Orthodox Soteriology?

[Thatgirloncfforums]

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I agree. I'm more concerned about what people are saying as they're trying to figure it out.

From what I can tell the notion that the notions that their is free will, as well as predestination are both true, but the mechanics of how everything works is not really clear, or is best to not try to hard to figure it out etc. but realize it is a Holy Mystery at least on this side of eternity.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Interesting

I think our sense of free will is dependent upon how we use it according to God’s commandments ( Matthew 19:16-19, Romans 13:8-10 etc.) which is according to His will. We choose to do good in cooperation or bad in disobedience and it is God who judges us ( John 5:22-30 etc.). As Christians we understand our salvation is dependent on grace ( Ephesians 2:8-10). All of this falls within predestination & election on what we do as beings created in time vs an eternal God Who so loved us & saves us by His only begotten Son ( John 3:16-21).

We must work out our salvation in fear & trembling ( Philippians 2:12 etc.). While we should not give false assurance of redemption to a non Christian, we must realize God still has a plan for those He knows but we do not ( Romans 2, 1 Timothy 2:1-6 etc.).

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Is freewill a product of grace according to this Confession?

From the Confession of Dositheus:

Decree 3
We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth {1 Timothy 2:4}. But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing [or, prevenient] grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and co-operate with it, in what it requires as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace. This grace co-operates with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation.

But to say, as the most wicked heretics do and as is contained in the Chapter [of Cyril's' Confession] to which this answers — that God, in predestinating, or condemning, did not consider in any way the works of those predestinated, or condemned, we know to be profane and impious. For thus Scripture would be opposed to itself, since it promises the believer salvation through works, yet supposes God to be its sole author, by His sole illuminating grace, which He bestows without preceding works, to show to man the truth of divine things, and to teach him how he may co-operate with it, if he will, and do what is good and acceptable, and so obtain salvation. He takes not away the power to will — to will to obey, or not obey him.

But than to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater defamation can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High? We do know that the Deity is not tempted with evils, {cf. James 1:13} and that He equally wills the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him. we do confess that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonor, there is justly decreed condemnation. But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who tells us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents. {Luke 15:7} Far be it from us, while we have our senses, to believe or to think this; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Define freewill please

I hope I am not completely heretical in the following, but I have never seen a "conflict" between so called "predestination" and free will.

Since God "sees" His creation from outside, and time, change and causality are all features of creation and they are not attributes of God, of course there is a difficulty of comprehension for us here. We do, however, crawl along the celluloid and experience it frame by frame whereas He has the whole reel in His hands so to say. And we know that, in our sequential reference, we DO have free will, free choice. Timed language makes no sense here, but one could equally say "our choices already happened" from the perspective of God, or that God has "foreknowledge" but I believe both ways of saying it are equally meaningless. Because in our frame of reference these things haven't happened, and we are given foreknowledge only in exceptional and carefully considered situations. And even then, it is not the immutable foreknowledge that God has, but rather potentiality - see Jonah.

This is not such an absurd thought. Physics can be interpreted to say that if a photon were conscious (which it is not), then in a way, it has already experienced the entirety its own existence, and presuming it is not absorbed or transformed along the way then it is already "at the end of the world" because for said photon there is no sequential time. But from our reference, the photon is moving and exists in our time. When it lands on your retina, the photon from that distant star, for you, had been travelling for millions of years, but for it no time has passed at all. I'm not comparing God with a photon, God forbid, I am just saying that accounting for frames of reference is important at all levels and extreme frames of reference exist even here on earth as it were, let alone when we're talking about Heavens.

I do not understand these things, and I genuinely do not think I could, but I submit this passage from St. John of Damascus for discussion:
"The Deity, then, is quite unchangeable and invariable. For all things which are not in our hands He hath predetermined by His foreknowledge, each in its own proper and peculiar time and place. And accordingly the Father judgeth no one, but hath given all judgment to the Son. For clearly the Father and the Son and also the Holy Spirit judged as God. But the Son Himself will descend in the body as man, and will sit on the throne of Glory (for descending and sitting require circumscribed body), and will judge all the world in justice." (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, emphases mine)

To me this implies that Christ will be judge in a state that experiences sequential time, therefore in Christ's reference the concept of "our choices" is meaningful.

