Orthodox vs. Protestant belief differences?

[Constantine the Sinner]

It was during a Greek fest, and they were giving tours of the church! Don't tell me I'm wrong, I was there, and YOU were not!

So, what, you're saying they gave tours to everyone else as the festival, but refused you in particular? You do know Greeks will be a very small minority at a Greek Fest, right?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Then the Orthodox Church is wrong about that! BTW, where do you get such statements? I have read The Orthodox Way and The Orthodox Church, and while the Council of Florence was discussed, and I am outraged at the injustice done to Orthodox Clergy during this Council, didn't St. Photios tell us that it doesn't matter what the name is over the door, Christ is worshiped inside.

On charges of Heresy: If you are looking at "filioque," that is a dead issue. John Paul II did not use filioque in the Creed when liturgizing with Eastern clergy.

The Patriarch's participation in the Eucharistic liturgy at which the Pope presided followed the programme of the past visits of Patriarch Dimitrios (1987) and Bartholomew I himself (1995): full participation in the Liturgy of the Word, joint proclamation by the Pope and by the Patriarch of the profession of faith according to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in Greek and as the conclusion, the final Blessing imparted by both the Pope and the Patriarch at the Altar of the Confessio.

This celebration emphasized that prayer is the true heart of all ecumenical research and that in prayer we can find the strength to continue to do God's will in the search for full communion, which will be marked by the full concelebration of the Eucharist.

The Pope also invited Patriarch Bartholomew to Rome to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the first meeting of rapprochement of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in Jerusalem (January 1964) after so many centuries. This meeting paved the way to direct relations, giving rise to increasingly fraternal relations between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, a spirit that gradually extended to other Orthodox Churches.

The same spirit also enlivened the meeting between John Paul II and Bartholomew I. In the Common Declaration that concluded the visit, the Pope and the Patriarch said: "Our meeting in Rome today also enables us to face certain problems and misunderstandings that have recently surfaced. The long experience of the 'dialogue of charity' comes to our aid precisely in these circumstances, so that difficulties can be faced serenely without slowing or clouding our progress on the journey we have undertaken towards full communion in Christ" (Common Declaration, 1 July, n. 8; ORE, 7 July 2004, p. 9).

As far as Schismatics, aren't we all? Did Rome break from Constantinople, or the other way around. I am just as outraged as you at the actions of Cardinal Humbert in 1054, but to label Catholics as schismatics without painting yourselves just as black is simply impossible.

As far as the Pope wanting control over the Orthodox Church, that is silly. Don't go off half cocked. It may have been true at one time, but it is not, now, and hasn't been since Paul VI visited Jerusalem and met Athenagoras in 1964. We simply can't tell much of John Paul I, but John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis have done all they could to heal that wound. So have Athenagoras and Bartholomew. The one that stuck out as recalcitrant was Patriarch Kirill. HE refused to see John Paul II at all.

The John Paul who kissed the Koran?

Please, stop conflating what the Ecumenical Patriarch (who is ultimately just a bishop) does, with the official Church stance, with the stance of our saints. We do not recognize Rome as being Orthodox. When Rome is prepared to officially renounce the Pope's claim to power over fellow bishops, to drop the Pope's claim to infallibility, to drop the doctrine of Purgatory, to drop the doctrine of supererogation, to drop the Filioque, to drop Marian dogmas, and several other things, then we can talk.

 

[Monk Brendan]

It was signed by the Melkite Catholic bishops.

They WALKED OUT! After first saying: The Eastern Church attributes to the pope the most complete and highest power, however in a manner where the fullness and primacy are in harmony with the rights of the patriarchal sees. This is why, in virtue of an ancient right founded on customs, the Roman Pontiffs did not, except in very significant cases, exercise over these sees the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction that we are asked now to define without any exception. This definition would completely destroy the constitution of the entire Greek church. That is why my conscience as a pastor refuses to accept this constitution.

