Question to protestants about Faith Alone

[d taylor]

I have no idea what you think such a reward would be if not eternal life. The interpretation you propose does not agree with the text in the slightest, and I know of no one who has interpreted as such, even among low church Protestants.

-

​

That is because you have never actually been exposed to faith alone beliefs. This 2 volume set is the best New Testament commentary in existence. You would do well to find a copy for sale.

The Grace New Testament Commentary (2 vols.)

The Grace New Testament Commentary (for Logos) – GES Store

The Grace New Testament Commentary : 2 Volume Set by Brad Doskocil (2010,... 9780978877330 | eBay

 

[The Liturgist]

-

​

That is because you have never actually been exposed to faith alone beliefs. This 2 volume set is the best New Testament commentary in existence. You would do well to find a copy for sale.

That’s entirely false. I was baptized Methodist and grew up attending Lutheran parochial school after a time in a very pleasant Southern Baptist kindergarten. And plenty of Lutherans adhered to Once Saved, Always Saved beliefs of various forms.

However, its good to know the source of these unusual hermeneutics, although I have no interest in buying it, since my health being poor limits the time I have available for reading and I have several more interesting and important works I am endeavoring to get through.

 

[d taylor]

That’s entirely false. I was baptized Methodist and grew up attending Lutheran parochial school after a time in a very pleasant Southern Baptist kindergarten. And plenty of Lutherans adhered to Once Saved, Always Saved beliefs of various forms.

However, its good to know the source of these unusual hermeneutics, although I have no interest in buying it, since my health being poor limits the time I have available for reading and I have several more interesting and important works I am endeavoring to get through.

-
​

If any of these denominations state a person must repent of sin and believe, they are not faith alone. And i know in Methodist and Baptist churches say this.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Telling Lutherans and Reformed that we don't believe in Sola Fide is a pretty wild take. Perhaps next we'll be told the earth is actually flat. Oh wait...

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nagomirov]

That being said, it is important that we not interpret St. Cyprian of Carthage as being some prototypical figure akin to Anselm of Canterbury with his Satisfaction Theology, which was one of the earliest Scholastic departures from the Patristic system of Orthodoxy.

You have a misconception about Orthodoxy, which has developed under the influence of the modernism of representatives of the Parisian school, for example, Lossky. Probably both Khrapovitsky and Stragorodsky were read. All this is modernism. Traditional Orthodox theology professes satisfaction!

Redemption

St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

"The Savior endured this, having pacified (Col. 1:20) by the blood of the Cross the heavenly and earthly. For we were enemies because of sin; and God ordained death for the sinner. Which of the two should have been: was it necessary to put to death according to justice, or was it necessary to violate the definition out of humanity? But note the wisdom of God: He has preserved both the truth of the definition and the power of humanity. Christ lifted up the sins on the body onto the tree, so that by His death we may be free from sin and live in truth (1 Peter 2:24). The one who died for us was not important; the Lamb was not sensual; he was not a simple man; he was not only an Angel, but God who became man. The iniquity of sinners was not so important as the truth of the one who died for them. We have not sinned so much as He who laid down His life for us has done the truth; he laid it down when He was willing, and again when he was willing to accept it. And do you want to know that He did not forcibly end His life, and that He did not betray the Spirit against His will? He cried out to the Father, saying, Father! In Your hands I commit My Spirit (Luke 23:46). I betray you to receive it; and this river, give up the spirit (Matthew 27:50); but not for a long time, because he soon rose from the dead again."

_________________________

Source: Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Catechetical teachings, XIII 33 // Catechetical and secret teaching. M., 1900. pp. 197-198

Saint Nectarius of Aegina on the Atonement:

St. Nectarius of Aegina, whom we know primarily as a miracle worker and healer, was also a dogmatic theologian (and in a deeply traditional spirit - his writings abound with references to Symbolic Books and even to the "Dogmatics" of the blessed memory of Mitr. Makaria!). Here is a short excerpt from one of his writings.

* * *

"The Savior as the Great Hierarch brought Himself to God the Father in the immaculate Slaughter, and propitiatory Sacrifice (θυσίαν ἱλαστήριον), made-Generating and Bring, and thereby satisfied and satisfied Divine justice (ἱκανοποίησε δικαιοσύνην τὴν θείαν), are offended by sin the transgression of God's law.

As a sinless Representative of the human race before God and the Father, He took upon Himself all the punishment that a sinful person was worthy of. He poured out His precious and saving Blood on the Cross, thereby sealing the New Covenant that He made with the Father, so that through this Covenant everyone who believes in the Savior and confesses His propitiatory death on the cross is saved.

This Sacrifice washes and cleanses humanity; it cleansed and washed the human race from the filth of sin and sanctifies believers in Christ and those who are baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, who established the New Testament."

____________________

Source: Νεκτάριος Αἰγίνης, ἅγ. Χριστολογία, 1.12.2.1. Ἀθῆναι, 1900. Σ. 188

“CHRIST HAS BEEN A REDEMPTION FOR US”

St. Nicholas Cabasilas:

"12. It is not within human power to restore fallen man, and human righteousness cannot free people from evil, since sin is an insult (ὕβριν φέρει) to God Himself, as it is said: “By breaking the law you dishonor God” (Rom. 2:23). Therefore, the virtue that could free [a person] from accusation must be higher than human. 13. After all, nothing is easier for an insignificant person than to insult a great one, but he cannot compensate with honor (τιμῇ) for the insult inflicted - especially when his debt is enormous, and the insulted person himself is so superior to him that it is impossible even to measure the distance between them. For the one who wants to eliminate the accusation must compensate for the damage caused to the honor of the insulted person, and moreover, in excess, in order to restore what was lost, and add moreover, in compensation for the insult caused. But if it is impossible to even to some extent cover up an already committed [misdemeanor], who can dare to do more? 14. That is why no man, having offered his own righteousness in payment of his debt, could reconcile God with himself. Therefore, the old law could not “abolish hostility” (Eph. 2:15), and for those living in grace, mere zeal would not have been enough for this reconciliation. For both are nothing more than works of human power and human righteousness. After all, blessed Paul calls the law itself human righteousness when he says, referring to the old law, that [people] did not obey “the righteousness of God... striving to establish their own righteousness” (Rom. 10:3), since against our misfortunes the law was only sufficient in order to prepare us for health and make [us] worthy of the doctor’s hand. For, as he says, “the law was a teacher for us to Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:24), and blessed John baptized into the one who was to come, and all human philosophy, and all work - all this is just a kind of threshold and preparation for true righteousness . 15. And so, when we ourselves could not show righteousness in our own strength, Christ Himself “became for us the righteousness of God, sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30) and, “having abolished hostility to the flesh” (Eph. 2: 15), reconciles God with us, not only for nature in general (φύσει κοινῶς), when he died, but every time for each of the people: then - as one crucified, now - as the organizer of the Meal, whenever we ask for forgiveness, having repented in your sins. After all, He alone was able to give all due honor to the One who gave birth, and to cover the deprivation thereof: the first with life, the last with [His] death. For by death, accepted on the Cross for the sake of the glory of the Father, having paid in full and abundantly for the insult inflicted by us, He restored at this great price the honor taken away by our sins. With His life He gave all honor - both to the extent that it was fitting for Him to honor the Father, and to the extent that it was fitting for the Father to be honored.”

_____________________________

Source: Nicolaus Cabasilas. De Vita in Christo, 4.12-15 // SC. 355. P. 272-276

REDEMPTION BY THE BLOOD OF GOD

St. Nicholas Cavasila:

"51. God is dead. The blood shed on the Cross is God's Blood. What could be more precious than this death? What's scarier than her? How did human nature sin so much that only at such a great price could this sin be abolished? What kind of ulcer should it be in order to need such treatment? 52. For in order to abolish sin, some kind of punishment was necessary, so that, having paid a decent price for what we had sinned before God, we would be spared from condemnation; after all, someone who had already suffered a well-deserved punishment could not be accused of the same crime again. But there was no one among the people who was free from guilt and therefore capable of suffering in place of others, since no one could even bear their own punishment; moreover, the whole family [ours], even if it were possible [for each person] to die a thousand times, would still not be able to bring due payment. For what is valuable in the sufferings of a miserable slave who has crushed the royal image and insulted such exalted greatness? 53. That is why the sinless Lord endures long terrible [torments] and dies; takes a blow, becoming a man and standing up for people; frees the family from condemnation and grants prisoners freedom, since He Himself, God and the Lord, had no need for it. The reason that true life passes to us through the death of the Savior is the following. 54. How do we introduce [this true life] into our souls? By performing the Sacraments — Ablution, Anointing and eating from the sacred Meal. Christ dwells with those who do this, makes them His dwelling place, combines and unites with them, destroys sin, embodies His life, His dignity in them and shares His victory with them. Oh goodness! He places a crown on those who wash themselves and proclaims those who eat of [His] victory Parties. 55. But why is this so? How do the font, the myrrh and the meal give the crown of victory — the fruit of labor and sweat? Because when we join them, although we do not perform any feat and do not work, we glorify the perfect feat, marvel at the triumph, worship the victory banner (τρόπαιον) and show our love for the Hero (ἀριστεύς) — so strong that it cannot be expressed in words. Moreover, we make His wounds, sufferings, and death our own; we take them upon ourselves as much as possible and eat our own Flesh of the Slain and Resurrected. That is why, of course, we also enjoy the benefits that came from His exploits and death."

____________________________

Source: Nicolaus Cabasilas. De Vita in Christo, 1.51-55 // SC. 355. P. 122-126

Saint Theophan the Recluse on the Christian Doctrine of Salvation:

“Our destruction consists of two evils: firstly, in angering God by violating His will, in losing His favor and in subjecting ourselves to a legal oath; secondly, in the damage and disorder of one’s nature by sin or in the loss of true life and the taste of death. Why is it necessary for our salvation: firstly, the propitiation of God, the removal of the legal oath from us and the return of God’s favor to us; secondly, in reviving us, killed by sin, or giving us new life. If God remains unmerciful towards us, we cannot receive any mercy from Him; if we do not receive mercy, we will not be granted grace; If we are not granted grace, we will not be able to have a new life. Both are necessary: the removal of the oath and the renewal of our nature. For even if we had somehow received forgiveness and pardon, but remained unrenewed, we would not have received any benefit from it, because without renewal we would constantly remain in a sinful mood and would constantly shed sins from ourselves, and through sins we would again be exposed to condemnation and disfavor, or everyone would remain in the same disastrous state. Both are necessary; but neither one nor the other can take place without the incarnation of God.”

Source: Theophan the Recluse, St. Outline of Christian moral teaching, 1.A.a. M., 2010. pp. 21-22

 

[Nagomirov]

That being said, it is important that we not interpret St. Cyprian of Carthage as being some prototypical figure akin to Anselm of Canterbury with his Satisfaction Theology, which was one of the earliest Scholastic departures from the Patristic system of Orthodoxy.

THE GREEK THEOLOGIAN PROF. JOHN KARMIRIS ON THE ATONEMENT:

"The Ecumenical First Council dogmatically proclaimed the common faith of the ancient and undivided Church, which later became the faith of the entire Christian world in "the one Lord Jesus Christ ... for our sake, and for our salvation, descended and incarnated and became human, and suffered, and on the third day rose and ascended into heaven." This was how the New Testament teaching was dogmatized, that the incarnate Son and the Word of God saved the sinful and fallen human race, "delivered us from the power of darkness and brought us into His Kingdom; and in Him we have redemption by His Blood and forgiveness of sins" (Col. 1:13-14). "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). This salvation was realized by the Savior through all that happened during His appearance on earth, through all his redemptive work (ἀπολυτρωτικὴ δρᾶσις); "through His birth or incarnation, also baptism, suffering and resurrection, He freed nature from the sin of the ancestor, from death and corruption" [1]. In other words, he saved people through His incarnation and works of His threefold dignity — prophetic, high priestly and royal; "he became for us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30), so that in him "we have redemption by His blood, forgiveness of sins, according to riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7). Precisely speaking, salvation was accomplished through the medium of incarnation, a teaching that served as a model for imitation of a propitiatory life (ἐξιλαστηρίου) The Sacrifice of the Cross, resurrection, ascension, sitting at the right hand of the Father, the sending down of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and the foundation of the Church by "Our Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Tim. 1:10), "who is the Savior of all men" (1 Tim. 4:10). Through His divine incarnation, the Savior began His redemptive work, in His teaching before the time of the Crucifixion He showed His prophetic dignity, in the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross — the high priestly, and through the resurrection, sitting at the right hand of the Father and the foundation of the Church — the royal. Thus, the salvation of the human race began from the incarnation of the Son and the Word of God, from His very conception on the day of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos, His perception of human nature from the Most Pure Virgin and the combination of this nature with His Divine nature. Salvation unfolded in the teaching work and all His earthly redemptive ministry and culminated in the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross and His resurrection from the dead, as well as the foundation on the day of Pentecost of the Ark Church, the guardian and giver of salvation and the universal sacrament of salvation. "For the coming of Christ in the flesh, the predestination of the gospel rules of life, for suffering, the cross, burial, resurrection, so that a person saved through imitation of Christ would perceive the ancient sonship thereof" [2]. Salvation will be completed at the end of time in the Heavenly Kingdom of God… The Savior accomplished the salvation of the human race mainly through His Sacrifice on the Cross, which He offered to the Heavenly Father out of unspeakable love for a sinful man, which reconciled man to God the Father with the blood of the Savior (Rom. 5:10) and made "one of both" (Eph. 2:14). Out of great obedience to the Father, the Savior was "betrayed for our sins" (Rom. 4:25) and "died for sin" (Rom. 6:11) in order to redeem people from sin, corruption and death. He "became an oath for us" (Gal. 3:13), killed the curse and sin in Himself and combined humanity with God through himself, since all people were "sold to sin" (Rom. 7:14). So, according to the teachings of the New Testament (and above all, ap. The main source of remission of sins and salvation for people is the Savior's death on the Cross, which has a substitutionary (ἀντιπροσωπευτικόν) character, from which came the remission of sins, Divine grace and reconciliation of people with God, "because God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself, not imputing their crimes to people" (2 Cor. 5:19). This happened because God, combining love and justice, as it were, transferred the sins of people to the sinless and righteous Jesus, and His righteousness to sinful people. "He made him who knew no sin a sin offering for us, so that in him we might become righteous before God" (2 Cor. 5:21), for "He himself lifted up our sins with His body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24), washed and forgave them with "His blood" (Rom. 3:25), so that "we, having been delivered from sins, live for righteousness" (1 Peter 2:24). The Lord descended into the world "in the likeness of sinful flesh" to deliver man "from the law of sin and death" and to free him "from this body of death" (Rom. 7:24). The true, unique and successor—less great high priest of the New Testament descended (Heb. 4:14 et seq.), Who, as the only and only mediator between God and men, Priest and Sacrifice, offered Himself once- an undefeated, perfect and true propitiatory Sacrifice, as a merciless and sinless one The immaculate and pure Lamb of God, who takes upon himself the sins of the world (1 Peter 1:19; Jn. 1:29), whose blood "cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7; Heb. 9:11). In the same way, through His blood sacrifice, which has infinite and eternal propitiatory power, the Savior, having become "the propitiation for our sins and the whole world" (1 John 2:2, 4, 10), washed away all sins, propitiated God and reconciled us to Him, pacifying and uniting the divided. He "paid our debt by pouring out a ransom for us (Heb. 9:12), worthy of both attention and surprise, we really became free, for the blood of the Son is sufficient to plead with the Father, and worthy of reverence." [3] "He revived us who were dead in sins ... together with Him, forgiving us all sins, destroying the handwriting that was against us by teaching about us, and He took it from the midst and nailed it to the cross ... to present us holy and blameless and innocent before Himself" (Col. 2:13-14; 1:22). Thus, the Redeemer voluntarily suffered a propitiatory death, "became a slave in our place and for us" [4]; "the Word took upon itself the judgment and, having suffered in the flesh for all, gave salvation to all" [5], "grace and truth" (John 1:17). From the above, it can be concluded that Christ's death on the Cross is a propitiatory Sacrifice, brought by him out of ineffable love in a substitutionary way to God for all people (see 2 Cor. 5:15; 1 Tim. 2:6), which became a source of salvation for all. Therefore, through the supreme and incomparable sacrifice of Calvary, the Savior "redeemed" and "redeemed" us (see Gal. 3:13; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18), brought His life, His Blood as "atonement" or "ransom" (Mt. 20:28; Mk 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6; Rom. 3:25; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:19); He died "righteous for the unrighteous" (1 Pet. 3:18). The fruit of His Sacrifice is "propitiation" (1 John 2:2; Heb. 2:17; Rom. 3:25), which blotted out the sin and guilt of people, which had the effect of eliminating enmity and reconciling them with God, adopting them to God and salvation (Rom. 5:10-11; 2 Cor 5:19; Col. 1:20; Ephesians 2:14-17). Thus, people regained adoption as sons of God by grace in Christ Jesus, the only Son of God in essence, who became human and suffered for them. This Sacrifice of the Redeemer's ineffable redemptive love was offered only "once" because it is absolutely perfect (Heb. 7:27-28; 10:10), has eternal efficacy (Hebrews 10:12, 14), infinite and all-encompassing (καθολική) power for all people at all times and throughout the universe (1 John 2:2; Col. 1:20; 2 Corinthians 5:15; 1 Tim. 2:6). Only this perfect Sacrifice restored the communion of grace between the Creator and the creation, which regained adoption to God (Gal. 4:5); then a new and Divine life began for people, for "the ancient things have passed away, now everything is new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). Man partakes of this new and divine life when he gets rid of sin and becomes a "partaker of the divine nature" (1 Peter 1:4), thus gaining Salvation."

______________________________________________

Author: John Karmiris is a professor of dogmatic and symbolic theology at the University of Athens, the largest Greek historian of the doctrine, publisher of the collection of dogmatic and symbolic texts of the Orthodox Church.

