Using the term "model" is a sign of humility in our theology. It acknowledges that we can't describe God's activity completely. Thus our descriptions are models and not precise descriptions. In many areas we use more than one model in order to capture more than we can with any one.

Originally posted by hedrick

Using the term "model" is a sign of humility in our theology. It acknowledges that we can't describe God's activity completely. Thus our descriptions are models and not precise descriptions. In many areas we use more than one model in order to capture more than we can with any one.

Exactly. And the idea that e.g. the EOC does not use models is simply risible. We all use models--the Trinity is an example. God is Trinity or "Threeeness" in Old English, but it does not exhaust who he is. It is a revealed "model" of the relationship between the divine persons.

Originally posted by RBerman

Denial is not a river in Egypt!

That's right! And I am not Cleopatra!

{Queen of De Nile!] :-)

But at least you admit your bias openly. That's better than some.

The witness of the Church is one written in the blood of the Holy Blood of the Martyrs... The BIAS of the Church, as YOU call it, is simply the bias of Faith in the Revelation of Christ as it has been handed down from generation to generation... We do not confuse Revelation with human reasoning, as is the case with the western neo-scholastic rationalism that was initially instituted by Rome when She sought to be the ecclesiastical "Court of Last Appeal" and had to make everything legally binding... And the Reformational REBUTTAL of Rome using the Bible, not the Church, as its weapon... Oh, yes, it tried to use the Church, but came away empty, as the Lutherans found out...

And this is the WESTERN BIAS - Intellectual elevation of reasoning over the RECEIVED TRADITION of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of 2000 years of martyric witnessing to the Truth of Christ... That witness is consistent and unwavering, and is revealed and passed on from generation to generation... It is not made up with each fresh reading of Holy Writ...

When you point the accusatory finger at another for bias, you cannot avoid the other three fingers pointing back at yourself...

The JOB of the Orthodox Christian is to live the Faith given once, for all, to the Apostles, and to pass it on UNCHANGED to the next generation... And with human reason as the arbiter of faith in the western phronems, you simply CANNOT claim the same...

Arsenios

Originally posted by hedrick

Using the term "model" is a sign of humility in our theology. It acknowledges that we can't describe God's activity completely. Thus our descriptions are models and not precise descriptions. In many areas we use more than one model in order to capture more than we can with any one.

A "MODEL" is a human intellectual construct ABOUT something...
The fact that it is inadequate and runs out of rope, and requires multiple "models" to talk about the same thing underscores this fact...
I challenge you to find the word MODEL in Holy Writ where it is used to account for Revelation...

Arsenios

George,

I don't really think that this is an either/or proposition; i.e. in the west there is reason and in the east simple reception of the paradosis.

In the west we have The Tradition and in the east faithful Christians have thought long and hard about the faith and have formulated it in reasonable models.

It may be that in the west there has been more emphasis on juridical and linear presentations. I would agree that scholasticism is a distinctly western phenomenon. Heck I'll even agree with you that it is a problem for us.

But by the same token, the east has emphasized things like apophasis and a distinctly "mystical" approach that has led it into a very real and very problematic unintelligibility.

So, there is a complementarity here I think. It's not "East = good; West = bad" or vice versa, but rather two important and common tendencies, over-corrected in two meta-confessional regions of the whole church, but, in proper balance, essential and fruitful.

When the east can admit that it needs the west for something more than military protection, great progress will have been made in realizing unity in the Body of Christ.

I am tempted to make this reciprocal. I want very much to say that the west owes the east the same favor but it seems to me that the west's problem is not so much unwillingness to learn from the east as ignorance of it. Where the west knows about the east, my experience has been that we are very receptive to its life and working.

Ironically enough, this is nowhere more true than among Lutherans for whom the Deus Absconditus and the essential superrationality of man's relationship to God in Christ are hallmarks.

Originally posted by Anoetos

George,

I don't really think that this is an either/or proposition; i.e. in the west there is reason and in the east simple reception of the paradosis.

What you do NOT have, in the western Reformed tradition, is the existence of discipleship unto entry of the disciple, who is, after all, obeying the discipline of the Church, into the Kingdom of Heaven upon this earth.

