Orthodox Questions - Reformed Answers

JM · Jul 13, 2016

It seems you are denying your own personal sin or comparing yourself to others like a Pharisees, “at least I’m not like him!” This is due to an abundance of pride in your “traditions,” a lack of understanding of your own wickedly sinful nature, and it’s all improved by the Eastern Orthodox denominational teaching concerning original blessing.

Augustine taught nothing that was not found in scripture or the early church.

“....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning.” (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3 emphasis mine)

“Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole world, through whom Man was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. On account of his transgression Man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation.” (Tertullian The Testmiony of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin....And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sin; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.” (Origin Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit. [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. (Origin Commentaries on Romans 5:9)

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old Death from his first being born. (Cyprian of Carthage writing around 250 ad - Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)

And many, many others.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Light of the East · Jul 13, 2016

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old Death from his first being born. (Cyprian of Carthage writing around 250 ad - Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)

This quote shows very nicely the Eastern Christian approach to sin. Notice the word "contagion" in the quote. Sin is seen as affecting man's nature as a disease does. This is why the Early Fathers in the East spoke of the Eucharist as the "medicine of immortality." And they certainly did not see us as having contracted the guilt of Adam for Adam's transgression. We are never guilty of another's sin, only our own Didn't our Lord say that in the OT where He said that the sons would not be guilty of the father's sins and vice versa?

The Roman view however, is deeply influenced by the Roman mindset, which is a mindset consumed with legality. In Roman society, law and justice were the great themes, and the Roman mind looked at God's dealings with us in much the same manner.

So it is the difference between a nature that is sick and needs to be healed and a law that is broken. From these two understandings come other teachings which are in contradiction to each other. We in the East simply do not accept the teaching of penance(s) and indulgences. To approach God in that manner is to quantify sin and our behavior, rather than to approach our salvation in the manner in which the Scriptures say, which is that we are to become partakers of the divine nature and change to become as gods.

Salvation is not the payment of a debt. It is the freeing from bondage of human nature to become god-like. Rome and Protestantism miss this entirely because of the influence of Roman thinking.

And finally, corollary to this is the way I see many in the West behave. The Christian life becomes not what you are on the inside, but the keeping of a prescribed set of rules. If you keep these rules (law) then you are a "good Christian" and can expect your reward. So you can go to Mass or church every Sunday, do lots of novenas and prayers, and yet be an SOB when it comes to treating people right. I've seen it. I know. And it is disgusting to watch.

But this kind of behavior is what Western teaching leads to.

Light of the East · Jul 13, 2016

JM said:
It seems you are denying your own personal sin or comparing yourself to others like a Pharisees, “at least I’m not like him!” This is due to an abundance of pride in your “traditions,” a lack of understanding of your own wickedly sinful nature, and it’s all improved by the Eastern Orthodox denominational teaching concerning original blessing.

The above quote would be funny if it were not so sadly wrong. You have apparently never been to an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Liturgy. You have not heard the prayers in which we admit our sinfulness. You apparently have never heard the Jesus Prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner." nor the prayer before receiving the Eucharist. "Have mercy on me, for I am the first among sinners."

It took me quite a while, in fact, to get used to how many times we admit our sinfulness during a Liturgy.

Honestly, please do a little research before you make such outlandish claims. Our sinfulness before a holy God is at the heart of our worship.

~Anastasia~ · Jul 13, 2016

Yes, JM, forgive me, but without knowing what our spiritual life consists of, you TOTALLY missed that one.

Perhaps we don't always wear it externally, and maybe there's really no reason you would know. But we pursue repentance and a deep knowledge of our own sinfulness and how far we fall short of the mark. Such an awareness grows continually in the healthy pursuit of Orthodox spirituality.

It goes a step further even, which I tell you at risk of you really not understanding. Not only do we continually repent of our own sinfulness before God, but there are some that repent for others. Not because we believe God has any contractual obligation to wipe out their sins because we ask Him to (we don't hold God to contractual obligations at all, but approach Him as children of our Father, or servants of our Master), but ... We DO recognize that our sinful actions and inclinations affect others, and so if we recognize everything, we recognize that we play a part in provoking their sinful actions ... and that this spirals out in a more universal effect.

We seek to excuse others of their sins, in order to enable ourselves to better forgive them, in order to be more able to see others as better than ourselves, and in order to put down tendency to pride and vainglory in ourselves, which are deadly to spiritual health and life. At the same time we NEVER excuse our own sin, but humbly bring it to God and confess and ask forgiveness.

This is a grainy picture of the ideal of Orthodox spirituality on these issues.

To be honest, and I do not say this to be insulting, so please don't take this personally, but ...

I have found the teaching that one is simply "elect" while others are not, independent of any virtue the person may have possessed, and unaffected by any virtue they may or may not develop, to be a much more dangerous position in terms of tending to excuse one's own sin. In such a paradigm, sin simply doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, if salvation is already attained, accomplished, and irrevocable, regardless of one's own actions or inclinations.

But I did want to let you know, and you may be excused for this - but you have greatly misunderstood the Orthodox position regarding personal sin.

God be with you!

JM · Jul 14, 2016

Ok, we'll continue to play games if you like.

