question about Jesus and Mary (Theotokos)
BubbadaveID
meaning Jesus, is Mary seen as the co-redemtrix (not sure I spelled that right)
as is the case with the Catholic church? Only Jesus can save us, so it seems
that in saying "Most holy Theotokos save us" we're asking Mary to save us. If
that's not what's meant, why don't they just say what they mean?
++
God and thus honored. We hope she is praying to God about us, but she
is not an intercessor except in the sense of praying.
BubbadaveID wrote:
It means we ask her, the blessed Mother of our Lord, to pray to God that
HE will save our souls.
>
>
>
craig
"++" <yourf...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:409bc75c$0$3015$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
> The answer is no, Mary is not a so reedeemer. She is the Birthgiver of
> God and thus honored. We hope she is praying to God about us, but she
> is not an intercessor except in the sense of praying.
>
I have always wondered about this as well. During the Liturgy, we do find
the text, "Most holy Theotokos save us." What does this mean??
Also, what is meant by "Mother of God?" How can one of God's creatures be
his mother? Mary was the mother of God incarnate, God in his humanity, but
to say "Mother of God" without that qualification has always bothered me.
What is the scriptural basis for this?
++
Christ had a fully human mother and himself was fully God and fully human.Ę The Hail Mary explains it
craig
"++" <yourf...@erols.com> wrote in message news:409bf925$0$2991$61fe...@news.rcn.com...Yo, Craig,
Christ had a fully human mother and himself was fully God and fully human. The Hail Mary explains it
aggreen
"BubbadaveID" <bubba...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040507131958...@mb-m15.aol.com...
"Most Holy Theotokos save us" is midleading to the nonOrthodox. All Orthodox
Christians know that this refers to The Blessed Mother's intercessions on
our behalf with her most pure Son. The implication is that a good son will
not turn a deaf ear on his mother's pleadings. So, in a sense, if Mary begs
her son on our behalf to save us, and if he listens to his mother like a
true and proper son, we will be saved.
I agree that it would be nice if our prayers were more explanatory. But
then, they don't have to be when good people like you ask the question and
get the answer.
(I know, it's complicated!)
Al
aggreen
"craig" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:_qSmc.8551$nL....@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
>
> "++" <yourf...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:409bc75c$0$3015$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
> > The answer is no, Mary is not a so reedeemer. She is the Birthgiver of
> > God and thus honored. We hope she is praying to God about us, but she
> > is not an intercessor except in the sense of praying.
> >
>
> I have always wondered about this as well. During the Liturgy, we do find
> the text, "Most holy Theotokos save us." What does this mean??
>
> Also, what is meant by "Mother of God?"
***Er...Jesus Christ **IS** God. She is the Mother of God in God's human
form.
aggreen
"++" <yourf...@erols.com> wrote in message news:409bf925$0$2991$61fe...@news.rcn.com...Yo, Craig,
Christ had a fully human mother and himself was fully God and fully human.Ê The Hail Mary explains it
digimortal
Mother of Christ, the Incarnation but had nothing to do with His Godhead.
"++" <yourf...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:409bc75c$0$3015$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
digimortal
"aggreen" <agg...@nospam.com> wrote
digimortal
"aggreen" <agg...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:FVWmc.165468$M3.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
craig
> news:20040507131958...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> > If Scripture indicates that there is only one mediator between God and
> man,
> > meaning Jesus, is Mary seen as the co-redemtrix (not sure I spelled that
> right)
> > as is the case with the Catholic church? Only Jesus can save us, so it
> seems
> > that in saying "Most holy Theotokos save us" we're asking Mary to save
us.
> If
> > that's not what's meant, why don't they just say what they mean?
>
> "Most Holy Theotokos save us" is midleading to the nonOrthodox. All
Orthodox
> Christians know that this refers to The Blessed Mother's intercessions on
> our behalf with her most pure Son. The implication is that a good son will
> not turn a deaf ear on his mother's pleadings. So, in a sense, if Mary
begs
> her son on our behalf to save us, and if he listens to his mother like a
> true and proper son, we will be saved.
Have you ever thought about the implications of this????
Jesus must be very hesitant to save mankind.
Mary, who must be aware of this, goes to him on our behalf and asks him to
save us.
He resists.
We are aware of this as well, so we remind Mary to continue to go to him by
praying, "Most holy Theotokos save us."
Mary hears our prayers and is reminded that she must not give up. She must
continue to intercede for us or Christ might just abandon us.
Therefore, she PLEADS with him, "Son, you must consider what I am asking
you.....save them!!!"
Jesus continues to resist.
But again Mary hears our prayers begging for her intercession, so she goes
to him again..."Son....PLEASE, PLEASE, I AM PLEADING WITH YOU..... save
them!!!!!!"
Finally, the reluctant Christ thinks to himself, "Maybe I should be a good
son and consider what she is asking. After all, this isn't just any woman
coming to me....this is my mother!! Had it been anyone else, I would have
had a mind to turn a deaf ear.....but because it is my mother, I will listen
to her."
So, reluctantly, he gives in to the intercessions of his mother, and has
mercy on us and saves us.
Therefore, we pray to Mary, thanking her for bringing about our salvation.
>
> I agree that it would be nice if our prayers were more explanatory. But
> then, they don't have to be when good people like you ask the question and
> get the answer.
>
> (I know, it's complicated!)
Yes, it is complicated. It also makes me wonder.....why would a guy like
Paul who had such incredible revelation into God's plan of salvation, the
mysteries of the faith and our spiritual growth not have mentioned any of
this in his writings? If the role Mary played in our salvation is so
critical that we need to be continually asking her to intercede for us, why
did Paul not emphasize this point, or at least mention is somewhere in all
of the letters that he wrote?? All it would have taken is one mention of it
somewhere: "Timothy, my child in the faith, do not neglect to pray to the
most blessed, pure, holy, ever-virgin Mary to intercede for all of the
believers there in Ephesus, and for all the saints. Surely Christ Jesus
will listen to the pleadings of his mother!"
aggreen
"digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:409c8eef$0$3003$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
aggreen
"craig" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:9W7nc.108900$Vp5....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
Steve Hayes
In Western theology the meaning "salvation" has been narrowed down to
"mediation", especially in theology based on the Augustine --> Anselm -->
Calvin lines. In Orthodox theology it is much wider.
--
The unworthy servant of God,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
digimortal
theology falls flat...
"aggreen" <agg...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:oIfnc.16733$hY....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
aggreen
"digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:409e1059$0$3006$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
aggreen
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:409dabaa...@news.saix.net...
> On 07 May 2004 17:19:58 GMT, bubba...@aol.com (BubbadaveID) wrote:
>
> >If Scripture indicates that there is only one mediator between God and
man,
> >meaning Jesus, is Mary seen as the co-redemtrix (not sure I spelled that
right)
> >as is the case with the Catholic church? Only Jesus can save us, so it
seems
> >that in saying "Most holy Theotokos save us" we're asking Mary to save
us. If
> >that's not what's meant, why don't they just say what they mean?
>
> In Western theology the meaning "salvation" has been narrowed down to
> "mediation", especially in theology based on the Augustine --> Anselm -->
> Calvin lines. In Orthodox theology it is much wider.
Absolutely correct, Stephen. Innovative Protestant theology, designed to
distance people from the Latin Church, has no bearing on the ancient, tried,
and true teachings and traditions on the Church founded by Christ at
Pentecost and manifest today in Holy Orthodoxy!
Al
craig
How do you know that, Al? How can anyone know that what we see today in
Orthodoxy is what Christ intended when he founded his Church?
learner
> In Western theology the meaning "salvation" has been narrowed down to
> "mediation", especially in theology based on the Augustine --> Anselm -->
> Calvin lines. In Orthodox theology it is much wider.
True. However, this "width" takes us down the path to even greater
errors. Take the prayer of St. John Maximovitch ["The Orthodox
Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God"], as an example:
"My most gracious Queen, my hope, Mother of God, shelter of orphans,
and intercessor of travellers, strangers and pilgrims, joy of those in
sorrow, protectress of the wronged, see my distress, see my
affliction! Help
me, for I am helpless. Feed me, for I am a stranger and pilgrim. Thou
knowest my offense; forgive and resolve it as thou wilt. For I know no
other help but thee, no other intercessor, no gracious consoler but
thee, O Mother of God, to guard and protect me throughout the ages.
Amen"
From this blasphemous prayer, we see that Mary:
1. Appears to be omniscient and omnipresent [which are attributes of
God].
2. Knows our sins and has the power to forgive and "resolve" sin!
3. Is our ONLY [no other] intercessor.
If we believe this prayer, then Jesus, and His death on the cross, was
really a very painful and brutal waste of time. Mary's power of
intercession does not flow scripturally, necessarily, or logically,
from her role as "God-bearer".
If Mary can intercede for us, then why didn't Paul tell us about this
fact? In fact, the earliest prayer that I can find concerning Mary is
the Obsequies of the Virgin which was composed around 200 A.D..
Personally, I believe that Jesus is my only intercessor and to assume
that anyone else can intercede on my behalf belittles the suffering
and death of the Lord. I will do this one God's way!
Learner
Al
***It's called having faith, Craig.
craig
"Al" <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:df4e6c04.0405...@posting.google.com...
But what is the basis of that faith? As you know, God does not call on us
to believe without good reason.
For instance, anyone who studies Scripture with an open heart and mind can
know that these books must have had a transcendent mind behind them, guiding
the men who wrote them. The complex prophetic scenario described in the Old
Testament and fullfilled by Christ is a very clear sign of the authenticity
of God's written word. The internal consistency of God's word, though
written by many authors over 1500 years, defies naturalistic explaination.
God has given us evidence that the words written in the Bible are from Him.
No one can predict the future but God (which is a point God makes
emphatically in Isaiah). Thus we have a strong basis that for believing
that Scripture is Divine rather than human in origin.
But much of what we find in the Orthodox Chruch has its origin in Holy
Tradition rather than Scripture (hence the strong objection to the Sola
Scriptura doctrine). What then is the evidence that Holy Tradition is
Divine rather than human in origin? Where is God's stamp of authentication
on Holy Tradition that gives you the basis for your faith that it too is
from God?
digimortal
"aggreen" <agg...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:E6unc.171303$M3.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
digimortal
HIM as God that prayer is given. His Mother would be a mediatrix between us
and Jesus. However, the Trinity is also prayed to. There are interesting
paradoxes in Orthodoxy some would say...
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04051...@posting.google.com...
aggreen
"digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:409ffff7$0$2998$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
aggreen
>
> > ***It's called having faith, Craig.
>
> But what is the basis of that faith? As you know, God does not call on us
> to believe without good reason.
>
> For instance, anyone who studies Scripture with an open heart and mind can
> know that these books must have had a transcendent mind behind them,
guiding
> the men who wrote them.
***For the umteenth time, and for the enlightenment of the nonOrthodox,
Orthodox Christians do not interpret Holy Scripture for themselves. (This is
why there are thousands upon thousands of protestnat cults and sects in the
world.) The Orthodox Church is the sole interpreter of Holy Scripture and
its meanings. It has always been this way, and it always will be this way.
Orthodox Christians do not "believe in" the Bible, we believe in the Church,
the Body of Christ...Christ Himself, to teach us the path to salvation based
on Holy Scripture, the Church's liturgical services, the writing of the Holy
Fathers, Traditions passed down from generation to generation, etc.
The complex prophetic scenario described in the Old
> Testament and fullfilled by Christ is a very clear sign of the
authenticity
> of God's written word. The internal consistency of God's word, though
> written by many authors over 1500 years, defies naturalistic explaination.
> God has given us evidence that the words written in the Bible are from
Him.
> No one can predict the future but God (which is a point God makes
> emphatically in Isaiah). Thus we have a strong basis that for believing
> that Scripture is Divine rather than human in origin.