The REASON you do not have it is because you [the western Reformed tradition] have rejected the MEANS of this entry as salvationally efficacious, and that means is obedience to the Church... And this because you regard obedience as a WORK, and works do not save, but only grace, and it is the grace that results in works, and not vice versa, in your Church-rejecting philosophy of theology...

There is no getting around this... IF you reject works as having any salvific import, then you MUST reject the work of discipleship as having anything to do with salvation, and in that rejection, you reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the west we have The Tradition and in the east faithful Christians have thought long and hard about the faith and have formulated it in reasonable models.

They do not understand the Faith in terms of models, but instead in terms of repentance and obedience and self denial and askesis... These are not models, but are instead BEHAVIORS... They are WORKS... And it is WORKS which the west rejects as having any value for the salvation of the soul... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary in Holy Scripture...

It may be that in the west there has been more emphasis on juridical and linear presentations. I would agree that scholasticism is a distinctly western phenomenon. Heck I'll even agree with you that it is a problem for us.

That's a start...

But by the same token, the east has emphasized things like apophasis and a distinctly "mystical" approach that has led it into a very real and very problematic unintelligibility.

We do NOT APPROACH the Faith mystically, but repentantly... And God then either does, or does not, give mystical experience...

So, there is a complementarity here I think. It's not "East = good; West = bad" or vice versa, but rather two important and common tendencies, over-corrected in two meta-confessional regions of the whole church, but, in proper balance, essential and fruitful.

The Reformation is an illegitimate child of an apostatic Church that had gone off the rails in Her own self-importance and arrogance of power... And instead of fleeing to the protective and sheltered wing of the Mother Church, it has made up its own theological systems of thought - "models" as they are called here - And thinks that by juggling them enough, it can provide an understanding of the Faith, when in fact, it is only repentance that can provide this...

When the east can admit that it needs the west for something more than military protection, great progress will have been made in realizing unity in the Body of Christ.

My brother, we ARE the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church... We ARE the Body of Christ, Who is our Head... We already HAVE the one thing needful, and that is Jesus Christ, and the WAY of Him... We do not approach man out of our need - And when we do, as in the Council of Florence, it is generally a disaster - We approach man out of the Love of God... We do not approach you with our need, but with our God...

I am tempted to make this reciprocal. I want very much to say that the west owes the east the same favor but it seems to me that the west's problem is not so much unwillingness to learn from the east as ignorance of it. Where the west knows about the east, my experience has been that we are very receptive to its life and working.

There is much to like in the Eastern Holy Tradition, but such a liking will NOT get you to heaven... The unwillingness to learn is the theological premise that God established His Body, the Church, upon this earth in power, and that this happened ONCE, at Pentecost, and that the Church of Pentecost, the historical Church, is the Body of Christ, and carries the Grace of Christ in power... And that outside of this Church, God works in OTHER ways, but not in the ways that He works within His Body...

And you reject discipleship unto salvation...

Ironically enough, this is nowhere more true than among Lutherans for whom the Deus Absconditus and the essential superrationality of man's relationship to God in Christ are hallmarks.

What a scary thought!


Arsenios

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

The REASON you do not have it is because you [the western Reformed tradition] have rejected the MEANS of this entry as salvationally efficacious, and that means is obedience to the Church... And this because you regard obedience as a WORK, and works do not save, but only grace, and it is the grace that results in works, and not vice versa, in your Church-rejecting philosophy of theology...

There is no getting around this... IF you reject works as having any salvific import, then you MUST reject the work of discipleship as having anything to do with salvation, and in that rejection, you reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That does not accurately capture the Reformation's teaching about works. "Salvation" is a big word. A precise Protestant would not say that "works have no salvific import." Works are evidence of salvation, so that's important. Salvation also includes rescue from our sinful works to a life of holiness, so again works are part of salvation. However, works are not part of our justification. God does not declare us righteous because of our goodness. Only in Christ are we "the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Originally posted by RBerman

A precise Protestant would not say that "works have no salvific import."
Works are evidence of salvation, so that's important.