Soldiers were then sent to seize Gregory, they took him back to Rome, and THREW him at the foot of the Pope, and held him there BY FORCE until such time as Pius could put his foot on Gregory's head. THAT was not voluntary.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

They WALKED OUT! After first saying: The Eastern Church attributes to the pope the most complete and highest power, however in a manner where the fullness and primacy are in harmony with the rights of the patriarchal sees. This is why, in virtue of an ancient right founded on customs, the Roman Pontiffs did not, except in very significant cases, exercise over these sees the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction that we are asked now to define without any exception. This definition would completely destroy the constitution of the entire Greek church. That is why my conscience as a pastor refuses to accept this constitution.

Soldiers were then sent to seize Gregory, they took him back to Rome, and THREW him at the foot of the Pope, and held him there BY FORCE until such time as Pius could put his foot on Gregory's head. THAT was not voluntary.

And warrants excommunication. Do you think the infallibility of the Pope is heresy? By staying in communion with him after he declares it and literally stomps on your head, you are sharing the cup with a heretic. The Orthodox Church is not a formula of a + b, it is a COMMUNION. If the Pope is not Orthodox, and you are in Communion with him, YOU ARE NOT ORTHODOX.

And the bishops did sign that declaration that he was infallible in doctrine, it was only administrative issues that they added that caveat on.

 

[Monk Brendan]

So, what, you're saying they gave tours to everyone else as the festival, but refused you in particular? You do know Greeks will be a very small minority at a Greek Fest, right?

That may be, but again, I am telling you what happened to me. You were not there. And to be honest, I don't know and don't care how many Greeks are at a Greek Fest.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

That may be, but again, I am telling you what happened to me. You were not there. And to be honest, I don't know and don't care how many Greeks are at a Greek Fest.

Whatever reason you were barred, it wasn't ethnicity. If it were ethnicity, they would not be asking you to convert, they would say you can't.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

How is a sinner transformed? What steps does the sinner take in order to be transformed?

I'm going to let Saint Theophan the Recluse answer that, quoting from The Path to Salvation,

"The grace-filled Christian life is supposed to begin in baptism. But those who preserve this grace are rare; the majority of Christians lose it. We see some people who are more or less depraved in their present lives, because they had poor beginnings which were allowed to develop and take root in them. Others perhaps had good beginnings, but during the early years of their youth, whether by personal inclination or through temptation from others, forgot these beginnings and acquired evil habits. Such people no longer lead a true Christian life. Our holy faith offers the Mystery of Repentance for this. We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous (I Jn. 2:1). If you have sinned, acknowledge the sin and repent. God will forgive the sin and once again give you a new heart...and a new spirit (Ez. 36:26). There is no other way: Either do not sin, or repent. Judging by the number of those who have fallen away from Baptism, one could even say that repentance has become for us the only source of true Christian life.

"It is necessary to know that in the Mystery of Repentance some merely have to be cleansed, and the gift of the grace-filled life, previously assimilated and operating within them, will be rekindled. For others, the beginning of this life has just been established within them, or it is being given and accepted anew. We will be examining the latter case.

"With regard to the second item we have mentioned, it is a decisive change for the better, a breaking of the will, a turning away from sin and a turning to God, or a kindling of the fire of zeal for exclusively God-pleasing things, with renunciation of the self and everything else. It is above all characterized by an extreme breaking of the will. If a person has acquired evil habits, he must now rend himself. If he has offended God, he must now grieve in the fire of just judgment. A repentant person experiences the pain of a woman giving birth, and, in the feelings of the heart, he encounters, as it were, the tortures of hell. To the lamenting Jeremiah, the Lord commanded destroy and build and plant (Jer. 1:10). The lamenting spirit of repentance is sent by the Lord to the earth so that when it passes into those who accept it, to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow (Heb. 4:12), it destroys the old man and lays the foundation for the creation of the new. Within the repentant person there is first fear, then the lightness of hope; sorrow, then comfort; terror to the point of despair, then the breath of the consolation of mercy. One thing replaces another, and this supplies or keeps a person who is in a state of corruption or parting with life in the hope, however, of receiving new life.