This quote shows very nicely the Western Christian approach to sin. Notice the word "contagion" in the quote. Sin is seen as affecting man's nature as a disease that has killed him. This is why the Early Fathers in general spoke of the Gospel as having saving power when believed. And they certainly did not see us being merely wounded by Adam's transgression leaving us with the ability to work for savlation. We are never guilty of another's sin, only Adam who stood as our federal head before God, in the same manner those in Christ stand before God are justified. Didn't our Lord say before we believe we are children of the devil and do his will?

The Greek view however, is deeply influenced by the Plontius mindset, which is a mindset consumed with Gnostic mysticism. In Greek philosophy, mind and body were the great themes, and the Greek mind looked at God's dealings with us in much the same manner.

So it is the difference between a nature that is sick and needs to be healed by mystical experience. From these two understandings come other teachings which are in contradiction to each other. We who profess scripture simply do not accept the teaching of works earning our union with Christ. To approach God in that manner is to quantify our sin and our behavior, to place emphasis on our actions rather than to approach our salvation in the manner in which the Scriptures say, which is that we are to become partakers of the divine nature and change to become like God.

Salvation is not the payment for what we do but for what Christ has done. It is the freeing from bondage of our fallen human nature to become holy. Eastern Orthodoxy miss this entirely because of the influence of Greek Philosophy and thinking.

And finally, corollary to this is the way I see many in the East behave. The Christian life becomes a long life of worry and work, amulets and spells against the evil eye, toll houses and demons who try to rob us of what Christ has given us. It's a list of practices to earn and keep your salvation, fastings, kneeing, crossing, etc. all to keep a prescribed set of rules. If you keep these "traditions" (man made laws and rules) then you are "good and holy" and can expect your reward. Say your prayer rope! 5,000 times a day and you'll find communion with God. If not...you may never know God. So you can go to the Liturgy or church every Sunday, fast and pray to eons upon eons of "Orthodox Saints," and yet use "Orthodoxy" as a political tool for political ends. You can blind the people with superstitions found nowhere in scripture just to control them, tell them they must perform to meet and when their works never earn them communion they lean back on superstition.

But this kind of behavior is what Eastern teaching leads to.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
PS: See what did there, I just used your post to demonstrate how easy it was to write a long, heart felt post about nothing.

JM · Jul 14, 2016

Light of the East said:
The above quote would be funny if it were not so sadly wrong. You have apparently never been to an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Liturgy. You have not heard the prayers in which we admit our sinfulness. You apparently have never heard the Jesus Prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner." nor the prayer before receiving the Eucharist. "Have mercy on me, for I am the first among sinners."

It took me quite a while, in fact, to get used to how many times we admit our sinfulness during a Liturgy.

Honestly, please do a little research before you make such outlandish claims. Our sinfulness before a holy God is at the heart of our worship.

I use to attend the Divine Liturgy at a Greek Church where they told me I had to pay a membership to "belong." Fine. I get it...and that I'd never be truly "Orthodox" unless I was Greek. So yes, I did attend....for over a year. You demonstrated a deep hatred toward Western Christianity. Sad.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

JM · Jul 14, 2016

Yes, JM, forgive me, but without knowing what our spiritual life consists of, you TOTALLY missed that one.

I understand your point but I was basing my comment on the following written by Light, “, he was infected by the heresy of Augustine that all men are partakers of Adam's sin. Before Augustine came up with this novel idea, it was unknown to the Church and the Christian faith.

The Western Church has been plagued with the thoughts of men who allowed their personal evil and licentiousness to dictate their theological feelings once they had repented. Augustine and Luther are the two most prominent examples.”

I responded in kind and probably shouldn't have but to refer to the Western Church as universally "plagued with the thoughts of men who allowed their personal evil and licentiousness to dictate their theological feelings" is pretty harsh don't ya think? Light of the East really doesn't understand Reformed theology and he couldn't even defined the simplest of Reformed doctrines. To claim that Western theology was just an excuse to allow sin is a pretty rotten thing to say especially considering how glib the remark is. To say we in the West believe what we believe so we can continue in sin...is a guttersnipe comment.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Light of the East · Jul 14, 2016

The Greek view however, is deeply influenced by the Plontius mindset, which is a mindset consumed with Gnostic mysticism. In Greek philosophy, mind and body were the great themes, and the Greek mind looked at God's dealings with us in much the same manner.

This is .... unbelievable. It was the Greek Church and the Greek Fathers who opposed Gnosticism as a heresy and refused to put the Gnostic "gospels" in the canon of Scripture in the fifth century. I don't know what history you have been reading, but it isn't Christian history. Probably some dog-eared Chick tract you found in a phone booth somewhere.

So it is the difference between a nature that is sick and needs to be healed by mystical experience. From these two understandings come other teachings which are in contradiction to each other. We who profess scripture simply do not accept the teaching of works earning our union with Christ.

Neither does the Holy Orthodox faith. You really do not understand Orthodoxy at all, do you? There is nothing at all in Eastern Christian teaching which states that we merit, earn, or even deserve salvation. And what "works" are there to receiving the medicine of immortality and having your soul healed from the disease of sin? Perhaps you would like to explain yourself a little.

To approach God in that manner is to quantify our sin and our behavior, to place emphasis on our actions rather than to approach our salvation in the manner in which the Scriptures say, which is that we are to become partakers of the divine nature and change to become like God.

Honestly, I'm so stunned by this post I don't know what to think. You have just been told that theosis is the main teaching of our faith, yet you accuse us of not believing that.