To say that works are EVIDENCE of salvation is NOT TO SAY that works are UNTO SALVATION...

And the Gospel of Christ tells us plainly, from the days of John the Baptist on down to the present day and hour, to REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED... For the Kingdom of Heaven is AT HAND... And the violent are taking it by force... These ALL describe WORKS that are UNTO salvation, and salvation is the union of man with God by God's Grace, where man partakes of the Divine Nature on earth...

So that the DOING of works is UNTO SALVATION...
It does not EARN salvation...
It SEEKS it, attracting the Grace of God...

Arsenios

Originally posted by RBerman

However, works are not part of our justification. God does not declare us righteous because of our goodness. Only in Christ are we "the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Works of Faith are ESSENTIAL for our justification, because it is only in TRIALS that we attain righteousness... It is in our sanctification that we have the free gift, and this in Baptism, because in these waters of regeneration, ALL our previous life of sin is confessed and washed away, and we emerge from these waters purified and holy, and in this state of holiness, we are given the Seal of the Holy Spirit, the Chrism of Christ Himself, and in the moments following this, we find the greatest holiness we will ever have, for we are without sin and filled with the Holy Spirit... It is AFTER this that our weakness is gradually strengthened in the works of righteousness that God enables by Grace to slowly heal our infirmities that led to our sinful life to start with, and in each trial, as we overcome, we grow in the stature of righteousness, and our infirmities are strengthened according to our voluntary efforts, by God's Grace...

Righteousness grows as we mature in the Faith, and according to our sins, our sanctification diminishes, until the sins are overcome and we become more righteous regarding them... One sin at a time...

Arsenios

No George.

Christ IS our righteousness.

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

Righteousness grows as we mature in the Faith, and according to our sins, our sanctification diminishes, until the sins are overcome and we become more righteous regarding them... One sin at a time...

Originally posted by Anoetos

No George.

Christ IS our righteousness.

I'd like to request a bit more attempt to understand what people are saying in their own terms. I realize this is not reasonable for George, as his tradition apparently holds as part of its faith that others aren't worth taking seriously, but the Protestant contributors don't have that problem.

Justification and righteousness are being used here in different senses. George is using justification in the traditional sense to include the entire work of bringing us into conformity with Christ. Hence works are key. George's goals are perfectly consistent with Protestant practice, particularly classic Protestantism such as the Puritans, although there are some caveats with which he probably doesn't agree. However we call it sanctification.

Answering him with "Christ is our righteousness" is not useful, because this is using righteousness in a different sense than he is. But he clearly doesn't understand that, and is going to take the statement as saying something that we don't intend. He's using "righteousness" to refer to our growth in conformity with Christ, a goal that is just as important in the Protestant tradition as in his.

There are genuine differences here, but they are being hidden by a general failure of either side to go beyond throwing slogans at the other.

I *think* we agree with George in two general areas:

* That we are in a situation that is hopeless without God's intervention, and thus that the process of salvation starts with his gracious action.

* That the goal for Christian life is a union with Christ, through the activity of the Holy Spirit, and that our life as Christians grows through prayer and other spiritual disciplines, and obedience, and involves both the defeat of sin and a life that shows love of God and our neighbors.

The more complex area is the distinction between our status before God with our current spiritual state. This is the area that McGrath believes is the real innovation of the Reformation. However there is at least some equivalence of this in the Catholic tradition, and I think also the Orthodox. Baptism plays a role somewhat analogous in their traditions to justification in ours. It (or more precisely, the grace made visible in it) represents a change in status before God, including the forgiveness of sins and our incorporation into Christ's body. The Catholic tradition has at times spoken of this as "initial justification." I don't know whether the Orthodox tradition has such a concept or not.