"It is something painful, but it saves. It is therefore inevitable that whoever has not experienced such a painful break has not yet begun to live through repentance. It is impossible for a person to begin cleansing himself in everything without having gone through this crucible. Decisive and active resistance to sin comes only from hatred of it. Hatred of sin comes only from a sense of evil from it; the sense of evil from it is experienced in all its force in this painful break within repentance. Only here does a person sense with his whole heart what a great evil sin is; afterward he will run from it as he would from the fire of Gehenna. Without this painful experience, even if he begins cleansing himself in some other way, he will be able to cleanse himself only slightly, more outwardly than inwardly, more in actions than in disposition. That is why his heart will remain unclean, like unsmelted ore.

"Such change is brought about in the human heart by divine grace. This alone can inspire a man to raise his hand to himself and bring himself to God in sacrifice. No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him (Jn. 6:44). God Himself gives a new heart and spirit (cf. Ez. 36:26). Man grieves for himself. Having been fused with flesh and sin, he became one with them. Only an outside, higher force can separate him and arm him against himself.

"Thus, grace produces change in the sinner, but this does not come about without free assent. In Baptism, grace is given to us at the moment the mystery is performed upon us; however, free will comes later and assimilates to itself what has been given. In repentance, then, free assent must participate in the very act of change.

"Change for the better and turning to God must seemingly be instantaneous or sudden, and so does it happen. In preparation, however, change undergoes several stages signifying the combining of freedom with grace, where grace gains mastery of the freedom and freedom is subordinated to grace. These stages are necessary for everyone. For some, the stages go by quickly, while for others, the process continues for many years. Who can keep track of everything that is going on here, especially when the ways of action of grace within us are so varied, and the conditions of people in whom they begin to act are infinite in number? It is necessary, however, to expect that, with all this variation, there is one general aspect of change that no one can escape. Every repenting man is a man who lives in sin, and every such man is recreated by grace. Therefore, it is on the basis of an understanding of the sinner's condition in general, and the basis of the relationship of freedom with grace that we are able to depict this process and characterize it through principles."

And he goes on quite a bit more on all this, very good book.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

That may be, but again, I am telling you what happened to me. You were not there. And to be honest, I don't know and don't care how many Greeks are at a Greek Fest.

I'll tell you what I do care about: you making accusations that there are Orthodox parishes which won't let you through the door unless you're the right ethnicity. What happened to you was clearly not that.

You might have noticed we have a lot of animosity toward you: it is not because you are Catholic, I have seen Eastern Rite Catholics post on our board and they were treated in a very friendly manner. It is because you think you can make yourself a part of our Church without joining it, and then becoming indignant when we do not recognize you as a member. It is because you seem to think you are entitled to be recognized as our brother, and then come into a thread posted by someone considering joining the Church and simply tell him he might be rejected if he is not the right ethnicity. If you're any indicator of the standards of Melkite monastic tradition, I'm frankly quite glad you're not Orthodox.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

How does Christ liberate sinners?

He destroys death and their bondage to Satan.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

See we believe that Christ came into this world to die for the ungodly. Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Works that required perfect obedience, but by One Act of disobedience; it broke this Covenant of Works that now serves as a curse for all sinners. We are in bondage to it, because of the demands of perfect obedience, which no sinner can fulfill. But the second Adam (Christ) came into this world born under the Law in the flesh. Not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it; because the Law is God's will. Christ also killed our sin in His flesh, so that we might receive the righteousness that is from God. Because without Perfect Righteousness no one will enter heaven. Even our works as believers are tainted with sin; in other words they are imperfect. They will not stand up in court. Only the righteous works of another; namely Christ Jesus can stand up in court. If Christ did not die for us, and Propitiate God's wrath. Then we are all lost.