Light of the East · Jul 14, 2016

JM said:
To claim that Western theology was just an excuse to allow sin is a pretty rotten thing to say especially considering how glib the remark is. To say we in the West believe what we believe so we can continue in sin...is a guttersnipe comment.

Talk about a "guttersnipe comment." I nowhere in my comment said that you choose to believe what you believe so that you can be free to sin.

Apparently on the planet from which you arrived, there is no ability to read cognitively, is there? At least, you certainly are not displaying any such thing. What I said was that the idea of following a certain set of rules leads people to believe that as long as they keep those rules, whether it be so many Masses per year, keeping the Saturday Sabbath, or some Fundamentalist shibboleth such as men not having long hair and women not wearing pants, they feel that they are okay with God by doing such. And the consequence is that they don't look at how they treat others, which is the heart of our Lord's warnings about our treatment of the poor and needy.

Dude, wake up and learn to read.

JM · Jul 18, 2016

Light of the East. I hold no ill will toward you even if it might seem so. I apologize if I have been overly sarcastic, it's a sin of mine and I'm trying to deal with it. My sarcasm doesn't help dialogue and tends to get me "inside" the heads of others igniting arguments. That's not what I intended. I will leave your last comments untouched and continue on.

My buddy Gord asked, why take the time to answer objections to evangelical preaching from Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox?

The heart of the issue for me is justification. Can we demand the grace of God depending upon how often we attend the means of grace? (Lord's Supper/Baptism) Or do the means of grace strengthen the faith bestowed upon us by God? Is salvation synergistic, where we strive with God for salvation, like a Divine AmWay program that we just have to work? Is salvation monergistic, a gift of God, something that cannot be warranted by our actions? This brings us back to justification. How is a sinner, it doesn't matter if you believe in original sin or blessing, justified before a Holy God? Romans 10 clearly lays out that we are declared righteous before God by faith in the work of Christ.

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

We have many ideas about what a person has to do to get to heaven. Some believe we must follow the “Golden Rule,” and do good deeds which will eventually outweigh the bad we have done, tipping the scales in our favour….after all, we are all basically good people…right? We can access the means of Grace, performs acts of piety, fast, etc. and prove that we are right with God?

If we assume we are good people we are also assuming a standard for what we consider good. Since we assume there is an absolute standard for what is good there must be an absolute standard giver. The Bible repeatedly states that God has given mankind a holy, universal Law, that is written on our hearts and our conscience bears witness to this Law. This Law is revealed and summarized in the Ten Commandments. When we look at God’s Law, we must understand that we have all sinned in some way or another; remember, you don’t have to break all Ten to be guilty of breaking the Law. The Bible warns, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”

“… it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” Hebrews 9:27

Let’s look at a few of the Commandments and see how we fare:

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” Have you ever taken God’s name in vain? If you have, you are a blasphemer and can not enter the Kingdom of God.

“Honour your father and mother.” Have you always honoured your parents in a respectful manner? In a way that God would consider honouring?

“You shall not steal.” Have you ever taken something that didn’t belong to you (irrespective of its value)? What do you call someone who takes something that doesn’t belong to them? A thief – You cannot enter God’s Kingdom.

“You shall not bear false witness.” Have you ever told a lie? Just one? What do you call someone who told a lie? A liar. The Bible warns that all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire.

You and I are guilty of sinning against God by breaking His Law, and because we have a conscience, we have sinned “with knowledge.” Isn’t it true that when you steal, lie, etc. you know that it’s wrong? Does the fact that you have sinned against God bother you? The punishment for breaking God’s Law is Hell. Eternal Death.

“Almost every natural man that hears of hell, flatters himself that he shall escape it; he depends upon himself for his own security; he flatters himself in what he has done, in what he is now doing, or what he intends to do. Every one lays out matters in his own mind how he shall avoid damnation, and flatters himself that he contrives well for himself, and that his schemes will not fail.[1]”

WHAT MUST YOU DO TO BE SAVED FROM THE PENALTY OF BREAKING GOD’S LAW?

There is good news, there is a GOSPEL. God the Father has given us a mediator in Jesus Christ who is the incarnation of God. Jesus took upon Himself man’s nature, becoming subject to the Law of God, and perfectly obeying the Law in thought and deed for His entire lifetime on earth. While on earth Christ took the sins of His people upon Himself, and suffering the punishment due to all their sins paid the penalty by dying on the Cross, “…for the wages of sin is death.”

By dying in place of His people Jesus Christ became the mediator between God and man and revived in His people the righteousness, holiness and true knowledge lost as a consequence of sin.

As we find ourselves before a holy God we are convicted for breaking His righteous Law. The Holy Spirit moves in the soul to bring us to acknowledge our guilt and brokenness before God and His righteousness. We come to hate sin and find Jesus Christ precious. The Holy Spirit convinces the broken sinner of the shamefulness of sin and then brings the offender to a place where they can, “repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.”

