How do Orthodox members understand

[ArmyMatt]

But all three instances are the rich man in Hades speaking, the person in so much error. Better yet, see post #7 for a more complete answer (and also there recognizing what we do agree on and the great point in the answer in post #2).

yes, but Christ Himself never says that calling Abraham Father was an error on his part. and Christ even has Abraham call the rich man son. if there was an error in the title, Christ would not have had Abraham encourage that title by responding with the title of son to the rich man.

yes, the rich man had many errors, but there is no evidence this was one of them.

 

[FireDragon76]

if he was aware of what theosis is, he probably would have mentioned what the Fathers said, not just made a bad caricature of what theosis is not.

There is a sense Lutherans can talk about theosis, but it would look different from the Orthodox conceptualization. We definitely have potential to have a more mystical approach to our faith, present in Luther's own works, and only recently explored by some Finnish theologians such as Tuomo Mannermaa. I'm going to have to do some reading on Pr. Jordan Coopers work on the subject, what he calls Christification, before I open a discussion on the topic.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think there is a sense Lutherans can talk about theosis, but it would look different from the Orthodox conceptualization. We definitely have potential to have a more mystical approach to our faith, present in Luther's own works, and only recently explored by some Finnish theologians such as Tuomo Mannermaa. I'm going to have to do some reading on Pr. Jordan Coopers work on the subject, what he calls Christification, before I open a discussion on the topic.

fair enough, it'd be an interesting discussion.

 

[archer75]

fair enough, it'd be an interesting discussion.

I would like to read this discussion, if you guys start a thread, maybe link to it, please.

 

[All4Christ]

Thinking this way:

Although we do agree a priest/pastor/'father' is not to be put up on a pedestal raised up, as if in place of Christ -- as our consensus already in the first 12 or 15 posts in this thread -- still one wonders if this is enough.

Because of the danger that some in a church (not most, but some) will indeed look up to the Earthly 'father'/priest/pastor in that way they should instead be looking up to Christ.

Because the very title "Father" given to one of us encourages just that. That even though most all such pastors are indeed humble, that even so, still, some in some congregations will wrongly end up idolizing some such titled persons. (I realize is likely more of a problem in another denomination than the (various) Orthodox, but even so the title itself is the subject, no matter which denomination)

And to avoid this, we should simply just do as Christ said more plainly in verse 8, 9, 10 (of Matthew 23), and forgo such titles that are overly honoring.

Paul meant simply that he had brought them the gospel.

If this was a new concept, I might agree. However, considering the universal Church was in agreement with this until relatively recent history, I don’t believe it is inherently a problem. The universal Church didn’t understand Matthew 23 to mean avoidance of the title Father, until relative recent times. Some (albeit not all) Lutherans, Episcopalians and Anglicans still use the term Father in regards to their priests. The spiritual father concept dates back to the apostolic church. 1 Corinthians 4 is an example.

That said, I would never push others to use the term if they are not comfortable with it.

 

[FireDragon76]

if he was aware of what theosis is, he probably would have mentioned what the Fathers said, not just made a bad caricature of what theosis is not.

On closer analysis, I do think he's conflating a bunch of issues, like Orthodox mystical ecclessiology, with theosis, and running roughshod potentially over some notions of theosis that could be less about transformation than transfiguration, which would be more congruent with the Lutheran tradition.

And it's here that potentially he's not being completely fair to his own Lutheran tradition in other ways. Lutherans are sacramental, and it's here I think Orthodox and Lutherans have a point of contact regarding what is divine in the Church. We just see the list of sacraments as being much smaller, being restricted to Jesus' personal institution. And of course we don't see the Church itself as a sacrament, we see it as a community gathered around the Word of God.

But on a popular or monastic level, I think alot of his criticisms are fair. There's not always the subtle distinctions.

The main thing I wanted to show in that piece is the typical Lutheran critique about assuming that churchly institutions are immune from sin.

 

[~Anastasia~]

when it comes to a priest giving you advice or telling you what to do, he's just a sinner telling another sinner what is his personal opinion, and it's no reason to suspend the normal rules of ethics, morality, or interpersonal boundaries in the name of being "obedient".

In the sense of a parish priest giving advice, my priest would say the same thing.

We have to be VERY careful using words like "obedience" with priests. We are not (mist of us) monks. There is no vow of obedience. If what the priest tells us is wise, is for our own good, and we disregard it because we want to do something else, we may miss out on some help or blessing, but I don't recall anyone ever saying anyone had to "obey" their priest or that to do otherwise was sin.

However, I think in replying to me, you are mixing up two different concepts. When I mentioned some spiritual fathers being very sanctified ("holy" if you will) I wasn't talking about your average parish priest. If no he knows any better than anyone else how to cooperate with the grace of God, why would any elders be writing spiritual counsels?

