Originally posted by George Blaisdell

The WORKS OF FAITH we do are a necessary, yet not sufficient, cause of the perfecting of the measure of the deposit of Faith each of us has... God does the perfecting, but not, for instance, in the unrepentaant...

OK, I think I see where we disagree, and why the terms were confusing me. You say (and correct me if I am wrong) that we already have from birth a "deposit of faith". I am sure you will say this is due to grace, which means you are not Pelagian--aren't you happy? So, when you say works "perfect" faith, you mean that through asceticism we are cooperating with the grace we already have and if we continue in our ascetic discipline, our faith may become "perfected" in such a way that the "disease" of sin is gone.

I am seeing faith as a belief and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ, and by believing and trusting in him, I am reborn into a new man who willingly does godly works (or good works if you will) without which my faith is false. As I have explained, this is because faith is active and we believe we are reborn in Christ, and have passed from death into life. As new, living beings, we willingly do what we could not do before--God pleasing works.

He was in extreme askesis, indeed unto death...
He rebuked the blashpheming of the thief on the left...
He confessed Christ as his Lord...
He ASKED Christ to remember him in His Kingdom...
He CONFESSED his sins...
He LOVED Christ...

Fair enough, but they seem rather minor compared to heroes of the faith, such as St. John the Evangelist, for example. My point is not to disparage his works, just to point out that visible, heroic acts are not necessary for our faith to be perfected. Not everyone goes through great pain, we all rebuke blasphemers occasionally, we all confess Christ as our Lord, we pray he will remember us etc. I admit these are all good works. What I would disagree with is that in such a short time they changed him so his faith is perfected, based on my understanding of your POV.

Could you identify the verse for me?
s

Luke 7:50

Re: Hedrick

I don't think we are merely arguing about words. I think that the terms can have a range of meanings, and there was a chance we were saying the same thing with different words. If I understand George correctly, I no longer think that is the case.

Originally posted by Maxentius

What did Christ mean when he told the woman who washed his feet with her tears and dried his feet with her hair when he told her her faith has saved her?
Luke 7:50

7:44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon,
Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house,
thou gavest me no water for my feet:
but she hath washed my feet with tears,
and wiped them with the hairs of her head.

7:45 Thou gavest me no kiss:
but this woman since the time I came in
hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

7:46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint:
but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

7:47Wherefore I say unto thee,
Her sins, which are many, are forgiven;
for she loved much:
but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

7:49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves,
Who is this that forgiveth sins also?

7:50 And he said to the woman,
Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

That simple statement, "Your faith has saved you," should be a lesson printed bold across the inside or our eyelids in flashing neon... If you want to know what it means, simply read what Christ tells you in the same passage, for it is an accounting of HER faith, that saved her... And these were but the OUTWARD works which Simon and the others could see with their eyes...

There are INWARD WORKS as well...

Faith without works is dead, and works perfect one's faith...

THE DEEDS OF FAITH are the WORKS of faith, and remember, Christ did not tell this woman that His Grace has saved her, even though it is true... But that HER faith in ACTION has saved her, and the ONLY conclusion one can draw is HER RESPONSIBILITY for her actions, and the fact that these actions, this faith, attracted God's Grace, which cannot be earned...

Arsenios

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

THE DEEDS OF FAITH are the WORKS of faith, and remember, Christ did not tell this woman that His Grace has saved her, even though it is true... But that HER faith in ACTION has saved her, and the ONLY conclusion one can draw is HER RESPONSIBILITY for her actions, and the fact that these actions, this faith, attracted God's Grace, which cannot be earned...

Arsenios

Well, we are talking in circles again. But we are saved by faith, as Christ said to the woman.She had no "action" besides repentance--which is a fruit of the Spirit and not something we just do, and she was not told that her action saved her, but that her faith saved her.