If you feel the weight of sin on your heart and have come to see the blackness of your soul in the light of God’s Law…if you have been brought to a place where you dread the judgement of the trice holy God, BELIEVE THE GOSPEL! If you believe that Jesus Christ paid the penalty for your sins the Bible assures us that, “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”

Yours in the Lord,

jm

__________________________________________________

[1] quote taken from a sermon by Jonathan Edwards titled, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

Light of the East · Jul 21, 2016

The heart of the issue for me is justification. Can we demand the grace of God depending upon how often we attend the means of grace? (Lord's Supper/Baptism) Or do the means of grace strengthen the faith bestowed upon us by God? Is salvation synergistic, where we strive with God for salvation, like a Divine AmWay program that we just have to work? Is salvation monergistic, a gift of God, something that cannot be warranted by our actions? This brings us back to justification. How is a sinner, it doesn't matter if you believe in original sin or blessing, justified before a Holy God? Romans 10 clearly lays out that we are declared righteous before God by faith in the work of Christ.

I think that is at the heart of the perceived difference between Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox thinking. So what does it mean to be "justified?"

The problem is that Protestants approach this issue as if it is a legal issue. I'm sure you have heard many preachers describe God as the Judge who sees us as guilty before Him. We are condemned because of our sins, and then, just as God is about to declare the sentence, Jesus steps in and says "But I paid the full price, therefore, you must let him go."

Or "I took his punishment myself and therefore he cannot be punished twice for the same offense."

This is strictly legal terminology, but it is not the way that the Bible speaks of our relationship to God. I find it strange and odd that Protestants are constantly speaking about "having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ," yet describe salvation in a way which is rather impersonal.

You see, salvation is a covenant. A covenant is a love relationship between two people. When we are in covenant with Christ Jesus, we are the bride and He is the divine Bridegroom. This is how the relationship is spelled out. And justification, as I have heard even Protestants say, is the state of being in a right relationship to God. But that relationship is not a legal declaration of "not guilty." It is a state of marital joy in which I am His and He is mine. That is what it means to be justified.

This is, to answer your last question, how a sinner is justified with God. He enters into a marital union with God (an analogy, but it points to the love and intimacy of our union with Christ our God.)

And this is the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. Protestants claim that once we are legally declared "not guilty," then everything is taken care of and we are "as sure of heaven as if we were already there" (heard preached by more than one evangelist). Sounds lovely, but it is not at all how a relationship works. That is like my wife and I staring at our wedding certificate and saying "Yep, we are married." That's the bare legal end of it, but the reality is that if we are not involved with each other, then while there may be a legal declaration of marriage, there is really no marriage at all.

Which is why we co-operate with God in our journey towards eternal life. Salvation is a free gift. Keeping it is not, not anymore than keeping a marriage is between two spouses. Look, if I commit adultery, do you honestly think that my marriage is going to continue just as always because there is a piece of paper saying that we are married? Well, neither does justification - that is, a relationship between a man and Christ - continue if that person turns from Christ back to the false pleasures of sin. You cannot have both. Our co-operation with Christ in our justification is simply the same as me bringing flowers home to my wife, bringing her candy, or taking her out to a movie and dinner. It is doing that which she enjoys to deepen our relationship. The same is true when we do those things which please our Lord. They are ways we show our love for Him - not ways we are trying to earn it!!

But more than that, Western theology sees salvation in legal terms. Eastern theology understands that salvation is a restoration of our true humanity, a changing of our natures by which means we become more and more like Christ. We share an intimate union with Him, and by our co-operation with Him, His life within us transforms us. Likewise, if we turn from Him, the consequence is the loss of that closeness and the withering of the divine nature within us. It is absolutely essential therefore that we do the things God has called us to do in order to feed that divine nature within (the new man in Christ).

As long as I am in Christ, and partaking of those means He has given me for growth, I am justified, or in a personal covenant relationship of love with Him.

Light of the East · Jul 21, 2016

And I didn't find your posts sarcastic. I just felt that a couple of times you missed what I was saying

JM · Jul 27, 2016

Dear Eastern Orthodox Reader,

I think that is at the heart of the perceived difference between Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox thinking. So what does it mean to be "justified?"

The problem is that Protestants approach this issue as if it is a legal issue. I'm sure you have heard many preachers describe God as the Judge who sees us as guilty before Him. We are condemned because of our sins, and then, just as God is about to declare the sentence, Jesus steps in and says "But I paid the full price, therefore, you must let him go."

I would say the strength of Protestantism is the fact that we allow the legal language of passages such as Lev. 16 and Romans 5 to be read in their historical context and with their historical intent. The very fact that, “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” and that believers are “declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” demonstrates my point.

Or "I took his punishment myself and therefore he cannot be punished twice for the same offense."

This is exactly right. When it was posted, "As long as I am in Christ, and partaking of those means He has given me for growth, I am justified..." destroys the idea that Christ is the "perfect propitiation (the action of appeasing a God) for our sins..." We are declared righteous by faith, not our works or lack thereof, but by faith in the work of Christ which brings peace with the Godhead. Have confidence in Christ! Amen.

This is strictly legal terminology, but it is not the way that the Bible speaks of our relationship to God.

When Christ taught us to pray he taught us to say, “forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6.12), this debt was due to sin against God and the wages of this sin debt is death. Christ died in our place, “to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20.28), to make a satisfaction for sin, paying our sin debt in full. Since “all have sinned” (Rom.3) we must be declared “justified freely by his grace…” The Holy Law of God was broken and by Christ we are declared just. Jesus Christ is the “justifier of him which believeth,” meaning we are no longer a debtor to the law we have broken.

This is legal language.