Source: Καρμίρης Ἰ. Ὀρθόδοξον Τὸ δόγμα τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ σωτηρίας. Ἀθῆναι, 1983. Σ. 5-7, 10-13

[1] John of Damascus, Rev. The exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 4, 13 // The Complete Collection of works. St. Petersburg, 1913. p. 309
[2] Basil the Great, svt. About the Holy Spirit, 15 // Creations. Moscow, 2008. Vol. 1. P. 80
[3] John of Damascus, Rev. Three words of defense against rejecting holy icons 1, 21 // The complete collection of creations. St. Petersburg, 1913. p. 358
[4] Athanasius the Great, St. The word on Arians 1, 43 // Creations. Serg. P., 1902. Vol. 2. p. 233 [5] Ibid. 1, 60 // Ibid., p. 256

 

[Nagomirov]

That being said, it is important that we not interpret St. Cyprian of Carthage as being some prototypical figure akin to Anselm of Canterbury with his Satisfaction Theology, which was one of the earliest Scholastic departures from the Patristic system of Orthodoxy.

That being said, it is important that we not interpret St. Cyprian of Carthage as being some prototypical figure akin to Anselm of Canterbury with his Satisfaction Theology, which was one of the earliest Scholastic departures from the Patristic system of Orthodoxy.

THE HOLY FATHERS AND ANSELM OF CANTERBURY ON THE ATONEMENT:

Anselm of Canterbury is a "terrible dream" of the theological revolution of the XIX-XXI centuries in Russian theology, a scholastic and a "jurist". He is often blamed for inventing the so-called "legal theory of redemption." We would like to show, however, the obvious presence of "Anselmian" expressions in the patristic heritage and Teaching of the Church, and in those texts that could not in any way be influenced by the Canterbury scholastic.

1. Anselm of Canterbury, Rev. Simeon the New Theologian and the Council of Constantinople in 1157 — on the nature of the Savior's Sacrifice on the Cross:

A. Anselm, "Why did God become a man?":

"Bozo. The main question was why God became human in order to save people by His death, when, it seems, it could have been done [somehow] in another way. By giving many convincing arguments in response, you showed that the restoration of human nature could not be delayed, but it could only be realized when a person pays God a debt for his sin. But this sin was so great that only God could pay it, although man had to, so that the payer could only be God and man in one person. And from this arose the need for God to clothe himself in man, uniting with him in one person, so that the one who owed and could not pay by nature would be in the person of the one who was capable of doing so. Then [you showed that] the Person of the Son should be incarnated into this man, who also becomes God, and that this man should be born of a Virgin. You have also clearly proved that this man's life is so exalted and valuable that it is infinitely more than enough to pay the debt for the sins of the whole world… Anselm. If He allowed Himself to be killed for the truth, then didn't He give His life for the honor of God?.. And this honor belongs to the whole Trinity; therefore, being God Himself and the Son of God, for the sake of His honor He sacrificed Himself to Himself as well as to the Father with the Holy Spirit, that is, His humanity of His Divinity, Which is the same in Three Persons. But in order, without deviating from the truth, to express our thought more clearly, let's say, as is customary, that the Son voluntarily sacrificed Himself to the Father — after all, in this way the whole God in one person is most successfully depicted, to Whom Christ sacrifices Himself as a man, and immeasurable reverence is aroused in the hearts of listeners thanks to the words "Father" and "Son" — after all, it was the Son who begged the Father for us in this way!"

b. St. Simon the New Theologian:

"One person is St. Of the Trinity, namely, the Son and the Word of God, incarnated, sacrificed Himself in the flesh to the Deity of the Father, and of the Son Himself, and of the Holy Spirit, so that Adam's first crime might be graciously forgiven for the sake of this great and terrible deed, that is, for the sake of this sacrifice of Christ, and that by his power another new birth and creation of man might be accomplished in holy baptism, in which we are cleansed by water dissolved with the Holy Spirit… Since Adam fell under the oath, and through him all people descended from him, and God's sentence about this could not be destroyed in any way, then Christ was an oath for us, through the fact that he was hanged on the tree of the cross to sacrifice Himself to His Father, as it is said, and destroy God's sentence the overwhelming dignity of the victim"

3. The Council of Constantinople in 1157:

"Those who want to be hardworking should make a definition of this dogma from many other testimonies. After the Divine Fathers spoke so unanimously about this, it is clear that the Lord Christ voluntarily sacrificed Himself, sacrificed Himself for humanity, and accepted the sacrifice Himself as God together with the Father and the Spirit. So, on this basis, on which we were united before, it is fitting that the disciples of the Church continue to be wise as worshippers of the Trinity. The God-man, the Word, at first, during the Lord's Passions, offered a Saving Sacrifice to the Father, to Himself as God, and to the Spirit, from whom man was called from non-existence to being, Whom he offended by transgressing the commandment, with Whom reconciliation took place through the sufferings of Christ. Similarly, bloodless sacrifices are now offered to the all-perfect and perfecting Trinity, and She accepts them." * * *

2. Anselm of Canterbury and the Rev. Maxim the Confessor (it is worth noting in advance that the characteristic, different forms of presentation and some means of images are not a sign of disagreement and lack of consensus! These are the features of the language inherent in both theological traditions):

a. Human mortality after the fall as a consequence of God's judgment St. Maximus the Confessor: "In Adam, the tendency of his personal arbitrariness to evil deprived human nature of general glory, since God judged that a person who mistreated his arbitrariness was not so good as to possess an immortal nature" (42nd question response to Phalassius).

Anselm of Canterbury:

"It is impossible for the wisdom and justice of God that He should make someone suffer death without guilt, whom He created righteous for eternal bliss. Therefore, if man had not sinned, he would never have died" (Why God became man, Book 2, Chapter 2).

b. The responsibility of all mankind for original sin

St. Maximus the Confessor:

"After the transgression of the commandment, the natural birth of all people is preceded by pleasure and there was not a single person who by nature would be free from this passionate birth. And as it is necessary, everyone naturally pays for this pleasure with hardships, and after them they are subjected to death" (61st question response to Falassius).