What this boils down to is that any accusation that "justification by faith alone" means we do not have to do works, but must only hold an opinion, is simply not what we teach. No one says works need not be done, what some say is that works merit more grace or attract more grace. Which, though I think it is wrong, is an opinion I can at least understand. I only hope you understand that saying good works are necessary means that works are part of salvation and not a mere afterthought.

Originally posted by Maxentius

Well, we are talking in circles again.

Only IF you insist on dichotomizing faith and works... If you insist, unBiblically I should add, on the making of works to be but a non-essential BYPRODUCT of Faith, and insist that ONLY Faith APART FROM WORKS [that is what dichotomy means here] brings salvation, THEN what I say will require circularity in your thinking...

And the easy, simple, plain, straightforward, truthful, honest, uncomplicated way to understand faith and works, God and man, is tied up in the very BIBLICAL word: SYNERGY... The work of salvation is a working together of man and God... The demons do NOT work together with God, and cannot therefore be saved. Those who can, and who do, find their faith increased...

No rocket science...

But we are saved by faith, as Christ said to the woman.

Write that in blood in your Bible...

She had no "action" besides repentance--which is a fruit of the Spirit and not something we just do, and she was not told that her action saved her, but that her faith saved her.

These are a FEW of her ACTIONS of Faith which Christ cited of her:

she hath washed my feet with tears,
and wiped them with the hairs of her head.

this woman since the time I came in
hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

she loved much:

These are the DEEDS that comprise her Faith...

The REASON her Faith has saved her is BECAUSE of these deeds, and more, many more, besides just these... IF you are going to LIVE your Faith, then it is by DEEDS that you live it, and these deeds of Faith are what it is that give LIFE to your faith, because Faith without works [deeds] is DEAD...

What this boils down to is that any accusation that "justification by faith alone" means we do not have to do works, but must only hold an opinion, is simply not what we teach. No one says works need not be done, what some say is that works merit more grace or attract more grace. Which, though I think it is wrong, is an opinion I can at least understand. I only hope you understand that saying good works are necessary means that works are part of salvation and not a mere afterthought.

Slow down and take a breath... And pay careful attention:

IF

Faith without works is dead,

THEN

Works give life to Faith

THEREFORE:

Faith alone is insufficient for salvation.

Arsenios

I still think this argument is stupid. You both believe that right action is necessary. You also both believe that right action comes from faith, as is clear from many statements of Jesus.

Whether salvation is because of the deeds that follow from faith depends upon the context. Salvation is often used to refer to the whole process of being grafted into Christ, being regenerated, and the results in terms of change of life and action.

However there is another sense in which we can be said to be saved as soon as we come to faith, before it has been reflected in any deeds. The order in which Paul, and I think Jesus says things happens is that first we are justified, i.e. put in a right relationship to God by having Christ's death applied to us and having the Holy Spirit unite us to Christ. Our response to this is faith, which necessarily shows itself in right actions.

But the mere fact that we have been put into a right relationship to God and been forgiven can be referred to as salvation. Looked at more broadly, it's only the beginning of God's full plans to redeem us, but I don't think it's wrong to think of as salvation. Faith will die if it isn't exercised in action. But I don't think it needs action to create it in the first place. It is created as our response to being united to Christ.

In Luke 7, the woman's faith was created in response to God's forgiveness, and then showed itself in how she treated Jesus. It would seem odd terminology to speak of it as dead in the short interval before she responded to Jesus. Rather, it was waiting for an opportunity to show itself in action, so to speak. I would be willing to say that faith is not mature until it's been tested in action, but dead seems to be a judgement that James makes on someone who claims faith but who has failed the test of life by ignoring a brother in need.

Perhaps Protestants are overly sensitive on these matters. it comes from our history. But we think it's important to get the logical order right. Faithful action comes from faith. So logically faith precedes action. (In reality, there's probably a kind of spiral, where faith and action develop and encourage each other.) Thus we're not willing to make the existence of faith depend upon action. But I do think it's right to suggest that faith that hasn't resulted in action is to some extent not fully developed. And if the condition lasts very long, it's going to die, as in the parable of the weeds.