>
> But much of what we find in the Orthodox Chruch has its origin in Holy
> Tradition rather than Scripture (hence the strong objection to the Sola
> Scriptura doctrine). What then is the evidence that Holy Tradition is
> Divine rather than human in origin? Where is God's stamp of
authentication
> on Holy Tradition that gives you the basis for your faith that it too is
> from God?
***Maybe you need to seek out an Orthodox priest and pose these questions to
him. The Orthodox path to salvation is so vastly different than in the
late-breaking, innovative, modern, protestant religions.
Al
Al
aggreen
repudiated the True Faith, and embraced a protestant sect for the love of a
woman. Why should any of us Orthodox Christians give you any respect for
your tear down Orthodoxy opinions?
Al
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04051...@posting.google.com...
aggreen
for us with christ God.
"digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:40a0019a$0$3056$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
learner
> Learner, you are a heretic. You left the Holy Church and salvation,
> repudiated the True Faith, and embraced a protestant sect for the love of a
> woman. Why should any of us Orthodox Christians give you any respect for
> your tear down Orthodoxy opinions?
Perhaps, I am a heretic - I like to think for myself. Also, I was on
my way out of the Orthodox Church when I was in middle school, long
before I met my girlfriend.
Second, I am not tearing down anything. Did it never occur to you
that the purpose of discussion is to arrive at truth? If you believe
that you have the truth, then you should not worry when your views are
questioned.
I am not interested in "proving" that Orthodox Tradition is totally in
error, although it has a lot of problems. I am simply demonstrating
that many Orthodox have never examined their beliefs and the
implications of these beliefs.
Learner
Al
> "aggreen" <agg...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<EAVnc.175010$M3.9...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>
> > Learner, you are a heretic. You left the Holy Church and salvation,
> > repudiated the True Faith, and embraced a protestant sect for the love of a
> > woman. Why should any of us Orthodox Christians give you any respect for
> > your tear down Orthodoxy opinions?
>
> Perhaps, I am a heretic - I like to think for myself. Also, I was on
> my way out of the Orthodox Church when I was in middle school, long
> before I met my girlfriend.
>
> Second, I am not tearing down anything. Did it never occur to you
> that the purpose of discussion is to arrive at truth? If you believe
> that you have the truth, then you should not worry when your views are
> questioned.
***Sorry, "Learner." The Orthodox Truth arrived at the truth long
before you and I were born. There can be no "arriving" at the truth.
The Body of Christ, the Orthodox Church, has had it all along. And,
when you "question," you are not querstioning the views of
individuals, but of the Holy Church, Christ on earth, itself.
>
> I am not interested in "proving" that Orthodox Tradition is totally in
> error, although it has a lot of problems.
***Wrong! Only protestant have problems because they are unwilling to
submit totally to Christ through His Church.
I am simply demonstrating
> that many Orthodox have never examined their beliefs and the
> implications of these beliefs.
***ThoseOrthodox who have faith AND The Faith, have no need to examine
their beliefs. Christ, through His Chruch, tells us all that we need
to know. If we need to ask why, we go to our priests and bishops, and
other recognized Orthodox theologians.
***So, that said, you really have no usefulness on this NG.
Al
digimortal
"aggreen" <agg...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gtVnc.174977$M3.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
digimortal
"aggreen" <agg...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RyVnc.175003$M3.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
aggreen
Study Bible:
Orthodox Christians speak of salvation as a three-fold process:
1) We are saved by the power of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection when we
received the Christian Mystery (we were "born again") at Baptism,
2) We are being saved by the working of the Holy Spirit through prayer, the
Holy Gifts (the Eucharist) and all the Mysteries of Divine healing, and
3) By the mercy of God we shall be saved for Eternal Life at the Partial
Judgment at the moment of our death, being made worthy by the Life-Giving
Word and Holy Tradition.
The Holy Spirit, through the Orthodox Church, teaches that attaining
everlasting life (being "saved") is a lifelong process and that during our
earthly life there is no guarantee that we are saved.
"digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:40a16948$0$3053$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
learner
> ***ThoseOrthodox who have faith AND The Faith, have no need to examine
> their beliefs.
No "true believer" needs to examine what they believe. Thinking is
the enemy of all "orthodoxies".
> Christ, through His Chruch, tells us all that we need
> to know.
Except for the periods of Arianism, Nestorianism...........
> If we need to ask why, we go to our priests and bishops, and
> other recognized Orthodox theologians.
My Alfred, I think that the authoritarian trappings of Orthodoxy are
what really appeal to you. Would you have followed EP Nestorius?
> ***So, that said, you really have no usefulness on this NG.
Nor do you.
Learner
craig
But why do you believe what you believe, Al? You claim that the God of the
universe has revealed himself and his plan of salvation through the Eastern
Orthodox Church. All I am asking you is how you know that that is true.
What is the basis for your faith?
>
> The complex prophetic scenario described in the Old
> > Testament and fullfilled by Christ is a very clear sign of the
> authenticity
> > of God's written word. The internal consistency of God's word, though
> > written by many authors over 1500 years, defies naturalistic
explaination.
> > God has given us evidence that the words written in the Bible are from
> Him.
> > No one can predict the future but God (which is a point God makes
> > emphatically in Isaiah). Thus we have a strong basis that for believing
> > that Scripture is Divine rather than human in origin.
> >
> > But much of what we find in the Orthodox Chruch has its origin in Holy
> > Tradition rather than Scripture (hence the strong objection to the Sola
> > Scriptura doctrine). What then is the evidence that Holy Tradition is
> > Divine rather than human in origin? Where is God's stamp of
> authentication
> > on Holy Tradition that gives you the basis for your faith that it too is
> > from God?
>
> ***Maybe you need to seek out an Orthodox priest and pose these questions
to
> him. The Orthodox path to salvation is so vastly different than in the
> late-breaking, innovative, modern, protestant religions.
>
I have talked to priests before, but I would really like to hear more from
you. You extremely confident that you are right. I would like to learn
more about the basis for that confidence.
> Al
>
> Al
craig
> I hope so. As it states on my web site, from a footnote in the Orthodox
> Study Bible:
>
> Orthodox Christians speak of salvation as a three-fold process:
>
> 1) We are saved by the power of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection when
we
> received the Christian Mystery (we were "born again") at Baptism,
>
> 2) We are being saved by the working of the Holy Spirit through prayer,
the
> Holy Gifts (the Eucharist) and all the Mysteries of Divine healing, and
>
> 3) By the mercy of God we shall be saved for Eternal Life at the Partial
> Judgment at the moment of our death, being made worthy by the Life-Giving
> Word and Holy Tradition.
>
> The Holy Spirit, through the Orthodox Church, teaches that attaining
> everlasting life (being "saved") is a lifelong process and that during our
> earthly life there is no guarantee that we are saved.
I still haven't heard anyone explain how that "no guarantee" teaching
squares up with 1 John 5:13 (These things I have written to you who believe
in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal
life) or the story of the Prodigal Son.
Maybe you can explain it, Al?
BubbadaveID
once attended a service that occurred within hours of a person having passed
on, and the (OC) priest was saying that the prayers are the most important at
that point in time because that's when the soul is leaving the body and when
the demons still have a chance to snatch the soul! E gad! So much for our
being in Christ's hand and nothing being able to snatch us out of His hands.
Sure scared the piss outa me. No, I'm not interested in the OC's view of death
at all. I'll stick to the Protestant view, thank you.
craig
But we can't choose what to believe based upon personal preferences. We
need to believe what is objectively true, whatever that truth might be.
Scripture clearly teaches that we can know that we are saved. Orthodox
Tradition really does seem to contradict Scripture on this point.
digimortal
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04051...@posting.google.com...
BubbadaveID
something totally different then. In general, they do a lot of double-speak
and never really give you a straight answer about anything, just like the
business about we know where the church is but not where it isn't. What kind
of double speak is that? It's just their way of wiggling out of actually
admitting that Protestants are Christians as well. Interestingly enough,
Bartholemew himself is part of the World Council of Churches, and if he really
thought that these other people weren't Christians, then he probably wouldn't
be part of that group.
aggreen
The Orthodox Church's teaching on salvation is just a bit different. the
following is taken from a footnote in the Orthodox Study Bible:
aggreen
> Well, then, if Tradition teaches otherwise, the local priests are teaching
> something totally different then. In general, they do a lot of
double-speak
> and never really give you a straight answer about anything, just like the
> business about we know where the church is but not where it isn't.
***Not exactly quoted correctly. Orthodox Christians know where Christ is,
but we do not know where He is not. The imlication is that Christ just may
be dispensing His graces outside the Holy Church, too. We really don't know
that for sure. What we do know is that God's grace is poured out on the
Church He founded at Pentecost.
What kind
> of double speak is that? It's just their way of wiggling out of actually
> admitting that Protestants are Christians as well.
***I don't remember any priest ever teaching that Protestants and Roman
Catholics are NOT Christians. Thw question is The Truth. The Orthodox Church
enjoys the fullness of The Truth. Other Christians may enjoy some of The
Truth, but certainly none have the whole Truth. The whole Truth is available
only through Holy Orthodoxy.
Interestingly enough,
> Bartholemew himself is part of the World Council of Churches, and if he
really
> thought that these other people weren't Christians, then he probably
wouldn't
> be part of that group.
***Excellent point. It is sad that there are some radical fundamental
Orthodox who believe that there is no Truth at all outside of Orthodoxy.
aggreen
news:<df4e6c04.04051...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > ***ThoseOrthodox who have faith AND The Faith, have no need to examine
> > their beliefs.
>
> No "true believer" needs to examine what they believe.
***Isn't that what I said?
Thinking is
> the enemy of all "orthodoxies".
***What is there to think about. It's all been thought out and settled more
than a thousand years ago!
>
> > Christ, through His Chruch, tells us all that we need
> > to know.
>
> Except for the periods of Arianism, Nestorianism...........
***You are assuming that Christ initiated these heresies. The Church,
Christ's Holy Body, confronted these heresies and condemned them by the
grace of God in Holy Council.
>
> > If we need to ask why, we go to our priests and bishops, and
> > other recognized Orthodox theologians.
>
> My Alfred, I think that the authoritarian trappings of Orthodoxy are
> what really appeal to you. Would you have followed EP Nestorius?
***How can I project myself into the past and give you an answer?
>
> > ***So, that said, you really have no usefulness on this NG.
>
> Nor do you.
***Only because I will not submit to your heresies, and the fact that I am
willing to call you out on it.
Al
BubbadaveID
think; don't question; don't feel. That's the same sort of rationale that
cults use. That's also the basis for dysfunctionality within families.
craig
I think it would be an interesting study to learn how that teaching squares
with what we read in Scripture. The amazing thing about that Orthodox Study
Bible footnote is that in all of that text on being saved, we do not find
the words "faith in Christ" anywhere.
aggreen
ago. There's nothing new to add.
Orthodox families are quite stable, especially Orthodox homes with home
altars or prayer shelves with icons of Christ and the Holy Mother that are
used by families for prayer.
Hail Blessed Theotokos, Mary full of Grace.
Blessed are you among women.
And blessed is the fruit of your womb,
For you have borne the Savior of our souls.
"BubbadaveID" <bubba...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040512212245...@mb-m04.aol.com...
richard.barrett
> > The Orthodox Church's teaching on salvation is just a bit different. the
> > following is taken from a footnote in the Orthodox Study Bible:
> >
> > "Orthodox Christians speak of salvation as a three-fold process:
> >
> > 1) We are saved by the power of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection when
> we
> > received the Christian Mystery (we were "born again") at Baptism,
> >
> > 2) We are being saved by the working of the Holy Spirit through prayer,
> the
> > Holy Gifts (the Eucharist) and all the Mysteries of Divine healing, and
> >
> > 3) By the mercy of God we shall be saved for Eternal Life at the Partial
> > Judgment at the moment of our death, being made worthy by the
Life-Giving
> > Word and Holy Tradition.
> >
> > The Holy Spirit, through the Orthodox Church, teaches that attaining
> > everlasting life (being "saved") is a lifelong process and that during
our
> > earthly life there is no guarantee that we are saved."