Anselm of Canterbury:

"Therefore, since man was created in such a way that he could achieve bliss if he did not sin, then, being deprived of bliss and all good things as a result of sin, he unwillingly pays with what he possesses for what he stole" (Why God became man, Book 1, Chapter 14). c. The providential role of irreproachable passions St. Maximus the Confessor: "The one who cares and cares about our salvation has introduced another force into human nature, like some kind of punisher – flour. And, accordingly to this torment, He wisely rooted the law of death in the nature of the body, setting limits to the insane striving of the mind, which, contrary to nature, moves towards sensual things" (61st question response to Falassius). Anselm of Canterbury: "If God's wisdom did not add compensation and punishment when malice tries to disrupt the correct order, then a certain ugliness would form in the universe, which should be governed by God, due to the distortion of ordered beauty, and then God would not fully realize His definition" (Why God became man, Book 1, Chap. 15).

d. The necessity of the Savior's sinlessness

St. Maximus the Confessor:

"The only begotten Son of God and the Word, having become a perfect Man in His love for mankind, in order to rid human nature of this evil hopelessness, perceived sinlessness by origin from the first dispensation of Adam and had it without incorruption; and from birth, subsequently introduced into nature by sin, he perceived only passion [irreproachable passion – my note.], without sin" (the 21st question is the answer to Falassius).

Anselm of Canterbury:

"When it is firmly established that this man is both God and the Redeemer of sinners, there is no doubt that he is completely sinless" (Why God became man, Book 2, Chapter 16).

e. The value of the merits of Jesus Christ

St. Maximus the Confessor:

"In Christ, the tendency of His personal arbitrariness to good deprived all human nature of the general shame of corruption, when during the Resurrection nature was transformed through the immutability of arbitrariness into incorruption, since God reasonably reasoned that a person who does not change arbitrariness can again receive back immortal nature. I call the incarnate God the Word "Man" (42nd question to Falassius).

Anselm of Canterbury: "The Father gave the reward to whoever the Son wants to give it to: after all, the Son is free to give what belongs to Him, and the Father can only reward another person. To whom is it most appropriate to transfer the fruit and the price of His death, if not to people for whose salvation, as the mind of truth teaches us, He became human, and to whom, as we said, by His death He set an example of steadfastness in truth even to death?" (Why did God become man, Book 2, Chapter 19)

f. Atoning sacrifice as an expression of God's love for man

St. Maximus the Confessor:

"Out of the love of God, a new sacrament arose – relating to me and for me, who fell as a result of disobedience, the house-building of One Who, because of my salvation, voluntarily assimilated my condemnation through His death, granting me spiritual rebirth to immortality by this death" (42nd question answer to Phalassius).

Anselm of Canterbury: "After all, will anyone be able to imagine anything more merciful than these words of the Father addressed to a sinner who is condemned to eternal torment and has nothing to buy them off with: "Accept My only begotten and sacrifice for yourself"? or those words of His Son: "Take Me and redeem yourself for freedom"? And They seem to tell us this, calling and attracting us to the Christian faith" (Why God became man, Book 2, Chapter 20).

____________________________

[1] Anselm of Canterbury. Why God became Man, 2.18 // Atonement: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of Christian Philosophers. St. Petersburg, 1999
[2] Simeon the New Theologian, Rev. Word 1.3. M., 1892. pp. 24-25
[3] Synodus graecae ecclesiae de dogmate circa illa verba, "Tu es qui offers, et qui offerries, et qui recipis" // PG. 140. Col. 185-186.

 

[Nagomirov]

This is not entirely accurate, because you are confusing the foretaste those in danger of damnation experience of the Outer Darkness with the Outer Darkness itself. The state you call Hell can be used to refer to this foretaste, but it is not the same thing as what results from Christ Pantocrator sending someone to the Outer Darkness.

Furthermore, it must be stressed that God is infinitely loving. The Outer Darkness is regarded by Orthodox theologians as a mercy, since those who hate God will experience his Love as a torment, and thus will not be able to tolerate living in the World to Come, where God will be in such proximity to everyone as to be a source of primary illumination, according to the accounts in Revelation and elsewhere in Scripture. Naturally this would be extremely intolerable to the misotheist.

Thus the Outer Darkness becomes a form of final mercy, as a means of preventing an eternal torment rather than inflicting one. However, as St. John Chrysostom points out, knowing that one is missing out on the joy of the life of the world to come is the most severe and dreadful possible punishment, worse than any other torments that might conceivably be inflicted. But the people in this actual Hell of the Outer Darkness, this true lake of fire, will not change - they are set in their ways. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and other Orthodox theologians like to quote the Anglican theologian CS Lewis on this point, who wrote “the gates of Hell are locked on the inside.”*


*Quoting those Western theologians whose views inclined towards Orthodoxy even if they were not themselves members of the Orthodox Church is important because in the English language we lack much of the well-known cultural heritage that communicates Orthodox ideas, aside from a few Greek and Russian writers, for example, Dostoyevsky, and even then, we are not really within the realm of high theology, and Dostoyevsky is not venerated as a saint within Orthodoxy, and unfortunately some of the other well known Russian writers, such as Leo Tolstoy, were heretics - Leo Tolstoy was analogous to the Unitarians and paid for the emigration of the heretical Doukhobors to Canada, where they later caused civic unrest because of their disagreement with Canadian laws on legislation, by parading nude through Canadian cities and even engage in arson, but it is good that Leo Tolstoy sent them to Canada, because had they done that in Czarist Russia or Soviet Russia they likely would have experienced extremely violent reprisals, and the problem with that is we can’t convert people to Orthodoxy if they have been killed off by the Secret Police or the Chekists or the Militia.

The Confession of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church of Patriarch Dositheus:

"Those who have fallen into mortal sin, but he died not in despair, but repented, still staying in the bodily life, although brought no fruit of repentance (μὴ ποιήσαντας οὐδοτιοῦν καρπὸν μετανοίας) spills tears, kneeling vigil in prayer, contrition, comfort the poor and the General expression in deeds of love for God and others — that the Cafolic Church (Καθολικότητα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας) right from the very beginning called satisfaction (ἱκανοποίησις), their souls depart into Hades (ᾅδης), and there undergo retribution (ποινή), for those sins, they have committed".

