Is it really about what is true and false?

[Resha Caner]

I don't think John discounts that we could have an experience of God apart from "Word and Sacrament". How do you think Paul had his experience? That was certainly a vision, a direct experience of God.

Sure. The problem is that it becomes the primary focus when God has not promised any such thing. I'm sure there are lifetime pentecostals, but every one I've ever known has crashed & burned because the experience doesn't live up to what they've been led to expect. It starts the line of reasoning: If I haven't had an experience, does that mean I'm not saved?

Why go after something God hasn't promised when what he has promised is right in front of you and readily available? I don't know if you mean to, but you come across as dismissing the sacraments as a lesser experience. They definitely are not.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sure. The problem is that it becomes the primary focus when God has not promised any such thing.

It's not the primary focus in Eastern Orthodoxy. Most Orthodox are very modest about their spiritual experiences. So in that way, it is not like Pentecostalism. But in other ways, it is.

Most of Orthodox life is sacramental and ascetical.

To answer your second point- Orthodox that have those experience usually see them as gifts from God given for their edification, or the edification of the whole Church. It's true there are sometimes techniques and instruction that are learned and passed down, but that doesn't detract from "givenness" in the Orthodox mind. These things can't be forced, in the end, they aren't something we have a natural right to.

I don't know if you mean to, but you come across as dismissing the sacraments as a lesser experience. They definitely are not.

The Orthodox themselves see the sacraments as a mystical experience.

Another thing I'd add is that Orthodox really do not focus on assurance as much as Lutherans. In fact I think they would tend to see the assurance that Lutherans promise to everyone, regardless of the state of their soul, as potentially dangerous. Assurance is something given in the Holy Mysteries, particularly confession and the Eucharist, and through the advice of a spiritual father. But it still requires human cooperation in faith and repentance.

Another thing to add, Orthodox do not need as much assurance as Lutherans because their idea of God is not a cosmic legalist. People can always trust in God's mercy, and are encouraged to do so. If anyone doubts God's mercy, they are encouraged by the examples given by the Mother of God, the saints, and Christ himself, in his life, passion, and in his resurrection. Prayers for the dead and the intercession of the saints play a great factor here in giving comfort to the ordinary Orthodox faithful. It is not a religion of "works righteousness" or anxiety.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's not the primary focus in Eastern Orthodoxy.

As I said, they're very close to Lutherans. Did I not have a Confessional option, I would consider the Orthodox church. I was speaking more of Pentecostals, and I would not say the same for them. I would not be comfortable at a Pentecostal church.

The Orthodox themselves see the sacraments as a mystical experience.

Lutherans themselves might describe it that way, but the usage of the word would be colloquial. I was using the word "mystical" in a more technical sense.

Another thing I'd add is that Orthodox really do not focus on assurance as much as Lutherans. In fact I think they would tend to see the assurance that Lutherans promise to everyone, regardless of the state of their soul, as potentially dangerous.

And yet Scripture gives that assurance, e.g. 1 John 5:13.

Another thing to add, Orthodox do not need as much assurance as Lutherans because their idea of God is not a cosmic legalist. People can always trust in God's mercy, and are encouraged to do so.

I think you misunderstand Lutheranism on that point. We do not see God as a "cosmic legalist". We do not promote a purpose for Law in the same way the more Fundamentalist branches do. It's not a trust in God's mercy, but it is definitely faith in his grace. See my signature: sola gratia

 

[FireDragon76]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but don't confessional Lutherans believe in penal satisfaction? Is that not Legalism? God needs someone innocent to die to pay for Justice? That is a juridical understanding of our problem with God.

The Orthodox understand the problem we have with God is having to live without the true life and communion found in Paradise. For that we inherited death, and corruption, and worst of all... we lost communion with God. But God still loved us and planned to save fallen Adam. He doesn't need to placate justice to do so, because he is God, completely beyond human understanding in his justice, and only known through grace in Christ's mercy to sinners. Indeed, Philanthropos, the Lover of Man, is a term that is unique to the East to describe God. To save us, he became man, so that we could by grace be what he is in nature.

