Lutheran vs Orthodox: What's Are the Main Differences?

[~Anastasia~]

And ... I'm trying to figure out how one replies to comments received via reps, when the person hasn't posted in the thread.

I guess it would have been better stated to say that I am looking for differences between Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

I don't want to get into orthodox/Orthodox any more than I do catholic/Catholic ... I used "Orthodox" to refer to EO churches, and not meant as a slur or insult to anyone, if that was how it was taken, I apologize. And if it was imprecise, well, yes, it was imprecise.

I could say St. Mary's Orthodox Church; or I could say the Greek Orthodox (meaning all Greek Orthodox churches); or I could say the Orthodox Church (which I did, and by that I meant the EO - all of those in communion with one another, generally speaking, though I would have been interested in input from Coptic Christians or Oriental Orthodox as well; that interest is why I said "Orthodox" and not "EO").

I could say a similar thing about Lutherans. There is Trinity Lutheran Church. Then there is the LCMS which it belongs to. Then there is all of Lutheranism, which are not in communion with one another in every case, and have some similarities and some differences in doctrine as well.

It was actually someone else's point that the opposite poles were possibly close. We went into that a little bit ... but the fact remains that the Lutherans and the Orthodox (meaning teachings of the churches) view things in very different ways, in some cases - particularly justification.

I'm not sure what's wrong with saying "the Orthodox Church" when I'm speaking of the group of churches in communion with each other (EO) and their teachings. It's probably more precise than saying "the Lutheran Church".

But as I said, the church calls itself "the Orthodox Church" and I meant no insult to anyone. I'm not calling all else "unorthodox" if that's what you were meaning? I see no indication that the EO churches do that either.

Peace to you.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And ... I'm trying to figure out how one replies to comments received via reps, when the person hasn't posted in the thread.

I guess it would have been better stated to say that I am looking for differences between Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

I don't want to get into orthodox/Orthodox any more than I do catholic/Catholic ... I used "Orthodox" to refer to EO churches, and not meant as a slur or insult to anyone, if that was how it was taken, I apologize. And if it was imprecise, well, yes, it was imprecise.

I could say St. Mary's Orthodox Church; or I could say the Greek Orthodox (meaning all Greek Orthodox churches); or I could say the Orthodox Church (which I did, and by that I meant the EO - all of those in communion with one another, generally speaking, though I would have been interested in input from Coptic Christians or Oriental Orthodox as well; that interest is why I said "Orthodox" and not "EO").

I could say a similar thing about Lutherans. There is Trinity Lutheran Church. Then there is the LCMS which it belongs to. Then there is all of Lutheranism, which are not in communion with one another in every case, and have some similarities and some differences in doctrine as well.

It was actually someone else's point that the opposite poles were possibly close. We went into that a little bit ... but the fact remains that the Lutherans and the Orthodox (meaning teachings of the churches) view things in very different ways, in some cases - particularly justification.

I'm not sure what's wrong with saying "the Orthodox Church" when I'm speaking of the group of churches in communion with each other (EO) and their teachings. It's probably more precise than saying "the Lutheran Church".

But as I said, the church calls itself "the Orthodox Church" and I meant no insult to anyone. I'm not calling all else "unorthodox" if that's what you were meaning? I see no indication that the EO churches do that either.

Peace to you.

Dear sister Kylissa you must know what a difficult thing it is to get "Catholic" accepted as the name of the Catholic Church and how many people insist on uses "RCC" or "Romans" or even "Romanists" because they see "Catholic" as some kind of insult or some kind of conspiracy to deny their own catholicity. It seems that "Orthodox" is acquiring the same problem. I sometimes wonder if all those from the ancient Churches should object to "Evangelical" being applied to a particular movement within Protestantism since all Christians are evangelical just as they are orthodox and catholic in one sense or another of those words. But I cannot see that anything will be gained by objecting to "Evangelical" just as objecting to "Catholic" and "Orthodox" gains nothing. The Orthodox churches will still call themselves Orthodox and the Catholic Church will still call itself Catholic so I cannot find it in myself to make a fuss about Evangelicals calling themselves Evangelical. So be of good cheer, you will never find a word that is short and meaningful that will not also be objected to by somebody.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I hope I am not intruding and that I am not stating the obvious when I observe that saint Augustine of Hippo said that evil is the corruption of the good and that where there is no good then evil cannot exist (subsist) because there is nothing to corrupt. Thus human nature cannot be completely evil because if it were it would cease to exist altogether. The same is true of human will; it too cannot be completely evil or completely turned away from God because if it were then it would no longer exist.