The Confession of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church of Patriarch Dositheus:

"But they <that is, those who died in repentance, but without worthy fruits of it> realize that they will be delivered from there <from hell>, and are freed by the highest Goodness (ἀγαθότης), thanks to the prayers of the priests and the good deeds that the relatives of each of them perform for the sake of their deceased; especially the bloodless Sacrifice has great power which everyone does separately for their deceased relatives, and the Cafolic and Apostolic Church does daily for everyone in general."

The Confession of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church of Patriarch Dositheus:

"It should be understood, however, that we do not know the time of [their] deliverance. For we know and believe that such will be freed from [this] terrible situation before the general Resurrection and Judgment, but we do not know when."

The Orthodox Confession of Patriarch Dositheus is a Symbolic book of the Cafolic Orthodox Church, adopted by the Eastern patriarchs at the Council and by the Russian Church here.

 

[Nagomirov]

This is not entirely accurate, because you are confusing the foretaste those in danger of damnation experience of the Outer Darkness with the Outer Darkness itself. The state you call Hell can be used to refer to this foretaste, but it is not the same thing as what results from Christ Pantocrator sending someone to the Outer Darkness.

Furthermore, it must be stressed that God is infinitely loving. The Outer Darkness is regarded by Orthodox theologians as a mercy, since those who hate God will experience his Love as a torment, and thus will not be able to tolerate living in the World to Come, where God will be in such proximity to everyone as to be a source of primary illumination, according to the accounts in Revelation and elsewhere in Scripture. Naturally this would be extremely intolerable to the misotheist.

Thus the Outer Darkness becomes a form of final mercy, as a means of preventing an eternal torment rather than inflicting one. However, as St. John Chrysostom points out, knowing that one is missing out on the joy of the life of the world to come is the most severe and dreadful possible punishment, worse than any other torments that might conceivably be inflicted. But the people in this actual Hell of the Outer Darkness, this true lake of fire, will not change - they are set in their ways. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and other Orthodox theologians like to quote the Anglican theologian CS Lewis on this point, who wrote “the gates of Hell are locked on the inside.”*


*Quoting those Western theologians whose views inclined towards Orthodoxy even if they were not themselves members of the Orthodox Church is important because in the English language we lack much of the well-known cultural heritage that communicates Orthodox ideas, aside from a few Greek and Russian writers, for example, Dostoyevsky, and even then, we are not really within the realm of high theology, and Dostoyevsky is not venerated as a saint within Orthodoxy, and unfortunately some of the other well known Russian writers, such as Leo Tolstoy, were heretics - Leo Tolstoy was analogous to the Unitarians and paid for the emigration of the heretical Doukhobors to Canada, where they later caused civic unrest because of their disagreement with Canadian laws on legislation, by parading nude through Canadian cities and even engage in arson, but it is good that Leo Tolstoy sent them to Canada, because had they done that in Czarist Russia or Soviet Russia they likely would have experienced extremely violent reprisals, and the problem with that is we can’t convert people to Orthodoxy if they have been killed off by the Secret Police or the Chekists or the Militia.

Mark of Ephesus does not reject a private temporary trial beyond the grave, to which a sinner who has repented of mortal sins, but has not brought sufficient fruits of repentance, is subjected for purification. He rejects the method of purification in which the Romans thought, arguing that the Patristic Tradition does not teach the cleansing fire. Besides, hell has not yet been thrown into the fiery Hell. In Gregory of Nyssa, and if I am not mistaken in Clement of Alexandria, it is more likely that we are talking about an eschatological cleansing fire, rather than the fire of purgatory. There is no contradiction in Mark, he does not deny that one can temporarily stay in hell.

Mark of Ephesus did not reject the idea of Purgatory, but only one of the ways to purify souls through temporary fire.

"On the other hand, in Orthodox scholarship, which is expounded by St. Mark, those who died with unrequited minor sins or did not bear fruit of repentance for having experienced sins, are cleansed from them either by the very experience of death with its fear, or after death, when they are kept (but not forever) in hell, prayers and Liturgy The Church and the good deeds done by the faithful for their sake."

Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) († 1982). "The soul after death".

 

[Nagomirov]

That being said, it is important that we not interpret St. Cyprian of Carthage as being some prototypical figure akin to Anselm of Canterbury with his Satisfaction Theology, which was one of the earliest Scholastic departures from the Patristic system of Orthodoxy.

The Council of Constantinople of 1157, against the heretic Sotirikh, directly writes about the insult to God by Adam's sin. All the Eastern Fathers of the Church (offhand: St. Athanasius, Chrysostom, Maximus, Damascene, Palamas, Nicholas Cavasila, Elijah Minyatii, and others innumerable) wrote about God's offense because of Adam's sin, debt, ransom, justice, compensation for sin, that is, satisfaction, price, payment.

 

[The Liturgist]

Mark of Ephesus does not reject a private temporary trial beyond the grave, to which a sinner who has repented of mortal sins, but has not brought sufficient fruits of repentance, is subjected for purification. He rejects the method of purification in which the Romans thought, arguing that the Patristic Tradition does not teach the cleansing fire. Besides, hell has not yet been thrown into the fiery Hell. In Gregory of Nyssa, and if I am not mistaken in Clement of Alexandria, it is more likely that we are talking about an eschatological cleansing fire, rather than the fire of purgatory. There is no contradiction in Mark, he does not deny that one can temporarily stay in hell.

Mark of Ephesus did not reject the idea of Purgatory, but only one of the ways to purify souls through temporary fire.

"On the other hand, in Orthodox scholarship, which is expounded by St. Mark, those who died with unrequited minor sins or did not bear fruit of repentance for having experienced sins, are cleansed from them either by the very experience of death with its fear, or after death, when they are kept (but not forever) in hell, prayers and Liturgy The Church and the good deeds done by the faithful for their sake."

Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) († 1982). "The soul after death".

