THE BIG 5: The 5 Most Influential Theologians in Church History

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Tercel observes:

George, I was a liberal Protestant when I discovered Orthodoxy. I confess that I have never really appreciated what you say here - for me, one of the strongest pulls of Orthodoxy is that logically and scholastically it is far better than the Western systems.

Sssshhhh!!! :-)

Let them discover this on their own... Of course it uses the whole Bible! Of course it renders a "better scholastic account"! Of course it is better in every way - It is the original and apostolic Church, the Pillar and Ground of Truth! Of course it makes more sense of everything, for it does not have to try to wring truth from printed words on paper, but lives in the radiance of the Holy Tradition of the Holy Spirit... Received from the Apostles themselves, from Christ Himself...

But the problem is, for Protestants, that if they approach it Scholastically, and they ARE children of Scholasticism, they will convert on the basis of reason, and not on the basis of faith...

I mean, my degree, from SDSU, is in Philosophy - Greek philosophy - from the original language... I turn from Philosophy knowing well that every argument has a counter argument, and nothing ever comes of arguments but arguing...

So I am probably overboard a tad on my lack of faith in reason - but Ido have faith in the calling of God...

I think you undersell Orthodoxy when you try to pretend it's not logical and is instead purely experiential.

I hope so! In fact, I hope I am not selling it at all!! Faith does not rest on logic, yet the Orthodox faith is pre-eminently logical, no question... My pretence to the contrary notwithstanding!

Yes, sure, it's very experiential, but it's not purely experiential, it's also very logical and Biblical, and far more so than the Western systems in my opinion.

That's a fact, but to ARGUE for it plays into the hands of the neo-Scholasticism which it is NOT - Can you see this?? The witness for Orthodoxy is the life lived, and the death died, not the words argued, yes? The words are secondary, and but a means of avoiding error,yet the faith is gained in action, by the whole person, and not just by his or her mouth and lips - And faith is not just a matter of mental assent, but of how we live, and what we do - Without this, we are but intellective hippocrites, presuming our mouths and minds will get us to heaven...

Let me assure you that Orthodoxy has nothing to fear from Western logic or Biblical scholarship: Both have led me to Orthodoxy.

Glory to God!

Orthodoxy has nothing to fear but but the Lord and Her own sins...

[geo] Arsenios

[Jezz]

Tercel:
What particular doctrines are you thinking of? I can think of a couple, but I think in many ways the Protestants have become less Orthodox than the RCC. For example, I think that the Calvinists are probably the least Orthodox of all major Christians groups.

I agree with you about many Protestants denominations (eg Calvinist denominations), which is why when I wrote "specifically the more traditional strands such as Lutheran and traditional Anglican" (emphasis added). I think the problem with Protestantism in general is that because the RCC smuggled many new innovations into church doctrine under the guise of "tradition", Protestantism has over-reacted and now sees "tradition" as almost a dirty word. Lutheranism and Anglicanism do this the least of all Protestant denominations. For example, the Lutherans still hold to some sort of "mystery" in the sacraments of baptism and eucharist - they believe that they are something a little more important than a mere symbolic re-enactment (which is something that most Protestant churches have discarded).

As for doctrinal changes where I think Protestantism reverted back to Orthodoxy: the principle doctrine I had in mind was of course the one of papal authority. Of course, the Eastern churches never accepted papal authority, and ultimately it was the dogmatic adherence to papal authority that led to the Reformation. So that is the most important area where I think that the Reformation came closer to Orthodoxy. I think that all of the RCC's failings can ultimately be traced back to this.

More specific examples would include purgatory, and of course the one that started the ball rolling: indulgences.

Then there are examples of doctrines that I think that were abused by the RCC and to which the Protestants rightly objected, but in their subsequent anti-Catholic polemic went too far in the opposite direction. In this category would fall the veneration of Mary and the saints, monasticism, the deuterocanonical scriptures, and the relationship between tradition and scripture.