The above very brief considerations imply that inherited corruption is not the same as spiritual death nor can inherited corruption mean that human will is dead or utterly turned away from God. The corruption of human nature, including human will, is analogous to an infection of the body (flu, the plague, or a common cold) because in an infection the whole body is affected but not every part of the body is infested with the infecting agent and not every cell has been overcome by it.

Grace is like a medicine (for example, like an antibiotic or an antiviral) that fights the progress of the infection and reclaims infected areas by helping the body to recover without the body being overcome. And grace is not tied to a specific time in history but is tied to Jesus Christ in every location and in every age. This is part of the theology that naturally develops from the idea of Theosis (the Beatific Vision) because Theosis means both that the faithful participate in Christ's life through union with him and that the faithful are made healthy in union with Christ. The kind of health I have in mind is firstly the health of the soul that turns to God in faith and reliance upon Jesus Christ as Saviour, friend, and Brother while always recognising him as God.

There is always a hint (and a reality) of eternity in the work of Christ - as an aside, this is why the Holy Eucharist is a 're-presentation' of the sacrifice on Cavalry's hill and a participation in the sacrifice offered by Christ to God and a taste of heaven even though we remain on Earth. So the grace that is in Christ is the selfsame grace that Able and Seth and Noah and Abraham and all the old testament saints received in proportion to the faith that God had revealed to them in their times.

So the will to seek God and the embrace of faith are both a work of grace and a work of the human person as that person is progressively healed from the effects of inherited sin and the effects of actual sins. Inherited sin is the infecting agent that would overcome the human person if it were left untreated and actual sins are the marks of the progress of the infection as it works its way towards the ultimate death of the person who is infected. The only way to halt and reverse the progress of the infection is to receive the medicine (grace) and keep receiving it until the infection is fully cured.

The end result of looking at "original sin" and "actual sins" in this way is to understand that grace is always the cause of healing and that human will is not dead nor is human nature "totally depraved" even though the whole person is infected with sin.

I hope this helps to explain or at least offer a perspective on why Catholic (and I think Orthodox) Christians do not subscribe to the T of TULIP or to "the bondage of the will" that Martin Luther wrote about so forcefully.

This is a very, very common misunderstanding of Lutheran and Reformed views of human nature and original sin, and I can't stress highly enough how critical this particularly distinction is.

When Lutherans and Reformed use the term "totally depraved," we don't mean that there is nothing whatsoever good in human nature. We're not talking about human nature quantitatively, as those every human born in sin is 100% bad, as bad as bad can be.

Rather, we are speaking in the classic Catholic, scholastic, Aristotelian categories of the fourfold composition of human nature: mind, will, soul, and flesh.

In this schema, the proper organization of (the) human being is a will that is directed by the mind, which in turn creates as reasonable and good habit of behavior in the soul, and directs the flesh. That's how we ought to work.

How we do work, however, is that our flesh guides our will instead of our mind, created evil habits in the soul. This is basically Thomas Aquinas' use of Aristotle to make good sense of Paul's speech about living "according to the flesh," and I think Thomas did a very good job of doing so.

THE problem, however, as far as Lutherans and the Reformed are concerned, is that the trouble therefore with human nature is disorder such that the will is misdirected, but not necessarily itself infected with evil, and human reason or the mind is isolated from the proper working process of life, but again not necessarily itself infected with evil.

When we say, totally depraved, what we mean is that all four constituent components of the human being are each, individually, infected with sin. The trouble with human nature is not that the will is disordered by the reign of the flesh (the standard Thomist view), nor that the will is totally and completely evil (how "total depravity" is often painted), but that the human will is infected with sin to the extent that it cannot be directed toward the ultimate source of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. So, too, the trouble with human nature is not the mind is isolated from the proper process of human action, nor that the mind is totally and completely evil, but that the mind is infected with sin to such an extent that it cannot properly recognize Good, the True, and the Beautiful in such a way that it can properly direct the will in the right direction.

The upshot for justification/the beginning of the Christian life/initial repentance/baptism is that God doesn't give us some prevenient grace that allows us to then change ourselves, but can only himself heal us and in so doing save us himself. Speaking of grace as "medicine" is in fact quite Lutheran, so long as we recognize that when God gives us medicine he doesn't enable us to save ourselves but has instead revived a dead patient and put them on the road to recovery like a good Doctor.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This is a very, very common misunderstanding of Lutheran and Reformed views of human nature and original sin, and I can't stress highly enough how critical this particularly distinction is.