I also corroborate this: "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Matthew 24:36 -- which implies to me that it is possible and scriptural to infer these things.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Thank you. I read the exchange online. Does the book give historical-contextual analysis?

If you can find it there is a book called Augsburg and Constantinople which contains the letters exchanged by some lutherans and patriarch Jeremiah the second in the 16th century. It might be hard to find but there might be some online information on that as well. It is basically the official Orthodox response to the lutherans trying to get theological agreement.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Was Augustine just speaking about regeneration though? I mean, it's fair to say that we can reject grace, but can we accept grace apart from grace? The latter is what I was told Roman Catholics and Lutherans believe.

This is what a priest told me a few years back & I kept it.


Yes, he is a heretic. His heresy is to say that we save ourselves. He believed that salvation comes by human choice alone. It is not that God's grace moves the soul to believe and do good, but rather that the human alone by his own will chooses good and thus God has to accept him as saved. That is the error. We believe that we cooperate with God's ever present grace/energies. But those are what come first and then we cooperate with them. Thus it is God who saves us and not we who save ourselves and thus for God to accept us. During his time Augustine went to the other extreme and said that we do nothing. Both the positions of Pelagius and Augustine are wrong when it comes to understanding salvation and the work of the human being in salvation. I hope this makes sense. Father


On a side note, over time I gathered some of the external circumstances around St. Augustine & Pelagius. I tend to believe these circumstances caused some unintended breakdown of both men’s theology & communication in which neither should necessarily be blamed.

For ex. St. Augustine was being targeted by assassins from Donatist extremists and dealing with Arians. Although St. Augustine died of natural causes, it was under extreme danger & stress from an Arian siege of Carthage. There was a student of Pelagius named Julian (of Eclanum) who seemed to take liberties with Pelagius’ teachings & ( I think) taught the heresy Pelagius is noted for. Originally Augustine & Pelagius were cordial & I wonder if it was circumstances like these that caused St. Augustine to go into overdrive on original sin & Pelagius was left holding the bag from a careless student.

Mind you this is a personal theory of mine but I pieced together circumstances from what I read in St. Augustine’s: Enchiridion & a modern ( 1970s) book: Ancient Christian Doctrines by RND Kelly.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Thank you. I read the exchange online. Does the book give historical-contextual analysis?

As I remember there is a forward to the book. But the book itself is a set of papers between Lutheran theologians and the patriarch. It's kind of a weird reading because the Lutheran sent a Greek version of the Augsburg confession. Along with an introduction. Like 3 years later is when Jeremiah finally replied. Then the lutherans responded and when they did I believe that the patriarch was in exile and when he returned it was another like 2 years later before he finally replied. Lutheran's addressed it one more time, Jeremiah then said thanks but I disagree please don't write again. The lutherans wrote one more time but there was no response.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Yeah... Melancthon really butchered the AC. Ex., he turned justification by faith (alone) into theosis. Which, in my mind is technically true, but not in the Eastern frame of mind (I'm thinking here about, The Ladder of Divine Ascent). Lutheranism teaches, in my understanding, that we are made righteous through regeneration whereby we receive the entire Christ. Can Christ grow or become more than what he is? Because we have the mind of Christ, good works, love ect. follow regeneration. But our bodies are still dead because of sin and we can't improve on death. Nuptial Union is probably a better term for what Lutherans believe than Theosis.

As I remember there is a forward to the book. But the book itself is a set of papers between Lutheran theologians and the patriarch. It's kind of a weird reading because the Lutheran sent a Greek version of the Augsburg confession. Along with an introduction. Like 3 years later is when Jeremiah finally replied. Then the lutherans responded and when they did I believe that the patriarch was in exile and when he returned it was another like 2 years later before he finally replied. Lutheran's addressed it one more time, Jeremiah then said thanks but I disagree please don't write again. The lutherans wrote one more time but there was no response.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Yeah... Melancthon really butchered the AC. Ex., he turned justification by faith (alone) into theosis. Which, in my mind is technically true, but not in the Eastern frame of mind (I'm thinking here about, The Ladder of Divine Ascent). Lutheranism teaches, in my understanding, that we are made righteous through regeneration whereby we receive the entire Christ. Can Christ grow or become more than what he is? Because we have the mind of Christ, good works, love ect. follow regeneration. But our bodies are still dead because of sin and we can't improve on death. Nuptial Union is probably a better term for what Lutherans believe than Theosis.

