He who began a good work

[Hammster]

You are avoiding the issue--again.

No. I'm staying on the topic of the thread. Feel free to start a thread and I'll address your issues.

 

[A New Dawn]

You are avoiding the issue--again.

Instead of making accusations, why don't you just discuss the topic?

 

[MamaZ]

Do you have any good news for the reprobates?

John 6:45
It is written in the prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him will come to me.

Being drawn by the Father is synonymous with hearing and learning from from the Father, so those the Father draws is anyone who hears and learns. Nobody is excluded.

Propagating such a view as you have is easy if it's someone else that is being excluded.

The Gospel is the good news. But only those that the Father draws will come to Christ to be saved. Even those who knew He was coming did not receive Him.. Amazing isn't it.

 

[MamaZ]

And I agree with all parts of your statement. What I don't agree with is the underlying philosophical assumption that God's working in the drawn person, necessarily precludes the active cooperation of the drawn person.

If God's sovereignty is understood as a zero-sum game, where any action of the part of the saved person detracts from the action of God (i.e. God only does 99% of the saving, etc.), then the only way for God to be fully responsible for the person's regeneration is for the person to be entirely passive in it. But if it is understood in light of the Incarnation, which is the epitome of divine-human cooperation, then the person need not be passive in order for God to be working his will in and through that person. In fact, it becomes precisely the opposite.

I often hear Calvinists say "God does 100%, man does 0%." I do not accept this.

I often hear non-Calvinists say "God does 99%, man still has to do that 1%..." and then I hear analogies to the doctor sticking the spoon of medicine in the patient's mouth, but the patient still has to swallow it... And here I break with this strand of evangelical thought also.

God 100%. Man 100%. Incarnation.

So man has to do equal to God for saving? Not scriptual.. God is our savior. Nothing man can do will ever save them. For salvation is from the Grace of God through Faith which is not of ourselves but the gift of God..

 

[Ignatius21]

So man has to do equal to God for saving? Not scriptual.. God is our savior. Nothing man can do will ever save them. For salvation is from the Grace of God through Faith which is not of ourselves but the gift of God..

Something is clearly being lost in translation here.

You're forcing my statements into exactly the "zero-sum" mold that I said I don't accept. Like salvation is a pie, and any piece that man eats is one that isn't left for God to eat. This is now how I see it.

Of course God is our savior.

Of course nothing man can do will ever save him.

Of course salvation is from the grace of God through faith, which is not of ourselves but the gift of God.

But what do these statements mean?

I am asserting that God does 100% of the saving. And also that man is active in 100% of this saving. In our minds, this would have to mean that we're 200% saved. But this is not the case? How? The best I can phrase it, is that in every action done by man in his salvation, God himself is working. Every "good work" done in faith, by one joined to Christ, is both a human and a divine work. Just as every work done by Christ was a human and divine work. It is done as a single whole. That's synergy. That's co-operation. Not that each does a piece, but that each does the whole of it. No, I cannot explain this rationally. Neither can I explain the Incarnation (two natures, two wills, one person, in perfect harmony) rationally. With the Church through the ages, I simply confess it as true.

And what is the faith that is given as a gift? More properly, whose is the faith that is given as a gift? It is Christ's. We don't just have faith in Christ, but we have the faith of Christ. This is why we speak of "participating in the Incarnation." In light of this, our salvation has to be fully human and fully divine. It can't be any other way. It's how God works.

In what I'm describing, man does not save himself. Nothing he does "counts" toward salvation, or "earns merit," or any such thing. Rather, in every action done in faith, God himself is active in us, sanctifying and healing and saving us. And this includes all of salvation, from the first acceptance of Christ, to the final resurrection in Christ.

Does this make more sense? Or do you at least see that I am not advocating man's saving himself, or anyone other than God being our savior?

 

[A New Dawn]

Something is clearly being lost in translation here.

You're forcing my statements into exactly the "zero-sum" mold that I said I don't accept. Like salvation is a pie, and any piece that man eats is one that isn't left for God to eat. This is now how I see it.

Of course God is our savior.

Of course nothing man can do will ever save him.

Of course salvation is from the grace of God through faith, which is not of ourselves but the gift of God.

But what do these statements mean?