Covenant of Works? You mean, obeying God's will? That was always expected of us, and still is, though obviously to do that we must put our own will to death with Christ. Being saved in Christ doesn't free us from the obligation to follow God's will; you are either a slave to God, or to Satan.

But there is also the law of death, the one requiring an eye-for-an-eye, the law that says man is appointed to die; it is like a prison law we fell under with the fall, being incarcerated with Satan as the warden. But through Christ we are freed from prison, and though obeying the king is still important, we no longer are subject to the rules for inmates (like circumcision and eating kosher); these sorts of works are what we understand Paul to mean when he says "works of the law". This is the law of blood sacrifice, an eye-for-an-eye, and though God made it, he does not want us to be under it, he rather wants us to be under the law of mercy (Matthew 9:13); almost an anti-law, really. This anti-law calls us to forgive everything, to never ask for money owed, to be a servant to all, to love all, to pray for those who persecute us (imagine praying for members of ISIS after they killed your family for being Christians!)

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

If you will do a word-search on "Doctrine(s)" and "Straight" you will find the basis for truth is tied to scripture, not doctrines and creeds.

"Orthodoxy" is a word that was purloined in the fourth century, and used to declare "Trinity Doctrine" to be the basic teaching of scripture. The problem was, it was not found "in scripture" but only after adopting words from outside of scripture, and "Explaining" what God meant to say but forgot to write, developed Trinity doctrine over a period of several hundred years, only declaring it "Orthodoxy" in the council of Chalcedon in 451 a.d.

One year later, the Bishop of Chalcedon turned the discipline of the church over to the Political rulers, and God gave the world a sign of His displeasure, by introducing a 1000 year judgment upon the church, which we know as "The dark ages" from 452 to 1452, when the first English bibles came off the printing presses and were given to the "laity" rather than to the clergy, and the church never looked back with any desire to return to
"Orthodoxy."

"Orthodoxy" is not "Truth." It is doctrines and creeds. And those who build upon doctrines and creeds will tell you, "Only we have the truth." They will then proceed to refuse to "... sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"(I Pet 3:15)

If you don't believe Christ and the Spirit are God Almighty, you don't belong on this forum, and you're not a Christian.

As for your crack about Bibles, we never stopped translating them and making them available to the laity. We always urged the laity to read the Bible, and if they couldn't afford one (remember, prior to the printing press books were very expensive), they were urged to at least get one Gospel or some Epistles, and if they couldn't read, to ask someone who could to read to them.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Christ Propitiated the righteous wrath of God in our stead. This is one difference in our theologies. Because the EOC position does not believe in the "WRATH" of God. Nor does it need to be propitiated.

This means the turning away of wrath by an offering. It is similar to expiation, but expiation does not carry the nuances involving wrath. For the Christian the propitiation was the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. It turned away the wrath of God so that He could pass "over the sins previously committed," (Rom. 3:25). It was the Father who sent the Son to be the propitiation (1 John 4:10) for all (1 John 2:2).

• "Propitiation properly signifies the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift," (The New Bible Dictionary).
• "Propitiation signifies the turning away of wrath by an offering," (Baker's Dictionary of theology, p. 424).
• The act of appeasing the wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person, (dictionary.com).
• "The act of appeasing the wrath," (Webster's dictionary, 1828).

Propitiation and expiation are two translations of the same word, so this is going nowhere.

If you want to talk about Christ as placating God's wrath, there's really nothing wrong with that, so long as it is in an Orthodox understanding: in our understanding, God's wrath is his brilliance experienced as agony rather than happiness (think of how demons scatter before God's light), whereas God's love means his brilliance experienced as joy and bliss; the experience of God's brilliance differs based on how much you harmonize with it. We believe in God's wrath in the same way we believe in the Hand of God. That is, it's a term referring to something real, but it is totally an analogy. God, in Orthodoxy, is completely without emotion; God does not change, he is eternally the same in all places and times, and beyond all place and time. But he didn't actually have "moods" or need catharsis (that is what I meant by "venting" wrath). God changes things externally to himself; the results are sometimes understood for ease as wrathful, but God's disposition goes completely unchanged; YOU cannot do something that affects God, nothing you do can affect him; nothing can affect him. And even what we sometimes call "wrath" in terms of results, might actually lead to misunderstanding: God might do something to you that causes a lot of pain, but it's probably for your own good (Proverbs 3:12). Even death was for our own good.