What were the animal sacrifices under the old covenant of works required for? Leviticus 4 and 5 express the idea of finding forgiveness/peace through the sacrifices offered. This is a legal transaction. All revealed sacrifices gave sinners under the old covenant temporary covering for law breaking/for sin and prefigured the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (see also; the entire book of Hebrews) By offering up a sacrifice on the Day of Atonement the old covenant believer made a legal transaction that would cover them from their sin until Jesus Christ came and offered himself as the perfect sacrifice for sin in their place.

I find it strange and odd that Protestants are constantly speaking about "having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ," yet describe salvation in a way which is rather impersonal.

Through regeneration we come to view Christ as “altogether lovely,” the “balm of Gilead,” and are joined together with Him by faith. This union and communion with Christ moves us to love.

You see, salvation is a covenant. A covenant is a love relationship between two people. When we are in covenant with Christ Jesus, we are the bride and He is the divine Bridegroom. This is how the relationship is spelled out. And justification, as I have heard even Protestants say, is the state of being in a right relationship to God. But that relationship is not a legal declaration of "not guilty." It is a state of marital joy in which I am His and He is mine. That is what it means to be justified.

A covenant is a binding agreement between two or more parties and may or may not include the idea of “love.” When it has to do with salvation I would say yes that Jesus loves the people He died for but that doesn’t exclude the idea of other elements being binding upon the participants of that covenant. Eastern Orthodoxy seems to ignore this and prefers a rather nebulous idea of covenant. Christ covenants with God the Father to die in the place of His people with the Holy Spirit enacting that covenant in time. Christ’s obligation to the Father is legal, He must secure our salvation by living a holy life and dying in our place to satisfy the justice of God.

Before we are changed by the Spirit we are “at enmity” (extremely hostile) with God. When the Holy Spirit brings us into a relationship with Christ we move from enmity to calling God “Abba, father.” (Rom. 8) Instead of a spirit of lawlessness our spirit desires to be in union with the will of God, “I seek not mine own will” (John 5) as taught by the example of Jesus. Our view of the world changes so that we see ourselves as being in it but not of it (1 John 3.1; Matt. 7.11; James 1) This is all because we are given new inclinations toward God (Romans 7) based on what Christ has done for us and kindles in our hearts a love for Jesus Christ.

As long as I am in Christ, and partaking of those means He has given me for growth, I am justified, or in a personal covenant relationship of love with Him.

Let me assure the reader that Christ is not like your spouse who loves imperfectly. The love of Christ is not based on your performance or how well you are “doing” the Christian life. The love of God is based on the finished work of Jesus Christ who the Father is in covenant relationship with on our behalf and manifests itself in believers/the church. I have posted many scriptures demonstrating the legal nature of law breaking and our redemption and East has posted none. I have made my brief case from scripture, ponder what you have read and please take time to look up the passages quoted.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Light of the East · Jul 27, 2016

Dear JM -

You seem entirely willing to settle your theological issues on certain points of the Scriptures only while ignoring the others. Not that this is entirely uncommon. For instance, my concern with your response is your insistence upon the strictly legal language of the Scriptures while ignoring the analogies given throughout the OT and NT in which spousal or marital language is used to describe our relationship.

Leviticus 16 is particularly interesting to me in that we see the corporate covenant being renewed through the offering of an appropriate sacrifice. This sacrifice points to the one great Sacrifice which establishes the congregation of God forever. What I have failed to see, and perhaps you would be so kind as to point it out to me, is the specifically legal language used in that chapter. I wonder if you might be referring to the word "atonement" in verse 24. I look at the online Strong's Concordance and I see a number of uses of this verb:

to cover, purge, make an atonement, make reconciliation, cover over with pitch

(Qal) to coat or cover with pitch
(Piel)
1. to cover over, pacify, propitiate
2. to cover over, atone for sin, make atonement for
3. to cover over, atone for sin and persons by legal rites
(Pual)
1. to be covered over
2. to make atonement for
(Hithpael) to be covered

Could it be that this language is pointing to a temporary covering over or reconciliation of the sins of the Congregation of God until the permanent comes along many centuries later? Is it a legal payment? I think Scripture is fairly silent here, and certainly the Early Fathers of the Church didn't see things that way. The legal language of Christianity really didn't get started until invented by Augustine in the fourth century and promoted by Anselm of Canterbury.

If we put this in the language of Hosea, that is, the language of God as spouse and Israel as the adulterous wife, then how does it stack up? Is there a legal payment which is acceptable for adultery, or does the commission of adultery require more in a personal relationship than some money or punishment changing hands. What exactly is it that God is looking for in our sinful state - punishment or redemption,legal payment or restoration? In a healthy spousal relationship, when there are rough spots, it is restoration to reunion which is being sought.

Now in Romans 5, you appear to have a much stronger case. I have always wondered what this verse means:

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

What do you think this is saying? I would be curious because it appears to speak to the fact that the law is not necessary for man to be separated from God. This makes me wonder what the purpose of the Law would be, given that even before the giving of the Law, there was that state of separation from God called "death."

Let me see what you have to say before I go much further with this.

~Anastasia~ · Jul 28, 2016

Forgive me, there are things I have wanted to reply to, but I've been dealing with a lot of medical issues and don't have time often to really focus on more involved posts. Maybe sometime soon I can go back and at least say a few things I really wanted to address.

I would say one thing just briefly. It is not an either/or question for Orthodoxy. It may sound that way from some Orthodox, but I think that is in reaction to how far we perceive much of Protestant language to have gone from a more balanced approach.