>
> I think it would be an interesting study to learn how that teaching
squares
> with what we read in Scripture. The amazing thing about that Orthodox
Study
> Bible footnote is that in all of that text on being saved, we do not find
> the words "faith in Christ" anywhere.
Not boiled down to a three word phrase on a bumper sticker, no. But the
entire footnote speaks to a faith in the saving power of Christ's
resurrection, faith in the grace of God, and faith in the work of the Holy
Spirit. How in the world is any of that *un*-Biblical? As far as salvation
being a process rather than an event, that's a concept that is 100%
Biblical, being mentioned by no less than St. Paul: "[W]ork out your own
salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to
will and to do for His good pleasure", Philippians 2:12,13.
To expound somewhat on the above, Orthodox see Romans 6:1-6 pointing to
"faith in Christ" as being a covenant relationship with Christ, based on
union with Him. Additionally, Romans 5 says, "Therefore, having been
justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand
,and rejoice in hope of the glory of God", which Orthodox see as meaning
that it is first and foremost God's mercy that saves us, rather than
anything we do.
Al
***Faith in Christ is implicit in being a communicant of the Orthodox
Church which is The Body of Christ. We do not need everything spelled
out in black and white. We know who we are in in whom we have faith.
Al
craig
"richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:Q6Coc.79876$Ik.5974683@attbi_s53...
Or chanted on Sunday morning rather than lived out from the heart.
> But the entire footnote speaks to a faith in the saving power of Christ's
> resurrection, faith in the grace of God, and faith in the work of the Holy
> Spirit. How in the world is any of that *un*-Biblical? As far as salvation
> being a process rather than an event, that's a concept that is 100%
> Biblical, being mentioned by no less than St. Paul: "[W]ork out your own
> salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to
> will and to do for His good pleasure", Philippians 2:12,13.
>
This verse has been miss-quoted by legalists throughtout church history.
You confuse "working out" your salvation with "working for" your salvation.
But we know Paul's view on working for our salvation:
Gal 2:16 "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of
the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ
Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works
of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."
Working out our salvation is the process by which we allow God to take what
he has put in (our salvation as a free gift through faith) and work it out
into the practice of our lives. It is spiritual growth (something
completely foreign to Orthodox believers).
My objections to salvation as a process include:
1. If salvation is a process, then you are correct in arguing that we can
not know the point at which we are finally made acceptable to God. Though
we may be trying our best, it could be that we are still headed to
punishment. There is no escaping the implications of this teaching: that we
live continually under the fear and threat of condemnation. But if God's
love is perfect, shouldn't it have cast out the fear of punishment? 1 John
4:18: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because
fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love."
If salvation is a process, then it follows logically that I live under the
fear/threat of punishment rather than securely in God's perfect love.
2. Scripture clearly teaches that we can know we have eternal life: 1 John
5:13: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the
Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." Clearly we
could not know we had eternal life if we are continually undergoing the
process by which we attain eternal life.
3 Once again, if salvation is a process and I live under the threat of
condemnation, then Paul was wrong when he wrote Romans 8:1.
4. The theif on the cross was saved in an instant. God looked into his
heart and saw his faith and accepted him. God must have given us that
account so that we can study it and see how it works.
5. The story of the prodigal son. The repentant son was immediately
accepted by his father. No rituals. No process. No threat of
condemnation.
6. The threat of condemnation has never changed anyone or caused anyone to
grow spiritually. Only grace has the power to do that.
> To expound somewhat on the above, Orthodox see Romans 6:1-6 pointing to
> "faith in Christ" as being a covenant relationship with Christ, based on
> union with Him. Additionally, Romans 5 says, "Therefore, having been
> justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
> through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we
stand
> ,and rejoice in hope of the glory of God", which Orthodox see as meaning
> that it is first and foremost God's mercy that saves us, rather than
> anything we do.
I would agree. In his mercy, God chose to act and save us before the
foundation of the world.
learner
> The Truth of the Church's teachings was settled more than a thousand years
> ago. There's nothing new to add.
The "truth" of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism were "settled" even
earlier, so what? Does age make an argument true?
> Orthodox families are quite stable, especially Orthodox homes with home
> altars or prayer shelves with icons of Christ and the Holy Mother that are
> used by families for prayer.
Really Alfred? You have statistics to back this up?
Learner
aggreen
personal interpretation?
"craig" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:AhNoc.6992$sA....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
aggreen
***Not anything that would EVER satisfy you, O detractor of the Holy Faith.
craig
> Is this the learned opinion of theologians in your church, or is this your
> personal interpretation?
Both. I have studied the opinions of many people who are far more educated
than I am, and I have read and studied the passages for myself. In all
honesty, Al, when I study the interpretations of some theologians who are
not biased by Orthodox Tradition, I find that the Bible's message comes
across with great clearity and consistency. There are difficult passages,
but for the most part, the message seems to snap into focus in a way that it
never has before.
When I listen to interpretations given by theologians who believe that the
Bible is a part of Holy Tradition, and that it needs to be interpreted in
light of the living Tradition of the Church, I find myself wrestling with so
many ideas that seem problematic and passages that just don't seem to have
the clearity that they did from the other perspective. Its a real struggle.
Nothing seems to fit together as it does when the Bible is examined on its
own ground, apart from any external exegetical influence.
I am just being honest. I don't set out with the intention of coming to one
conclusion or another. I want to believe what is really true. That is why
I like to post in this forum. Though I am not as educated or articulate as
others who post here, I just try to lay out the opinions that seem the most
persuasive to me in order to see how those from the Orthodox perspective
respond. Its just a shame that those exchanges always seem to be so riddled
with hostility from both sides.
I also can't help but to consider that every person's spiritual response is
ultimately a based upon a personal interpretation of the input that God has
given them, whether that be the witness of God's Holy Spirit, the witness of
the Church, the claims of the various faiths, etc. All of us, before coming
to faith in Christ must personally interpret this information in order to
make that decision. Ultimately, personal interpretation is inescapable.
richard.barrett
> > But the entire footnote speaks to a faith in the saving power of
Christ's
> > resurrection, faith in the grace of God, and faith in the work of the
Holy
> > Spirit. How in the world is any of that *un*-Biblical? As far as
salvation
> > being a process rather than an event, that's a concept that is 100%
> > Biblical, being mentioned by no less than St. Paul: "[W]ork out your own
> > salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both
to
> > will and to do for His good pleasure", Philippians 2:12,13.
> >
> This verse has been miss-quoted by legalists throughtout church history.
Who said anything about legalism? Orthodoxy isn't legalism.
> You confuse "working out" your salvation with "working for" your
salvation.
> But we know Paul's view on working for our salvation:
>
> Gal 2:16 "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of
> the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ
> Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works
> of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."
But we're not talking about works of the Law. Galatians 2:16 (as well as 3:5
and 3:24) tells us that Christ has fulfilled the demands of, and we are no
longer subject to, the Old Testament Law. This isn't about works-based
salvation, where sins debit from one's grace and good works credit to one's
grace a la Roman Catholic theology. This is about works being the fruit of
God's empowerment of us to be free from sin through His grace. If works
really have no place in the equation, then what about the Epistle of St.
James? "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but
does not have works? Can faith save him? [...] [F]aith by itself, if it does
not have works, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have
works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith
by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons
believe--and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith
without works is dead? [...] Do you see that faith was working together with
[Abraham's] works, and by works faith was made perfect? [...] You see then
that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. [...] For as the
body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
(James 2:14ff)
> Working out our salvation is the process by which we allow God to take
what
> he has put in (our salvation as a free gift through faith) and work it out
> into the practice of our lives. It is spiritual growth (something
> completely foreign to Orthodox believers).
So, that's at least two pot-shots you've taken at Orthodoxy in the same post
(one of which I did not quote). Are you here to have a discussion, or are
you here to vent?
At any rate, where in the world would you get the idea into your head?
That's at least partially what the Orthodox teaching of "theosis" is all
about. Orthodoxy is all about "working it out into the practice of our
lives".
> My objections to salvation as a process include:
>
> 1. If salvation is a process, then you are correct in arguing that we
can
> not know the point at which we are finally made acceptable to God. Though
> we may be trying our best, it could be that we are still headed to
> punishment. There is no escaping the implications of this teaching: that
we
> live continually under the fear and threat of condemnation.
I don't agree; to paraphrase the way Al put it, Orthodox say, "We know we
are saved, having been joined to Christ through grace; we know know we are
being saved, growing in Christ through the sacramental life of the Church;
and we know we will be saved, by God's mercy." I could just as easily argue
that, in the notion of salvation as a once-only event, there is no escaping
the implication that there's no reason to ever grow in one's faith.
But if God's
> love is perfect, shouldn't it have cast out the fear of punishment? 1
John
> 4:18: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because
> fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love."
> If salvation is a process, then it follows logically that I live under the
> fear/threat of punishment rather than securely in God's perfect love.
This would be one of the reasons I am beginning to learn Greek; I am curious
if there is a similar situation with the word "fear" as there is with
"love"--i.e., multiple words with different implications all translating to
one word in English, with the nuance being lost. Because, while at the same
time we have this quote from 1 John, we also have the previously quoted Phil
2:12, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling", 2 Cor 7:1 "let us
cleanse ourselves [...] perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord",
Ephesians 5:18-21 "be filled with the Spirit [...] submitting to one another
in the fear of God", Hebrews 5:7 referring to "the godly fear" of Christ, 1
Peter 2:17 "Fear God", and of course, Psalm 111:10, "The fear of the Lord is
the beginning of wisdom". Clearly not all the writers are using the word to
mean the same thing.
That aside, you inadvertently make an excellent argument for the Orthodox
position, because fear of punishment is most certainly not the point nor the
logical conclusion of the Orthodox teaching of salvation. The point is to
make manifest the fruits of grace.
> 2. Scripture clearly teaches that we can know we have eternal life: 1
John
> 5:13: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the
> Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." Clearly we
> could not know we had eternal life if we are continually undergoing the
> process by which we attain eternal life.
Orthodox would say, I think (I'm not Orthodox yet), that we know as a result
of the ongoing process. "Much more than, having now been justified by His
blood, we *shall be saved* from wrath through Him. For if when we were
enemies we *were reconciled* to God through the death of His Son, much more,
*having been reconciled*, we *shall be saved* by His life. And not only
that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom
*we have now received the reconciliation*." (Romans 5:9-11, emphasis mine)
Once again, St. Paul speaks of this as an ongoing process, not a one-time
event.
> 3 Once again, if salvation is a process and I live under the threat of
> condemnation, then Paul was wrong when he wrote Romans 8:1.
But Romans 8:1 has to be understood in context with Romans 5:9-11 (quoted
above), as well as with Romans 2.
> 4. The theif on the cross was saved in an instant. God looked into his
> heart and saw his faith and accepted him. God must have given us that
> account so that we can study it and see how it works.
Of course it is an example of the grace of God given to repentant sinners. I
think it is arguably significant from a soteriological standpoint, however,
that this occurs before the death itself, not to mention the Resurrection,
Ascension, and Pentecost, particularly since we're talking about the Gospel
of St. Luke. Taking Luke and Acts as a whole (given that they're from the
same author), beginning with the account of the Eucharist onward, the
narrative moves rather unrelentingly forward until we get to Pentecost,
which, as written, is the climax of the New Testament, with everything after
that as "falling action", as it were. Christ must be crucified so that He
may be resurrected; He must be resurrected so that He may ascend; He must
ascend so that the Holy Spirit may be given to those who follow Him. To put
it another way, the example of the thief can't completely apply to us; he
was the last to know Christ before His death and Resurrection (perhaps,
arguably, the last before Pentecost, since Peter intimates in Acts 11:41
that the witnesses to the Resurrection were those who already knew Him
before He was crucified, and this is also suggested by Paul in 1 Cor 15),
and we live in the Pentecost.