I would love to hear you express that to Jordan Cooper and see what his reaction is.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I would love to hear you express that to Jordan Cooper and see what his reaction is.

Sure. I'll see if I can get a hold of him. Is his info online anywhere?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Sure. I'll see if I can get a hold of him. Is his info online anywhere?

Well he has this email that I got from his web site from the You-tube channel link, He also is on Facebook and I just sent him a friend request.

JustandSinner@yahoo.com

 

[ArmyMatt]

Quick question, then more tonight:

Why did the Orthodox Church condemn Pelagius?
(I am reading Augustine's On Nature and Grace. So far, Pelagius is winning the debate imo).

simply put, he was wrong in saying the will didn't fall with the rest of human nature.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Oh nice. Thank you. I'll post his reply here. Hopefully he will reply

Well he has this email that I got from his web site from the You-tube channel link, He also is on Facebook and I just sent him a friend request.

JustandSinner@yahoo.com

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

simply put, he was wrong in saying the will didn't fall with the rest of human nature.

That's odd. I admit I am a bit confused about what exactly the will is, so I probably shouldn't make a judgement yet.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's odd. I admit I am a bit confused about what exactly the will is, so I probably shouldn't make a judgement yet.

what's odd, if I may ask?

 

[Lukaris]

Was Augustine just speaking about regeneration though? I mean, it's fair to say that we can reject grace, but can we accept grace apart from grace? The latter is what I was told Roman Catholics and Lutherans believe.

As far as St. Augustine on regeneration per baptism

Per St. Augustine: “For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin. But infants die only to original sin; those who are older die also to all the sins which their evil lives have added to the sin which they brought with them.” Enchiridion (Chptr 43, Gateway ed. JF Shaw translation).

I believe I am understanding Orthodoxy when I say we cannot accept grace apart from grace. I would think we agree in general with St. Augustine on that but our understanding of free will is wider.

St. Maximos the Confessor stated in the 600s:

“Our intellect lies between angel & demon, each of works for its own ends, the one encouraging virtue and the other vice. The intellect has both the authority and the power to follow or resist whatever it wishes to. The angelic powers urge us towards what is holy. Our natural instincts and our probity of intention assist us. But the passions and sinfulness of intention reinforce the provocations of the demons.”

Philokalia, vol.2, 3rd Century (collections of texts) #92-93.

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

View attachment 306625
How is this not 'faith alone' (see attachment)?

It's odd that the Reform guy didn't know about 'faith alone' in the Fathers. I mean, it's there, the phrase is there.

View attachment 306625

Idk. I have heard Luther got a lot of influence from the Orthodox Church, though.

Martin Luther’s Confession of Orthodox Christianity - Become Orthodox
What did the reformers think about the Eastern Orthodox Church?

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

what's odd, if I may ask?

Believing that the will didn't fall, as if the will was something other than a component of human nature.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

'natural instincts'?

As far as St. Augustine on regeneration per baptism

Per St. Augustine: “For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin. But infants die only to original sin; those who are older die also to all the sins which their evil lives have added to the sin which they brought with them.” Enchiridion (Chptr 43, Gateway ed. JF Shaw translation).

I believe I am understanding Orthodoxy when I say we cannot accept grace apart from grace. I would think we agree in general with St. Augustine on that but our understanding of free will is wider.

St. Maximos the Confessor stated in the 600s:

“Our intellect lies between angel & demon, each of works for its own ends, the one encouraging virtue and the other vice. The intellect has both the authority and the power to follow or resist whatever it wishes to. The angelic powers urge us towards what is holy. Our natural instincts and our probity of intention assist us. But the passions and sinfulness of intention reinforce the provocations of the demons.”

Philokalia, vol.2, 3rd Century (collections of texts) #92-93.