He has no way of rigging the universe in advance. Sometimes if something bad happens a person will grow spiritually and turn to God more to help them and gain inner strength, other times a person will turn from God and be angry for Him not coming to their rescue. Sometimes if something good happens, a person will thanks God and use the opportunity to grow in love, other times a person will take the good things for granted, ignore God, and then be angry when they later loose the good things. Setting environmental conditions are a very dodgy way of trying to definitively influence a person for good or evil. As one Orthodox theologian I was reading pointed out: Consider the elder brother in the story of the prodigal son – he had everything he might have wanted, he had the love of his Father, he had the love of his brother, he had the remainder of his father’s estate left to him, he would be head of the household when he grew up... and yet none of this stopped his heart being hard towards his brother, nor caused him to rejoice in the love between his father and brother. As much good environmental conditions as he had, he was still upset by the mere presence of love.


If God allows differing environmental conditions, hasn’t God treated some people differently than others?God has allowed different things to happen to different people. But there was no intentional difference since God doesn’t know the outcome of these differences. God did not decide in advance about who would be saved, as in Calvinism: He does His best to see that all will be saved.


How does the Orthodox view the operation of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer? Would I be correct in thinking that the Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit can be resisted at any point of a person’s life both in this life and the continuance of that life after death? Does the Orthodox believe that people could generally spend eternity bouncing from periods of love for God and hate for God depending on, basically, the environmental conditions in which they find themselves [would not the next life be no different than the present life?]?It is the Orthodox belief that the Spirit can be resisted... or to put it another way, that the spirit does not do anything without the person: Orthodoxy is perfectly synergistic, ie it is not a matter of God sending the spirit and changing us, and not really a matter of us “accepting” the spirit, or of us “not rejecting” the spirit: it is a matter of both the spirit and us working together – there is never any salvic action that takes place without both the Spirit and us willing together.

Whether it is possible for a person to bounce eternally between good and bad, I don’t know. The general feeling I get from reading between the lines is that Orthodoxy is against this in general. It seems to me personally, however, to be an implicit possibility. It appears to be Orthodox doctrine that at the moment of your death when your innermost heart is revealed by God, your eternal destiny is understood and there can be no more bouncing, only maturing that one direction. This was followed (in this theologian’s writing) by the interesting comment that your destiny wasn’t actually decided upon at your death, because what was shown was what you had always been, implying the impossibility of your ever being anything else and suggesting that any “bouncing” that occurred in life was purely superficial. I am not sure I can accept that... it would seem to imply that this is something completely inherent in our being which would either imply it was created by God in a Calvinistic way (I’m sure all Orthodox would utterly deny this), or that it was somehow determined immediately after our creation (somewhat like the RCC doctrine of the angels I suppose...) which I’m not sure I buy. Personally I opt for the possibility of continuing to bounce... but I would suggest that once one goes a certain distance in either direction, for good or for bad, the probability tends toward infinitely small that a complete reversal will occur... hence no one will actually bounce infinitely. Having said this, my reading between the lines of Orthodox authors implies that there is actually some council that has ruled that bouncing stops at the moment of death. Although I’ve tried in vain to find something and the best I’ve ever managed is a very wacko Orthodox internet article that depicted the final point of no return as being 40 days after death (seems somewhat random to me!). Probably, I should just say “mystery” at this point and leave it at that.

[rhutchin]

Today @ 12:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361305#post361305)
Tercel:




rhutchin
Cannot a person say that he is free to sin in this life and hope that environmental conditions will improve in his second life allowing him to seek God?

Tercel
He'd be stupid in my opinion - it's of course possible, but by engaging more in sin now he is reducing the probability of his eventual salvation from it.

rhutchin
Stupid, I agree. But it seems that it would lead to less anxiety over one’s sin knowing that death leads only to Act II. Do the orthodox believe that people in the second life will be aware of everything that happened to them in the earlier life? If yes, it seems that a second chance would have a profound effect on people.



rhutchin
If environmental conditions determine a given outcome (such as a person's deification) and different people experience different environmental conditions, how does the Orthodox conclude that God treats all the same?