When Lutherans and Reformed use the term "totally depraved," we don't mean that there is nothing whatsoever good in human nature. We're not talking about human nature quantitatively, as those every human born in sin is 100% bad, as bad as bad can be.
...

Brother GratiaCorpusChristi, I tried to be careful not to write about intensity of corruption. My vocabulary was careful to speak in terms of extent. Total depravity is, as you know and as I noted, about the extent of corruption; it is total while the intensity of corruption is not total. So I did not say nor did I imply that 100% intensity of corruption was the issue. I made it as clear as I could that in extent every part (every cell if you please) is corrupt in the doctrine of Total Depravity. Catholic teaching differs from this by regarding extent in terms of persons and not in terms of every part of a person thus a person is corrupted but not in every part nor in total intensity.

 

[Albion]

This is a very, very common misunderstanding of Lutheran and Reformed views of human nature and original sin, and I can't stress highly enough how critical this particularly distinction is.

When Lutherans and Reformed use the term "totally depraved," we don't mean that there is nothing whatsoever good in human nature. We're not talking about human nature quantitatively, as those every human born in sin is 100% bad, as bad as bad can be.

Rather, we are speaking in the classic Catholic, scholastic, Aristotelian categories of the fourfold composition of human nature: mind, will, soul, and flesh.

In this schema, the proper organization of (the) human being is a will that is directed by the mind, which in turn creates as reasonable and good habit of behavior in the soul, and directs the flesh. That's how we ought to work.

How we do work, however, is that our flesh guides our will instead of our mind, created evil habits in the soul. This is basically Thomas Aquinas' use of Aristotle to make good sense of Paul's speech about living "according to the flesh," and I think Thomas did a very good job of doing so.

THE problem, however, as far as Lutherans and the Reformed are concerned, is that the trouble therefore with human nature is disorder such that the will is misdirected, but not necessarily itself infected with evil, and human reason or the mind is isolated from the proper working process of life, but again not necessarily itself infected with evil.

When we say, totally depraved, what we mean is that all four constituent components of the human being are each, individually, infected with sin.The trouble with human nature is not that the will is disordered by the reign of the flesh (the standard Thomist view), nor that the will is totally and completely evil (how "total depravity" is often painted), but that the human will is infected with sin to the extent that it cannot be directed toward the ultimate source of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. So, too, the trouble with human nature is not the mind is isolated from the proper process of human action, nor that the mind is totally and completely evil, but that the mind is infected with sin to such an extent that it cannot properly recognize Good, the True, and the Beautiful in such a way that it can properly direct the will in the right direction.

The upshot for justification/the beginning of the Christian life/initial repentance/baptism is that God doesn't give us some prevenient grace that allows us to then change ourselves, but can only himself heal us and in so doing save us himself. Speaking of grace as "medicine" is in fact quite Lutheran, so long as we recognize that when God gives us medicine he doesn't enable us to save ourselves but has instead revived a dead patient and put them on the road to recovery like a good Doctor.

What he (you) said ^.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Dear sister Kylissa you must know what a difficult thing it is to get "Catholic" accepted as the name of the Catholic Church and how many people insist on uses "RCC" or "Romans" or even "Romanists" because they see "Catholic" as some kind of insult or some kind of conspiracy to deny their own catholicity. It seems that "Orthodox" is acquiring the same problem. I sometimes wonder if all those from the ancient Churches should object to "Evangelical" being applied to a particular movement within Protestantism since all Christians are evangelical just as they are orthodox and catholic in one sense or another of those words. But I cannot see that anything will be gained by objecting to "Evangelical" just as objecting to "Catholic" and "Orthodox" gains nothing. The Orthodox churches will still call themselves Orthodox and the Catholic Church will still call itself Catholic so I cannot find it in myself to make a fuss about Evangelicals calling themselves Evangelical. So be of good cheer, you will never find a word that is short and meaningful that will not also be objected to by somebody.

LOL, thank you dear brother MC.

Words are words, and we need to be able to use them. And churches need ways to call themselves. It doesn't bother me - though I had the exact same thought yesterday listening to a podcast by an Orthodox priest speaking of "Evangelicals" who had asked him to speak on the different churches.

Yes, we are ALL evangelical, catholic, and orthodox (in some sense of the words). But I don't object to churches calling themselves Evangelical, Catholic, or Orthodox. We have "Apostolic" churches too, who mean something very different. What about "Church of Christ"? "Church of God"?