I am not disagreeing with what Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote but with how you characterized it.

 

[Nagomirov]

...

I am not disagreeing with what Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote but with how you characterized it.

You don't know Orthodoxy well. You yourself wrote that you have few Orthodox sources. You most likely counted modernists, whereas traditional Orthodox theology seems Latin to you, but in fact, it is largely general, historical. Read books on dogmatic theology by Metropolitan Makarii Bulgakov and Archpriest Nikolai Malinovsky, there is traditionalism in theology.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Confession of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church of Patriarch Dositheus:

"Those who have fallen into mortal sin, but he died not in despair, but repented, still staying in the bodily life, although brought no fruit of repentance (μὴ ποιήσαντας οὐδοτιοῦν καρπὸν μετανοίας) spills tears, kneeling vigil in prayer, contrition, comfort the poor and the General expression in deeds of love for God and others — that the Cafolic Church (Καθολικότητα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας) right from the very beginning called satisfaction (ἱκανοποίησις), their souls depart into Hades (ᾅδης), and there undergo retribution (ποινή), for those sins, they have committed".

The Confession of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church of Patriarch Dositheus:

"But they <that is, those who died in repentance, but without worthy fruits of it> realize that they will be delivered from there <from hell>, and are freed by the highest Goodness (ἀγαθότης), thanks to the prayers of the priests and the good deeds that the relatives of each of them perform for the sake of their deceased; especially the bloodless Sacrifice has great power which everyone does separately for their deceased relatives, and the Cafolic and Apostolic Church does daily for everyone in general."

The Confession of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church of Patriarch Dositheus:

"It should be understood, however, that we do not know the time of [their] deliverance. For we know and believe that such will be freed from [this] terrible situation before the general Resurrection and Judgment, but we do not know when."

The Orthodox Confession of Patriarch Dositheus is a Symbolic book of the Cafolic Orthodox Church, adopted by the Eastern patriarchs at the Council and by the Russian Church here.

Patriarch Dositheus was clearly heavily influenced by Roman Catholicism, and while I agree with much of what he wrote, it must be stressed that his Synod in Bethlehem in the 17th century was a local council, not an ecumenical council, and that his views do not take precedence over the views expressed by the Early Church Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom or the Cappadocians.

The Council of Constantinople of 1157, against the heretic Sotirikh, directly writes about the insult to God by Adam's sin. All the Eastern Fathers of the Church (offhand: St. Athanasius, Chrysostom, Maximus, Damascene, Palamas, Nicholas Cavasila, Elijah Minyatii, and others innumerable) wrote about God's offense because of Adam's sin, debt, ransom, justice, compensation for sin, that is, satisfaction, price, payment.

This is a distortion based on a misreading of a local council of the Constantinopolitan church. The Orthodox Church has always rejected the Hamartiology of Anselm of Canterbury, which is built atop the erroneous reading of the least useful writings of St. Augustine of Hippo that underpins Scholasticism. But don’t take my word for it - go to the Orthodox forum and read recent discussions involving myself and my friend Army Matt , who is an Orthodox priest with the OCA, the canonical church granted autocephaly by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1970, which along with ROCOR and the AOCNA is one of the three leading evangelizing jurisdictions in the US, about the Orthodox understanding of original sin.

By the way, when you first joined the forum you claimed to be Byzantine Catholic for a couple of weeks and even posted some anti-Orthodox polemics, before declaring yourself to be Russian Orthodox, so I assume you are a recent convert, and I would suggest that as a neophyte, you focus on formation a bit before trying to articulate the faith of the Orthodox church in online debates.

 

[Nagomirov]

I am not disagreeing with what Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote but with how you characterized it.

I found the canons of the Jerusalem Cathedral of 1672 in English. Patriarch Dositheus was the chairman of the Council.

The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox)

 

[Nagomirov]

Patriarch Dositheus was clearly heavily influenced by Roman Catholicism, and while I agree with much of what he wrote, it must be stressed that his Synod in Bethlehem in the 17th century was a local council, not an ecumenical council, and that his views do not take precedence over the views expressed by the Early Church Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom or the Cappadocians.

You have a distorted view of Orthodoxy. I won't write to you anymore. Think about it, who knows Orthodoxy better, you or me living in Russia?

 

[Nagomirov]

Patriarch Dositheus was clearly heavily influenced by Roman Catholicism, and while I agree with much of what he wrote, it must be stressed that his Synod in Bethlehem in the 17th century was a local council, not an ecumenical council, and that his views do not take precedence over the views expressed by the Early Church Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom or the Cappadocians.

SYMBOLIC BOOKS OF THE CAFOLIC ORTHODOX CHURCH

As Metropolitan Makarii writes to Blessed memory, "as a deliberate guide to the detailed presentation of this teaching, as a touchstone for verifying one's Faith, one should recognize "only" two deliberately composed confessions of the Orthodox faith, in the guidance of all Orthodox":

"a) One – about half of the twentieth century (1640) in Kiev, to protect the purity of Orthodoxy both from the opinions of Lutherans and Calvinists, and even more from the opinions of Roman Catholics and former Uniates. This is the “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East.” At first it was considered at the Council of Kiev, and soon (in 1643) at the Council of Iasi; then it was considered and approved by all four Eastern Patriarchs, and unanimously accepted by the entire Greek Church. Finally, it was approved and approved for the entire Russian Church by Patriarchs Joachim (in 1685) and Adrian (in 1696), who even called this book “inspired by God” (of course, not in the strict sense), and by the Most Holy Governing All-Russian Synod...

b) Another – in the last half of the same century (in 1672), at the Council of Jerusalem, to protect the purity of Orthodoxy from Calvinist errors, under the title: “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church.” The truth and purity of this Exposition were again attested by all the Most Holy Patriarchs and other Archpastors of the Eastern Church when they sent it from themselves (1723) in response to the British Christians, as a true exposition and wisdom of the Orthodox faith, and at the same time they informed our Saint for the same purpose. To the Synod; received and witnessed and St. The Synod of All-Russia, which published this confession in Russian in 1838, under the title: “The Message of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith”, for the guidance of all Orthodox [3].