Finally, there are examples of doctrines where I think there is fundamental agreement, but due to different wording and terminology (not to mention a healthy dose of polemic) on either side they tend to "talk past each other" and not realise that they actually agree. In this category would fall the filioque controversy, and the relationship between salvation, faith and works (and the same may even be said of the Catholics for these controversies). Possibly also the different understandings of the eucharist may fall in this category as well (the more I try to investigate the difference between the Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran beliefs of the Eucharist, the more I struggle to see a real difference...).

I'd be interested in going into some of this in more detail at some stage (I'd like to get input from you and George) but unfortunately I'm a little busy right now... but I hope to get to it at some point in the future.

[Tercel]

Jezz,

Yeah, Papal (non)supremacy is certainly one that Orthodox and Protestants agree upon. (Be careful in saying "Papal authority" as that could be ambiguously taken as suggesting that we deny the Pope has any authority! )

But I think the big problem in Orthodox-Protestant relations is that the fundemental paradigm of salvation doesn't match. The Protestants have taken the post-Anselmian Roman Catholic paradigm and made it even less Orthodox than the RCC already was. Looking at the "justification" controversy of the Reformation, I'd have to say that the RCC position is a lot closer to Orthodoxy than the Protestant one was. When the Lutherans entered discussions with Constantinople shortly after the Reformation, one of the biggest sticking points was the Lutheran's ideas on Justification. But if the "New Perspective" succeeds in destroying the traditional Protestant view on Justification and the Anselmian paradigm, serious discussion might well be possible.

Then there are examples of doctrines that I think that were abused by the RCC and to which the Protestants rightly objected, but in their subsequent anti-Catholic polemic went too far in the opposite direction. In this category would fall the veneration of Mary and the saints, monasticism, the deuterocanonical scriptures, and the relationship between tradition and scripture.

Hmm... I wouldn't have thought Orthodoxy would rate much better than the RCC from a Protestant point of view on these issues. As far as I know, Orthodoxy venerates Mary the saints, and has monestries just as much as the RCC. It certainly has the deutero's too, though they are usually regarded as having lesser authority in Orthodoxy than in the RCC.

Finally, there are examples of doctrines where I think there is fundamental agreement... the filioque controversy

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. The more I study this one, the more I think there is disagreement: But the disagreement isn't really summed up perfectly by the filioque - it's a more fundamental different in methods of approaching the doctrine of the Trinity (eg How distinct are the persons? In what way is it true to say they share the same substance? Can each be reduced to its relations to the others or do they have some fundamentally different attributes?) of which the filioque is a symptom. It is difficult to follow sometimes, because even if both agree on a certain wording they do not always mean the same thing.
But I am yet to be convinced that disagreement on the issue is important.

[bigred94champs]

Does it mean I am stupid if I have never heard of Karl Barth?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

bigred94champs wrote:

Does it mean I am stupid if I have never heard of Karl Barth?

My friend, it does not mean you are stupid at all! It means you are fortunate, indeed even blessed, with great cause for rejoicing and glorifying God...

Makarios is the Greek word for the meaning of such ignorance!!

OK, So I go overboard a tad...

I never heard of him either... But I must say that I am so spoiled by reading the Fathers that I really have a hard time even beginning to read Protestant literature... And when I do, I bog down quickly...

[geo] Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Tercel writes:

> Then there are examples of doctrines that I think that were abused by the RCC and to which the Protestants rightly objected, but in their subsequent anti-Catholic polemic went too far in the opposite direction. In this category would fall the veneration of Mary and the saints, monasticism, the deuterocanonical scriptures, and the relationship between tradition and scripture.

There is, at least in the US, a kind of knee-jerk Romo-phobia that has a problem with any doctrine that happens to be held bbby the Roman Church... A kind of "If Rome's for it, then I'm against it" kind of insanity... And individuals of this type frequently take great pleasure in denigrating Rome, and her faithful... Casting huge judgement upon Her... To everyone's loss... We are not Christ, chastizing and warning the Jews whom He loved... We are but sinners, under obedience to judge not, knowing that as we judge, so we are judged... Hence we heap judgement upon ourselves when we judge the faithful of Rome...