Where I believe we differ is whether this distinction continues throughout our lives. The Catholic tradition at least (and I believe the Orthodox follow them) considers baptism as a permanent change in status, but still sees our status as part of Christ's body as depending upon continued progress in what we would call sanctification. While there are disagreements among Protestants about whether justification can be lost, in general Protestants see us as simul justus et peccator, i.e. we agree with the Orthodox about the battle with sin that is occurring in our lives, but we see this as happening in the context of a stable commitment of God to us. I believe the primary difference between the Protestant tradition and Catholic / Orthodox one is the existence of this status of being in Christ that remains even when we sin, because our status before God is ultimately dependent upon God's commitment to us.

Historically, Orthodox and Catholics have tended to think that this means we aren't serious about the importance of the battle against sin. I don't believe that's true. At least within the Reformed tradition (which I know better than the Lutherans) there has been a great emphasis upon developing both the spiritual life and obedience. I think we're seeing a form of projection, what George thinks must be the case for people who don't hold the same beliefs as him. Of course there are plenty of Protestants who aren't serious about their battle with sin, but I very much doubt that everyone who is a nominal member of an Orthodox church is equally committed to the Christian life either. I can only say that in all churches of which I have been a member, the church spends most of its effort helping members to develop their Christian lives.

I think there is also a difference in the way we speak of and to some extent think of our development as Christians. Holiness is very important to Orthodox. There are certainly Protestant traditions where it is just as important, including the Holiness movement which believed that it is realistically possible for Christians to hope to become entirely holy while still on earth. However more commonly Protestants do not believe that this is possible. We are inclined to see passages such as Luke 17:7-10 and Mark 10:18 as saying that being holy is beyond our reach, and claiming it is likely to be unjustified pride. The most we can hope for is to be obedient slaves. This leads to significant difference in piety between the two communities, because Catholics and Orthodox see great value in having models of the Christian life as saints, whereas to Protestants identifying anyone as a saint sounds faintly blasphemous. However it's important to realize that using obedience rather than holiness does not indicate any less of a commitment.

hedrick,

I made an honest effort to interact meaningfully with George and was pretty much ridiculed.

It seems reasonable to deal with him in a similarly "unuseful", time preserving, and direct fashion. When variegated and nuanced arguments fall on deaf ears, I find a more succinct and angular approach, if not successful at least more gratifying. When one is dealing with someone who won't even hear what they have to say, perhaps one can be forgiven for seeking satisfaction anywhere they can find it.

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

To say that works are EVIDENCE of salvation is NOT TO SAY that works are UNTO SALVATION...

Saying "works are evidence of our [justification] is true, but does not carry all the meaning; at least Lutherans attach to the teaching that we are not justified before God by our works and that god works are the fruits of faith. We believe after we are reborn, typically at our Baptism, we cooperate with the Holy Spirit where before we were resisting the Holy Spirit. We do willingly, out of love for God and our neighbor, that which befofore hand we would do out of fear or a desire for reward. A sI pointe dout earlier, your use of "UNTO" is ambiguous. If yo umean that at the last day we will stand before God and show him how holy and good we have become by cooperating with him, and therefore we are his children and we should be permitted into the kingdom of heaven, then most Protestants would reject that as simply un-apostolic, and semi-pelagian. If, however, you mean that "unto salvation" as some species of "until salvation", that is likely to be much less objectionable from our standpoint.

It does not EARN salvation...
It SEEKS it, attracting the Grace of God...

If it does not earn salvation, you seem to be saying something close to my second characterization above.

Originally posted by Anoetos

No George.

Christ IS our righteousness.

My brother, that has never been in doubt...

It is the actual, ontological, in the Church Militant understanding of the spiritual warfare in the trenches that constitute the crucible of the formation toward maturity of the newly born and maturing in Christ that I am addressing here... It is the "running of the race set before us..."

You see, WE have that race to run, and in the running of it, we overcome sin in ourselves, and as we are overcoming sin, we attain stature in righteousness that previous to that conflict we did not have... And it is ALL by Grace, and by our desire and our actions...

IF you DO the works of Faith unto righteousness, you will become righteous, by the Grace of God, and you will have, if you are in Christ, Christ's righteousness... Just as you will have, if you repent, if you put off the old man and take on Christ... You will HAVE the MIND of Christ... [As Paul stunningly affirms when he says in 1 Cor 2:16 "But we have the mind of Christ."