Personally, it doesn't bother me at all. I was just trying to answer some comments. I simply didn't mean to offend anyone.

Thank you for your encouragement though.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This is a very, very common misunderstanding of Lutheran and Reformed views of human nature and original sin, and I can't stress highly enough how critical this particularly distinction is.

When Lutherans and Reformed use the term "totally depraved," we don't mean that there is nothing whatsoever good in human nature. We're not talking about human nature quantitatively, as those every human born in sin is 100% bad, as bad as bad can be.

Rather, we are speaking in the classic Catholic, scholastic, Aristotelian categories of the fourfold composition of human nature: mind, will, soul, and flesh.

In this schema, the proper organization of (the) human being is a will that is directed by the mind, which in turn creates as reasonable and good habit of behavior in the soul, and directs the flesh. That's how we ought to work.

How we do work, however, is that our flesh guides our will instead of our mind, created evil habits in the soul. This is basically Thomas Aquinas' use of Aristotle to make good sense of Paul's speech about living "according to the flesh," and I think Thomas did a very good job of doing so.

THE problem, however, as far as Lutherans and the Reformed are concerned, is that the trouble therefore with human nature is disorder such that the will is misdirected, but not necessarily itself infected with evil, and human reason or the mind is isolated from the proper working process of life, but again not necessarily itself infected with evil.

When we say, totally depraved, what we mean is that all four constituent components of the human being are each, individually, infected with sin. The trouble with human nature is not that the will is disordered by the reign of the flesh (the standard Thomist view), nor that the will is totally and completely evil (how "total depravity" is often painted), but that the human will is infected with sin to the extent that it cannot be directed toward the ultimate source of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. So, too, the trouble with human nature is not the mind is isolated from the proper process of human action, nor that the mind is totally and completely evil, but that the mind is infected with sin to such an extent that it cannot properly recognize Good, the True, and the Beautiful in such a way that it can properly direct the will in the right direction.

The upshot for justification/the beginning of the Christian life/initial repentance/baptism is that God doesn't give us some prevenient grace that allows us to then change ourselves, but can only himself heal us and in so doing save us himself. Speaking of grace as "medicine" is in fact quite Lutheran, so long as we recognize that when God gives us medicine he doesn't enable us to save ourselves but has instead revived a dead patient and put them on the road to recovery like a good Doctor.

Thank you for this, GCC.

I need to think about it some more.

Unfortunately, it brings me right back around to the problem of predestination, etc. And it is my understanding that God extends this grace to all men, according to Lutheranism? And the Crux Theologorum is meant to explain how we are incapable of choosing God, and yet we are capable/responsible for rejecting Him?

If that is correct, then from a simplistic point of view -- it would seem (forgive me, I don't mean to sound blasphemous) -- but it would seem that God's "medicine" is more effective in some men than others?

Maybe I should think more before I'm asking questions.

I'm also going off the posts of several Lutheran posters here whom I greatly respect, but who seem to see no good thing able to come of themselves at any part of their walk of faith.

Rather in tension to that, while it seems (as far as I can tell) that Orthodox teaching does not see good as coming from the individual either, really - well, maybe it does, in a sense, as we become more like Christ, and as we exercise those disciplines meant to subdue the will and make it more able to choose the good.

Ah, I think I am talking in circles. I'm not sure I can fully appreciate this distinction right now, but it seems like an important one.

I feel like I'm missing something. (and I'm not trying to obligate you or anyone else to enlightening me to the difference, but I'm willing to listen)

 

[Cappadocious]

We're not libertarian freewill agents.

This is somewhat of an aside, but: From your perspective, what conditions would be sufficient for libertarian freewill to exist?

We're dead. When God saves us, he doesn't save a drowning person who grabs onto a rope thrown out by a life raft (Wesley's metaphor); he takes a person who is dead, already drowned, on the floor of the sea, and performs CPR.

Does the person who has CPR performed have their free will violated? Maybe so, if they got there as part of a suicide attempt. But I don't think many people would be particularly angry at a life guard at a pool who revived a suicidal person...

What we adamantly deny is that human choice effects or otherwise causes a person to receive grace or justification or any of God's blesses. It is the result of justification.

Let me see if I can understand better using a different example:

Suppose there is a man whose hand is locked shut in a fist, such that there is no way for him to open his hand.

A surgeon comes, and will perform one of two operations: The first operation heals and unlocks the muscles in the man's hand, so that the man is able to open his hand, or allow it to remain closed. The second operation opens the man's hand, and then locks it again in the open-palmed position.