Mary is most certainly venerated in Orthodoxy, though we do not agre with the Roman Church that she was "immaculately conceived" - Though who can doubt that she conceived immaculately our Lord? Yet Joachim and Anna, her mother and father, conceived her in the regular way...

And we have monasticism that is unknown to the west, and a really important part of summer travels is the going on pilgrimages to monasteries, for great blessings are found there...

But I think the big problem in Orthodox-Protestant relations is that the fundemental paradigm of salvation doesn't match.

Exactly correct - For the Orthodox, salvation is found in a life lived faithfully to the end, and the responsibility for living one's life is one's own, in terms of repentance, yet is wholly God's, in terms of grace... The whole of this Divine-human process is called synergy, and most Protestants take a wary view of the idea that fallen man can have anything to do with his salvation, and interpret the Orthodox understanding to mean that man is the cause of his salvation, which he is not - Yet just as Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, so does man have the ability to squander the abundance of God's grace, and if a person fails in repentance, he falls from God's graces, even though the fall itself is gracious...

I'd have to say that the RCC position is a lot closer to Orthodoxy than the Protestant one was.

We were in communion for the first thousand years - We have never been in communion with Protestants, for thir doctrines are multifarious and innovative, and the faith for us has not and will never change, and is a Mystery entered, and not merely a statement of words believed... Though the words are important...

When the Lutherans entered discussions with Constantinople shortly after the Reformation, one of the biggest sticking points was the Lutheran's ideas on Justification.

Yes, the Patriarch regarded them as innovations... And they were... And he cut off the debate - Christianity is not up for debate in Orthodoxy...

Hmm... I wouldn't have thought Orthodoxy would rate much better than the RCC from a Protestant point of view on these issues. As far as I know, Orthodoxy venerates Mary and the saints, and has monasteries just as much as the RCC.

Monasticism emerged when Christianity became official, for there were many ho-hum Christians after Constantine - It became a social, rather than a persecuted, religion, almost political, and indeed often political, when the emperor made it the official religion of the land... And in response to this, many Christians left the population centers and went to the desert, that they could follow the apostolic faith apostolically, away from the cares and temptations of the world, and under the tuteledge of the great desert fathers... For they found this socialized and political Christianity too tame, and too compromised, and desired to utterlly dedicate their lives to prayer, fasting, and God, learning at the feet of others who had done so and guided them in their struggles, just as Jesus guided the apostles, and they guided the early Church, and the saints of that Church guided and fathered those after them... The faith is received in part in this manner, and in part through intercessory prayer, and all in the Holy Spirit...

There is only one monasticism in Orthodoxy, both for men and for women, in several forms [structures of arrangements for living] - You do not have, say, Benedictine monks, or Franciscan monks, and the like, but just monks... Living austere lives - Remember Paul telling the Corinthians [I think it was] that he had more to teach them, but that they were unable to bear the teachings he had in mind for them... Austere askesis [under a Holy Father like Paul] is the teaching to which he referred - And they were sstill hung up on petty and superficial issues, while Paul wanted to take them into teachings that are really hard, and are taught in Spirit, in prayer, hardship and toils, establishing in fact and in deed the denial of self Christ enjoined His followers to DO...

Chhristianity is doing, not merely thinking, and the doing of self denial, the doing of the taking up of one's cross, and the doing of following Him, are great and agonizing undertakings, leading to purification of the heart, and in that softness, the theoria, the 'seeing' of God... It is a hard and narrow way, not for the faint of heart, requiring all one's strength and will and heart and soul... Unto the mortification of one's members, and the wholehearted turning toward God in Spirit and in Truth...

Those who walk this path successfully become God bearing saints, and when we venerate them [after death], we honor the God they bear, for His is their Life, and to scorn them would be to scorn God....

Orthodox monastics are not ordinary people - Just as the Apostles were not, after their discipleship came to an end, nor was Paul, nor Barnabus, nor are any of those who overcome in the Church... Who attain unto completion and perfection in Christ...