> 5. The story of the prodigal son. The repentant son was immediately
> accepted by his father. No rituals. No process. No threat of
> condemnation.
I'm not going to disagree with you on your basic point, but one can
certainly imagine the long, *long* talk that the two of them must have had
once the party had died down, can't one?
And no rituals? No process? Really? All of the language is very poetic and
prayer-like, and to me it's beyond dispute that the descriptions suggest
ceremony:
"And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your
sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
"But the father said to his servants, 'Bring out the best robe and put it on
him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet.
"'And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry;
for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' And
they began to be merry."
> 6. The threat of condemnation has never changed anyone or caused anyone
to
> grow spiritually. Only grace has the power to do that.
I agree completely. Again, the threat of condemnation has nothing to do with
it from an Orthodox viewpoint.
> > To expound somewhat on the above, Orthodox see Romans 6:1-6 pointing to
> > "faith in Christ" as being a covenant relationship with Christ, based on
> > union with Him. Additionally, Romans 5 says, "Therefore, having been
> > justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus
Christ,
> > through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we
> stand
> > ,and rejoice in hope of the glory of God", which Orthodox see as meaning
> > that it is first and foremost God's mercy that saves us, rather than
> > anything we do.
>
> I would agree. In his mercy, God chose to act and save us before the
> foundation of the world.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by the second half, but
I'll take whatever common ground that can be established.
richard.barrett
> When I listen to interpretations given by theologians who believe that the
> Bible is a part of Holy Tradition, and that it needs to be interpreted in
> light of the living Tradition of the Church, I find myself wrestling with
so
> many ideas that seem problematic and passages that just don't seem to have
> the clearity that they did from the other perspective. Its a real
struggle.
> Nothing seems to fit together as it does when the Bible is examined on its
> own ground, apart from any external exegetical influence.
Respectfully, if you take the number of "Bible-based" churches out there,
all based on "the plain meaning" of the Bible by itself, allegedly without
any external influences, and compare it with the number of those churches
that hold contradictory beliefs, I think you would find that statement to be
a fallacy. There is no such thing as a self-interpreting text.
learner
> Respectfully, if you take the number of "Bible-based" churches out there,
> all based on "the plain meaning" of the Bible by itself, allegedly without
> any external influences, and compare it with the number of those churches
> that hold contradictory beliefs, I think you would find that statement to be
> a fallacy.
Yes, but Church Tradition produces a similar situation. The Orthodox
and Roman Catholics claim Apostolic Tradtion [as do the Copts,
Assyrians, and other eastern Churches], yet each reaches different
conclusions from it - Purgatory is one example, or the practice of
communing/not communing infacts within the various Orthodox groups.
Since all of these Churches rely on Apostolic Tradition, shouldn't all
of these groups have the same, or at least similar, teachings?
Now, I am sure that the Orthodox will argue [similar to the various
Protestant groups' view of the Bible] that their interpretation of
Tradition is the *true* interpretation. Yet all of the others can
make an equally compelling argument by appealing to the very same
Apostolic Traditions. Clearly, Church Tradition has not eliminated the
chaos of interpretations.
> There is no such thing as a self-interpreting text.
That is true, there is no such thing as a self-interpreting fact.
Church Traditions - such as the Church Fathers, the Liturgy, and icons
- are also not self-interpreting.
The real danger in the eyes of Orthodoxy is that if the Scriptures are
self-sufficient [even if not fully self-interpreting], then the reader
is the interpreter - not the Church.
But here is the problem. If an individual's interpretation of
Scripture is always arbitrary, then no reader could ever properly
interpret the whole of the Scriptures. If we go back in history, it is
possible [and probably likely] that the people who heard God and Jesus
could have misunderstood what Jesus and God really said.
If we carry this problem into the future, we have an even greater
problem. If individuals, on their own, can never derive the objective
meaning of the Scriptures, we also would not be able to understand the
explanations given to us by Church Tradition concerning what the
Scriptures really say.
We would need traditions to explain the traditions, to explain the
traditions, and this would go to infinity.
I simply cannot take this objection very seriously.
Learner
learner
> ***Faith in Christ is implicit in being a communicant of the Orthodox
> Church which is The Body of Christ. We do not need everything spelled
> out in black and white. We know who we are in in whom we have faith.
So, belonging to an organization is "faith"? Many people in the Bible
had faith long before the Orthodox Church was founded.
Learner
learner
> As far as salvation being a process rather than an event, that's a concept
> that is 100% Biblical, being mentioned by no less than St. Paul: "[W]ork out
> your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you
> both to will and to do for His good pleasure", Philippians 2:12,13.
The context of this is:
"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my
presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your
salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to
will and to act according to his good purpose."
The use of the term "dear friends" [agapetos] implies that Paul was
addressing people who were already saved. God does call us to do
good, but these works are not terms of our salvation - they are the
fruit of salvation which God motivates and enables us to do.
> To expound somewhat on the above, Orthodox see Romans 6:1-6 pointing to
> "faith in Christ" as being a covenant relationship with Christ, based on
> union with Him.
However, faith in Christ begins at a point in time. The thief on the
cross was saved instantly, was he not?
> Additionally, Romans 5 says, "Therefore, having been
> justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
> through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand
> ,and rejoice in hope of the glory of God", which Orthodox see as meaning
> that it is first and foremost God's mercy that saves us, rather than
> anything we do.
I agree.
Learner
Al
***Could this be the reason why there are more than 27,000
"protestant" church groups worldwide...a number that, the U.N.
estimates, grows by 10-12 per day?
Al
BubbadaveID
non-SCOBA. The OC likes to point to the divisions within Protestantism, but
the divisions are within the OC as well.
richard.barrett
news:<QGYoc.6894$_Z4.515876@attbi_s51>...
>
> > Respectfully, if you take the number of "Bible-based" churches out
there,
> > all based on "the plain meaning" of the Bible by itself, allegedly
without
> > any external influences, and compare it with the number of those
churches
> > that hold contradictory beliefs, I think you would find that statement
to be
> > a fallacy.
>
> Yes, but Church Tradition produces a similar situation. The Orthodox
> and Roman Catholics claim Apostolic Tradtion [as do the Copts,
> Assyrians, and other eastern Churches], yet each reaches different
> conclusions from it - Purgatory is one example, or the practice of
> communing/not communing infacts within the various Orthodox groups.
> Since all of these Churches rely on Apostolic Tradition, shouldn't all
> of these groups have the same, or at least similar, teachings?
That depends on who takes what as the authority for said Tradition. As I
understand it, for Orthodox the authority is the Holy Spirit guiding the
Church via the seven ecumenical councils. The Roman Catholics have expanded
beyond that (with something like twenty-two councils); the Copts don't
acknowledge all (if any) of them.
> The real danger in the eyes of Orthodoxy is that if the Scriptures are
> self-sufficient [even if not fully self-interpreting], then the reader
> is the interpreter - not the Church.
No, the danger is that if the Scriptures can be divorced from the context of
the Church, then you get exactly what has happened in the Protestant world,
where everybody is essentially their own infallible Pope.
> We would need traditions to explain the traditions, to explain the
> traditions, and this would go to infinity.
At some point, faith must be a factor in the equation, no?
> I simply cannot take this objection very seriously.
You and I have also been on this particular merry-go-round many times
before. I'm not particularly interested in getting back on it now.
richard.barrett
ROCOR, at least, is a division of a primarily administrative nature that has
nothing to do with Orthodox faith or doctrine, more with accidents of
history. It also appears to be in the process of being healed. HOCNA's a
different story; they split off from the Church of their own volition. I
don't believe they're really in communion with anybody but themselves. It's
an issue that, in theory, could resolve itself with the establishment of a
Patriarchate of the United States, so that all of these administrative
issues in North America could be dealt with once and for all.
On the other hand, I don't think anybody talks about administrative unity
between, say, Baptists and Presbyterians as being either possible or a
desirable thing. Being "in communion" with one another doesn't really mean
anything when open communion is the rule anyway.
craig
> "craig" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:AhNoc.6992$sA....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> > > But the entire footnote speaks to a faith in the saving power of
> Christ's
> > > resurrection, faith in the grace of God, and faith in the work of the
> Holy
> > > Spirit. How in the world is any of that *un*-Biblical? As far as
> salvation
> > > being a process rather than an event, that's a concept that is 100%
> > > Biblical, being mentioned by no less than St. Paul: "[W]ork out your
own
> > > salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both
> to
> > > will and to do for His good pleasure", Philippians 2:12,13.
> > >
> > This verse has been miss-quoted by legalists throughtout church history.
>
> Who said anything about legalism? Orthodoxy isn't legalism.
If, when I approach God as the Prodigal Son did, in humility and repentance,
agreeing with God that I am a sinner, desperately in need his grace and
mercy, and that I am trusting in the finished work of Christ for my
salvation.....if, at that moment in time, God looks into my heart, as only
He can do, and sees that I am sincere......if, at that moment, God does
ANYTHING LESS than offer me the security of his unconditional love and
acceptance from that point forward, just as he did to the theif on the
cross, then there is nothing left for me but works. My belief was
insufficient. The "process" leading to justification that you describe is a
process of religious works, a series of things that I must do in order to
earn the justification that my faith was not sufficient to secure. Some
would call that legalism.
I never said that works do not have a place in the equation. Their place is
exactly as James says: works are always the product of saving faith. The
kind of faith that can save a man always produces good works. Still, it is
his faith that saves him, not his works. Abraham believed God, and at that
point, he was declared righteous by God.
The entire context of the passage in James is justification before men, not
justification before God. Any reading which attributes works as even a
small component of what justifies us before God completely contradicts
Galatians 2:16, among other verses. Romans 4:1-2 also makes it very clear
that the correct reading of this passage is the one I have described.
Justification before God is by faith alone, because He can see the heart.
Justification before men is by works because they cannot see the heart.
> > Working out our salvation is the process by which we allow God to take
> what
> > he has put in (our salvation as a free gift through faith) and work it
out
> > into the practice of our lives. It is spiritual growth (something
> > completely foreign to Orthodox believers).
>
> So, that's at least two pot-shots you've taken at Orthodoxy in the same
post
> (one of which I did not quote). Are you here to have a discussion, or are
> you here to vent?
That wasn't a shot at all.
> At any rate, where in the world would you get the idea into your head?
> That's at least partially what the Orthodox teaching of "theosis" is all
> about. Orthodoxy is all about "working it out into the practice of our
> lives".
>
> > My objections to salvation as a process include:
> >
> > 1. If salvation is a process, then you are correct in arguing that we
> can
> > not know the point at which we are finally made acceptable to God.
Though
> > we may be trying our best, it could be that we are still headed to
> > punishment. There is no escaping the implications of this teaching:
that
> we
> > live continually under the fear and threat of condemnation.
>
> I don't agree; to paraphrase the way Al put it, Orthodox say, "We know we
> are saved, having been joined to Christ through grace; we know know we are
> being saved, growing in Christ through the sacramental life of the Church;
> and we know we will be saved, by God's mercy." I could just as easily
argue
> that, in the notion of salvation as a once-only event, there is no
escaping
> the implication that there's no reason to ever grow in one's faith.
Amazing. That is the same line of argument that the Pharisees used in
Galatians 2:17. Do you see what you are saying?? ...that if the threat of
condemnation is removed, people will take license to sin. They will have no
motive to grow. Grace is dangerous. While it is certainly possible for
people to abuse their standing in Christ, look at how Paul respond's to that
charge. He reminds them about what it means to be united to Christ, to be a
new creation in Christ and identified with his death and resurrection.
There is no greater motive to follow Christ than his unconditional love and
acceptance. That is why Paul wrote, "I have been crucified with Christ; and
it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now
live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave
Himself up for me."
I blows me away to even consider the notion that God would intentionally
leave people in a state of limbo regarding the status of their justification
in order to provide them with a motive for growing in their faith.
Yes, I would love to learn some Greek as well. My Dad can speak Greek
fairly well. I wish I had learned from him.