No one is forced to read or follow them, but they are much-loved and have given immeasurable help to many Christians over many centuries.

And it shouldn't scandalize anyone to consider that some men are more righteous than others. St. James said that the effectual, fervent prayers of a righteous man availeth much. And he wasn't talking about every Christian, because he also wrote that some ask and don't receive, because they have an eye to their own pleasure. Some people are more holy/righteous than others. Though the irony is that the ones who are most so will usually tell everyone they are the worst sinners, and care deeply for their repentance from sins.

 

[ArmyMatt]

On closer analysis, I do think he's conflating a bunch of issues, like Orthodox mystical ecclessiology, with theosis, and running roughshod potentially over some notions of theosis that could be less about transformation than transfiguration, which would be more congruent with the Lutheran tradition.

And it's here that potentially he's not being completely fair to his own Lutheran tradition in other ways. Lutherans are sacramental, and it's here I think Orthodox and Lutherans have a point of contact regarding what is divine in the Church. We just see the list of sacraments as being much smaller, being restricted to Jesus' personal institution. And of course we don't see the Church itself as a sacrament, we see it as a community gathered around the Word of God.

But on a popular or monastic level, I think alot of his criticisms are fair. There's not always the subtle distinctions.

The main thing I wanted to show in that piece is the typical Lutheran critique about assuming that churchly institutions are immune from sin.

for one, we would say that since the Church is the community gathered around the Word, that makes it sacramental. for two, he doesn't address theosis as we see it. three, we don't assume an absence of sin in the institution, since the heretics were the ones who often hijacked the institutions.

 

[FireDragon76]

for one, we would say that since the Church is the community gathered around the Word, that makes it sacramental. for two, he doesn't address theosis as we see it. three, we don't assume an absence of sin in the institution, since the heretics were the ones who often hijacked the institutions.

I think we could also agree that the Church is sacramental in a qualified sense, but it isn't strictly a sacrament as we understand it. Orthodox do not distinguish between something being a sacrament, and being sacramental, but Lutherans do. Sacraments apply the grace of justification to us (forgiveness of sins and eternal life), and are the ordinary means of doing so, promised by Jesus Christ himself. Something that is sacramental pertains to sanctification, but not necessarily justification, and it doesn't have the sort of divine promise attached to it that the sacraments do.

I've begun reading Jordan Cooper's book, Christification: A Lutheran Approach to Theosis https://www.amazon.com/Christificat...id=1515246896&sr=8-1&keywords=christification and hopefully I'll be able to say something meaningful about theosis in a few days, and open another topic. I've only watched a few youtube videos of Jordan Cooper discuss the topic in the past, and I wanted to deal with the issue more in depth.

Another thing to consider is that David Wagschal is reflecting a school of theology called Radical Lutheranism. This is a significant and influential school in our tradition, but it's just one possible interpretation. It does state alot that is true, but I don't think it's all that could be said about what salvation means. The good part of Radical Lutheranism is to resist the moralism present in much of mainline Protestantism, which is a sore temptation that Evangelical Lutherans have always faced, especially America, in a culture that so naturally gravitates towards self-sufficiency and moralistic sentiments.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think we could also agree that the Church is sacramental in a qualified sense, but it isn't strictly a sacrament as we understand it. Orthodox do not distinguish between something being a sacrament, and being sacramental, but Lutherans do. Sacraments apply the grace of justification to us (forgiveness of sins and eternal life), and are the ordinary means of doing so, promised by Jesus Christ himself. Something that is sacramental pertains to sanctification, but not necessarily justification, and it doesn't have the sort of divine promise attached to it that the sacraments do.

I've begun reading Jordan Cooper's book, Christification: A Lutheran Approach to Theosis https://www.amazon.com/Christificat...id=1515246896&sr=8-1&keywords=christification and hopefully I'll be able to say something meaningful about theosis in a few days, and open another topic. I've only watched a few youtube videos of Jordan Cooper discuss the topic in the past, and I wanted to deal with the issue more in depth.

Another thing to consider is that David Wagschal is reflecting a school of theology called Radical Lutheranism. This is a significant and influential school in our tradition, but it's just one possible interpretation. It does state alot that is true, but I don't think it's all that could be said about what salvation means. The good part of Radical Lutheranism is to resist the moralism present in much of mainline Protestantism, which is a sore temptation that Evangelical Lutherans have always faced, especially America, in a culture that so naturally gravitates towards self-sufficiency and moralistic sentiments.

I don't really care much for what Wagschal said, only that what he said about theosis is lacking and poorly done. the post was about how we understand things.

as far as your first point, yeah, we don't divide sacraments and such. everything Christ gives pertains to grace.