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

Faith without works is dead,

THEN

Works give life to Faith

THEREFORE:

Faith alone is insufficient for salvation.

Arsenios

George, it is you, not I, who define "justification by faith alone" as being belief without any works. We simply don't teach that. This is plainly evident from even a cursory reading of my posts in this thread. Works are necessary, I don't know what more to say.

Hedrick, this discussion may be stupid to you, but it is important we try and understand the other guy on his own terms and not simply force our own template on him. That means claims, like the one above made by George, may devolve into what words mean. If George sees "justification by faith alone" as some species of "works are not necessary for salvation" or other false characterizations of the classic Reformation doctrine, that needs to be pointed out and shown to be false. (In fact, it seemed to me that George and I were beginning to understand and agree, then the bottom fell out).

BTW, here is a good post on faith and works from Cyberbrethren:

http://tinyurl.com/yg53cel

It hits the highlights of what we were discussing here.

Originally posted by Maxentius

George, it is you, not I, who define "justification by faith alone" as being belief without any works. We simply don't teach that. This is plainly evident from even a cursory reading of my posts in this thread. Works are necessary, I don't know what more to say.

Hey Max - fwiw, I am not questioning at all your understanding that the PRESENCE of works is a necessary feature of salvation in Lutheran salvation theory... What I AM understanding so far is that you see, through the lens of "faith alone", the fact that they are but a necessary CONSEQUENCE of Faith, and are not causally related to the perfecting of one's faith...

I hold that faith causes works, and that works perfect faith, and this is the Orthodox view, and the Biblical view...

You hold that faith alone without works is all that is needed, and that this will always be ACCOMPANIED, if the faith is genuine, real and efficacious, by the presence of good works...

So what is at issue is the ROLE of works vis-a-vis faith, and indeed the MEANING of works, for there are INNER works together with OUTER works, and in this sense, prayer itself is a work...

Arsenios

Remember that for Luther, justification, which is our status as accepted by God, is based entirely on the work of Christ. Faith is how we receive it, not its cause. I agree, and I hope he would agree, that faith can develop. However that doesn't affect justification, because justification is based on Christ, not on the quality of our faith.

My reading of Paul is that although his use of justification ism't always the same, most of the time he is saying that God justifies us by means of faith, not because of faith.

I don't want to speak for Luther here, but I would say that a reasonable conclusion based on what I think he taught is that faith can indeed develop, and that faith and works do mutually reinforce each other, but that this kind of development is part of sanctification, not justification. The term "salvation" for Protestants properly includes both, because God doesn't stop after accepting us. Like any parent, he wants his children to be perfect.

One difference between Protestants and Catholics may also apply to Protestants and Orthodox. In Catholic theology, if I understand the CCC properly, our status before God depends upon continuing obedience. Thus mortal sin changes our status, and requires us to be in some sense re-accepted through repentance and the sacrament of reconciliation. And mortal sin isn't just a few sins like murder, it's things that most people do commonly. The Protestant analysis is that God is like a human father. He doesn't abandon us when we sin. He may turn to discipline, but our status as his child doesn't change. When we sin is when we need him most. Hence the whole process of becoming more godly is classified as sanctification, which is something that occurs within the context of a justification (i.e. a status as being an accepted member of God's people) that is stable.

Whether people can lose their status before God is controversial among Protestants. I'd say that today most believe it is possible, although Luther and Calvin seem not to have thought so. My analysis would be that if this is possible it is not a matter solely of disobedience. However disobedience can certainly be part of a process that hardens the soul, and thus could contribute in a major way to the kind of loss of faith that would result in loss of justification. My own tradition doesn't speak in these terms, so I'm not the right person to ask about it.