Which operation does God perform on humanity in the Lutheran understanding?

 

[cerette]

Rather in tension to that, while it seems (as far as I can tell) that Orthodox teaching does not see good as coming from the individual either, really - well, maybe it does, in a sense, as we become more like Christ, and as we exercise those disciplines meant to subdue the will and make it more able to choose the good.

This sounds a bit like what we'd call sanctification--becoming more sanctified, more holy, more Christlike. (The Holy Spirit working in us, helping us grow...(man+God))

But perhaps you're thinking of something else..?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

This is somewhat of an aside, but: From your perspective, what conditions would be sufficient for libertarian freewill to exist?

Libertarian free will exists when an agent can encounter any given circumstance where multiple options present themselves and could choose either of the available options.

Let me see if I can understand better using a different example:

Suppose there is a man whose hand is locked shut in a fist, such that there is no way for him to open his hand.

A surgeon comes, and will perform one of two operations: The first operation heals and unlocks the muscles in the man's hand, so that the man is able to open his hand, or allow it to remain closed. The second operation opens the man's hand, and then locks it again in the open-palmed position.

Which operation does God perform on humanity in the Lutheran understanding?

Neither. Lutherans believe that the operation to open the hand necessarily involves opening the hand, such that the hand cannot be unlocked when still in a closed position; but that, once the hand has been opened (and thereby been unlocked), the person is then able to close their hand.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Unfortunately, it brings me right back around to the problem of predestination, etc. And it is my understanding that God extends this grace to all men, according to Lutheranism? And the Crux Theologorum is meant to explain how we are incapable of choosing God, and yet we are capable/responsible for rejecting Him?

I'm not exactly how you're using "crux theologorum" here, but in my experience it is used in Lutheranism to simply say: while we know God truly and actually died for all and extends grace to all through his work alone, and we know that not everyone is saved, we don't know have to reconcile these two apparently contradictory truths. We simply know that both truths are biblical, and the offense to reason and to our sensibilities is simply the cross that the theologian has to bear.

But:

If that is correct, then from a simplistic point of view -- it would seem (forgive me, I don't mean to sound blasphemous) -- but it would seem that God's "medicine" is more effective in some men than others?

This is where I'm a bad Lutheran. A good Lutheran should simply accept the fact that we have to be faithful to the Scriptures and their testimony that 1. God gives grace without human cooperation but that 2. not everyone receives grace but that 1b. God's grace is nonetheless universal but that 2b. salvation is not universal but that (and on and on for infinity), and bear that cross that all true theologians of the cross must bear.

However, I'm just too taken with the legacy of the church fathers and the medieval scholastics and the Reformed scholastics to simply throw reason to the wind and try not to explain it.

As I see it, the explanation is grounded in the variable nature of man and the variable nature of the proclamation of the word and the administration of the sacraments- where the universal wellspring of justification and salvation encounters the particular lives of men and women.

As I explained above, everyone is totally depraved, but that means all human faculties are corrupted by sin, not that all humans are equally and maximally sinful. That being the case, I think it makes sense to believe that the killing proclamation of the law, and the new life announced by the gospel, can have different effects on different people. It also makes sense given that, simply, sometimes the law is poorly applied, and sometimes the gospel is pitifully announced.

Not that this doesn't mean that people who are less sinful may better receive the law and therefore be risen by the gospel. It may very well mean that the "chief" of sinners are more prone to the law in some cases, like a Jenga board that towers quite high but is susceptible to the smallest wind.

I still don't think there's anything we can look for in humans that causes salvation. There's no willful cooperation, nothing inherent in the person that automatically, or systematically, determines their eternal fate. But it also doesn't mean that there isn't some logic tying God's purposes and the psychologically, socially, and culturally conditioned encounter between God's gospel announced by the church and particular individuals. The physical reality of the word and sacraments, which aren't simply signs pointing to a greater invisible work of God grounded in his secret will completely removed from the realities of this world (as in certain strands of Calvinism), allows us to focus less on predestination than on the present work of the church- the word and sacraments.

I'm also going off the posts of several Lutheran posters here whom I greatly respect, but who seem to see no good thing able to come of themselves at any part of their walk of faith.

Rather in tension to that, while it seems (as far as I can tell) that Orthodox teaching does not see good as coming from the individual either, really - well, maybe it does, in a sense, as we become more like Christ, and as we exercise those disciplines meant to subdue the will and make it more able to choose the good.