It really is not correct to say that we discard all legal considerations. There is of course a judgment. And there has been forgiveness of sins, through the sacrifice of Christ. The problem is that this is not the ONLY way in which we look at it, and indeed, it is not the facet that receives the most emphasis.

We do tend to emphasize the healing aspect, because we see that sin essentially damages mankind, and God is also a loving Father who desires to see His children restored. Remember how salvation "to save" is written in the New Testament. The same Greek word - σῴζω - is translated sometimes as "heal" and sometimes as "save". A large part of Orthodoxy being Greek, our understanding is rooted in the language of the Septuagint.

But because much of what is written and said is done contra-Protestantism, it can seem like the Orthodox view does not include judgment. It does ... we mention it very frequently - very, very frequently - in our personal prayers, the prayers of the Church, and our services. But it seems to me that focusing on only this aspect can warp both the understanding of salvation and the view we have of God Himself, so I suspect this is why it is so vigorously opposed. But I do want to say, it is not that we reject it. Rather, we urge a more balanced understanding.

While I'm at it - and you may in fact vigorously oppose this - but I might as well say that what we DO oppose is the idea that it was the SUFFERING of Christ that paid for our sins - that God was somehow desiring to see pain and suffering, and only that allowed Him to forgive us. We know that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins but ... those animals sacrificed in the OT were never tortured. Their death and blood was what we saw, not pain and suffering. This can also distort the image of God into something quite frankly monstrous in our eyes. I have also spoken with those who refused to believe (when it was my own belief) and it was something they were unable to accept as well, and had no desire to submit to a God who based salvation upon a bloodthirsty desire for vengeance. So ... if such teaching is wrong, it is worth considering very carefully, because it can hinder the acceptance of the Gospel.

hedrick · Jul 30, 2016

Justification doesn’t have to be viewed as legal, though that's a perfectly legitimate description.

First, Reformed theology has both monoergistic and synergistic aspects to salvation, because salvation for us consists of both justification and sanctification.

Now justification. Justification says that God accepts us, and this acceptance continues even when we sin. I don’t think we even need Paul to demonstrate this. I think Jesus’ teaching about his Father’s love for his children would be an equally good basis. Acceptance can certainly be described as legal acquittal. But it can just as well be described in the kind of family language that Jesus used.

When you combine justification with sanctification, the overall picture is that God accepts us unconditionally, and that that acceptance provides a stable basis for a life where God helps us grow into the kind of people he wants. That’s the synergistic aspect. But we think that this kind of development happens most effectively in an environment where we can trust God's love, that he won’t abandon us when we fail.

Light of the East · Jul 30, 2016

hedrick said:
Justification doesn’t have to be viewed as legal, though that's a perfectly legitimate description.

First, Reformed theology has both monoergistic and synergistic aspects to salvation, because salvation for us consists of both justification and sanctification.

Now justification. Justification says that God accepts us, and this acceptance continues even when we sin. I don’t think we even need Paul to demonstrate this. I think Jesus’ teaching about his Father’s love for his children would be an equally good basis. Acceptance can certainly be described as legal acquittal. But it can just as well be described in the kind of family language that Jesus used.

When you combine justification with sanctification, the overall picture is that God accepts us unconditionally, and that that acceptance provides a stable basis for a life where God helps us grow into the kind of people he wants. That’s the synergistic aspect. But we think that this kind of development happens most effectively in an environment where we can trust God's love, that he won’t abandon us when we fail.

So you are saying that one who has been baptized into Christ can never turn his back and walk away from that union with Christ? Am I understanding you correctly?

~Anastasia~ · Jul 31, 2016

hedrick said:
Justification doesn’t have to be viewed as legal, though that's a perfectly legitimate description.

First, Reformed theology has both monoergistic and synergistic aspects to salvation, because salvation for us consists of both justification and sanctification.

Now justification. Justification says that God accepts us, and this acceptance continues even when we sin. I don’t think we even need Paul to demonstrate this. I think Jesus’ teaching about his Father’s love for his children would be an equally good basis. Acceptance can certainly be described as legal acquittal. But it can just as well be described in the kind of family language that Jesus used.

When you combine justification with sanctification, the overall picture is that God accepts us unconditionally, and that that acceptance provides a stable basis for a life where God helps us grow into the kind of people he wants. That’s the synergistic aspect. But we think that this kind of development happens most effectively in an environment where we can trust God's love, that he won’t abandon us when we fail.

Salvation consists of both justification and sanctification? As in sanctification is NECESSARY for salvation, and if one whom God elects and "saves" neglects to pursue justification, he is no longer saved?

I'd be interested to know if that is the Reformed teaching. But it's not the sense I have ever gotten from Reformed teachers?

hedrick · Jul 31, 2016

Light of the East said:
So you are saying that one who has been baptized into Christ can never turn his back and walk away from that union with Christ? Am I understanding you correctly?

The Reformed answer is that God will never give up on his people.

But that’s not quite an answer to your question, and it’s important to realize whey not. This statement doesn’t define who his people are. You are in effect asking whether anyone who is baptized is one of Christ’s people. I assume by this you mean baptized in the normal, visible sense. So you’re asking whether anyone who has had water put on them in the proper context is eternally saved. I would say no. It is possible for them not to end up saved, although baptism is certainly a means of grace, and the normal way in which new disciples join the people of God.