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

You hold that faith alone without works is all that is needed, and that this will always be ACCOMPANIED, if the faith is genuine, real and efficacious, by the presence of good works...

The problem may be, that "Justification" can be referred to as salvation, but so can the whole Justification/Sanctification/Final judgement way of discussing salvation be termed as "salvation". When we say we are justified or saved by faith, we do not say that we are done once we believe. (Though it i spossible for some to be saved without works--the thief on the cross, a new born infant who dies etc...) We are justified by faith, and this justification is not a description of our own righteousness as yet in it final form, but a description of our reception as sons of God because we accept, by faith, that due to Christ's work on our behalf we already are sons of God. This is the rebirth, and, like children grow in knowledge of their parents and the world, we grow in holiness by willingly cooperating with the Holy Spirit to do the things God has said we should be doing all along.

The point is that we say we never earn any status before God due to what we do--we work out our own salvation (in the escathalogical sense) in fear and trembling for it is God who works in us to will and to do. God speaks, commands, teaches etc. and we hear, obey and learn by faith. We do not "do" good works to merit anything, but we do good works because Christ died for all and to serve our neighbor. That is simply what a Christian does!

So what is at issue is the ROLE of works vis-a-vis faith, and indeed the MEANING of works, for there are INNER works together with OUTER works, and in this sense, prayer itself is a work...

Arsenios

Prayer is a good work, and is a good analogy to JBFA, because how can one pray without faith? If I do not believe in Christ, why would I pray to him? So, the good work of prayer depends on faith, but our faith is not caused by our prayer, nor do we earn more faith by prayer--our faith may or may not increase, and if it does not increase after prayer, I would not draw the conclusion that my faith is false.

Originally posted by Maxentius

The problem may be, that "Justification" can be referred to as salvation, but so can the whole Justification/Sanctification/Final judgement way of discussing salvation be termed as "salvation". When we say we are justified or saved by faith, we do not say that we are done once we believe. (Though it i spossible for some to be saved without works--the thief on the cross, a new born infant who dies etc...) We are justified by faith, and this justification is not a description of our own righteousness as yet in it final form, but a description of our reception as sons of God because we accept, by faith, that due to Christ's work on our behalf we already are sons of God. This is the rebirth, and, like children grow in knowledge of their parents and the world, we grow in holiness by willingly cooperating with the Holy Spirit to do the things God has said we should be doing all along.

Do you know that in Orthodoxy, we are GIVEN total and complete sanctification in Baptism and Chrismation?

And do you know that justification actually means "being made righteous"? And righteousness ONLY comes through struggle in faith to keep the commandments of Christ in the face of opposition?

And that the very concept of righteousness is meaningless outside of this crucible of being tempted and overcoming the temptation?

And that the overcoming of sin is what Christ looks for in us? That is what he insisted upon in ALL the Churches in Revelation?

That righteousness means nothing outside of the cultivation of virtue, and Christian righteousness requires specifically Christian virtue?

And that we ALL have enough grace to overcome sin, or at least CHOOSE to DESIRE to overcome it? [The actual overcoming will proceed from this desire.]

That we just STRUGGLE for righteousness as we run the race set before us?

That it is acquired through faith in temptations, one sin at a time??

That this idea that God looks at us and only sees His Son's righteousness, and does not regard our sins of unrighteousness, so that we have this fantasy "imputed righteousness" is found nowhere in the Bible, and nowhere in the first thousand years of Christianity in ANY of its expressions?

The point is that we say we never earn any status before God due to what we do--we work out our own salvation (in the escathalogical sense) in fear and trembling for it is God who works in us to will and to do. God speaks, commands, teaches etc. and we hear, obey and learn by faith. We do not "do" good works to merit anything, but we do good works because Christ died for all and to serve our neighbor. That is simply what a Christian does!