In general, it should be remembered that the symbolic book of any Church can only be called an Exposition of the faith, published on behalf of all the hierarchs ruling in it, and, consequently, on behalf of the whole Church, and by no means the confession of any private Believer or even a Hierarch, no matter how famous he may be."

__________________________

Source: Makarii (Bulgakov), mitr. Introduction to Orthodox Theology, §151. St. Petersburg, 1897. pp. 415-418

 

[The Liturgist]

...


You don't know Orthodoxy well.

Indeed, I know Orthodoxy extremely well, having memorized large sections of the Philokalia and the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Fathers and our Divine Liturgy and the hymns of Matins and the rest of the Horologion from the Triodion, Pentecostarion and Octoechos, which contain so much valuable theological information. This is not a boast, I want to be clear; I am not proud of my knowledge of Orthodoxy; I am thankful for it on the one hand, but my poor health has frustrated my ability to put that knowledge to good use, which is embarassing.

You yourself wrote that you have few Orthodox sources.

If I wrote that, it was in a narrow context where there are few Orthodox sources, as opposed to my having a lack of them.

You most likely counted modernists, whereas traditional Orthodox theology seems Latin to you, but in fact, it is largely general, historical. Read books on dogmatic theology by Metropolitan Makarii Bulgakov and Archpriest Nikolai Malinovsky, there is traditionalism in theology.

Since when are St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, or St. John of Kronstadt, or St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, or St. Macarius of Corinth, or St. John of Damascus, or St. Nikitas Stithatos, considered to be modernists?

What is more, the best recent work on dogmatic theology is Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky of ROCOR, which was translated into English by Fr. Seraphim Rose, himself no modernist, and who indeed you quoted above, albeit it would have better had you simply quoted his work from the start (The State of the Soul After Death) rather than trying to paraphrase or summarize it, which was the source of my disagreement with you.

Also a major advantage of the work of Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky is that he was a priest with ROCOR, and as a result was not influenced by Sergianism within the Moscow Patriarchate nor by the liberalism within the Paris School of Russian Emigres such as Vladimir Lossky who unfortunately did influence the OCA, for a time (so while I am a member of the OCA, I am extremely thankful for ROCOR and its role in preserving Orthodoxy against the modernists).

The only person accused of modernism whose writings I will cite is Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, but this is because I have carefully studied them, and am aware of those areas where his writings are problematic, and I quote around that, and this is also a matter of catechtical convenience, because the fact is, his books The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way are the most read books on Orthodoxy in the English language (although the recent popularity of the vastly improved second edition of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy and other books by Archpriest Andrew S. Damick of AOCNA, who is absolutely not a modernist in any respect, is a positive development, since one of the best ways of learning what Orthodoxy is, is to learn what it is not. Apophatic theology, simply put.

 

[Nagomirov]

Patriarch Dositheus was clearly heavily influenced by Roman Catholicism, and while I agree with much of what he wrote, it must be stressed that his Synod in Bethlehem in the 17th century was a local council, not an ecumenical council, and that his views do not take precedence over the views expressed by the Early Church Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom or the Cappadocians.

This is not a local council, but a pan-Orthodox one, attended by all the Orthodox patriarchs who testified to the truth of Dositheus' Confession. All the patriarchs decided to accept this Confession as a symbolic book of Orthodoxy. Among the Orthodox, the Cathedrals began to be called all Orthodox, and they had the same equivalent status to Ecumenical Cathedrals. After all, there was evidence of truth at the Pan-Orthodox Councils no less than at the Ecumenical Ones.

 

[Nagomirov]

Indeed, I know Orthodoxy extremely well, having memorized large sections of the Philokalia and the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Fathers and our Divine Liturgy and the hymns of Matins and the rest of the Horologion from the Triodion, Pentecostarion and Octoechos, which contain so much valuable theological information. This is not a boast, I want to be clear; I am not proud of my knowledge of Orthodoxy; I am thankful for it on the one hand, but my poor health has frustrated my ability to put that knowledge to good use, which is embarassing.



If I wrote that, it was in a narrow context where there are few Orthodox sources, as opposed to my having a lack of them.




Since when are St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, or St. John of Kronstadt, or St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, or St. Macarius of Corinth, or St. John of Damascus, or St. Nikitas Stithatos, considered to be modernists?

What is more, the best recent work on dogmatic theology is Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky of ROCOR, which was translated into English by Fr. Seraphim Rose, himself no modernist, and who indeed you quoted above, albeit it would have better had you simply quoted his work from the start (The State of the Soul After Death) rather than trying to paraphrase or summarize it, which was the source of my disagreement with you.

You know neither theology, nor patristics, nor the canons of the Orthodox Church. You are a modernist, an ecumenist. I won't answer you anymore.

 

[The Liturgist]

You have a distorted view of Orthodoxy. I won't write to you anymore. Think about it, who knows Orthodoxy better, you or me living in Russia?

Well, considering that the Soviet Union banned the Orthodox Church from engaging in catechesis for most of the 20th century, that really depends on your age, and where you studied, and whether you had access to one of the underground seminaries, and so on.

In the US, we have a significant Orthodox population, which is growing, and in some parts of the US, such as Alaska and parts of Pennsylvania, it is the largest and second-largest religion. So when we take this into consideration along with the fact that in the US all Orthodox churches were able to operate free from any government interference, whereas in the Soviet Union they were subject to severe government interference, I would say we are on equal terms.

I would have to say the Greeks probably have the best access to material on Eastern Orthodoxy specifically, since the majority of our most important texts were either written in Greek or at some point translated into it and additionally, while the EP is modernist, the autocephalous Church of Greece which is responsible for most of the country including Athens, Piraeus, and basically everywhere that was liberated in the initial 1824 victory against the Turks, has some very traditional bishops, and among those possessions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Mount Athos is solidly traditional to the point where, for the serious student of Eastern Orthodoxy, it would offset any modernist inclinations. And additionally Mount Athos still operates on the Julian Calendar, like the Russian church. And while Greece did suffer under a brief and unpleasant military junta in the 1970s, it managed to avoid the scourge of Communism.