 

[ladodgers6]

Your faith status on this site, I meant. I know what Calvinism is, but didn't notice that your status said "Calvinist" instead of "Christian" or "Protestant." Normally I notice what people's faith statuses say, so was wondering if you'd just had it changed.

I am a Protestant, a Christian, a Calvinist, a Reformed. No I have encountered this confusion before. Its not new to me. Just like people caricaturing Calvinism. I also consider myself a Lutheran in some aspects. Because I love Luther, he taught me a lot.

Protestant
a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches.

I wouldn't preach on the street, as I find it obnoxious and more likely to do harm than good. I'm a new Christian myself, and frankly in too much need of proper guidance myself to worry about what anyone else believes. Again, I'm not actually Orthodox, but I will need to go to them eventually and see just how far they can push me.

Okay.

 

[ladodgers6]

A Catholic is always going to have a lot of problems that are predicated on the idea that something has to happen so that God "can" anything.

To the Catholic mind it is axiomatic: God is God, and therefore He CAN do anything. Whether he WILL or not is purely a matter of his own free will.

So in talking with Catholics, if one wants to get far along in the presentation of a view, one should try to avoid any statement like "...so God CAN", or "God MUST", or "God CANNOT..." because you've departed from the meaning of the word "God", to the Catholic, when you append a "so...can", or a "must" or a "cannot" to God. By definition, God CAN do anything, there is nothing that God cannot do, and God is not obligated or forced to do anything - there's no such thing as "God must."

It's not a small theological point. I have noticed over the years that many theologies have a limited God, who CANNOT do certain things. If a god CANNOT anything, then that god is not the same God as the Catholic God.

God can do anything. He is not obligated to do anything. He always chooses. He has free will just like we do, except that there is nothing impinges upon him to force his hand the way we are impinged upon. We make tradeoffs, and often we make them obliged by superior force. God is not limited by any superior force - his only limitations are his own views, his own opinions, what makes him happy.

He doesn't do things he doesn't like because he doesn't have to, and in general he likes his opinions (such as natural law) quite a bit. He can break natural law with a miracle any time he pleases, but it does not please him to do so all that often.

The "god who can't" isn't interesting, and to the Catholic, isn't God. The best that a Catholic could say, given our concepts of God, is that "God won't", but that's based on observations of the patterns of God's behavior, and does not constitute a natural law that is superior to God's sovereign will.

This is a sticking point between Catholics and traditional Jews and Muslims. The traditional Jewish and Muslim belief is that God CANNOT be anything other than a unique monad, God CANNOT have a son.

A philosophical Jew might modify that and say "God WOULD NOT have a Son", but the traditionalist, and the Muslim would assert that no, it is impossible, for unique one-ness is a fundamental essence of God that even God cannot transgress.

To the Catholic mind, that God WOULD indeed have a son is demonstrated by the fact that He DID, but to go further, the definitional stipulation that God CANNOT be anything but a unique monad means that such a God is not omnipotent, because he "cannot" something, and that is unacceptable to the Catholic mind. Omnipotence - Almightiness - is central to the definition of God - so it must always be said and believed that God CAN do anything. Whether he WILL or DOES or not is a factual question. That he COULD is essential to the status of being God.