 

[Resha Caner]

The Orthodox understand the problem we have with God is having to live without the true life and communion found in Paradise. For that we inherited death, and corruption, and worst of all... we lost communion with God. But God still loved us and planned to save fallen Adam. He doesn't need to placate justice to do so, because he is God, completely beyond human understanding in his justice, and only known through grace in Christ's mercy to sinners. Indeed, Philanthropos, the Lover of Man, is a term that is unique to the East to describe God. To save us, he became man, so that we could by grace be what he is in nature.

I'm not sure you have the Orthodox view correct, but you would have to take the discussion to the Orthodox forum to find out. First of all, the connection you're trying to draw between Christ "becoming man" and how that helps us "by grace be what he is" seems a very odd conflation. It's like saying I am a doctor because my brother-in-law is a doctor. It's a very odd substitution theory where nothing is being substituted. Second, it begs the question, "Was the crucifixion unnecessary?"

The Bible clearly links Christ's death and resurrection to salvation - Isaiah 53:5, 1 Corinthians 15, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong... but don't confessional Lutherans believe in penal satisfaction? Is that not Legalism? God needs someone innocent to die to pay for Justice? That is a juridical understanding of our problem with God.

Legalism is a belief that we must meet some legal code to be saved, so no, it is not legalism.

Lutherans do preach a version of penal satisfaction, but not in the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition you are probably familiar with. The Reformed tradition does have a very juridical understanding - Calvin was a lawyer. So in his version the innocent (Christ) is sacrificed for the guilty (us). You're right that that makes no sense. It is not justice to punish the innocent for what the guilty have done. It is true Christ was innocent, but that places the focus in the wrong place.

Luther's version is that the perfect (Christ) does what the broken (us) cannot do. Better yet, the free (Christ) does what the bound (us) cannot do. You can even see the difference in the title of Luther's most famous essay: On the Bondage of the Will. Further, there are two aspects to what Christ does - the passive and the active. In his passive role, Christ fulfills the Law by being perfect (sinless). Yet the wages of sin remain (Romans 6:23). We will die, and that doesn't change. So in his active role, Christ must defeat death. The crucifixion by itself serves no purpose. If Christ had died and that was it, it would have done us no good (1 Corinthians 15:17). It is only because he defeated death - because he was resurrected - that there is victory. We will die, but Christ can resurrect us because he defeated death.

So, looping back to the doctor analogy, it's not that I become a doctor and heal myself because my brother-in-law is a doctor. Rather, because he became a doctor he can now heal me.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"Travel in the land and see what was the end of
those who rejected truth." - koran

thoughs?

I think in the west people are worried about money and security. Peace comes from institutions they dont trust in (politicians, churches, police etc) and secular ethics is often hedonistic - with lots of money to be made in the game. None of my business though.

Theres an institutionalised lack of care, which is like some form or metaphysical bravado. Communities, which we could have the money to adorn with swarovski crystals, if we tried, well they are run down and people have little sense of socialistic spirit. That would be a blasphemsy against individualistic capitalism maybe. IIRC in a BBC documantary the spirit of the age was summed up as "Basically, you're on your own...."

A few or the younger generations would even prefer to look up to a psychopath than a priest. Its a wee bit mess of our own creation. And we love it with fierceness and pride. Sorry to critic too much, we have our blessings too...

 

[Dave RP]

The latest Pew research on world religion is interesting:
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

As is often touted here, the proportion of Christians in the world is shrinking. What is interesting, though, is that it is mainly due to declines in North America and Europe. Christianity is increasing in Africa, and Pew expects sub-Saharan Africa will become the "center" of Christianity in the future:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ty-is-poised-to-continue-its-southward-march/

Even more interesting, the religiously unaffiliated (atheists, agnostics, etc.) are also expected to decline as a proportion of world population:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-decline-as-a-share-of-the-worlds-population/

The religion that is gaining in proportion is Islam:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...e-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/

In all cases, Pew states that the primary reason for these shifts is simply procreation. In other words, it doesn't seem to be a direct result of education as is often stated here, but simply because Muslims and African cultures have more children.

So, maybe the way to settle the contest between Christians and atheists is to stop arguing and start growing our families.