 

[FireDragon76]

If no he knows any better than anyone else how to cooperate with the grace of God, why would any elders be writing spiritual counsels?

That's fine as long as we distinguish between justification and sanctification. As Paul says, "against such things, there is no law" (Gal 5:32).

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's fine as long as we distinguish between justification and sanctification. As Paul says, "against such things, there is no law" (Gal 5:32).

where is the distinction in Scripture as you define it?

 

[~Anastasia~]

In the sense of a parish priest giving advice, my priest would say the same thing.

We have to be VERY careful using words like "obedience" with priests. We are not (mist of us) monks. There is no vow of obedience. If what the priest tells us is wise, is for our own good, and we disregard it because we want to do something else, we may miss out on some help or blessing, but I don't recall anyone ever saying anyone had to "obey" their priest or that to do otherwise was sin.

However, I think in replying to me, you are mixing up two different concepts. When I mentioned some spiritual fathers being very sanctified ("holy" if you will) I wasn't talking about your average parish priest. If no he knows any better than anyone else how to cooperate with the grace of God, why would any elders be writing spiritual counsels?

No one is forced to read or follow them, but they are much-loved and have given immeasurable help to many Christians over many centuries.

And it shouldn't scandalize anyone to consider that some men are more righteous than others. St. James said that the effectual, fervent prayers of a righteous man availeth much. And he wasn't talking about every Christian, because he also wrote that some ask and don't receive, because they have an eye to their own pleasure. Some people are more holy/righteous than others. Though the irony is that the ones who are most so will usually tell everyone they are the worst sinners, and care deeply for their repentance from sins.

You know, someone pointed out to me via pm that what I said here by a blanket "agreement" is misleading.

Firedragon said in the post I was quoting:
when it comes to a priest giving you advice or telling you what to do, he's just a sinner telling another sinner what is his personal opinion, and it's no reason to suspend the normal rules of ethics, morality, or interpersonal boundaries in the name of being "obedient".

My agreement was meant to be that the priest acknowledges himself a sinner, working out his own salvation, just as we all are, and that every priest is not a holy elder and we don't have that expectation of them. Incidentally, we would also agree that we don't suspend rules of morality or boundaries, etc. because someone is a priest, certainly not on the grounds of "obedience".

However ... I did NOT mean to deny that priests are priests, and there is the expectation of the possibility of grace through the priesthood. Otherwise there are no Sacraments. And perhaps you do not agree, but I don't wish to misrepresent our beliefs.

I only recently learned that it was originally the advice of St. Silhouan that I heard from Fr. Seraphim Aldea, that if we go to our Confessor expecting to hear from God, then God can speak to us through the priest. I decided to test it, and found it to be true. More than once.

I most certainly do not wish to deny that such is possible. Confession can/should be more than just one sinner giving another his personal opinion.

Please forgive me for not being clear, and I ask forgiveness of anyone else who might have read it.

 

[FireDragon76]

where is the distinction in Scripture as you define it?

If justification and sanctification aren't distinct, why use separate words with distinct meanings?

 

[ArmyMatt]

If justification and sanctification aren't distinct, why use separate words with distinct meanings?

that doesn't answer the question. in Greek, physis and ousia can have both distinct and similar meaning. we use them in both ways depending on context.

 

[FireDragon76]

that doesn't answer the question. in Greek, physis and ousia can have both distinct and similar meaning. we use them in both ways depending on context.

Justification has legal overtones that sanctification does not. Dikaiosis has to do with making a legal judgment in favor or against someone.

For most Protestants, justification is understood as the acquitting of the sin of Adam, and all personal sins, which allows a Christian in be in a right relationship with God. It is distinct from sanctification.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Justification has legal overtones that sanctification does not. Dikaiosis has to do with making a legal judgment in favor or against someone.

For most Protestants, justification is understood as the acquitting of the sin of Adam, and all personal sins, which allows a Christian in be in a right relationship with God. It is distinct from sanctification.

how is sanctification different than having a right relationship with God?

 

[FireDragon76]

how is sanctification different than having a right relationship with God?

Sanctification is about what God makes us to be in baptism and through the other sacraments- holy.

 

[FireDragon76]

However ... I did NOT mean to deny that priests are priests, and there is the expectation of the possibility of grace through the priesthood. Otherwise there are no Sacraments. And perhaps you do not agree, but I don't wish to misrepresent our beliefs.

Inasmuch as he is called and ordained, a priest has the authority to proclaim the forgiveness of sins and administer the sacraments. But that doesn't make him some kind of guru.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sanctification is about what God makes us to be in baptism and through the other sacraments- holy.

what's the difference between that and being right with God?