Well we must remember that what Lutherans say about the goodness and evil of human beings in relation to God ("before the face of God," coram Deo), doesn't necessarily mean anything when it comes to the goodness or vileness of human being in relationship to each other ("before the face of the world," coram mundo). Christians- and non-Christians- absolutely produce temporal goods on the basis of their works, ideally through the infusion of the Holy Spirit and through participation in the energies of God (= θεωσι&#962 but also by unaided human nature.

As I said earlier (to Cappadocious?), I actually don't like the term monergism to describe what happens after baptism/justification/conversion/first repentance. That isn't because I believe that sanctification is a synergistic process wherein a person increases in holiness through grace-infused works (although I do believe there are some Lutherans who do believe that). The reason is that while I do believe there is a process we undergo to become more Christlike, through hearing and acting on the word and participation in the sacraments and being conformed to the image of the incarnate Christ (= θεωσι&#962, I don't think that process has anything to do with being sanctified (= made holy, other, apart, special) any more than it has to do with being justified (= righteous, right, just, legally innocent).

Rather than a process of growth in visible holiness that takes place "under" the umbrella of a legal fiction (= imputed justification), the Christian life is a daily return to baptism as the source of our identity through reading and hearing the word, participating in the sacrament of confession and absolution, and partaking of holy communion. We Lutherans don't have a "progressive" model of sanctification; we understand the Christian life as a daily dying and rising in imitation of baptism that daily drowns the Old Adam and daily raises up the New Man in Christ.

I don't like to describe that as monergistic because it is characterized by a different sort of divine activity than that by which we are justified (by God's grace alone putting us in a position of dependence through the preached gospel and administration of baptism). It is, rather, a return to an identity, in baptism, which we already have. It's a centering process, like centering prayer, not a progressive process. I do believe there is a progressive process- theosis- but I think that is different from justification and the daily realization that we are God's justified people.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...
The upshot for justification/the beginning of the Christian life/initial repentance/baptism is that God doesn't give us some prevenient grace that allows us to then change ourselves, but can only himself heal us and in so doing save us himself. Speaking of grace as "medicine" is in fact quite Lutheran, so long as we recognize that when God gives us medicine he doesn't enable us to save ourselves but has instead revived a dead patient and put them on the road to recovery like a good Doctor.

1) That is not an accurate characterization of "Prevenient Grace."

2) No Christian believes or teaches that we "save ourselves."

Of course, I fully realize that it may be impossible for you to accept this. In my experience, the clearest evidence of any form of "predestination" is that different people seem irrevocably "predestined" to understand words and doctrines differently.

 

[Cappadocious]

Libertarian free will exists when an agent can encounter any given circumstance where multiple options present themselves and could choose either of the available options.

Is such a thing possible? If so, what is an example?

Lutherans believe that the operation to open the hand necessarily involves opening the hand, such that the hand cannot be unlocked when still in a closed position

Why is that?

 

[~Anastasia~]

This sounds a bit like what we'd call sanctification--becoming more sanctified, more holy, more Christlike. (The Holy Spirit working in us, helping us grow...(man+God))

But perhaps you're thinking of something else..?

Right, I am speaking here of what is often called sanctification.

I had understoond that sanctification was credited to God's work alone, and not in any way attributed to the man? Where Lutherans are concerned, I mean.

Please forgive me if I got a wrong impression somewhere along the way. It seems I may have, since you say man+God. I would agree with that.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not exactly how you're using "crux theologorum" here, but in my experience it is used in Lutheranism to simply say: while we know God truly and actually died for all and extends grace to all through his work alone, and we know that not everyone is saved, we don't know have to reconcile these two apparently contradictory truths. We simply know that both truths are biblical, and the offense to reason and to our sensibilities is simply the cross that the theologian has to bear.

I think I may have confused a discussion I had with someone a while back on here then, and applied too much of what they explained at the time they mentioned the Crux theologorum. I did read on it, but ... as I said, I think I took it to include other things discussed at the same time. I recognize your description of the idea though.

This is where I'm a bad Lutheran. A good Lutheran should simply accept the fact that we have to be faithful to the Scriptures and their testimony that 1. God gives grace without human cooperation but that 2. not everyone receives grace but that 1b. God's grace is nonetheless universal but that 2b. salvation is not universal but that (and on and on for infinity), and bear that cross that all true theologians of the cross must bear.

Quite ironic in a way. You know, I think one other difference between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy is that Lutheranism seems much more invested in explaining things (which honestly appeals to me quite a bit), where Orthodoxy is often frustratingly "we don't know - this is how much we DO know, and we're not going to speculate beyond that." I guess I've gotten used to it though, since there is plenty enough to learn to keep me more than busy.