Tercel
God wills all to salvation, and the activity of God's spirit is not arbitrarily greater or less from person to person - from God's point of view, He loves all equally and wants all to be saved equally. He doesn't set out to say "right I'm going to make them all exactly the same" - which would only be possible if we all lived the same life - He simply doesn't love anyone more than another. Thus it is impossible (for example) that He would choose some to irresistibly save while leaving others doomed to perish.
Since God doesn't know what outcome a given environmental condition will produce for a given person, He has no way of rigging the universe in advance. Sometimes if something bad happens a person will grow spiritually and turn to God more to help them and gain inner strength, other times a person will turn from God and be angry for Him not coming to their rescue. Sometimes if something good happens, a person will thank God and use the opportunity to grow in love, other times a person will take the good things for granted, ignore God, and then be angry when they later loose the good things. Setting environmental conditions are a very dodgy way of trying to definitively influence a person for good or evil. As one Orthodox theologian I was reading pointed out: Consider the elder brother in the story of the prodigal son – he had everything he might have wanted, he had the love of his Father, he had the love of his brother, he had the remainder of his father’s estate left to him, he would be head of the household when he grew up... and yet none of this stopped his heart being hard towards his brother, nor caused him to rejoice in the love between his father and brother. As much good environmental conditions as he had, he was still upset by the mere presence of love.

rhutchin
That follows. If God is ignorant of the future, then He cannot treat people differently. If God knows the future, then different treatment for different people would determine their salvation [the Calvinist position]. It appears that the position that a person has the ability to determine their salvation naturally requires that God be ignorant of the future and of who will be saved and who will be lost. Is my understanding correct?




rhutchin
If God allows differing environmental conditions, hasn’t God treated some people differently than others?

Tercel
God has allowed different things to happen to different people. But there was no intentional difference since God doesn’t know the outcome of these differences. God did not decide in advance about who would be saved, as in Calvinism: He does His best to see that all will be saved.

rhutchin
If God does His best, doesn’t He have to treat people differently? For example, if one person comes from a family where Christ is glorified and another from a family where Christ is reviled, would not God have to do something more for the person in the latter family to give that person a chance for salvation [even if God does not know the outcome]? If God does not do so, then we seem to have agreement with the Calvinist position for these people.

[Tercel]

Rhutchin,


But it seems that it would lead to less anxiety over one’s sin knowing that death leads only to Act II.That seems to me somewhat similar to the "logic" Paul was having to put up with, "Since God forgives us out of grace, why don't we sin more?" I can only give Paul's answer: Yes God forgives, but sinning is bad for you.

[/quote]Do the orthodox believe that people in the second life will be aware of everything that happened to them in the earlier life? If yes, it seems that a second chance would have a profound effect on people.[/quote]Yes we believe that people will retain all their previous memories. I also believe that in the New Creation, God's presence/the communion of the saints will give to everyone an omniscient knowledge of the previous creation.
Hopefully a second chance will have a profound effect on people!


If God knows the future, then different treatment for different people would determine their salvation [the Calvinist position].Are you familiar with the difference between Calvinism and Molinism? Because what you've just said here is Molinism, not strictly Calvinism. (Incidently, I have found that a surprisingly large number of apparent Calvinists are actually Molinists when they've given me their arguments for Calvinism... one of my best friends I discovered was a Molinist not a Calvinist.)
If you're not familiar with the difference:
Molinist (or "middle knowledge"): God knows all possible futures and knows what each person would do in every possible situation. Hence God can determine the future by placing people in certain situations. Thus the people freely choose their actions, but since God knew in advance exactly how they'd choose, He can place the Elect in such a way as that they will be saved.
Calvinist: God may or may not know all possible futures, but it is certainly the case that no one can come to salvation without God's grace (Total Depravity), and in no possible world would anyone ever be saved apart from God's soverign decree. Unlike Molinism, people are not placed in such a position that they will freely choose God (because they can't), they are placed wherever and however God feels like and He will elect to force certain individuals to salvation (Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace). Most Calvinists do doubtless hold that God does choose to place the Elect somewhere where they will hear the gospel preached, but under Calvinism it is not their placing there that saved them (unlike Molinism) is it the irresistable Spirit.


It appears that the position that a person has the ability to determine their salvation naturally requires that God be ignorant of the future and of who will be saved and who will be lost.I don't really understand what you're saying here.


If God does His best, doesn’t He have to treat people differently? For example, if one person comes from a family where Christ is glorified and another from a family where Christ is reviled, would not God have to do something more for the person in the latter family to give that person a chance for salvation [even if God does not know the outcome]?Well, I can see several routes I could take at this point...
---I could maintain that the salvation or otherwise of each person is inherent in the individual and not affected by environmental conditions (which as I elaborated on above I am reluctant to do).
---I could maintain that with regard to the inner nature, environmental conditions have an entirely unpredictable effect (thus we cannot even say that a person who comes from one such family is "better off" than the other) - that though they may influence intellectual beliefs (eg the one may believe in Christ, the other not) that these beliefs will obviously be corrected when they meet Christ in the afterlife and will in no way be detremental to their salvation. (I like this one)
---I could maintain that since I believe that all people will gain each other's knowledge of their lives in the afterlife (ie all will be known by all), it will be irrelevant who lived what life. (I like this one too)
---I could maintain that since everyone gets an eternity of the love of God in the afterlife, the trials and tribulations of this world will be irrelevant in affecting their eternal salvation. (I like this one too)

[rhutchin]

Today @ 02:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361552#post361552)
Tercel:



rhutchin
But it seems that it would lead to less anxiety over one’s sin knowing that death leads only to Act II.