But this is just one instance of a wider problem. There is no way we can find an objective test which will tell us who God’s people are, in such a way that even a sinner can apply the test and know for sure. That’s an obvious consequence of being humans. Our judgement isn’t reliable on matters of salvation, even for ourselves.

Reformed Christians have sometimes gone down this rat-hole. Reformed theology teaches that we can be sure anyone who is elect will end up saved, but that leaves people with the obvious question of whether they are elect. There has been a tendency within our tradition to develop “presumptive” tests for election. They’re not claimed to be perfect, but one can supposedly presume that anyone passing one of those tests is probably one of the elect. But I do believe this is a rat-hole, because it causes people to look at themselves when they should be looking to Christ.

When we want to know about salvation, we should look to Christ, at what he has done for us, and his promises. We can trust him not to abandon us.

Even this can become a rat-hole. The only way this assurance can work is because Christ has promised not to turn anyone away. In terms of our theology, those know trust Christ are by definition those with faith, and justification is by faith. But it is very easy to turn this into another cause of doubt, to ask just how much we have to trust, and start trying to codify tests for quality or quantity of faith. We have to resist this.

So I will say simply that we can trust God. He will never give up on us, and when we need assurance of salvation we need to look to him. But attempts to come up with tests for salvation independent of our relationship to God will fail.

I hope this doesn’t look like rhetorical sleight of hand. But there are some questions that simply can’t be answered.

~Anastasia~ · Jul 31, 2016

Hello again, JM. I may never manage to catch up on what I very much wanted to reply to in your thread, but I'll make a few attempts.

BTW, I hope nothing that I say comes across in an adversarial way - that is not my intent.

JM said:
Ok, we'll continue to play games if you like.

I'm afraid that have no idea if that comment was addressed to me or not - if so, I'm not "playing games" but hopefully we can have a good discussion.

This quote shows very nicely the Western Christian approach to sin. Notice the word "contagion" in the quote. Sin is seen as affecting man's nature as a disease that has killed him. This is why the Early Fathers in general spoke of the Gospel as having saving power when believed. And they certainly did not see us being merely wounded by Adam's transgression leaving us with the ability to work for savlation. We are never guilty of another's sin, only Adam who stood as our federal head before God, in the same manner those in Christ stand before God are justified. Didn't our Lord say before we believe we are children of the devil and do his will?

The Greek view however, is deeply influenced by the Plontius mindset, which is a mindset consumed with Gnostic mysticism. In Greek philosophy, mind and body were the great themes, and the Greek mind looked at God's dealings with us in much the same manner.

So it is the difference between a nature that is sick and needs to be healed by mystical experience. From these two understandings come other teachings which are in contradiction to each other. We who profess scripture simply do not accept the teaching of works earning our union with Christ. To approach God in that manner is to quantify our sin and our behavior, to place emphasis on our actions rather than to approach our salvation in the manner in which the Scriptures say, which is that we are to become partakers of the divine nature and change to become like God.

Salvation is not the payment for what we do but for what Christ has done. It is the freeing from bondage of our fallen human nature to become holy. Eastern Orthodoxy miss this entirely because of the influence of Greek Philosophy and thinking.

I find it rather ironic that you speak of "quantifying" sin and behavior. This is actually a strong disagreement that Orthodoxy has against Catholics. We reject the idea of quantifying God's grace, or measuring out sin, punishment, and so on. Rather we see it all as a very organic whole, and what we pursue is a deep relationship with God and healing of our person in body and soul.

And also your last sentence there that "Eastern Orthodoxy miss entirely" ... that Salvation is not the payment for what we do ... [but] the freeing from bondage of our human ... nature to become holy. That's kind of a funny statement - that is EXACTLY what we believe.

We just don't generally speak of a "fallen human nature" because it has other theological implications for some. You claim we "miss it entirely," but essentially, we believe exactly this.

That salvation involves being freed from "the passions" (as we would say it - impulses that have been made impure or unhealthy) so that we can become holy. And yes, as you say, to become partakers of the divine nature and be made like Christ, as the Scriptures say. That IS theosis - our definition of salvation. You would say that Reformed theology teaches the same?

And I see a further misunderstanding. We don't "earn" anything - we could never do so. The reason that we fast, for example, is not to "earn God's favor" (in fact, I tend to see this idea revived more in Pentecostal denominations, for example). But rather, we fast so that we can learn that it is not necessary to indulge in what the body cries out for. If the body cries for this or that, we learn that we can make the flesh submit to the will. Food in itself is not sinful - it is a gift from God to be enjoyed and to be thankful for. But if we eat and enjoy food ALL the time, we may begin to think that little hunger pang MUST be satisfied at all costs. Which is not a problem in and of itself. But by the same token, sex within marriage is good and a gift of God. Yet what happens if we feel a pang of lust and feel it MUST be satisfied (as the hunger pang), while the object of our desire is not our spouse? That would lead to sin, of course. Rather, through fasting, we learn to put the body in subjection to the will and deny impulses that would lead to sin. This is just one tiny example. The fasting in that case has not "earned" us anything with God - that was never the purpose. Rather it has taught us to control our impulses and keep our bodies firmly in check when the flesh cries out for something it should not indulge. The Apostle Paul writes in Scripture of doing the same thing.