I think you are right about the Greek word translated as "fear," phobos,
having different meanings. It can also mean "awe and reverence," which
makes much more sense in the context of the Philipians passage.
> That aside, you inadvertently make an excellent argument for the Orthodox
> position, because fear of punishment is most certainly not the point nor
the
> logical conclusion of the Orthodox teaching of salvation. The point is to
> make manifest the fruits of grace.
>
Not at all. The Orthodox position on salvation is clear. Contrary to what
Scripture teaches, Orthodox Tradition holds that I cannot know that I have
eternal life. The status of my justification before God as described by
Paul in Galatians 2:16 is a mystery. Therefore, it follows logically that
there is a possibility that, despite my participation in the sacraments,
etc., I may still be headed to the punishment of eternal seperation from
God. Thus the fear of the punishment that James speaks about has not been
cast out. It remains. You, yourself, seemed to be arguing toward this end
when you made the statement above regarding the absence of a motive for
growth. You seemed to be arguing that if salvation is a process, people
would not know the status of their standing before God, thus giving them a
motive to grow.
> > 2. Scripture clearly teaches that we can know we have eternal life: 1
> John
> > 5:13: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of
the
> > Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." Clearly
we
> > could not know we had eternal life if we are continually undergoing the
> > process by which we attain eternal life.
>
> Orthodox would say, I think (I'm not Orthodox yet), that we know as a
result
> of the ongoing process. "Much more than, having now been justified by His
> blood, we *shall be saved* from wrath through Him. For if when we were
> enemies we *were reconciled* to God through the death of His Son, much
more,
> *having been reconciled*, we *shall be saved* by His life. And not only
> that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through
whom
> *we have now received the reconciliation*." (Romans 5:9-11, emphasis mine)
> Once again, St. Paul speaks of this as an ongoing process, not a one-time
> event.
>
Well, is Orthodoxy saying that to me or to John? I think that John is the
guy that you should get to read the passage in Romans because *he* is the
one who said that we can know we have eternal life.
I would have to spend time studying this passage in Romans, but after
reading through a couple of times, it appears to me that Paul is simply
describing the amazing benefits of being justified before God. Because we
have "now been justified by his blood," (which is based on nothing more than
faith in Christ), all of these other benefits follow...saved from God's
wrath, saved by His life, etc. I don't see a process here at all.
There are no degrees of justification. Either a man is justified before
God, or he is not. The point at which he passes from being guilty to being
justified has to happen at a point in time.
Do you see the length to which you must go in order to avoid the fact that
the thief on the cross was justified by faith alone and that we are as well?
This is what I was describing to you in another thread.....that scripture is
clear when taken on its own ground, but becomes very muddy when interpreted
in light of Orthodox Tradition.
If the example of the thief does not apply to us, then niether does the
example of Abraham, as he also was justified prior to the death of Christ
based upon nothing but his belief, which was credited to him as
righteousness. Yet both Paul and James appealed to the example of Abraham
when describing how justification works. Why would they appeal to an
example that the Orthodox Church claims does not apply to us?
> > 5. The story of the prodigal son. The repentant son was immediately
> > accepted by his father. No rituals. No process. No threat of
> > condemnation.
>
> I'm not going to disagree with you on your basic point, but one can
> certainly imagine the long, *long* talk that the two of them must have had
> once the party had died down, can't one?
>
> And no rituals? No process? Really? All of the language is very poetic and
> prayer-like, and to me it's beyond dispute that the descriptions suggest
> ceremony:
>
> "And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in
your
> sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
>
> "But the father said to his servants, 'Bring out the best robe and put it
on
> him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet.
>
> "'And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry;
> for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'
And
> they began to be merry."
>
I doubt that Christ fashioned this parable in such a way as to teach us that
there was anything liturgical about the way the father and the Son were
relating to one another. It sounds to me like two persons relating to each
other based upon what is on their hearts, not written on a page.
> > 6. The threat of condemnation has never changed anyone or caused anyone
> to
> > grow spiritually. Only grace has the power to do that.
>
> I agree completely. Again, the threat of condemnation has nothing to do
with
> it from an Orthodox viewpoint.
>
> > > To expound somewhat on the above, Orthodox see Romans 6:1-6 pointing
to
> > > "faith in Christ" as being a covenant relationship with Christ, based
on
> > > union with Him. Additionally, Romans 5 says, "Therefore, having been
> > > justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus
> Christ,
> > > through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we
> > stand
> > > ,and rejoice in hope of the glory of God", which Orthodox see as
meaning
> > > that it is first and foremost God's mercy that saves us, rather than
> > > anything we do.
> >
> > I would agree. In his mercy, God chose to act and save us before the
> > foundation of the world.
>
> I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by the second half, but
> I'll take whatever common ground that can be established.
Thanks for taking the time to dialogue with me, Richard. I genuinely
appreciate it.
richard.barrett
> If, when I approach God as the Prodigal Son did, in humility and
repentance,
> agreeing with God that I am a sinner, desperately in need his grace and
> mercy, and that I am trusting in the finished work of Christ for my
> salvation.....if, at that moment in time, God looks into my heart, as only
> He can do, and sees that I am sincere......if, at that moment, God does
> ANYTHING LESS than offer me the security of his unconditional love and
> acceptance from that point forward, just as he did to the theif on the
> cross, then there is nothing left for me but works. My belief was
> insufficient. The "process" leading to justification that you describe is
a
> process of religious works, a series of things that I must do in order to
> earn the justification that my faith was not sufficient to secure. Some
> would call that legalism.
And herein lies the problem, that of a fundamentally different assumption
being made. The Protestant assumption is "either/or"; the Orthodox
assumption (here as with many concepts in its theology) is "both/and". In
Protestant (and Roman Catholic) theology, the assumption is made that
salvation "satisfies" some requirement on God's part, and that sin is some
sort of charge against one's soul that must be satisfied. The Orthodox
understanding, rather, assumes that sin is a sickness on the part of man
rather than a crime against God. As Clark Carlton puts it in _The Life_,
"Christ came not to heal God's wounded honor but to heal man of his
sickness. Because of sin, man had become enslaved to death and corruption.
God is life, and man had cut himself off from the only source of life and
happiness. Christ came to restore man to life." If I wanted to really boil
it down to a statement that (over)simplifies the issues involved here, I
would perhaps say that in the Orthodox understanding of salvation, there is
a distinction made between human nature and individuality. Salvation the
event saves our human nature; salvation the process saves us at a personal
level. To put it another way, salvation the event guarantees we will live
forever in the presence of God; salvation the process determines how we will
experience that eternal life. Orthodox do not see that as a contradiction;
again, there are different premises from Western Christianity.
C.S. Lewis demonstrates this notion rather well at the end of The Chronicles
of Narnia; at the end of the world, all the characters are brought into
Heaven, but the dwarves who turned against Aslan (God) are unable to
perceive the Paradise around them as anything but a smelly, disgusting barn.
> The entire context of the passage in James is justification before men,
not
> justification before God. Any reading which attributes works as even a
> small component of what justifies us before God completely contradicts
> Galatians 2:16, among other verses.
Which, again, is a standpoint that proceeds from different premises than the
Orthodox assume.
It is spiritual growth (something
> > > completely foreign to Orthodox believers).
> >
> > So, that's at least two pot-shots you've taken at Orthodoxy in the same
> post
> > (one of which I did not quote). Are you here to have a discussion, or
are
> > you here to vent?
>
> That wasn't a shot at all.
How was it not?
There is no escaping the implications of this teaching:
> that
> > we
> > > live continually under the fear and threat of condemnation.
> >
> > I don't agree; to paraphrase the way Al put it, Orthodox say, "We know
we
> > are saved, having been joined to Christ through grace; we know know we
are
> > being saved, growing in Christ through the sacramental life of the
Church;
> > and we know we will be saved, by God's mercy." I could just as easily
> argue
> > that, in the notion of salvation as a once-only event, there is no
> escaping
> > the implication that there's no reason to ever grow in one's faith.
>
> Amazing. That is the same line of argument that the Pharisees used in
> Galatians 2:17. Do you see what you are saying??
1) I said "I could just as easily argue..." I'm pointing out the fallacy I
perceive in your statement, not stating an argument that I myself am making.
2) The fallacy I intended to point out is that the assumption is being made
by both statements is that fear and threat is what is intended to motivate
us as Christians.
But there's a bigger point to be made here. Again, to boil down bigger, more
complicated points of theology, Orthodox also view salvation as an event as
being inherently a contradictor of free will. God will keep all who come to
Him, yes, but not against their will. As long as we are on this Earth, we
can reject God. Hence 1 Corinthians 9:26-27: "Therefore I run thus: not with
uncertainly. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my
body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I
myself should become disqualified." What this means, however, is if we fall,
God's unconditional love, grace, and mercy means we can get back up again
and repent, hundreds and thousands of times.
> I blows me away to even consider the notion that God would intentionally
> leave people in a state of limbo regarding the status of their
justification
> in order to provide them with a motive for growing in their faith.
That wasn't my point at all.
> > That aside, you inadvertently make an excellent argument for the
Orthodox
> > position, because fear of punishment is most certainly not the point nor
> the
> > logical conclusion of the Orthodox teaching of salvation. The point is
to
> > make manifest the fruits of grace.
> >
>
> Not at all. The Orthodox position on salvation is clear. Contrary to
what
> Scripture teaches, Orthodox Tradition holds that I cannot know that I have
> eternal life.
Again, different premises.
> There are no degrees of justification. Either a man is justified before
> God, or he is not. The point at which he passes from being guilty to
being
> justified has to happen at a point in time.
And you state the Western premise quite succinctly. That simply is not the
Orthodox premise.
> Do you see the length to which you must go in order to avoid the fact that
> the thief on the cross was justified by faith alone and that we are as
well?
If you don't like the conclusion, then tell me at what point you disagree.
I think part of the problem here, relating to the issue of different
premises, is one of vocabulary. Protestant theology sees "justification" and
"salvation" as the same thing; Orthodox, I think, don't. Much of the rest of
your post relates to one of those two issues as well.
> This is what I was describing to you in another thread.....that scripture
is
> clear when taken on its own ground, but becomes very muddy when
interpreted
> in light of Orthodox Tradition.
How does it become "muddy"?
> If the example of the thief does not apply to us,
I said "doesn't apply completely", not "doesn't apply at all".
> I doubt that Christ fashioned this parable in such a way as to teach us
that
> there was anything liturgical about the way the father and the Son were
> relating to one another. It sounds to me like two persons relating to
each
> other based upon what is on their hearts, not written on a page.
I didn't say Christ was making a liturgical point. I'm just pointing out
that, depending on how one looks at it, there is a ceremonial *aspect* to
the reconciliation. Not that it is based upon ceremony, per se.
> Thanks for taking the time to dialogue with me, Richard. I genuinely
> appreciate it.
No problem. I don't have all the answers, not by a long shot--I'm a
catechumen whose first exposure to Orthodoxy was just over a year ago--and I
make no claims to being terribly bright, so I may or may not present some of
these points of view terribly well.
A book that deals with this whole question rather systematically and
thoroughly is the aforementioned _The Life: The Orthodox Doctrine of
Salvation_ by Clark Carlton, published by Regina Orthodox Press. He puts
many things much better than I ever could.
Richard
Steve Hayes
>
>"richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> But the entire footnote speaks to a faith in the saving power of Christ's
>> resurrection, faith in the grace of God, and faith in the work of the Holy
>> Spirit. How in the world is any of that *un*-Biblical? As far as salvation
>> being a process rather than an event, that's a concept that is 100%
>> Biblical, being mentioned by no less than St. Paul: "[W]ork out your own
>> salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to
>> will and to do for His good pleasure", Philippians 2:12,13.
>>
>
>This verse has been miss-quoted by legalists throughtout church history.
No doubt, but that legalism is Western, not Orthodoxy.
>You confuse "working out" your salvation with "working for" your salvation.