The Orthodox have always been very clear that it is the DOING of the Faith that ACQUIRES the Faith... And so we understand that our salvation is 100% our responsibility, and that it is as well 100% the work of Christ in us... Our works are but filthy rags, yet they are essential rags, for God tells us, and He is faithful, that to those who are faithful in small things, these He will give great things too... We invest our pitiful rags, sown in tears, and reap the righteousness of Christ by Grace... And it is not merely IMPUTED in this effort, but ACTUALLY AND ONTOLOGICALLY IMPARTED to us...

And there is no way to account it... We earn nothing... We but demonstrate our faithfulness in small things, and trust in the provision of God... Without that demonstration of faithfulness on our part, we will NOT find the Grace of God that we seek... Great gifts are the result of great trials...

But if you insist that works are but evidence of Faith, and are not UNTO salvation and righteousness, and indeed unto the perfecting of the Faith in the person DOING the works, then you have thrown away the Gospel of Christ...

Works synergize together with Faith and perfect it... That is what James clearly and unequivocally tells us...

2:22
Seest thou how faith was synergizing with his works,
and by works was faith made perfect?

Look - Righteousness overcomes sin in temptations...
And UNrighteousness SUCCUMBS to temptations and embraces sins...
This Faith is an ongoing struggle against the forces of evil, and the struggle is the perfecting of the person struggling...

"Be ye perfected, as your God in heaven is perfect..."

Arsenios

You seem to be moving between two poles here. On the one hand, yo usay we are rewarded with Christ's righteousness by doing good works, but thay we do not earn righteousness, it is of grace.

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

You see, WE have that race to run, and in the running of it, we overcome sin in ourselves, and as we are overcoming sin, we attain stature in righteousness that previous to that conflict we did not have... And it is ALL by Grace, and by our desire and our actions...

I am not sure it is correct to say "we" overcome sin in ourselves. Sin, which brings death, is overcome by Christ on the Cross and his resurrection. He overcame sin, death and the devil. He gives this victory over sin, death and the devil to those who believe in him. As he himself said, he who believes and is baptized will be saved. While I believe we cooperate with the Holy Spirit after we are reborn, apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we cannot run any race, because salvation is by grace alone, and not a reward for running a race.

IF you DO the works of Faith unto righteousness, you will become righteous, by the Grace of God, and you will have, if you are in Christ, Christ's righteousness...

Above you stated we do not earn salvation. I may be missing something, but this sounds like a straight forward reward for good works--if we are good our selves, we will have Christ's righteousness as a reward. That is simply not grace, or not 100% grace. By contrast, we believe we receive Christ's righteousness as a gift from God when we are justified, and that as new, justified people we cooperate with the Holy Spirit in doing the works God has commanded us to do, to server God and our neighbor. Perhaps you could explain why your explanation it is not a reward for good works?

The Orthodox have always been very clear that it is the DOING of the Faith that ACQUIRES the Faith... And so we understand that our salvation is 100% our responsibility, and that it is as well 100% the work of Christ in us...

Once again, this sounds like a straightforward reward for our own good behavior.

And there is no way to account it... We earn nothing... We but demonstrate our faithfulness in small things, and trust in the provision of God...

And here you sound just like the Augsburg Confession. I do not mean to offend, but you seem to be using terms in a very inexact way, which allows confusion to arise.

2:22
Seest thou how faith was synergizing with his works,
and by works was faith made perfect?

Look - Righteousness overcomes sin in temptations...
And UNrighteousness SUCCUMBS to temptations and embraces sins...
This Faith is an ongoing struggle against the forces of evil, and the struggle is the perfecting of the person struggling...

I agree. But I also see no tension between this and the Augsburg Confession. As I also explained above, works are not "but" a fruit of faith. Why do you say we teach that?

Originally posted by Maxentius

You seem to be moving between two poles here. On the one hand, you say we are rewarded with Christ's righteousness by doing good works, but that we do not earn righteousness, it is of grace.

The two poles must be clearly and unequivocally held at the same time.
1: On the one hand, we must do EVERYTHING in our power for the salvation of our souls.
2: On the other hand, there is NOTHING we can do that will save us...