This juridical understanding utterly misses the fact that we are fallen and sick in our sins, and that the process of salvation is our recovery from this sickness unto death... We work the works of Christ in order that we bring healing to our sin-sick souls - We pray, we worship, we struggle against temptations, we give alms, we repent, we scorn the flesh and worship in the spirit, we give thanks for tribulations, and find the peace of Christ in them, and on and on, as we thusly "work out our salvation in fear and trembling..." THAT is what that means...

Prayer is a good work, and is a good analogy to JBFA, because how can one pray without faith?

You have never prayed without faith???

If I do not believe in Christ, why would I pray to him?

I used to do it to find out IF He even existed - To no avail, I might add...

So, the good work of prayer depends on faith, but our faith is not caused by our prayer, nor do we earn more faith by prayer--our faith may or may not increase, and if it does not increase after prayer, I would not draw the conclusion that my faith is false.

You still are refusing to take James seriously when he plainly tells us that by works is faith made mature [perfected]... Why will you not engage this text??

Arsenios

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

Do you know that in Orthodoxy, we are GIVEN total and complete sanctification in Baptism and Chrismation?

Then I suspect you use the terms differently.

And do you know that justification actually means "being made righteous"? And righteousness ONLY comes through struggle in faith to keep the commandments of Christ in the face of opposition?

That is not the only way the term is used. I don't want to get into a big argument on this, but St. Paul says we are justified by faith apart from the works of he law. I know you believe the term "law" means the ceremonial law. I will just point out that I don't believe that is a tenable interpretation of the Gospel, nor of the term law.

And that the overcoming of sin is what Christ looks for in us? That is what he insisted upon in ALL the Churches in Revelation?

We are to drown the Old man--Adam--every day in daily repentance.

That righteousness means nothing outside of the cultivation of virtue, and Christian righteousness requires specifically Christian virtue?

Or, faith without works is dead.

And that we ALL have enough grace to overcome sin, or at least CHOOSE to DESIRE to overcome it? [The actual overcoming will proceed from this desire.]

Since we are throwing assertions at each other, I will only point out that the Apostle Paul says the natural man cannot follow the law, that we all sin and thus we all die, that faith comes by hearing etc.

That this idea that God looks at us and only sees His Son's righteousness, and does not regard our sins of unrighteousness, so that we have this fantasy "imputed righteousness" is found nowhere in the Bible, and nowhere in the first thousand years of Christianity in ANY of its expressions?

i will just point out that Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul and others such as St. Clement of Rome simply disagree with you. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved..." "He was a propitiation for our sins..." "He was wounded for our transgressions...." "The LORD has laid upon him the iniquity of us all..." "We are saved by grace through faith,..the gift of God..and not of works lest any man should boast..." "our deeds done in holiness of heart do not justify us..we are justified by faith..."

I could go on, but I think you get the picture--JBFA is by no means absent from the Scriptures. I understand where you are coming from, I just think you are wrong. You no doubt believe the same about me.

This juridical understanding utterly misses the fact that we are fallen and sick in our sins, and that the process of salvation is our recovery from this sickness unto death...

Only if we never tell of sin as a sickness, which we do. And ISTM the lack of a juridical model within Orthodoxy as promulgated here on TWeb is a serious omission.

You have never prayed without faith???

How can you pray to a god in which you do not believe?

You still are refusing to take James seriously when he plainly tells us that by works is faith made mature [perfected]... Why will you not engage this text??

Arsenios

I did engage the text. "perfected" means "complete". Faith without works is like a car without a driver--futile, empty, useless. I think the context bears me out, BTW.

Originally posted by Maxentius

Then I suspect you use the terms differently.

It is the difference between the Orthodox phronema, and the western phronema...

It is a whole RANGE of differences in understanding of what it means to be saved...

The western phronema sees salvation in terms of avoiding the wrath of God Who has been infinitely offended by our sin from the sin of Adam, and Orthodosy sees salvation as the HEALING of the sin-sick human soul, which is a joint effort of God and man, retaining at every point the freedom of will that is the essential feature of BOTH the fall, AND recovering from it - eg salvation...