>But we know Paul's view on working for our salvation:
No he doesn't. You are imputing views to him that he does not hold.
>Gal 2:16 "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of
>the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ
>Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works
>of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."
>
>Working out our salvation is the process by which we allow God to take what
>he has put in (our salvation as a free gift through faith) and work it out
>into the practice of our lives. It is spiritual growth (something
>completely foreign to Orthodox believers).
And that is precisely the Orthodox faith, which you seem determined to
misrepresent.
--
The unworthy servant of God,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
learner
> That depends on who takes what as the authority for said Tradition. As I
> understand it, for Orthodox the authority is the Holy Spirit guiding the
> Church via the seven ecumenical councils. The Roman Catholics have expanded
> beyond that (with something like twenty-two councils); the Copts don't
> acknowledge all (if any) of them.
But the Orthodox are not the only one who make this claim. The
Catholics [and I am not arguing in their favor] would claim that the
Holy Spirit has guided them in their numerous councils.
The fact of the matter is that the Church was not set up "as is".
Doctrines developed over many centuries. Even in the Bible, we see
the development of doctrine and beliefs.
Paul wrote the earliest manuscripts of Scripture and he mentioned
nothing concerning the virgin birth of Christ. Mark, the earliest
Gospel, is also silent concerning this topic. By the time we get the
John's Gospel, Jesus is the Logos.
Orthodoxy also developed through the Councils that you mentioned.
They simply decided to freeze their development at a point in time.
> > The real danger in the eyes of Orthodoxy is that if the Scriptures are
> > self-sufficient [even if not fully self-interpreting], then the reader
> > is the interpreter - not the Church.
> No, the danger is that if the Scriptures can be divorced from the context of
> the Church, then you get exactly what has happened in the Protestant world,
> where everybody is essentially their own infallible Pope.
Well, I think that there are two problems here, one historical and
another philosphical.
A common Orthodox criticism of Protestantism is that it has a variety
of groups with often very different ideas. The history of early
Christianity clearly demonstrates that there were a variety of
opinions during the early years of the faith. There were a number of
different groups who held very different opinions of who Jesus was and
what He said.
There was no monolithic ancient Church. This is obvious even within
the New Testament, when one group, or another, of believers is
condemned for not following the "correct" path. I am sure that those
believers considered themselves to be "orthodox", but they did not
win.
The Orthodox Church went hand-in-hand with a number of governments
throughout history and used [and in modern Russia use] the government
to enforce the Orthodox monopoly. The Old Believers of Russia can
certainly tell you how this was done!
When Islam conquered the Orthodox lands, people rallied around the
Church to attempt to save their identities, and in many cases, their
lives.
The West, unlike much of the East, emerged from feudalism and began to
give greater importance to the individual. The government really has
no need to enforce a religious monopoly in the modern world, so people
are free to do as they wish.
Now the philosophical problem.
If we believe that the Church is the most "reliable" interpreter of
the Bible, we first have to accept that the Bible is, in fact,
inspired - right? We believe
in the Bible based on the authority of the Orthodox Church. The Church
then attempts to prove her authority from the Bible by pointing out
that it is given authority by the writings of certain individuals who
tried to prove the authority of the Church from the Bible, or from the
writings of certain men who, who wrote about other men who tried to
prove the authority of Church from the Bible......
Like it or not, the final authority to which the Orthodox and the
Protestants both refer is the Bible. Also, both Orthodox and
Protestants leave the burden of the ultimate proof to God -
Protestants claiming authority for the Bible from God directly and
Orthodox claiming authority to the Bible through the channel of
tradition.
> > We would need traditions to explain the traditions, to explain the
> > traditions, and this would go to infinity.
>
> At some point, faith must be a factor in the equation, no?
Of course. However, even "blind faith" is based on some level of
rational decision. Like it or not, we all act as our own "infallible
Pope".
> > I simply cannot take this objection very seriously.
> You and I have also been on this particular merry-go-round many times
> before. I'm not particularly interested in getting back on it now.
It is not a merry-go-round -it is a very serious problem. If an
individual's interpretation of Scripture, or Tradition, is always
arbitrary, then we probably do not have an accurate represention of
either since those who orginally heard Jesus assigned arbitrary
interpretations to what He said.
Also, Tradition is also not self-interpreting, so none of us can
really understand the explanations given to us by Church Tradition
concerning what the
Scriptures really say.
Learner
learner
> ***Could this be the reason why there are more than 27,000
> "protestant" church groups worldwide...a number that, the U.N.
> estimates, grows by 10-12 per day?
Oh my, the "Ace in the hold" of all Orthodox arguments! It goes like
this:
The Orthodox Church is the one and only "true" Church [argument by
fallacy of assertion] and that it is the same as the Church
established by the Apostles [a statement contradicted by history].
All other groups are then "denominations". A proof of Orthodoxy is,
herefore, the numerous disagreements between the feuding
"denominations". Joseph Smith used the same argument to "prove"
Mormonism and Muhammad used the same ides [arguments between the Jews
and Christians of his day] to "prove" Islam.
Any group can play this game Alfred!
Learner
learner
> And herein lies the problem, that of a fundamentally different assumption
> being made. The Protestant assumption is "either/or"; the Orthodox
> assumption (here as with many concepts in its theology) is "both/and". In
> Protestant (and Roman Catholic) theology, the assumption is made that
> salvation "satisfies" some requirement on God's part, and that sin is some
> sort of charge against one's soul that must be satisfied.
The Protestants begin the process with Salvation [Justification] while
the Orthodox end the process with Salvation [Glorification]. My
problem with this is that it is more than a matter of semantics. It
is critical, at least to me, to be able to determine the point when a
person becomes acceptable before God.
The Orthodox view is very vague. We receive salvation at the end of
"theosis" (Deification, or Sanctification in the Protestant
vocabulary) However, the completion of "theosis" may not occur in our
lifetime. So, since we cannot believe in Purgatory, we create "Toll
Houses."
I believe that salvation begins at the moment when genuine faith
begins - at the point of justification. The thief on the cross is an
example of this. I do not believe that I need to go through a
life-long process of "theosis" in order to attain salvation. God
justifies sinners who trust in Christ and accepts them into fellowship
in spite of the fact that they are not perfect (Romans 5:8).
Fellowship with God begins with faith.
> The Orthodox understanding, rather, assumes that sin is a sickness on the
> part of man rather than a crime against God.
This view minimizes the seriousness of sin. Even worse, this view
devalues, and in my opinion insults, Christ's death on the cross for
atonement for our sins.
> > Not at all. The Orthodox position on salvation is clear. Contrary to
> what
> > Scripture teaches, Orthodox Tradition holds that I cannot know that I have
> > eternal life.
>
> Again, different premises.
Which also do not support the Orthodox conclusion. If we humans
cannot know our fate, or the fate of others, how can Bishops and
Synods declare dead people to be Saints?
> I think part of the problem here, relating to the issue of different
> premises, is one of vocabulary. Protestant theology sees "justification" and
> "salvation" as the same thing; Orthodox, I think, don't. Much of the rest of
> your post relates to one of those two issues as well.
Protestants see the following progression : Justification,
Sanctification, and then Glorification. Salvation occurs at the time
of Justification, and it is through faith.
Orthodox begin with Baptism, then through a process of Deification
[similar to the Protestant concept of Sanctification], and then to
Glorification. In Orthodoxy, salvation occurs at the time of
Glorification.
Learner
aggreen
news:<zw6pc.1085$qA.168528@attbi_s51>...
>
>
> Orthodoxy also developed through the Councils that you mentioned.
> They simply decided to freeze their development at a point in time.
***Actually, the Eastern Patriarchates realized that All of Truth had been
revealed through the Eighth Ecumenical Council. There was nothing else
necessary for an understanding of the Faith and what was required and
necessary for Salvation.
aggreen
of no consequence to the Orthodox Church.
You protestants are the ones playing games with words. The original Church,
the True Church, has nothing to apologize for or defend. It is what it is
despite the likes of you and others to tear it down.
The gates of hell shall not prevail against us.
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.0405...@posting.google.com...
aggreen
> "richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:<1dDpc.9783$qA.1103053@attbi_s51>...
>
>
> The Orthodox view is very vague. We receive salvation at the end of
> "theosis" (Deification, or Sanctification in the Protestant
> vocabulary) However, the completion of "theosis" may not occur in our
> lifetime. So, since we cannot believe in Purgatory, we create "Toll
> Houses."
***Toll Houses are a myth and a heresy, despite the small number of
Orthodox, led by Seraphim Rose, who believe in that junk.
Steve Hayes
>"richard.barrett" <richard...@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:<1dDpc.9783$qA.1103053@attbi_s51>...
>
>> And herein lies the problem, that of a fundamentally different assumption
>> being made. The Protestant assumption is "either/or"; the Orthodox
>> assumption (here as with many concepts in its theology) is "both/and". In
>> Protestant (and Roman Catholic) theology, the assumption is made that
>> salvation "satisfies" some requirement on God's part, and that sin is some
>> sort of charge against one's soul that must be satisfied.
>
>The Protestants begin the process with Salvation [Justification] while
>the Orthodox end the process with Salvation [Glorification]. My
>problem with this is that it is more than a matter of semantics. It
>is critical, at least to me, to be able to determine the point when a
>person becomes acceptable before God.
>
>The Orthodox view is very vague. We receive salvation at the end of
>"theosis" (Deification, or Sanctification in the Protestant
>vocabulary) However, the completion of "theosis" may not occur in our
>lifetime. So, since we cannot believe in Purgatory, we create "Toll
>Houses."
The difference is that the Orthodoxc believe that a loving God delivers us
from evil; Protestants believe that God delivers us from an angry God.
Al
>
> The difference is that the Orthodoxc believe that a loving God delivers us
> from evil; Protestants believe that God delivers us from an angry God.
***I'm not so sure that protestants these days even preach about God's
anger any more. Certainly most have abandoned the concept of the Evil
One (or Satan or the Devil). "Don't worry, be happy" seems to be the
protestant mantra.
Al
learner
> ***Toll Houses are a myth and a heresy, despite the small number of
> Orthodox, led by Seraphim Rose, who believe in that junk.
Who has decreed this to be a heresy? Doesn't the Church need to hold
a council to do this?
Learner
learner
> The difference is that the Orthodoxc believe that a loving God delivers us
> from evil; Protestants believe that God delivers us from an angry God.
I think that this is a gross oversimplification. The Protestants
appear [at least to me] to place tremendous emphasis of Christ's death
for the vicarious atonement of our sins. This is clearly an act of a
loving God.
The Orthodox view of God does not appear to be one of a loving
Creator. In fact, I see great similarity between the Orthodox concept
of God and the Islamic concept of Allah. We have to work to earn our
salvation and we are never really sure in this life whether or not we
have achieved this goal.
Learner
learner
> ***Actually, the Eastern Patriarchates realized that All of Truth had been
> revealed through the Eighth Ecumenical Council. There was nothing else
> necessary for an understanding of the Faith and what was required and
> necessary for Salvation.
Are you talking about the 8th Ecumenical Council held in
Constantinople between October 5, 869 and February 28, 870?
This council was not recognized as "ecumenical" until sometime during
the 12th century. Its purpose was not to declare an end to Councils.
Emperor Basil called this council to condemn and depose Patriarch
Photius - the author of the Greek schism.
Also, the "Palamite Councils", which were held in Constantinople
between 1341 and 1351 are often referred to by the Orthodox as the
"ninth ecumenical council".
Sorry Alfred, but I think you need to do a bit more homework.
Learner
learner
> The opinion and tactics of Joseph Smith, a Freemason who founded a cult, is
> of no consequence to the Orthodox Church.
They would say the same of your opinions. The tactics, however, are
the same.
> You protestants are the ones playing games with words. The original Church,
> the True Church, has nothing to apologize for or defend. It is what it is
> despite the likes of you and others to tear it down.