The apostolic [perfected] saints are the secret weapons of the faith in Orthodoxy - They are like the Jedi, in that two of them can take over a whole country, except spiritually, not physically...

'nuff...

[geo] Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Tercel Writes:

But I think the big problem in Orthodox-Protestant relations is that the fundemental paradigm of salvation doesn't But I think the big problem in Orthodox-Protestant relations is that the fundemental paradigm of salvation doesn't match. The Protestants have taken the post-Anselmian Roman Catholic paradigm and made it even less Orthodox than the RCC already was. Looking at the "justification" controversy of the Reformation, I'd have to say that the RCC position is a lot closer to Orthodoxy than the Protestant one was.

Perhaps the biggest paradigm difference is the role of praxis in Orthodoxy, vs the role of thinking in most Protestant confessions... For the west, what you think determines what you believe, and what you believe is your faith, and if you have faith, God will do His works through you...
In Orthodoxy, what you do IS your faith, which is why we confess to being so faithless, for we look at our actions, and how far from God the vast majority of them are... viz: "If I REALLY believed in Christ, I would not behave as I do, nor argue as I do, nor eat as I do, nor do most of the things I do the way that I do, but with fear and reverence and in prayer would I do all things whatsoever, never turning from God to self..." Yet every time we get irritated with that jerk that just cut us off in traffic, or listen to some juicy tidbit of gossip about that womanizer So-and-so, or laugh at an off-color joke, we turn blatantly from God to self and sin...

And the "running of the race set before us" is in great measure the gradual process of DOING more of what is of God, and LESS of what is of self...

So that for the Orthodox, Faith is not what you think, but what you DO, and what a Christian person does is to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Christ... That is what the Church does for you, for it disciples you in the arena of faith, and teaches you what to do to acquire the nous of Christ - And no, you can't just go grab some of it from off the shelf, for it is given by grace, not by your effort, yet without your repentance, your cleansing of one's foul heart, even if you receive great grace, you will stain the gift, and will not be able to hold much of it at all... If any...

So that it is the DOING of faith that matters in discipleship, and not so much the formulation of the words and the verbal understandings of it, that matter for salvation... God does not repent FOR us, but enables us TO repent, yet it is WE who must repent, and faith is the doing of repentance, and a part of that involves acquiring the mind of the Orthodox Church, and the matters of the words of understanding that mind have been pretty well worked out over 2000 years now...

Yet for Protestants, debate seems to be the key matter of faith, reading the bible and arguing over what it means, in proofs and counterproofs, and denominational division after denominational division, as people cannot come to agreement... There is very little of this in Orthodoxy - Where one's words do not define the faith, but one's actions do...

And yes, the words are important...

[geo] Arsenios

[John Reece]

Your posts are edifying, George.

Thanks.

[tsmethers]

I guess I misunderstand what qualifies a person as a theologian. I understand theology to be the study of the nature of God and religious truth; that is, rational inquiry into religious questions.

Under that definition, wouldn't Jesus, Paul and Peter qualify?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Today
tsmethers:

I guess I misunderstand what qualifies a person as a theologian. I understand theology to be the study of the nature of God and religious truth; that is, rational inquiry into religious questions.

Under that definition, wouldn't Jesus, Paul and Peter qualify?

Would Jesus qualify as a theologian??? What a question!! Does God know God?

I mean, in those terms, ts, Jesus is the ONLY theologian! Paul and Peter only qualify insofar as they have acquired the nous of Christ, yes?

Yet in Orthodox terms, and we have very few theologians who write about it, a theologian is someone who has purified his or her heart, and then has 'seen' God... Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God..."

"Theology... the study of the nature of God and religious truth... rational enquiry into religious questions..."

In the Orthodox tradition, this is certainly one of the meanings of theology, and is taught at the seminaries, but this is secondary theology, which is the study of the fathers who wrote about it from experience - And it is these fathers, pure in heart, who have 'seen' God, who are the real theologians, and some of these write about it... For them, theology is rational, but not enquiry, for it is descriptive of revelation, and not at all logically derived from written words, yet is described in terms of these words, normally, for these are the words of the Church... And innovation of description is almost every time a sure sign of vainglory, so that they begin their writings by quoting those who have gone before, and apply previous thought to present issues... Properly done, the theologian seems to be only giving other accounts a particular application...