I hope that as the Muslim immigrants in the UK move to third or 4th generations they will behave more like the indigenous population and have fewer children. It is a fact that the higher the income of nations, the lower the birthrate, so poorer countries produce more children. Once education comes into play then hopefully there will be more non practicing Muslims and therefore less of a perceived problem with Islamic/ Christian relationships. After all, the Indian community who came (by and large) earlier are much better integrated into society and have already moved away from arranged marriages and such like. I'm an eternal optimist and believe the human spirit will come through, unfortunately the middle east is largely a basket case, partly the wests fault, and they are a long way from religious tolerance and the rise of atheism/ humanism.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm an eternal optimist and believe the human spirit will come through ...

We've been waiting a long time for the human spirit to come through. How long are we supposed to wait? I guess I'm more pessimistic than you. In my experience the human spirit is pretty base.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's like saying I am a doctor because my brother-in-law is a doctor. It's a very odd substitution theory where nothing is being substituted. Second, it begs the question, "Was the crucifixion unnecessary?"

To answer the second bit first... the crucifixion was necessary so that God could taste death for every man, and by doing so, defeat the sting of death by his divine power by rising from the grave. And by his defeat-and-victory over the grave, he also defeated the Satanic powers of this world, the same powers that crucified him. Our flesh is in heaven, at the right hand of the Father, above all those earthly powers.

To answer the first... it's not a fair analogy, because in our glorification we also share in the same glory of God. We become like God, even if dimly so. But nonetheless, people will be able to see the same glory clothing us that they see in God. We become God not by melding with his nature, but by "irradiation" of his grace and glory, just like putting a piece of metal into a fire.

The Bible clearly links Christ's death and resurrection to salvation - Isaiah 53:5, 1 Corinthians 15, etc.

Of course, but we need not think of salvation in strictly juridical terms, as a law-court transaction.

I also want to add, I very much appreciate the external nature of the Word in Lutheran theology and practice, that makes Lutheran sacramentalism truly sacramental in the same way that the Orthodox understand the sacraments- they are objectively given for us. Calvin did not understand sacraments in that way, and so departs in many ways from the catholic consensus, though Augustine seems to have had more of that view of the sacraments (that they were signs pointing elsewhere, to heaven etc.).

It's one of the reasons I've sought out a Lutheran church, the Episcopal parish I was attending had a mixed bag of preachers, sometimes with a very low view of the sacraments. They were "reminders", which is pretty much what the Calvinist view devolved into. I very much believe our faith should rest on something external to us, even while I acknowledge a mystical dimension to faith inwardly, our faith cannot rest on our own spiritual experiences. The spiritual experiences help make that faith alive, but they do not justify us. I completely reject the "conversionism" found in many radical pietist churches, even though I acknowledge conversion is often one of the fruits of faith, a lack of such experience doesn't mean a person is unregenerate.

 

[Resha Caner]

To answer the first... it's not a fair analogy, because in our glorification we also share in the same glory of God. We become like God, even if dimly so. But nonetheless, people will be able to see the same glory clothing us that they see in God. We become God not by melding with his nature, but by "irradiation" of his grace and glory, just like putting a piece of metal into a fire.

I was mincing my words - trying to be respectful because this has been a very nice conversation. Maybe in so doing I buried my point. So, I'm going to say this in a cruder way, and I hope you don't take offense. It's simply meant to illuminate my point. It's not meant as an attack. If it does offend you, I'll retract it.

Your description comes across to me as vacuous mumbo-jumbo. It could mean anything. If a Buddhist or a Daoist said those words, it would fit quite nicely into their belief structure. It's the same empty mystical nonsense with no real, actionable content that other religions spout, and Christianity distinguishes itself by not saying such things. Concordia Publishing put out a little book by Daniel Preus called "Why I am a Lutheran". I like his simple, short, to the point style, and he makes a statement that most Christians seem to miss: Christianity without Christ is no different than any other religion. Too many get caught up in fancy hermeneutics and wage bitter wars over words like "sanctification", "monergism", and "hypostatic union" and seem to forget the Bible is a real book about the real Christ. I actually enjoy the deeper theological discussions ... but only in their proper place. So, I have a hard time maintaining a serious attitude when discussions wander too far into the mystical.

 

[FireDragon76]

That sounds just like a mean-spirited, anti-intellectual attack on something that threatens his religious views It's the sort of "bible-onlyism" that dismisses doctrine altogether in favor of a phoney minimalism.