So given this presuppositional chasm, we keep talking past one another, as we should...

That is not the only way the term is used. I don't want to get into a big argument on this, but St. Paul says we are justified by faith apart from the works of he law. I know you believe the term "law" means the ceremonial law. I will just point out that I don't believe that is a tenable interpretation of the Gospel, nor of the term law.

The early Church had to address the EXTENT to which the Jewish origin of the Christian Faith was to be retained... Part of this effort was recorded in the NT, especially in Paul and the Book of Acts... The 10 Commandments, for instance, were retained, but the works of the Judaic Law were in the main discarded, and this because they could not make a person more righteous - eg they could not justify him... YET,,, Obedience, which is most assuredly a WORK, to Christ, was clearly retained, and disciples were required to enter into obedience to their ELDERS IN THE CHURCH...

Paul indeed is specifically indicting the WORKS OF THE JUDAIC LAW... He did not advocate in any was LAWLESSNESS... Surely you agree??

We are to drown the Old man--Adam--every day in daily repentance.

Rev 2:5 - "except thou repent..."

Rev 2:7 - To him that is overcoming [by repentance] will I give to eat of the tree of life,
which is in the midst of the paradise of God

And ISTM the lack of a juridical model within Orthodoxy as promulgated here on TWeb is a serious omission.

We do not work from models...

Christ's death overcame death, and destroyed the power of death in those baptized INTO His death [Christians] who are members of His Body, the Church, and who eat His Flesh and drink His Blood... That is the New covenant... We now CAN be overcoming our sins, IF we are willing to do so... But only IF we are members of the Body of Christ...

How can you pray to a god in which you do not believe?

Dear God in Whom I do not believe,
And Whom i know does NOT EXIST,
Because I can prove it...
I ASK You to give me SOME way
For me to KNOW that you exist.
Amen.

I prayed this prayer a few times
It was answered in full when I was 36 years old...

I did engage the text. "perfected" means "complete". Faith without works is like a car without a driver--futile, empty, useless. I think the context bears me out, BTW.

Are you seeing that faith was synergizing with his works
And out of these works his faith was made perfect...

This clearly shows a SYNERGISTIC relationship between the DOING of works and the perfecting, or the completing, or the maturing, of faith...

You have not yet engaged this text [by giving your definition of "perfected"...

Arsenios

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

We do not work from models...

Christ's death overcame death, and destroyed the power of death in those baptized INTO His death [Christians] who are members of His Body, the Church, and who eat His Flesh and drink His Blood... That is the New covenant... We now CAN be overcoming our sins, IF we are willing to do so... But only IF we are members of the Body of Christ...

You have just articulated the essence of the EO Christus Victor model of the atonement. You may not like to call it a model, since that would open the door to admitting that there are other possible models. But that's what it is.

Originally posted by Arsenios

We do not work from models...

Christ's death overcame death, and destroyed the power of death in those baptized INTO His death [Christians] who are members of His Body, the Church, and who eat His Flesh and drink His Blood... That is the New covenant... We now CAN be overcoming our sins, IF we are willing to do so... But only IF we are members of the Body of Christ...

Originally posted by RBerman

You have just articulated the essence of the EO Christus Victor model of the atonement. You may not like to call it a model, since that would open the door to admitting that there are other possible models. But that's what it is.

Only in your western phronematic dreams... This is what God revealed as the Truth, Jesus Christ, to the Apostles...

God did not reveal "Models" of salvation...

Christ is not a "modeler"

A Model is an intellectual construct that one draws conclusions from, until the conclusions break down in their failed yet necessary inferences...

Faith is not like that...

AT ALL...

It is NOT an intellectual exercise performed upon Biblically derived principles, but is instead the REVEALED TRUTH of God...