Al, there are many churches, but there is no "True Church" - you are
looking for something that simply does not exist. There is no
earthly organization that is the one true church. All Churches can
point back to the Bible and early Christianity to defend various
beliefs or practices. The fact of the matter is that Orthodoxy,
Catholicism, and Protestantism are historical developments that have
little to do with earliest Christianity.
To proclaim your group to be the "True" Chruch is easy, anyone can do
it. It is also easy to dimiss those who are not in your group as
"bickering denominations". But then again, any other group can do
this as well.
> The gates of hell shall not prevail against us.
Against whom, Alfred?
The Orthodox Church differs from the early Church in many respects.
Read the Didache! There is no mention of the creation, yet alone the
veneration of icons. There was no baptism of infants, no veneration of
Mary or the saints, no "real presence", and Bishops were married men
who were elected by their congregations.
Learner
Rico Yungblud
> >The Protestants begin the process with Salvation [Justification] while
> >the Orthodox end the process with Salvation [Glorification]. My
> >problem with this is that it is more than a matter of semantics. It
> >is critical, at least to me, to be able to determine the point when a
> >person becomes acceptable before God.
The Orthodox view, as I understand it, is that there is never a time
when a person is ever NOT acceptable to God. That is not the problem.
The problem is the condition the person/soul is in when they are in
the presence of the Holy Fire that consumes and destroys everything
which is not Holy.
Fire burns up and destroys the wood, hay, and stuble, not because of
anger, disappointment, or some kind or satisfaction/retribution. It
is due to the inherrent nature of the fire and the dross which is
burned up.
<snip>
> The difference is that the Orthodoxc believe that a loving God delivers us
> from evil; Protestants believe that God delivers us from an angry God.
God is not angry with me, he has never been angry with me. He has
eternally and is constantly calling me with His Grace, Mercy, and
Love.
Al
***I think you need to leave us alone!
Radost7
out of communion with the Kievan Patriarchate, out of commuion with the
Macedonian Orthodox church, the Old Brethren, The True Orthodox Church, the Old
Calendarists, the Armenian Orthodox Church, the Belarussian Apostolic Orthodox
church, the Syrian Orthdoxo Church, the Egyptian, Eritrian and Ethiopian
Orthodox (Coptic) churches, and so on. These divisions, such as in Bulgaria,
Macedonia and Ukraine, have led to violent confrontations and sometimes death.
If that is Orthodox Christian unity, we are better off without it. Clearly the
Orthodox calling Protestants disunified is the pot calling the kettle black.
++
Learner
learner
> ***I'm not so sure that protestants these days even preach about God's
> anger any more.
Really Alfred? Is this based on direct observation, or on petty
prejudice?
> Certainly most have abandoned the concept of the Evil
> One (or Satan or the Devil).
Protestantism is not monolithic. Some groups, such as the
Pentecostals and the Baptists most certainly talk a great deal about
Satan and Hell. Others, such as the Anglicans and Lutherans are not
really obsessed with either.
By the way Alfred, I would suggest that the Orthodox Church is not
terribly obsessed with the issues of Satan and Hell either. The Roman
Catholics most definitely are.
>"Don't worry, be happy" seems to be the
> protestant mantra.
And why not? If you believe that God has saved you, then how can you
be anything less than happy?
Learner
++
++
Radost7 wrote:
Respectfully, becuase I am as concerned as you are with the
jurisdicitonal politics, the Armenian and Syrian churches are close to
us but still in heresy (Once they simply reject the heresy, and there
are moves in that direction, they are Orthodox and talking to Syrian
Orthodox does not make it appear as if we have any present day
differences at all) and the Copts are in a similar but different
position with regards to their particular heresy, i.e. many think
exactly like us but still have on the books differences in theology. I
applaud the Ecumenical Patriarchate in promoting heavy dialogue with all
these groups of Christians close to us and hope that the dialogue comes
to fruition, but clearly we should all start with loving acceptance of
those groups in the list above who actually are Orthodox. In terms of
actual Orthodox practice, I haven't experienced any group more correct,
fervent or less political than the Macedonian Orthodox. And the kievan
Patriarchate situation is politics pure and simple.
Best regards,
Galina
>
>
>
BubbadaveID
between the two churches. Sorry, but I'm Armenian and I know my church history
AND I am fluent in Armenian.
aggreen
> "aggreen" <agg...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<xAdqc.269845$e17....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>
> > The opinion and tactics of Joseph Smith, a Freemason who founded a cult,
is
> > of no consequence to the Orthodox Church.
>
> They would say the same of your opinions. The tactics, however, are
> the same.
>
> > You protestants are the ones playing games with words. The original
Church,
> > the True Church, has nothing to apologize for or defend. It is what it
is
> > despite the likes of you and others to tear it down.
>
> Al, there are many churches, but there is no "True Church"
***Yes there is. You just refuse to accept it. You are barking up the wrong
tree by pushing heresies like this on me.
- you are
> looking for something that simply does not exist.
***Yes it does.
There is no
> earthly organization that is the one true church.
***Yes there is.
All Churches can
> point back to the Bible and early Christianity to defend various
> beliefs or practices.
***Wrongly.
The fact of the matter is that Orthodoxy,
> Catholicism, and Protestantism are historical developments that have
> little to do with earliest Christianity.
***Baloney. Pure protestant pap!
>
> To proclaim your group to be the "True" Chruch is easy, anyone can do
> it.
***Especially when it's true.
It is also easy to dimiss those who are not in your group as
> "bickering denominations". But then again, any other group can do
> this as well.
***You are proving this to me.
>
> > The gates of hell shall not prevail against us.
>
> Against whom, Alfred?
***Who do you think?
>
> The Orthodox Church differs from the early Church in many respects.
> Read the Didache! There is no mention of the creation, yet alone the
> veneration of icons. There was no baptism of infants, no veneration of
> Mary or the saints, no "real presence", and Bishops were married men
> who were elected by their congregations.
***O cut the crap. The Didache was just the beginning of canon law. Go
peddle your heresies somewhere else.
Al
aggreen
aggreen
news:<df4e6c04.04051...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > ***I'm not so sure that protestants these days even preach about God's
> > anger any more.
>
> Really Alfred? Is this based on direct observation, or on petty
> prejudice?
***Observation. Just check the TBN cable network.
>
> > Certainly most have abandoned the concept of the Evil
> > One (or Satan or the Devil).
>
> Protestantism is not monolithic. Some groups, such as the
> Pentecostals and the Baptists most certainly talk a great deal about
> Satan and Hell. Others, such as the Anglicans and Lutherans are not
> really obsessed with either.
>
> By the way Alfred, I would suggest that the Orthodox Church is not
> terribly obsessed with the issues of Satan and Hell either. The Roman
> Catholics most definitely are.
***Suggestion noted...and rejected.
Joseph
> aggr...@netscape.net (Al) wrote in message news:<df4e6c04.04051...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>>***Could this be the reason why there are more than 27,000
>>"protestant" church groups worldwide...a number that, the U.N.
>>estimates, grows by 10-12 per day?
>
>
> Oh my, the "Ace in the hold" of all Orthodox arguments! It goes like
> this:
>
> The Orthodox Church is the one and only "true" Church [argument by
> fallacy of assertion]
By that measure, ANY statement of faith is a "fallacy of assertion".
There is a difference.
> and that it is the same as the Church
> established by the Apostles [a statement contradicted by history].
There is no such thing as objective history. You pick the
interpretation of history that suits your need to discredit the Orthodox
Church, and most Orthodox pick an interpretation that does, indeed, seem
to flow from Apostolic origins. But your claim that it is "contradicted
by history" is ridiculous. You are not bringing issues to light that
the Orthodox do not know about, but rather, reinterpreting the same
issues to suit your purposes.
While you have a right to interpret things however you want to, passing
it off as "just the facts" is dishonest.
> All other groups are then "denominations". A proof of Orthodoxy is,
> herefore, the numerous disagreements between the feuding
> "denominations". Joseph Smith used the same argument to "prove"
> Mormonism and Muhammad used the same ides [arguments between the Jews
> and Christians of his day] to "prove" Islam.
The difference is that all of those other groups have some claim that
the Church "disappeared" for a time, and that they, with their brand
spankin new movement, have restored it.
The Catholics have a good grasp on this situation. Historically
speaking, they have as much claim to descent from the Apostolic
community as the Orthodox do. So, it doesn't come down to simple
history either way.
>
> Any group can play this game Alfred!
So why bother? Don't play games. Just because Al is playing them,
doesn't mean that the Orthodox Church, collectively, is playing them.
Overall, the Orthodox Church doesn't define herself by her ability to
debunk any other group's claims. We are who we are, and we know the
Church not for what she *isn't*, but for what she *is*.
Whenever it gets into, "we are the tru, right, noble ones, as compared
to you crass heretic, deniers of the true faith," it gets stupid.
- Joseph
BTW, I have not forgotten about our Evolution discussion. I just need
the time to respond decently, and finals and papers are preventing me at
the moment. You understand.
But this is an angle of the Evolution topic that I rarely get a chance
to discuss, so I am still interested.
Cheers.
--
But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who
oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court? Is it
not they who blaspheme that honorable name which was invoked
over you? [James 2:6-7]
Steve Hayes
>haye...@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<40a97774...@news.saix.net>...
>
>> The difference is that the Orthodoxc believe that a loving God delivers us
>> from evil; Protestants believe that God delivers us from an angry God.
>
>I think that this is a gross oversimplification. The Protestants
>appear [at least to me] to place tremendous emphasis of Christ's death
>for the vicarious atonement of our sins. This is clearly an act of a
>loving God.
Indeed it's a gross over-spimplification. Most of this particular thread has
been a series of gross over-simplifications. In this case, because not all
Protestants are the same -- there are so many varieties of them, that
generalisations are pretty crude. Methodists, for example, come closer to the
Orthodox view than Calvinists.
The core of the question, however, which most Protestants participating in
these discussions seem to evade, is "what is salvation?"
What are we actually saved from?
Radost7
several groups just as Protestants are. Armenian Apostolic Orthodox are not
heretical.
++
From the Greek monos meaning 'one' and physis meaning 'nature') is the christological position that Christ has only one nature, as opposed to the Chalcedonian position which holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. There are three major doctrines that can be called monophysite:
Eutychianism holds that the human nature of Christ was essentially obliterated by the Divine, "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea".
Apollinarismwas a view proposed by Apollinaris of Laodicea that Christ Ihad a human body but a divineÊ mind.Ê
Miaphysitism, the "monophysite" Christology of extant "monophysite" Churches, holds that in Christ the divine and human nature become one nature, the natures being united without separation, without confusion, and without change.
Monophysitism emerged in Egypt as a response to Nestorian It was rejected at the Council of Chalcedonhe Council of Chalcedon took place from October 8 - November 1, 451 A.D at Chalcedon, a city
Later, monothelitism Monothelitism
was the christological doctrine that Jesus Christ had one will but two
natures (divine and human). Under the influence of the Patriarch
Sergios (of Constantinople), monothelitism was developed during the
reign of Heraclius as a response to Monoenergism and as an attempt to
reconcile the Monophysites with the Chalcedonians. However, it was
rejected by the Church, and was never accepted by most of the
monophysites either. One prominent opponent of the doctrine was Maximus
the Confessor, who insisted instead on
..... Click the link for more information.
Êwas
developed as an attempt to bridge the gap between Monophysitism and the
Chalcedonian position, but it too was also rejected by the
Chalcedonians, despite at times having the support of the ByzantineÊ Emperors.
Monophysite churches are still found today, and include the Coptic
Orthodox Church of
Egypt, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Church The Ethiopian Orthodox
Tewahedo Church
is an Oriental Orthodox church in Ethiopia that was part of the Coptic
Church until it was granted autocephaly by the Coptic pope in 1950. Tewahido
is an Ethiopian word meaning "being made one".