But on this one point, it seems Lutherans don't have a logical answer. Which used to bother me, but I think it is to their credit.

(Smile) ... and you are being a bad Lutheran and having to figure it out. (It's ok, I understand that too. )

However, I'm just too taken with the legacy of the church fathers and the medieval scholastics and the Reformed scholastics to simply throw reason to the wind and try not to explain it.

As I see it, the explanation is grounded in the variable nature of man and the variable nature of the proclamation of the word and the administration of the sacraments- where the universal wellspring of justification and salvation encounters the particular lives of men and women.

As I explained above, everyone is totally depraved, but that means all human faculties are corrupted by sin, not that all humans are equally and maximally sinful. That being the case, I think it makes sense to believe that the killing proclamation of the law, and the new life announced by the gospel, can have different effects on different people. It also makes sense given that, simply, sometimes the law is poorly applied, and sometimes the gospel is pitifully announced.

Not that this doesn't mean that people who are less sinful may better receive the law and therefore be risen by the gospel. It may very well mean that the "chief" of sinners are more prone to the law in some cases, like a Jenga board that towers quite high but is susceptible to the smallest wind.

I think that actually makes quite a bit of sense. TBH, I consider the fact that we are dealing ... with people. In a laboratory sense, biology is not an "exact" science in the way that chemistry is. And psychology is even less so.

Even so, part of what you mentioned is easily explained by the Scripture "he who is forgiven much, loves much". Sometimes the chiefest of sinners DO make the most dramatic changes. Sometimes the word preached cuts right to the heart of that particular person (which I would more likely attribute to God). Sometimes a chief sinner's heart is and has always been towards God (I see this is a dear friend of mine who has suffered a terrible life and done things that would have made many turn from her, but she has a heart of gold hidden inside and has been seeking God for years.) It's an imprecise thing, the way mankind responds to God, and the reasons why. I'm actually satisfied to leave it that way, and I think your explanation is pretty good.

I still don't think there's anything we can look for in humans that causes salvation. There's no willful cooperation, nothing inherent in the person that automatically, or systematically, determines their eternal fate. But it also doesn't mean that there isn't some logic tying God's purposes and the psychologically, socially, and culturally conditioned encounter between God's gospel announced by the church and particular individuals. The physical reality of the word and sacraments, which aren't simply signs pointing to a greater invisible work of God grounded in his secret will completely removed from the realities of this world (as in certain strands of Calvinism), allows us to focus less on predestination than on the present work of the church- the word and sacraments.

Ah, I had forgotten this paragraph when I wrote my response to the last one. I would be following you just fine if it wasn't for my friend I have in mind. She has never been to church in her life, that I am aware of. I don't know. Her mother said they were Catholic ... maybe she was baptized as an infant. (If you knew her mother, I'd be tempted to say probably she wasn't. Her mother was literally a monster.) Something was planted in her somewhere, somehow. I keep praying for her, and honestly, I think - I hope - God will have mercy on her, considering her life and how she has done in spite of it.

Sorry for the aside. I'm still not sure what to think about all of that. I don't think there is something in "some of us" that is "good" and means that we will turn to God as a result. I do believe God must draw anyone, in order for them to come to Him. And I do believe He desires all to be saved. Which logically puts me right back where you are describing. Or very nearly so. But given that as you said, we can't see what is going on. Enter into the equation the Word and Sacraments. And also you have individual differences. It would seem to be a very inexact thing to predict what any one person's outcome will be, given our own limited knowledge.

Well we must remember that what Lutherans say about the goodness and evil of human beings in relation to God ("before the face of God," coram Deo), doesn't necessarily mean anything when it comes to the goodness or vileness of human being in relationship to each other ("before the face of the world," coram mundo). Christians- and non-Christians- absolutely produce temporal goods on the basis of their works, ideally through the infusion of the Holy Spirit and through participation in the energies of God (= θεωσι&#962 but also by unaided human nature.

Not only Lutherans, correct? I think almost everyone agrees that our righteousness compared to God is nonexistent. But you make a good distinction here, and that makes sense to me.

As I said earlier (to Cappadocious?), I actually don't like the term monergism to describe what happens after baptism/justification/conversion/first repentance. That isn't because I believe that sanctification is a synergistic process wherein a person increases in holiness through grace-infused works (although I do believe there are some Lutherans who do believe that). The reason is that while I do believe there is a process we undergo to become more Christlike, through hearing and acting on the word and participation in the sacraments and being conformed to the image of the incarnate Christ (= θεωσι&#962, I don't think that process has anything to do with being sanctified (= made holy, other, apart, special) any more than it has to do with being justified (= righteous, right, just, legally innocent).