Tercel
That seems to me somewhat similar to the "logic" Paul was having to put up with, "Since God forgives us out of grace, why don't we sin more?" I can only give Paul's answer: Yes God forgives, but sinning is bad for you.

rhutchin
Sounds like it. However, if I argue that I can freely sin because God will forgive me then the non-Orthodox response is that one who does such is not really saved and will be cast into hell at the judgment following death and then refer the person to James. However, under the Orthodox position, if I freely sin, I get a second chance in the next life where I will have knowledge of everything I did in the first life including my attitude toward sin, and the expectation of the Orthodox seems to be that many evil people will turn their lives around once they enter the second life and begin anew with all their previous knowledge. Where goes the Orthodox position on the second life come from? Is it related to the thousand year reign of Christ or something else?



rhutchin
If God knows the future, then different treatment for different people would determine their salvation [the Calvinist position].

Tercel
Are you familiar with the difference between Calvinism and Molinism? Because what you've just said here is Molinism, not strictly Calvinism…

rhutchin
I disagree but that discussion is for another thread.



rhutchin
It appears that the position that a person has the ability to determine their salvation naturally requires that God be ignorant of the future and of who will be saved and who will be lost.

Tercel
I don't really understand what you're saying here.

rhutchin
I think I was talking to myself. My brain was telling me that any system in which people have the free will to determine their salvation must also require that God not have knowledge of the future. Free will and omniscience do not go together. If you have one, you cannot have the other.


rhutchin
If God does His best, doesn’t He have to treat people differently? For example, if one person comes from a family where Christ is glorified and another from a family where Christ is reviled, would not God have to do something more for the person in the latter family to give that person a chance for salvation [even if God does not know the outcome]?

Tercel
Well, I can see several routes I could take at this point...
---I could maintain that the salvation or otherwise of each person is inherent in the individual and not affected by environmental conditions (which as I elaborated on above I am reluctant to do).
---I could maintain that with regard to the inner nature, environmental conditions have an entirely unpredictable effect (thus we cannot even say that a person who comes from one such family is "better off" than the other) - that though they may influence intellectual beliefs (eg the one may believe in Christ, the other not) that these beliefs will obviously be corrected when they meet Christ in the afterlife and will in no way be detrimental to their salvation. (I like this one)
---I could maintain that since I believe that all people will gain each other's knowledge of their lives in the afterlife (ie all will be known by all), it will be irrelevant who lived what life. (I like this one too)
---I could maintain that since everyone gets an eternity of the love of God in the afterlife, the trials and tribulations of this world will be irrelevant in affecting their eternal salvation. (I like this one too)

rhutchin
That’s kinda what I thought. There seems to be a heavy reliance on the afterlife in the Orthodox system. The only real issue is whether the Orthodox are right. I guess the true Orthodox are saved no matter what and the afterlife basically gives the bad guys a second chance. I guess all bad people are betting that the Orthodox are right.

[Tercel]

Rhutchin,


if I argue that I can freely sin because God will forgive me then the non-Orthodox response is that one who does such is not really saved and will be cast into hell at the judgment following death and then refer the person to James. However, under the Orthodox position, if I freely sin, I get a second chance in the next life where I will have knowledge of everything I did in the first life including my attitude toward sin, and the expectation of the Orthodox seems to be that many evil people will turn their lives around once they enter the second life and begin anew with all their previous knowledge.Well I certainly wouldn't object if many people repented and were saved! If God can save people simply by showing them the truth about their life and then giving them a second chance don't you think He will? If He really desires all to be saved like Scripture claims (1 Tim 2:4) and if He really is loving, then I would imagine He would certainly be merciful if it was in His power to be. I hope that all people will repent and gain life in God. In Orthodoxy it is not permitted to hold universalism as a doctrine - since free will implies the possibility that some will eternally reject God - but it is certainly permitted to hope that all will be saved (even the devil apparently - which I thought was a somewhat wierd idea after coming from a Protestant background).


Where goes the Orthodox position on the second life come from?It is constructed from Scriptural passages, the writings of the Fathers fitted into a logical extension of Orthodox theology.


Is it related to the thousand year reign of Christ or something else?Nothing to do with the thousand year reign of Christ whatsoever as far as I know.