After Eritrea became an independent country, the Tewahedo Church
granted autocephaly in turn to the Eritrean Orthodox Church. It
claims its origins from Philip the Evangelist (Acts of the Apostles
Chapter 8). It became the established church under Emperor Axone in the
4th Century. Its liturgy is based on the Ge'ez language. The
term Oriental Orthodoxy refers to several Eastern Christian traditions
that diverged from their more "western" counterparts by the time of the
Council of Chalcedon. Oriental Orthodox churches are distinct from the
churches that collectively refer to themselves as Eastern Orthodoxy, a
distinction that is agreed upon by both the Oriental and Eastern
Orthodox. Many Western scholars, however, including Roman Catholic
Church lump them as a subgroup of "Eastern churches". The term is also used to denote clerici vagantes, i.e.
clergy without title or benefice, picking up a living anyhow. Certain
persons in England during the reign of King Henry I of England were
called Acephali because they had no lands by virtue of which they could
acknowledge a superior lord. In 482 the Patriarchate
of Alexandria passed to Peter III, who proved to be a Monophysite,
despite the condemnation of this christological opinion at the Council
of Chalcedon. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, devised an
eirenic formula of unity called the Henotikon, which Zeno
promulgated without the approval of a synod of bishops as Church
policy. By this act, Zeno hoped to placate the increasingly Monophysite
provinces of Egypt, Palestine and Syria, which were under increasing
attacks by the Persians.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
craig
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40aaa90a...@news.saix.net...
> On 18 May 2004 07:52:12 -0700, nat...@hotmail.com (learner) wrote:
>
> >haye...@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message
news:<40a97774...@news.saix.net>...
> >
> >> The difference is that the Orthodoxc believe that a loving God delivers
us
> >> from evil; Protestants believe that God delivers us from an angry God.
> >
> >I think that this is a gross oversimplification. The Protestants
> >appear [at least to me] to place tremendous emphasis of Christ's death
> >for the vicarious atonement of our sins. This is clearly an act of a
> >loving God.
>
> Indeed it's a gross over-spimplification. Most of this particular thread
has
> been a series of gross over-simplifications. In this case, because not all
> Protestants are the same -- there are so many varieties of them, that
> generalisations are pretty crude. Methodists, for example, come closer to
the
> Orthodox view than Calvinists.
>
> The core of the question, however, which most Protestants participating in
> these discussions seem to evade, is "what is salvation?"
>
> What are we actually saved from?
We are saved from having to bear God's wrath for human sin (John 3:36). The
righteousness of God demands the penalty of death (eternal seperation from
God) for sin (Heb 9:22). Every man has sinned (Rom 3:23) and falls under
God's judgement, deserving death. By God's grace, however, through nothing
but faith in Christ, we can be delivered from God's judgement as Jesus
taught us in John 5:24: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word,
and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into
judgement, but has passed out of death into life." Thus salvation is this
passing from death into life that occurs at the moment we put our faith in
Christ.
Al
Al
++ <yourf...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<40aaee11$0$3057$61fe...@news.rcn.com>...
> From a website called
> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Apollinarism, here are some
> basic definitions. There are additional clear resources on that webpage:
>
> From the Greek monos meaning 'one' and physis meaning 'nature') is the
> christological
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/christology>position that
> Christ has only one nature, as opposed to the Chalcedonian position
> which holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. There
> are three major doctrines that can be called monophysite:
>
> Eutychianism <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Eutyches> holds
> that the human nature of Christ was essentially obliterated by the
> Divine, "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea".
>
> Apollinarism <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Apollinarism>was
> a view proposed by Apollinaris of Laodicea that Christ
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Christ> Ihad a human
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/human> body but a divine
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/God> mind.
>
> Miaphysitism, the "monophysite" Christology of extant "monophysite"
> Churches, holds that in Christ the divine and human nature become one
> nature, the natures being united without separation, without confusion,
> and without change.
>
> Monophysitism emerged in Egypt as a response to Nestorian
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Nestorianism> It was rejected
> at the Council of Chalcedon
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Council%20of%20Chalcedon>he
> Council of Chalcedon took place from October 8 - November 1, 451 A.D at
> Chalcedon, a city
>
> Later, monothelitism
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/monothelitism> Monothelitism
> was the christological doctrine that Jesus Christ had one will but two
> natures (divine and human). Under the influence of the Patriarch Sergios
> (of Constantinople), monothelitism was developed during the reign of
> Heraclius as a response to Monoenergism and as an attempt to reconcile
> the Monophysites with the Chalcedonians. However, it was rejected by the
> Church, and was never accepted by most of the monophysites either. One
> prominent opponent of the doctrine was Maximus the Confessor, who
> insisted instead on
> ..... Click the link for more information. was developed as an attempt
> to bridge the gap between Monophysitism and the Chalcedonian position,
> but it too was also rejected by the Chalcedonians, despite at times
> having the support of the Byzantine
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Byzantine> Emperors.
>
> Monophysite churches are still found today, and include the Coptic
> Orthodox Church
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Coptic%20Christianity> of
> Egypt, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Tewahedo%20Church> The
> Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is an Oriental Orthodox church in
> Ethiopia that was part of the Coptic Church until it was granted
> autocephaly by the Coptic pope in 1950. Tewahido is an Ethiopian word
> meaning "being made one".
>
> After Eritrea became an independent country, the Tewahedo Church granted
> autocephaly in turn to the Eritrean Orthodox Church.
>
> It claims its origins from Philip the Evangelist (Acts of the Apostles
> Chapter 8). It became the established church under Emperor Axone in the
> 4th Century. Its liturgy is based on the Ge'ez language.
>
> (tewahido being an Ethiopian word meaning "being made one"), the newly
> autocephalous
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/autocephaly>Eritrean Orthodox
> Church
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Eritrean%20Orthodox%20Church>
> and the Armenian Apostolic Church
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Armenian%20Orthodox%20Church>
> These are considered branches of Oriental Orthodoxy
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Oriental%20Orthodoxy>
>
> The term Oriental Orthodoxy refers to several Eastern Christian
> traditions that diverged from their more "western" counterparts by the
> time of the Council of Chalcedon. Oriental Orthodox churches are
> distinct from the churches that collectively refer to themselves as
> Eastern Orthodoxy, a distinction that is agreed upon by both the
> Oriental and Eastern Orthodox. Many Western scholars, however, including
> Roman Catholic Church lump them as a subgroup of "Eastern churches".
> ..... Click the link for more information.
>
> .See also : Acephali
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Acephali> "Acephali" (from
> a-, "without," and kephale, "head") is a term applied to several sects
> as having no head or leader; and in particular to a strict monophysite
> sect that separated itself, in the end of the 5th century, from the rule
> of Peter Mongus, the patriarch of Alexandria, and remained "without king
> or bishop" till they were reconciled by Mark II (799 - 819).
>
> The term is also used to denote clerici vagantes, i.e. clergy without
> title or benefice, picking up a living anyhow. Certain persons in
> England during the reign of King Henry I of England were called Acephali
> because they had no lands by virtue of which they could acknowledge a
> superior lord.
> ..... Click the link for more information.
>
> , Henotikon <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Henotikon> The
> Henotikon (the "act of union") was issued by Byzantine emperor Zeno I in
> 482, in an attempt to reconcile the differences between the supporters
> of Orthodoxy and Monophysitism.
>
> In 482 the Patriarchate of Alexandria passed to Peter III, who proved to
> be a Monophysite, despite the condemnation of this christological
> opinion at the Council of Chalcedon. The Patriarch of Constantinople,
> Acacius, devised an eirenic formula of unity called the Henotikon, which
> Zeno promulgated without the approval of a synod of bishops as Church
> policy. By this act, Zeno hoped to placate the increasingly Monophysite
> provinces of Egypt, Palestine and Syria, which were under increasing
> attacks by the Persians.
> ..... Click the link for more information.
>
> , the Three-Chapter Controversy
> <http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Three-Chapter%20Controversy>
> The Three Chapters (tri^a kepha'laia) was an attempt to reconcile the
> Chrik the link for more information.
>
> Radost7 wrote:
>
> >I never said they were in heresy. I am just saying that Orthodoxy is split in
> >several groups just as Protestants are. Armenian Apostolic Orthodox are not
> >heretical.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
craig
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.04051...@posting.google.com...
learner
> The core of the question, however, which most Protestants participating in
> these discussions seem to evade, is "what is salvation?"
>
> What are we actually saved from?
That is the heart of the problem - the issue is the concept of sin.
The Orthodox, and the Muslims, minimize the severity of sin. A sin is
nothing more than a "wrong turn" on the path of life. From the
beginning, Orthodoxy believes that Adam and Eve were not created as
perfect beings, yet they live in a perfect world - the Garden of Eden,
and had a direct fellowship with God. When humans fail, by sinning, we
do not fall into "grave sin" according to Orthodoxy. We simply take "a
wrong turn" that could reduce our ability to reach "theosis". This
gives Satan the victory. In the Orthodox mind, Jesus' death on the
crosswas a victory over the powers of Satan - it, in and of itself,
does not atone for our sins. In other words, Jesus' victory does
nothing more than help us to get "back on the right path".
Adam and Eve's sin was nothing more than a deviation on their path to
"theosis". However, if this sin merely a "deviation", then why were
they expelled from the Garden of Eden? Would is it that Adam and Eve,
and all of their progeny, have to struggle to reach "theosis" in an
imperfect world that is full of pain and suffering?
Learner
aggreen
"Joseph" <zaph...@NOmiraiSPAM.cx> wrote in message
news:m-ednWonera...@speakeasy.net...
> learner wrote:
> > Any group can play this game Alfred!
>
> So why bother? Don't play games. Just because Al is playing them,
> doesn't mean that the Orthodox Church, collectively, is playing them.
> Overall, the Orthodox Church doesn't define herself by her ability to
> debunk any other group's claims. We are who we are, and we know the
> Church not for what she *isn't*, but for what she *is*.
***I've been saying this all along and you think, Joseph, I'm playing games?
Thanks for the vote!
Al
aggreen
>
> >haye...@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message
news:<40a97774...@news.saix.net>...
> >
> >> The difference is that the Orthodoxc believe that a loving God delivers
us
> >> from evil; Protestants believe that God delivers us from an angry God.
> >
> >I think that this is a gross oversimplification. The Protestants
> >appear [at least to me] to place tremendous emphasis of Christ's death
> >for the vicarious atonement of our sins. This is clearly an act of a
> >loving God.
>
> Indeed it's a gross over-spimplification. Most of this particular thread
has
> been a series of gross over-simplifications. In this case, because not all
> Protestants are the same -- there are so many varieties of them, that
> generalisations are pretty crude. Methodists, for example, come closer to
the
> Orthodox view than Calvinists.
***Did you follow the shennigans at the just concluded General Convention of
the United Methodist Church? Homosexuals and lesbians rule! that ain't
Orthodox. the Methodists have sold out to the Evil One.
Al
craig
I didn't realize that what you have described was the Orthodox view of
salvation. This is new to me.
I have noticed, while reading the various discussions in this forum, that
the Orthodox participants seem to demphasize the guilt of mankind before
God. I have noticed, for instance, that there was considerable criticism of
the movie "The Passion of the Christ," based upon the claim that it placed
too much emphasis on the suffering of Christ for sin, rather than on His
victory over death.
I began to get the impression that the Orthodox view was that Christ's
suffering was for the purpose of overcoming death and evil, and that mankind
was an innocent bystander who somehow just got caught up in the battle. I
doubt that that view is anywhere near being accurate, but that is definitely
how I began to percieve it based on much of the discussion.
I am looking forward to reading the Orthodox responses.
Steve Hayes
Interesting, that.
I suggest you check the Bible some time and read Romans 3:23 again. It doesn't
end like that. It ends with "And fall short of the glory of God".
The difference between Orthodoxy and the TULIP Calvinism you are expounding is
that TULIP Calvinism teaches that sin is primarily something God punishes us
for, while Orthodoxy teaches that sin and evil are primarily something that
God resucues us from.
Orthodoxy says "deliver us from evil"
TULIP Calvinism says "deliver us from an angry God".