In the Protestant tradition, everyone is their own theologian, whereas in Orthodoxy, the theology of the fathers is pretty well worked out, and if you want to study it, the literature is vast and deep - Try reading Being as Communion by Zizoulas, if you like a highly intellective theological work...

But the crux is that it is not one's theology that saves, but God's grace working in the Church of the faithful...

[geo] Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Today

John Reece:

Your posts are edifying, George.

Thanks.

Nice to see you John - I know that these are issues for the retired - And for me too, for that matter - Even though I am just tired, and not re-tired... My tires are still pretty OK... Kinda... :-)

But enough about mental illness!! [word salads and loose connectives]

Thanks for your appreciation...

[geo] Arsenios

[tsmethers]

Today @ 01:39 AM post located here
George Blaisdell:

Would Jesus qualify as a theologian??? What a question!! Does God know God?

I mean, in those terms, ts, Jesus is the ONLY theologian! Paul and Peter only qualify insofar as they have acquired the nous of Christ, yes?

Thank you for the response. I believe you've caught the intent of my post. I also believe in reading both of our postings that we've ignored another perfect theologian. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 2:

[11] For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

While I agree that Peter and Paul acquired the nous (Thank you so much for the introduction to a new word/concept. I had to rush to my dictionary for further clarification.) of Christ, they in equal part receive the nous of the Spirit.

Yet in Orthodox terms, and we have very few theologians who write about it, a theologian is someone who has purified his or her heart, and then has 'seen' God... "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God..."

I'm not sure I hold to this same idea or, probably more likely, that I understand it entirely. No person can purify his/her own heart. This again is the providence of the Spirit. A person can ask for and receive it but they can not achieve this on their own.

"Theology... the study of the nature of God and religious truth... rational inquiry into religious questions..."

In the Orthodox tradition, this is certainly one of the meanings of theology, and is taught at the seminaries, but this is secondary theology, which is the study of the fathers who wrote about it from experience - And it is these fathers, pure in heart, who have 'seen' God, who are the real theologians, and some of these write about it... For them, theology is rational, but not enquiry, for it is descriptive of revelation, and not at all logically derived from written words, yet is described in terms of these words, normally, for these are the words of the Church... And innovation of description is almost every time a sure sign of vainglory, so that they begin their writings by quoting those who have gone before, and apply previous thought to present issues... Properly done, the theologian seems to be only giving other accounts a particular application...

In the Protestant tradition, everyone is their own theologian, whereas in Orthodoxy, the theology of the fathers is pretty well worked out, and if you want to study it, the literature is vast and deep - Try reading Being as Communion by Zizoulas, if you like a highly intellective theological work...

The definition I used is standard dictionary fare. I really wasn’t sure what criteria the author intended and wanted to know really what it is was that excluded those I mentioned. Thank you for the book reference. Thank you also for your views on this in relation to Orthodox and Protestant tradition. However, given that I belong to neither, in my understanding of them, it will have little impact on me. I am a Christian. My basis for this is 1 Corinthians. 1:12-13 (ESV):

[12]What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." [13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

But maybe this is not the proper area for the continuation of this topic.

But the crux is that it is not one's theology that saves, but God's grace working in the Church of the faithful...

[geo] Arsenios

Absolutely. Again thank you for your response to my posting. In Him, Todd.

[Tercel]

George,

I think you might be misunderstanding what the Romans mean by "immaculate conception" - it is understood as meaning that the birth took place without the taint of original sin being passed on to the child. It doesn't mean "virgin birth". The Romans believe that Mary and Jesus were spared from the taint of original sin and that Jesus was born of a virgin but Mary wasn't. Thus they say both Mary and Jesus were immaculately conceived, and Jesus was born of a virgin.

The Orthodox position seems to be that both Mary and Jesus were not spared the taint of the original sin and were both fully subject to its effects. (We, of course, agree with the RCC about the virgin birth though.) Thus we deny immaculate conception for both Jesus and Mary, and agree that Jesus was born of a virgin.