We need to have faith in Christ and follow him, even if he leads us into places we don't think we should be going, well past denominational boundary-markers of exclusivism.

 

[Resha Caner]

That sounds just like a mean-spirited, anti-intellectual attack on something that threatens his religious views It's the sort of "bible-onlyism" that dismisses doctrine altogether in favor of a phoney minimalism.

That's fair. I was blunt with you - you were blunt with me.

We need to have faith in Christ and follow him, even if he leads us into places we don't think we should be going, well past denominational boundary-markers of exclusivism.

How do you know it is Christ leading you?

 

[FireDragon76]

How do you know it is Christ leading you?

Follow the commandments? The interpretation in the Small Catechism of Luther implies that we need to be open minded about the beliefs of others, to interpret the deeds of others in the best possible light. That means being open-minded and not quick to judge, even if a belief seems incorrect, we need to entertain the possibility we could be wrong.

 

[Resha Caner]

Follow the commandments?

Yes, so that is all contained in the Bible. There's no navel-gazing required - neither is there a need to look to the "beliefs of others".

The interpretation in the Small Catechism of Luther implies that we need to be open minded about the beliefs of others, to interpret the deeds of others in the best possible light. That means being open-minded and not quick to judge, even if a belief seems incorrect, we need to entertain the possibility we could be wrong.

Um. That statement is an explanation of the 8th commandment. It's meant to prevent gossip and slander. It has nothing to do with accepting the "beliefs of others".

 

[FireDragon76]

Um. That statement is an explanation of the 8th commandment. It's meant to prevent gossip and slander. It has nothing to do with accepting the "beliefs of others".

Well, when you call mysticism "navel-gazing", it's hard not to see that as slander, especially as you dismiss something that you barely understand (and that sadly I cannot explain to you in a few words). Accept that there are different ways to be a Christian, and that your way may not be the correct one for everyone.

FWIW, I am not an Orthodox Christian, but I did spend 5 years as a catechumen there and have a great deal of respect for their spirituality.

 

[Resha Caner]

Accept that there are different ways to be a Christian, and that your way may not be the correct one for everyone.

The Spirit can lead people to Christ in many different ways. Everyone's relationship to God is also different. Every story is unique in some way. But I'm not sure what you mean by "being Christian". If you suggest there is something we specifically do to be Christian, then I'm afraid you are wrong. I suspect you mean some kind of ascetic practice. There's nothing inherently wrong with many of the religious rituals the various denominations use.

In some cases there are definite problems. That's where our issue lies. The phrasing you use always hints to me of synergism, and even though I've mentioned it several times you've never denied it. If you accept synergism, we have a definite difference of opinion. Second, there does come a point where what people do is wrong, but you give no indication you would think anything anybody does is ever wrong. They can do whatever they please as long as they label it "Christian". It doesn't work that way. Third, you never back up anything you say. You just say it. Why should I accept that?

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm sorry this went south. That's my fault. You have a nice weekend.

 

[loveofourlord]

That is a definite possibility. But as I said, Pew Research doesn't indicate rising disassociation around the world. Rather, that segment is falling. And while social pressure may still be high for Muslims in western nations to remain Muslim, the pressures are not nearly as high as in Middle-Eastern Islamic nations. Yet Islam is still the fastest rising religion in many western nations - despite the fact that most Muslims in those nations are more prosperous and better educated.

Still, if it were social pressures keeping people Muslim - even in western nations - the point would still remain that discovering the truth is not what is driving people in their decision to affiliate or not affiliate. IIRC, the recent article in National Geographic spoke to the fact that there are also social pressures for scientists to affiliate their opinions with sciency things.

I'm also aware of a study done on attempts to "educate" people about evolution. The authors conveyed almost a sense of shock that the results were not a significant shift toward accepting evolution. Rather, the result was to further polarize people. Neutral people were more likely to chose sides after being educated about evolution, but they didn't always choose evolution. Further, some switched from creationism to evolution, but others switched from evolution to creationism. It was not the result they were expecting.

f
Islam is he fastest growing, but A) mostly from imigration, and B) so small to start with, wasn't it like .5 and went up .6%. Atheism is a bit slower but a bigger %. Islam may grow in the future, but hard to say if it's a trend that can sustain itself.