Thanks for your comments. I will share this with you. People have a misconception of "OMNIPOTENCE" of God. God "CANNOT" lie, die, or sin. He cannot not be God. He cannot change any of his attributes. The comment that you have quoted from my post is Biblical. Playing down a sinner condition before a Holy God; also plays down what Grace really is. Yes sinners have a free-will. But their free-will is in bondage to it. Eph. 2-3

 

[Silmarien]

I am a Protestant, a Christian, a Calvinist, a Reformed. No I have encountered this confusion before. Its not new to me. Just like people caricaturing Calvinism. I also consider myself a Lutheran in some aspects. Because I love Luther, he taught me a lot.

I literally mean where it says "Calvinist" on the site here, under your name, right beneath the numbers and above your marital status. I didn't notice that before. I'm culturally Protestant, so familiar with the denominational breakdown.

 

[ladodgers6]

God could theoretically have simply repealed death, but this comes with several issues.

1. God warned man he would surely die with the fall. God is consistent and isn't going to flip flop on a warning like that.

Wait, something is missing here. How did man Fall? And why does EOC position does not believe in a angry God who hates sin? What's your position on sin before a Holy God?

2. Immortality without transformation is a problem. God could have let man eat from the tree of life, but he said no. This is for our own sake: if we had eaten from the tree of life in a fallen orientation, we probably would have become as demons.

In the Protestant view the Tree of Life was the reward for eternal life if the first Adam perfectly fulfill the Covenant of works (God's Holy Law) with perfect obedience. But with One Act of disobedience he received the sanction of death, and CONDEMNATION. That is why the second or Last Adam entered the Covenant of Grace with to fulfill the broken Covenant of Works for the ungodly. To make them Perfectly Righteous before God through the person and works of Christ who is OUR redemption, righteousness, and sanctification/holiness. We are clothed in Christ through Faith Alone!

3. Even if man were contrite (since God is shown very willing to forgive in the OT), and God forgives him on those grounds, man would, as Saint Athanasius points out, fall again...and again...and again...and thus incur mortality again...and again...and again.

But contrite is not what SAVES us! Our doing or feeling does nothing to save us. Its Christ and Him alone that saves the ungodly! The good news for sinners and believers, because even believers need to hear the Gospel everyday.

Romans 4:5 5However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

With all that in mind, man cannot simply be forgiven or death abolished through fiat, without a repeat of the issue. Thus Christ does not simply restore us to our pre-fall being, but actually transforms us into something altogether beyond that (1 Corinthians 15:47).

So I asked this question to another member of the EOC. And he did not have an answer. So I will ask you. Why did not God create man in that state in the first place?

 

[ladodgers6]

I'm going to let Saint Theophan the Recluse answer that, quoting from The Path to Salvation,

"The grace-filled Christian life is supposed to begin in baptism. But those who preserve this grace are rare; the majority of Christians lose it. We see some people who are more or less depraved in their present lives, because they had poor beginnings which were allowed to develop and take root in them. Others perhaps had good beginnings, but during the early years of their youth, whether by personal inclination or through temptation from others, forgot these beginnings and acquired evil habits. Such people no longer lead a true Christian life. Our holy faith offers the Mystery of Repentance for this. We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous (I Jn. 2:1). If you have sinned, acknowledge the sin and repent. God will forgive the sin and once again give you a new heart...and a new spirit (Ez. 36:26). There is no other way: Either do not sin, or repent. Judging by the number of those who have fallen away from Baptism, one could even say that repentance has become for us the only source of true Christian life.

Sorry for my ignorance. Please clarify for me what is "The grace-filled Christian life"? This language sound a lot like N.T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul. The thing I see missing again is Christ fulfilling even the sanctification part of redemption for the ungodly. In Protestantism Christ is also "OUR" sanctification/holiness which is given freely to the ungodly. God did just save us from sin, to leave us stranded halfway to fin for ourselves.

"It is necessary to know that in the Mystery of Repentance some merely have to be cleansed, and the gift of the grace-filled life, previously assimilated and operating within them, will be rekindled. For others, the beginning of this life has just been established within them, or it is being given and accepted anew. We will be examining the latter case.