As soon as you install your intellectual SELF as the interpreter of Faith, you at that point have FAITH IN YOUR SELF... And it matters not a whit what source you cite... And a MODEL is nothing but an intellectual TOOL for bringing the Mystery of the Faith into accountability to YOU, and is eo-ipso a falsification from the Revelation of Christ.

The intellect tried, and failed, to apprehend the ultimate mysteries of creation and the Creator, prior to Christ... The History of the Greeks bears witness, the greatest philosophers of all time... You cannot now, after Christ, go BACK to philosophy, except with better Biblical principles and tenets, so as to deduce the Faith better...

The only pre-requisite to knowledge of the Faith is repentance WITHIN it...

And that is no model...

Arsenios

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

Only in your western phronematic dreams... This is what God revealed as the Truth, Jesus Christ, to the Apostles...

God did not reveal "Models" of salvation...

Christ is not a "modeler"

A Model is an intellectual construct that one draws conclusions from, until the conclusions break down in their failed yet necessary inferences...

None the less, you described a model, according to the normal usage of that term.

FWIW, "essence/energies", the Trinity, theosis are all models, or systematic descriptions, paragons, archetypes etc. of salvation and God's revelation to us about who he is. Like it or not, you used a model to describe salvation. I don't have a problem with you describing that as revealed, but so is the judicial "model" of salvation, which most EOs I encounter pretty much ignore. In both cases, we use models, or "intellectual constructions". The problem I see is that you assume the intellect is unenlightened by the Holy Spirit. Thus, your arguments against intellectualism miss the mark, because I (and I suspect all other Christians) don't just look at the Scriptures intellectually, but with the eyes of faith. And for better or worse, intellect is part of that.

It is NOT an intellectual exercise performed upon Biblically derived principles, but is instead the REVEALED TRUTH of God...

I think this is simply wrong. The EOC has models, philosophical precepts scholasticism etc. just like the West. You are no less philosophical or scholastic than the RCC. It depends mor eon the individual one is speaking with more than it being some over-arching principle.

And what that Bible says is REVEALED truth. Jesus himself said the Scriptures testify of him--which makes them REVEALED truth. The Bereans rad the Scriptures to test what St. Paul said, and were praised for it--because they consulted the REVEALED truth about Christ contained in the Scriptures. Also, the Apostles were told to teach, which also entails using models, logic etc. to get one's teaching across. Jesus himself often said "The Kingdom of Heaven is like...." which is a model. There is also typological interpretations of the revealed truth of the Bible--which makes the antetype a model of what the type is. Thus, Christ leaving Egypt is a model of the Israelites leaving Egypt, and also our leaving "Egypt" to live in Christ's Kingdom.

Now, we can continue to go down this purely verbal jousting, and you can continue to claim your communion does not use philosophy, models, logic, exegesis etc. to derive revealed truth. But I don't want a discussion which is JUST about the definitions of words, and I don't want to waste my time

As soon as you install your intellectual SELF as the interpreter of Faith, you at that point have FAITH IN YOUR SELF... And it matters not a whit what source you cite... And a MODEL is nothing but an intellectual TOOL for bringing the Mystery of the Faith into accountability to YOU, and is eo-ipso a falsification from the Revelation of Christ.

On the discredited "private judgement" argument I will not comment. On your latter claim, I await your rejection of typology, homoousios, poetic language, parables and any way of discussing Christianity with is not taken only from the liturgy before I can even begin to take your claim seriously.

Basically, the EOC uses models all the time. That is simply a brute fact.

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

Only in your western phronematic dreams... This is what God revealed as the Truth, Jesus Christ, to the Apostles...

God did not reveal "Models" of salvation...

Christ is not a "modeler"

A Model is an intellectual construct that one draws conclusions from, until the conclusions break down in their failed yet necessary inferences...

Faith is not like that... AT ALL...

Denial is not a river in Egypt! But at least you admit your bias openly. That's better than some.