I am asserting that God does 100% of the saving. And also that man is active in 100% of this saving. In our minds, this would have to mean that we're 200% saved. But this is not the case? How? The best I can phrase it, is that in every action done by man in his salvation, God himself is working. Every "good work" done in faith, by one joined to Christ, is both a human and a divine work. Just as every work done by Christ was a human and divine work. It is done as a single whole. That's synergy. That's co-operation. Not that each does a piece, but that each does the whole of it. No, I cannot explain this rationally. Neither can I explain the Incarnation (two natures, two wills, one person, in perfect harmony) rationally. With the Church through the ages, I simply confess it as true.

And what is the faith that is given as a gift? More properly, whose is the faith that is given as a gift? It is Christ's. We don't just have faith in Christ, but we have the faith of Christ. This is why we speak of "participating in the Incarnation." In light of this, our salvation has to be fully human and fully divine. It can't be any other way. It's how God works.

In what I'm describing, man does not save himself. Nothing he does "counts" toward salvation, or "earns merit," or any such thing. Rather, in every action done in faith, God himself is active in us, sanctifying and healing and saving us. And this includes all of salvation, from the first acceptance of Christ, to the final resurrection in Christ.

Does this make more sense? Or do you at least see that I am not advocating man's saving himself, or anyone other than God being our savior?

It sounds like you are describing sanctification. Do you consider sanctification as the whole of salvation, or do you consider justification and glorification as parts of salvation also, as we do? See, we do believe that we participate in our sanctification, but we equally believe that justification and glorification are done to us, without our participation. Justification is the "saved by grace through faith (and not of yourselves)" part.

 

[Ignatius21]

Hello New Dawn

I don't want to take us too far afield of the topic, although delving deeper into just what the "good work" is that God has begun in us, and will bring to completion in the day of Christ, seems like fair game.

I came out of a Reformed background. So I'm pretty thoroughly familiar with the soteriology of Calvinism, at least via the WCF, then conservative American Presbyterianism.

Orthodoxy is worlds apart...and yet strangely very similar. There was a very good book on this called "Through Western Eyes" (Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy A Reformed Perspective: Letham Robert: 9781845502478: Amazon.com: Books) written by Robert Letham, who I believe is an elder in the OPC. In hindsight I don't think he "got" some aspects of Orthodoxy, although he certainly treated it fairly and respectfully, and deserves just as much fairness and respect in return. (Plus, his book on the Holy Trinity was pretty spectacular, IMO). In the introduction he compared Orthodoxy to a distant cousin from another country who suddenly shows up at your doorstep. He looks different, sounds different, dresses differently, and has weird accent...but yet there's something oddly familiar about him, although it's hard to put your finger on it. Good book. I digress!

It sounds like you are describing sanctification.

In Protestant terms, this would be the closest match, at least among Protestants who consider "sanctification" to be truly synergistic...although even here there's a very wide spectrum of ways in which this is interpreted among Protestants.

Do you consider sanctification as the whole of salvation,

I consider salvation the whole of salvation. How's that for a useless answer? Orthodoxy understands salvation in very holistic terms, and sees it (from start to finish) as an act of God, whereby he purifies his bride (the Church) for himself, rescuing her from sin, death, corruption, meaninglessness, captivity to satan, captivity to her own passions...in short, making his bride to be holy as he is holy, and to "partake of the divine nature." If you read Orthodox literature, at least on the popular level, you'll often see the term "theosis" or "making divine" used as a synonymn for salvation. It corresponds roughly to the Protestant notion of sanctification, although (as I described several times above), it is not understood as becoming holy like God is holy, but become holy with God's own holiness. It is "mystical participation" in the Incarnation itself. The end of our "theosis" is essentially to attain the holy state of Christ himself, with our human will resonating perfectly with God's divine will...just as the human and divine wills resonated perfectly within Christ himself (the whole focus of the 6th Ecumenical Council).

or do you consider justification and glorification as parts of salvation also, as we do?

Here again, there is the tendency to map out theology on graph paper, with parts adding up to a whole, and sharp distinctions drawn. We do not so much consider justification, glorification, sanctification, as parts of salvation...such that they all add up to a whole, and whatever belongs to one does not belong to the other...maybe it's better to see them as aspects or facets of salvation. The same thing, viewed from different perspectives. All would be seen to be synergistic...God working in and through man, at every step of the way...and all would fall into the "already but not yet" paradigm. We are already justified (put right with God) but not yet finally justified (that will come at the last judgement and final resurrection). We are already sanctified (set apart as holy unto God), but not finally sanctified (that will come when we are finally and inwardly holy). We are already glorified...victorious in and with Christ, "more than conquerors"...but not finally glorified.