So much focus on OUR doing, instead of what God did in Christ for the ungodly!

"With regard to the second item we have mentioned, it is a decisive change for the better, a breaking of the will, a turning away from sin and a turning to God, or a kindling of the fire of zeal for exclusively God-pleasing things, with renunciation of the self and everything else. It is above all characterized by an extreme breaking of the will. If a person has acquired evil habits, he must now rend himself. If he has offended God, he must now grieve in the fire of just judgment. A repentant person experiences the pain of a woman giving birth, and, in the feelings of the heart, he encounters, as it were, the tortures of hell. To the lamenting Jeremiah, the Lord commanded destroy and build and plant (Jer. 1:10). The lamenting spirit of repentance is sent by the Lord to the earth so that when it passes into those who accept it, to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow (Heb. 4:12), it destroys the old man and lays the foundation for the creation of the new. Within the repentant person there is first fear, then the lightness of hope; sorrow, then comfort; terror to the point of despair, then the breath of the consolation of mercy. One thing replaces another, and this supplies or keeps a person who is in a state of corruption or parting with life in the hope, however, of receiving new life.

Sorry, but people have only evil habits? We are evil to the bone! This evil people need to hear the Law that condemns evil people. Too expose their cravings of lust and evil deeds, because they seek it and LOVE the darkness and HATE the light. Not unless God saves us from this evil fallen condition first, we will not walk in holiness! Trying to do so is just foolish. Because no flesh will be justified through the works of the Law. The Law drives sinners to Christ, because that the only place we find Mercy for such evil people.

"It is something painful, but it saves. It is therefore inevitable that whoever has not experienced such a painful break has not yet begun to live through repentance. It is impossible for a person to begin cleansing himself in everything without having gone through this crucible. Decisive and active resistance to sin comes only from hatred of it. Hatred of sin comes only from a sense of evil from it; the sense of evil from it is experienced in all its force in this painful break within repentance. Only here does a person sense with his whole heart what a great evil sin is; afterward he will run from it as he would from the fire of Gehenna. Without this painful experience, even if he begins cleansing himself in some other way, he will be able to cleanse himself only slightly, more outwardly than inwardly, more in actions than in disposition. That is why his heart will remain unclean, like unsmelted ore.

But we should not place our comfort or confidence on OUR doing. Like repentance or any evangelical obedience; but only on the Mercy and Grace of God who justifies the ungodly apart from works. Once this is done by God. Then being free from the curse of the Law that condemns sin. We can walk free in the Grace of God, and perform good works. Because of His Grace, not our doing!

"Such change is brought about in the human heart by divine grace. This alone can inspire a man to raise his hand to himself and bring himself to God in sacrifice. No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him (Jn. 6:44). God Himself gives a new heart and spirit (cf. Ez. 36:26). Man grieves for himself. Having been fused with flesh and sin, he became one with them. Only an outside, higher force can separate him and arm him against himself.

"Thus, grace produces change in the sinner, but this does not come about without free assent. In Baptism, grace is given to us at the moment the mystery is performed upon us; however, free will comes later and assimilates to itself what has been given. In repentance, then, free assent must participate in the very act of change.

This sounds a lot like Arminianism. Its all base on our Choice; though they do not have it at first?

"Change for the better and turning to God must seemingly be instantaneous or sudden, and so does it happen. In preparation, however, change undergoes several stages signifying the combining of freedom with grace, where grace gains mastery of the freedom and freedom is subordinated to grace. These stages are necessary for everyone. For some, the stages go by quickly, while for others, the process continues for many years. Who can keep track of everything that is going on here, especially when the ways of action of grace within us are so varied, and the conditions of people in whom they begin to act are infinite in number? It is necessary, however, to expect that, with all this variation, there is one general aspect of change that no one can escape. Every repenting man is a man who lives in sin, and every such man is recreated by grace. Therefore, it is on the basis of an understanding of the sinner's condition in general, and the basis of the relationship of freedom with grace that we are able to depict this process and characterize it through principles."