Tsmethers,

Generally, when the word "theologian" is used it refers to a post-apostletic Christian who is quite learned in the doctrines of Christianity about God and his workings. Orthodoxy is a slight exception here - in its very hands-on view of theology it is happy to call mystics "theologians" - eg "St Symeon the New Theologian". (Orthodoxy also grants John the apostle the title "Theologian" too)

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Tercel writes:

George,

I think you might be misunderstanding what the Romans mean by "immaculate conception"

Being wrong is almost a specialty with me... I can be wrong being right... And usually am... In fact, I can't remember being right when I was right...

- it is understood as meaning that the birth took place without the taint of original sin being passed on to the child.

The Orthodox theological principle that governs its understanding of this matter is that what has not been assumed [by Christ] is not healed by Him through His incarnation, and that He assumed our entire human nature through Mary, who received it from Joachim and Anna - The big differentiating factor in the birth of Christ [relative to the Theotokos] is the absence of sex in His conception, for he is in every way human except for sin... And He very much was NOT conceived in sin, and for us to be born into Him in His body, the Church, we have to turn from sin as well...

But to deny the EFFECTS of sin - eg the fall - to be present in either the Theotokos or Christ, Who received His humanity from her - is to deny the efficaciousness of the Incarnation... For it is our very fallenness that he assumes unto himself that we be transformed in His sinless Life...

God not subject to sin is and was already present in the world, and He is the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by the prophets... The reason Christ took on our corruptible flesh was to raise it to incorruption by His Life, "Trampling down death by death," as we sing every liturgy... And the result is that there is human flesh, albiet glorified human flesh, Christ's human flesh, now seated at the right of God the Father in the Godhead of creation...

THAT, my friend, is an AWESOME fact!

It doesn't mean "virgin birth". The Romans believe that Mary and Jesus were spared from the taint of original sin and that Jesus was born of a virgin but Mary wasn't. Thus they say both Mary and Jesus were immaculately conceived, and Jesus was born of a virgin.

Well, Rome can speak for Herself, but Christ being subject to sin is the only way He can overcome it, for what is not assumed is not atoned in His resurrection...

The Orthodox position seems to be that both Mary and Jesus were not spared the taint of the original sin and were both fully subject to its effects. (We, of course, agree with the RCC about the virgin birth though.) Thus we deny immaculate conception for both Jesus and Mary, and agree that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Sounds pretty Orthodox to me...

Is the Orthodox understanding beginning to make more sense now?

[geo] Arsenios

[TWells]

Hi,

Tercel:
George, I was a liberal Protestant when I discovered Orthodoxy. I confess that I have never really appreciated what you say here - for me, one of the strongest pulls of Orthodoxy is that logically and scholastically it is far better than the Western systems. I think you undersell Orthodoxy when you try to pretend it's not logical and is instead purely experiential. Yes, sure, it's very experiential, but it's not purely experiential, it's also very logical and Biblical, and far more so than the Western systems in my opinion. Let me assure you that Orthodoxy has nothing to fear from Western logic or Biblical scholarship: Both have led me to Orthodoxy.

This has been one thing that has been kind of hard to reconcile on my way to Orthodoxy. The mindsets are very different in this respect. I do think sometimes though that its somewhat of a overreaction. Im really anxious to see what kind of effect all these western, former protestants entering Orthodox seminaries will have and how the Church will react to it. It does seem though that Orthodoxy is begginning to respond. For instance, John Behr a professor from St. Vladamirs Seminary in New York (I think) recently published the first volume in a three part series on the development of Church doctrine and addresses many issues commonly brought up by recent historical Jesus and Pauline studies and the introduction indicates he wants to pursue this direction. NT Wright's work on the historical Jesus orginally turned me on to Orthodoxy, especially in the area of the Atonement. Which from what I understand he himself is pretty sympathetic to Orthodoxy, according to my Priest who is a convert from Anglicanism and edited some of his work.