My brain was telling me that any system in which people have the free will to determine their salvation must also require that God not have knowledge of the future. Free will and omniscience do not go together. If you have one, you cannot have the other.Well those holding the Molinistic or Simple-View of Foreknowledge would disagree obviously. I won't defend the Molinist view since I strongly disagree with it. In the Simple-View God finds out the future after it's been decided: He knows what's going to happen but can't change it - He knows what's going to happen because He's outside of time and hence can look at the 4-dimensional world and thus see what happens in every part of it, but He can't change it because His knowledge of the future is dependent upon the world already existing - He knows the world because He sees it. Hence in the Simple view, God didn't know before creation what was going to happen in the world: It wasn't until He created the people and the universe and they acted in it that God found out what happened and became Omnscience by way of seeing that the already-decided-upon event were going to happen.
Personally, I think it's unlikely that the Simple-view is entirely logically coherent and hence I go with the Open View.

[random musings]...Though I was just wondering whether it's worthwhile trying to split God into transcendent and immanent parts and say that in His transcendence God sees the future in a simple way (but can't act in the world because of that transcendence), but in His immanance God sees the future with an open-view and thus His actions within the world are based on that limited knowledge of the possible futures. ...hmm Sounds complicated... but Orthodoxy already divides God anyway down transcendant/immanent lines (called "Essence" and "Energies" respectively) so maybe it would work? [/random musings]


There seems to be a heavy reliance on the afterlife in the Orthodox system.Well given that under any Christian system there is an infinity in the afterlife and a finity here, it seems to me that Protestants underrate the afterlife by comparison. I don't really understand why anyone would want to think that our eternal fate rests on a decision made in a few short years based on dubious knowledge and motivation... or (alternatively, for Calvinists) that our eternal fate rests on the whims of a capricious deity who randomly chooses some for eternal happiness while consigning others to eternal damnation for no reason other than His own (supposedly "loving") good will and pleasure. :whack: ....okay, I'm being a bit mean I suppose...


I guess all bad people are betting that the Orthodox are right.I'm a bit worried your starting to confuse Orthodoxy and inclusivism (The belief that non-Christians may be saved). The Orthodox paradigm, held by most Orthodox today, which I've discussed here is inclusivistic - but there are other Christians groups which are inclusivistic (eg Roman Catholicism, many Evangelicals)
I imagine the bad people are hoping that the universalists are right.

[rhutchin]

Today @ 10:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=364930#post364930)
Tercel:

Rhutchin,

Well given that under any Christian system there is an infinity in the afterlife and a finity here, it seems to me that Protestants underrate the afterlife by comparison. I don't really understand why anyone would want to think that our eternal fate rests on a decision made in a few short years based on dubious knowledge and motivation... or (alternatively, for Calvinists) that our eternal fate rests on the whims of a capricious deity who randomly chooses some for eternal happiness while consigning others to eternal damnation for no reason other than His own (supposedly "loving") good will and pleasure. :whack: ....okay, I'm being a bit mean I suppose...

No offense taken. It's a good evaluation of the two (a Calvinist could help you with the wording).



I'm a bit worried your starting to confuse Orthodoxy and inclusivism (The belief that non-Christians may be saved). The Orthodox paradigm, held by most Orthodox today, which I've discussed here is inclusivistic - but there are other Christians groups which are inclusivistic (eg Roman Catholicism, many Evangelicals)
I imagine the bad people are hoping that the universalists are right.

I guess bad people will favor anything that works to their advantage.

I think this thread has come to an end. I have exhausted my questions. I appreciate your patience in dealing with my great ignorance about the Orthodox. If nothing else, the Orthodox must be a very optimistic group ( and I suspect somewhat liberal). If I can figure out how to do pearls, I will send a few your way. I look forward to future discussions in other threads. Thank you.

[Tercel]

Thank you Rhutchin for the pleasant and thought provoking discussion. I must admit that no one has ever asked me such difficult questions before.

It's rather ironic that the Orthodox are very conservative while being very liberal at the same time. On issues such as the possibility of woman priests they are very conservative - would you believe the the primary thing that ended the Orthodox-Anglican unification discussions was that the Anglicans had ordained a woman priest?!? Yet in the Orthodox-Coptic reunification discussions (reunification appears inevitable now), the Orthodox seem happy to admit that the council of Chalcedon (which condemned the Copts as heretics) erred (insofar as it concluded that they held to the heresy of monophysitism when in fact they did not)... strange given that lip-service paid to the "infalliblity" of the councils. And they generally inclusivist theology of Orthodoxy smacks of Protestant liberalism... (and seems to be very successfully attracting liberal Protestants into its banner) yet the inclusivist theology in Orthodoxy precedes liberalism by a millennia and a half and is held to pretty conservatively.

[brett]

Sorry to bust in. But does anybody know the status of the TULIP debate?? I noticed they stalled again. Just curious.

[Xavier]

A little bit of a :bump:...

The debate hasn't progressed recently... Has anyone heard from Blake Reas recently???