This may be the source of some of my confusion. It would seem not all Lutherans would say the same. It's ok though.

I really need to look into θεωσις more.

Rather than a process of growth in visible holiness that takes place "under" the umbrella of a legal fiction (= imputed justification), the Christian life is a daily return to baptism as the source of our identity through reading and hearing the word, participating in the sacrament of confession and absolution, and partaking of holy communion. We Lutherans don't have a "progressive" model of sanctification; we understand the Christian life as a daily dying and rising in imitation of baptism that daily drowns the Old Adam and daily raises up the New Man in Christ.

I don't like to describe that as monergistic because it is characterized by a different sort of divine activity than that by which we are justified (by God's grace alone putting us in a position of dependence through the preached gospel and administration of baptism). It is, rather, a return to an identity, in baptism, which we already have. It's a centering process, like centering prayer, not a progressive process. I do believe there is a progressive process- theosis- but I think that is different from justification and the daily realization that we are God's justified people.

Ah, now that is easy for me to understand. Thanks very much to (is it Tangible's?) signature.

Every time I see the signature, I think about this process, so I can understand, with your explanation. Thank you.

I think that is the problem I was having. Confusing θεωσις with sanctification, basically.

Interesting, thank you so much.

 

[sculleywr]

Right, I am speaking here of what is often called sanctification.

I had understoond that sanctification was credited to God's work alone, and not in any way attributed to the man? Where Lutherans are concerned, I mean.

Please forgive me if I got a wrong impression somewhere along the way. It seems I may have, since you say man+God. I would agree with that.

I don't know the Lutheran stance, but we have a form called Theosis, which is still ULTIMATELY the work of God, but is the given by way of our cooperation with God. If that makes sense

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't know the Lutheran stance, but we have a form called Theosis, which is still ULTIMATELY the work of God, but is the given by way of our cooperation with God. If that makes sense

Yup.

Most interesting topic to me. We had a thread, but most of the EO left for Lent. Then it got so nicely involved that I need about a 3 hour block of time to form replies, and I never seem to have it.

It has been so long, I'd do well just to go back and re-read it, but it's something I'd like to discuss further. Though it makes far more sense to me than it did when I first heard of it.

 

[Cappadocious]

Divinization is, by definition, under the umbrella of sanctification. If it were not, then it would be, by definition, not of God. Anything sanctified (or to use the more germanic, anything hallowed) is set aside for the purposes of God; so, whatever you say of divinization, it must be of/within/characterized by sanctification.

At an Orthodox baptism, the priest says:

'Thou art justified. Thou art illumined. Thou art sanctified. Thou art washed: in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

 

[sculleywr]

Yup.

Most interesting topic to me. We had a thread, but most of the EO left for Lent. Then it got so nicely involved that I need about a 3 hour block of time to form replies, and I never seem to have it.

It has been so long, I'd do well just to go back and re-read it, but it's something I'd like to discuss further. Though it makes far more sense to me than it did when I first heard of it.

You can also read about it on Monachos.net. Lots of good stuff there.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

1) That is not an accurate characterization of "Prevenient Grace."

2) No Christian believes or teaches that we "save ourselves."

Of course, I fully realize that it may be impossible for you to accept this. In my experience, the clearest evidence of any form of "predestination" is that different people seem irrevocably "predestined" to understand words and doctrines differently.

Fine fine fine. I was using a shorthand because I was getting tired.

Obviously, no Christian would affirm that we save ourselves, but many Christians would and do affirm that humans cooperate in our salvation, not by nature, but by grace. Through God's grace, humans are made able to cooperate in their salvation.

In the case of conversion, this takes the form of a prevenient grace that graciously enables the will to choose the Good. In the case of the Christian life, it takes the form of further grace that enables the person to cooperate in daily repentance and in works of charity that together further a person's visible holiness.

Obviously, in the case of the Wesleyan tradition, that increase happens underneath a blanket of forensic justification already imputed and thus doesn't actually change the status of the sinner before God; it's about sanctification. In the Catholic tradition, that increase is a true and real progress in justification.

I understand perfectly well that all human cooperation in these traditions is a result of grace and that the initiative always remains with God. None of us are Pelagian here, I hope. The debate isn't grace vs. works, but synergism vs. monergism.

Can we move on?