And he goes on quite a bit more on all this, very good book.

This last part sounds a lot like Catholicism. A process of gaining more and more Grace through our works.

 

[ladodgers6]

He destroys death and their bondage to Satan.

Can you be more specific on how Christ destroys death and their bondage to Satan?

 

[ladodgers6]

Covenant of Works? You mean, obeying God's will? That was always expected of us, and still is, though obviously to do that we must put our own will to death with Christ. Being saved in Christ doesn't free us from the obligation to follow God's will; you are either a slave to God, or to Satan.

In Protestantism the Covenant of Works was made with the first Adam with sanctions and blessings. If he broke this Covenant of Works he would die and be condemned. If he were to fulfill this Covenant of Works. He would earn the Tree of Life and live forever. But when Adam broke that Covenant of Works, he bought death and condemnation on us all. That's why the second Adam (Christ) came into the world to fulfill not abolish the Law of God for US/the ungodly. This is the good news. Not that we have to DO this or that. Because no one of us can do it! And why Christ died to pay the penalty of the broken Covenant of works, so that we can receive the righteousness of God and live forever with Him. This is the Gospel that Paul preached; a crucified Christ!

But there is also the law of death, the one requiring an eye-for-an-eye, the law that says man is appointed to die; it is like a prison law we fell under with the fall, being incarcerated with Satan as the warden. But through Christ we are freed from prison, and though obeying the king is still important, we no longer are subject to the rules for inmates (like circumcision and eating kosher); these sorts of works are what we understand Paul to mean when he says "works of the law". This is the law of blood sacrifice, an eye-for-an-eye, and though God made it, he does not want us to be under it, he rather wants us to be under the law of mercy (Matthew 9:13); almost an anti-law, really. This anti-law calls us to forgive everything, to never ask for money owed, to be a servant to all, to love all, to pray for those who persecute us (imagine praying for members of ISIS after they killed your family for being Christians!)

Yes believers must perform good deeds. But they perform them because they are already saved! Christ has done everything for us. Christ's final words on the Cross to God, "IT IS FINISHED". The Last fulfilled what He came to do, that the first Adam failed to do.

I forgot the Methodist preacher I was reading about. Anyway, he was sharing a story of a man who killed his son. After struggling and wrestling with it. He prayed to God to help him understand it. After reading the Gospel in the Bible, he forgive him for killing his son. And had this convicted killer come to live with him in his home. A couple of years past and this killer was converted and married, this Methodist's daughter. And this Methodist married them in his church. When I read that it melted my heart, because there is enough evil in this world. To be honest I don't know if I could do that. Being honest here.

 

[ladodgers6]

Propitiation and expiation are two translations of the same word, so this is going nowhere.

If you want to talk about Christ as placating God's wrath, there's really nothing wrong with that, so long as it is in an Orthodox understanding: in our understanding, God's wrath is his brilliance experienced as agony rather than happiness (think of how demons scatter before God's light), whereas God's love means his brilliance experienced as joy and bliss; the experience of God's brilliance differs based on how much you harmonize with it. We believe in God's wrath in the same way we believe in the Hand of God. That is, it's a term referring to something real, but it is totally an analogy. God, in Orthodoxy, is completely without emotion; God does not change, he is eternally the same in all places and times, and beyond all place and time. But he didn't actually have "moods" or need catharsis (that is what I meant by "venting" wrath). God changes things externally to himself; the results are sometimes understood for ease as wrathful, but God's disposition goes completely unchanged; YOU cannot do something that affects God, nothing you do can affect him; nothing can affect him. And even what we sometimes call "wrath" in terms of results, might actually lead to misunderstanding: God might do something to you that causes a lot of pain, but it's probably for your own good (Proverbs 3:12). Even death was for our own good.

So God in your theology does not punish the wicked? Not using analogy here. God hates sin. And has condemn the ungodly for it. Look at the flood for example?