Welcome to the Orthodox Christian approach to the Mystery of the Faith...

I am not sure it is correct to say "we" overcome sin in ourselves.

Not surprising, for this is what the Reformation LOST in its rejection of the utter and total NEED of man for the works of the Faith unto the salvation of his soul.

The fact is, IF we approach Christ desiring to overcome sin in ourselves, then Christ will provide to us the Grace to do so.
Indeed, by His death on the Cross, he releases us from ALL our previous sins, and then provides us the MEANS of Grace to OVERCOME SINS...
And as Christ tells us in Revelation, it is to those who are overcoming sin that the gifts of Christ are bestowed, even salvation...
And to those who do NOT, and ARE NOT, overcoming sin, the gifts are withdrawn... It is all right there in His messages to the 7 Churches...

We MUST be overcoming sins, or else turn ourselves over to demons...
And IF we are in ontological fact IN CHRIST, then we indeed do HAVE the Grace needed to do so...
And if not, if our faith is in "virtual" salvation, if we believe that we are only IMPUTED Christ's righteousness,
and are not actually IMPARTED this Righteousness, which is His Divine Nature, of which we are to become actual, not virtual, PARTAKERS,
then we only have virtual, not actual, salvation, and our salvation is but a fantasy of our understanding...

2Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises:
that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature,
having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Sin, which brings death, is overcome by Christ on the Cross and his resurrection. He overcame sin, death and the devil. He gives this victory over sin, death and the devil to those who believe in him. As he himself said, he who believes and is baptized will be saved. While I believe we cooperate with the Holy Spirit after we are reborn, apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we cannot run any race, because salvation is by grace alone, and not a reward for running a race.

To say that Christ REWARDS
is NOT TO SAY
that we EARN ANYTHING...

Above you stated we do not earn salvation. I may be missing something, but this sounds like a straight forward reward for good works--if we are good our selves, we will have Christ's righteousness as a reward. That is simply not grace, or not 100% grace.

Again, you fall into the same error, for by this, you are subjecting the Gospel of Christ to your
own fallen and intellectual understanding, which cannot have a reward that is not earned...
Yet both the labors, and the unearned reward, are BOTH needed...

Perhaps it would help for you to remember the parable of the vineyard,
where those who worked from the beginning,
nd those who worked a half day,
and those who worked only an hour,
all received the SAME WAGE...
[And the last are greater than the first...]

By contrast, we believe we receive Christ's righteousness as a gift from God when we are justified, and that as new, justified people we cooperate with the Holy Spirit in doing the works God has commanded us to do, to serve God and our neighbor. Perhaps you could explain why your explanation it is not a reward for good works?

With great JOY!

The REASON that the REWARD for good WORKS is UNEARNED is because the works are those of unrighteous manna, eg they are only of creation, and fallen creation at that, in which our bodies corrupt and die... Yet the Reward is God Himself... Whereby we become partakers in His Holy and Divine Nature... It is the ultimate "deal" or bargain - You PAY nothing but rags to be thrown away anyway, and you receive the Kingdom of Heaven!

Once again, this sounds like a straightforward reward for our own good behavior.

It IS a reward for good behavior...

! ! ! AND ! ! !

It is a reward that CANNOT BE EARNED by ANY behavior...

And here you sound just like the Augsburg Confession. I do not mean to offend, but you seem to be using terms in a very inexact way, which allows confusion to arise.

I am not confused at all in this... Is it finally coming clearer for you?

As I also explained above, works are not "but" a fruit of faith. Why do you say we teach that?

Because you insist that they are "evidence of" and not "causally related to" the acquisition of God's Grace...
God is the Rewarder of those who do good, and will punish those who do evil...
He does not desire with desire the death of the sinner,
but that he should repent and be saved...

REPENTANCE is a WORK, and God ENABLES US to repent... He does not repent FOR US...

We have to willfully sieze repentance that we should attain God's Grace that cannot be earned...

That's the DEAL that God, in His great Love for mankind, has given us...

Arsenios