The fine, nuanced distinctions between the different aspects of salvation really is a product of Western, medieval, scholastic thought, forged in the reaction against and rejection of the Roman Catholic system of soteriology and all it entails (merits, temporal end eternal punishments, Purgatory, treasuries of grace, Popes with keys to the hereafter, and all that). As such it isn't even on the Orthodox radar. It never was. It never needed to be.

See, we do believe that we participate in our sanctification,

And here, I believe you would say (because it's what I was taught) that the way in which we participate in sanctification (in the Protestant understanding) is such that God is working in and through us to make us inwardly holy, to become by Grace what he has already delcared us to be.

but we equally believe that justification and glorification are done to us, without our participation.

And here we break. We participate in the whole shebang. We do not add to God's grace, nor complete it, nor enable it. We participate in it. It works in and through us, but we are active in its working, not passive.

Justification is the "saved by grace through faith (and not of yourselves)" part.

I believe the whle thing is the "saved by grace through faith and not of yourselves" part.

 

[Brother Chris]

Do you have any good news for the reprobates?

John 6:45
It is written in the prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him will come to me.

Being drawn by the Father is synonymous with hearing and learning from from the Father, so those the Father draws is anyone who hears and learns. Nobody is excluded.

Propagating such a view as you have is easy if it's someone else that is being excluded.

The Gospel is only good news to those who have been convinced of the bad news first: That God is holy, just and good and the sinner is not and will stand condemned before a holy God. That is the bad news. If the sinner, whether he knows about election or not, has not been convinced of the bad news, the Gospel will mean nothing to him. The sinner can only hear and learn from the Father if He has granted it to them. It is an act of grace. The sinner by nature will hear and reject, over and over again unless God intervenes.

 

[elman]

Instead of making accusations, why don't you just discuss the topic?

I did.


I've never said that man doesn't do anything. Man just doesn't do anything that God doesn't enable him to do. That way, all credit goes to God.

Man is evil. God has enabled man to be evil. All credit goes to God and man is not responsible. Is that it?

 

[MamaZ]

I did.


I've never said that man doesn't do anything. Man just doesn't do anything that God doesn't enable him to do. That way, all credit goes to God.

Man is evil. God has enabled man to be evil. All credit goes to God and man is not responsible. Is that it?

Adams sin is what put mans will as a slave to sin..

 

[A New Dawn]

I did.


I've never said that man doesn't do anything. Man just doesn't do anything that God doesn't enable him to do. That way, all credit goes to God.

Man is evil. God has enabled man to be evil. All credit goes to God and man is not responsible. Is that it?

Man chose to be evil. How is that God's fault?

 

[elman]

Man chose to be evil. How is that God's fault?

If man can chose to be evil, he can also chose to be good, right? If man cannot chose to be good, then being evil is not a choice.

 

[elman]

Adams sin is what put mans will as a slave to sin..

Ezekiel says you are incorrect. The only sin that destroys our soul is our own sin. chapter 18

 

[A New Dawn]

If man can chose to be evil, he can also chose to be good, right? If man cannot chose to be good, then being evil is not a choice.

No........... Man chose to be evil at the only time in the history of mankind that he could make an informed choice. Once he chose to be evil, the nature of man and the world changed to the point that he could not choose to be good without God directly interfering in his life, giving him the ability, once again, to choose.

 

[A New Dawn]

Ezekiel says you are incorrect. The only sin that destroys our soul is our own sin. chapter 18

Can you give me a specific verse, because I am not finding it.

 

[elman]

Can you give me a specific verse, because I am not finding it.

You could not find where it said the soul that sins, it shall die? You could not find where the son is not responsible for the sins of the father? Are you reading Ezekiel 18?

 

[Hammster]

You could not find where it said the soul that sins, it shall die? You could not find where the son is not responsible for the sins of the father? Are you reading Ezekiel 18?

I thought you said we destroy our own souls. That's different than the soul that sins shall die.

"Destroys" reeks of annihilationism.

 

[elman]

I thought you said we destroy our own souls. That's different than the soul that sins shall die.

"Destroys" reeks of annihilationism.

How do you see our sin being the cause of the death of our soul as different from the soul that sins shall die? What Ezekiel actually says in verse four is: "The one who sins is the one who will die."

 

[elman]

Can you give me a specific verse, because I am not finding it.

In verse four you will find the soul that sins, it shall die.
verse 17 "He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin,"

 

[Hammster]

How do you see our sin being the cause of the death of our soul as different from the soul that sins shall die? What Ezekiel actually says in verse four is: "The one who sins is the one who will die."

You frequently say "destroy". That word doesn't appear in the text.