Fasting has other purposes at the same time, especially when we become a little more proficient. It introduces a slight sense of physical weakness, and if we properly use that to remind ourselves of our own insufficiency, and Christ's sufficiency at the same time, and turn ourselves to prayer, then it serves as a spiritual lesson, and better fuels true prayer. And so on.

There are a number of similar benefits that come from fasting. But "purchasing favor" is NOT one of them, and never could be. The same is true of any other spiritual discipline. They are all meant to change us, and draw us closer to God, and teach us spiritual lessons. Not a single one of them impresses God or "buys" us anything from Him.

In fact, such thinking would tend to make us proud of our "accomplishments" and this is something we firmly reject. Such pride is the opposite of what a spiritual discipline is intended to accomplish, and one ends up in a worse state than not fasting (or whatever) at all. There are many stories of priests, abbots, spiritual fathers, etc. instructing a person to break a fast, or fast less strenuously, (or pray less, or whatever the discipline is) because they see the potential for this development in a person.

And finally, corollary to this is the way I see many in the East behave. The Christian life becomes a long life of worry and work, amulets and spells against the evil eye, toll houses and demons who try to rob us of what Christ has given us. It's a list of practices to earn and keep your salvation, fastings, kneeing, crossing, etc. all to keep a prescribed set of rules. If you keep these "traditions" (man made laws and rules) then you are "good and holy" and can expect your reward. Say your prayer rope! 5,000 times a day and you'll find communion with God. If not...you may never know God. So you can go to the Liturgy or church every Sunday, fast and pray to eons upon eons of "Orthodox Saints," and yet use "Orthodoxy" as a political tool for political ends. You can blind the people with superstitions found nowhere in scripture just to control them, tell them they must perform to meet and when their works never earn them communion they lean back on superstition.

But this kind of behavior is what Eastern teaching leads to.

I wish I could simply deny what you state here, but as I see more and talk to more people, I see that there IS the potential for misunderstanding, and misapplication, and essentially superstition among the people. The problem very often comes in from the old yiayias, who may have gotten a bit of misinformation - remember too that Orthodoxy has come from places where persecution has been intense, and it was not always the case that people could go to Church and learn as they should week after week - in many cases the priests were killed, Church was prohibited, and the faith survived in an underground sense mainly, and was passed on by older family members. Because of the faithfulness to what was handed down (which is a strength) ... it becomes difficult sometimes to root out misunderstandings.

And on the other hand, you have converts come in who are very zealous. We have a name for it (several in fact) and it is very common. They take up disciplines zealously (too much so) without fully understanding what they are doing, but they simply imitate monastics in many cases.

None of this is good, of course. You are right about that. But I think the POTENTIAL for misunderstanding and misapplication exists in any situation. And of course, we also believe the enemy will take full advantage of such opportunity. But the fact that it CAN be twisted does not make the truth any less true. This has been the case since Christ walked on the earth - there were always those who perverted the Gospel.

It also take a bit of time to really understand Orthodoxy. I don't claim to myself, and I have been in this for a few years, and had the advantage of an outstanding priest who taught catechesis twice a week. I've also been under the direct supervision of an experience spiritual father for over a year. I purposely chose a job that allowed me to be in Church pretty much every time anything happens. And while I am not widely read (not bad though) ... I do make an effort to read slowly and actually apply and understand what I read, and have been directed to read the most beneficial writings, and warned against problematic ones. I have devoted more than full-time study to this since early 2014. So I have a lot of advantages. I'm not saying this to brag, btw. But my point is that, even with all of this, yes, I have some understanding, but to be honest, I am just starting to scratch the surface of an Orthodox phronema.

I have a great deal of respect for lifelong cradles, and they will have understandings of some things deep in their bones that I will never develop, but I see more and more that they are often vulnerable in other ways because of much they have never had the opportunity to learn.

And I admire the zeal of converts, but the fact is that within the first year or two of practicing and studying, they are very unlikely to have the slightest idea of how all this is supposed to work.

So I try to extend a lot of grace in their case. I'm sure it was extended to me as it has not been so long ago at all that I made some of the same mistakes. And is still being extended to me in the case of those things I do not yet recognize.

But I can assure you, what you describe is absolutely NOT how it is supposed to work. Our priest has tried to gently but firmly speak against any such thing when it comes up. Of particular irritation to many priests are the prevalence of "evil eye" amulets. Yes, a number of the yiayias in my parish wear them. But I've seen more than one priest get angry and tell someone, "If you don't think the Cross will protect you, what do you think that thing will do for you? They can't exist together - get rid of the mati!!!" But as I said, old teachings die hard. The stubbornness is a good thing when holding onto the real Tradition of the Church, but unfortunately, it gets attached to other things by some.

PS: See what did there, I just used your post to demonstrate how easy it was to write a long, heart felt post about nothing.

Again, I'm not sure if that was addressed to me. But I honestly didn't see it as being "about nothing". You made some good points.

But I did want to address some misunderstandings.

God be with you!

Orthodox Questions - Reformed Answers

Augsburg Catholic

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

† Handmaid of God †

Augsburg Catholic

Augsburg Catholic

Augsburg Catholic

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Augsburg Catholic

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Augsburg Catholic

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

† Handmaid of God †

Senior Veteran

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

† Handmaid of God †

Senior Veteran

† Handmaid of God †

Similar threads