Orthodoxy and Calvinism in Dialogue

[ArmyMatt]

" Because, in my mind, if we work on the assumption that God begins the work of salvation and that then man responds and then God responds to the man, the logical conclusion is monergistically directed predestination. Of course, the man has free will in this process, but God is so powerful and omniscient that He can direct the will in a mysterious way:"

ah, gotcha, thanks for the clarity, just wanted to be sure.

I think it's awesome that is what your thinking would be in your reformed Baptist church (I dunno enough about them and what makes them unique), but I know that for many of the Calvinist that I have spoken to, they do take a more hardline approach to predestination. and I think that is a huge problem.

 

[Ignatius21]

ah, gotcha, thanks for the clarity, just wanted to be sure. I think it's awesome that is what your thinking would be in your reformed Baptist church (I dunno enough about them and what makes them unique), but I know that for many of the Calvinist that I have spoken to, they do take a more hardline approach to predestination. and I think that is a huge problem.

When I think of reformed baptist, I think of James White. I have a hard time believing he would welcome your "soft" stance. Perhaps you should run this thread past your pastor or elders and see whether they actually agree.

 

[abacabb3]

I know that for many of the Calvinist that I have spoken to, they do take a more hardline approach to predestination. and I think that is a huge problem.

When I think of reformed baptist, I think of James White. I have a hard time believing he would welcome your "soft" stance. Perhaps you should run this thread past your pastor or elders and see whether they actually agree.

I can do that, as I plan on speaking to one of the elder's soon about other matters, but I am not sure if I consider the stance "soft" as it accords with the Bible, tradition, and it does not make assumptions that cannot be substantiated.

Also, if we look at "TULIP," it appears to me the doctrinal tenets therein need not be "controversial" as long as we don't add to the Scripture.

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)

This sums up that no one can "choose" faith apart from God's grace. It appears we are all in agreement on this. Now, for me to make claims that man has no free will whatsoever and that men don't cooperate at all throughout the whole process wouldn't simply be correct.

I would add, however, that the idea of "free will" is not a notion as important Biblical thinkers as it would be to the Church Fathers, many of whom had profound understandings of Greek philosophy. This is why for me, I have no issue with saying how the whole thing works is mysterious.

Unconditional Election

Again, the notion that God predestines those whom He chooses gracious with no regard of their deserts is again very much in accord with tradition, not also to say the Bible as well. Now, this does not mean that every person God elects is an ex-con or a piece of societal refuse (i.e.thief on a cross) because God also elects people who were seeking Him, albeit indirectly because they did not know the Son (Lydia, Cornelius, etc.). The one thing all these people had in common is they are the people Paul talks about in Romans 3. Further, none would be "granted" belief (Phil 1:29) apart from God being at work.

The point is God acts in the lives of certain people, whom He knew He would before the world was created. God directs the preachers and the hearing. As Prosper of Antiquaine said, "Whenever, then, the word of God enters into the ears of the body through the ministry of the preachers, the action of the divine power fuses with the sound of a human voice, and He who is the inspirer of the preacher's office is also the strength of the hearer's heart." (Call of the Nations, Chap 8)

Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)

This position is I believe the weakest, and the least consequential. Whether God atones for the sins of everyone or in some divine chalkboard in heaven erased only those of His elect, neither conclusion changes the fact that there are still both saved and unsaved in the end.

Now, there are sound Biblical reasons for the position (I am less aware of support among the Church Fathers, just have not read enough), but again, it is a technical matter in my mind. I believe Calvinists take it so seriously because they have a certain view about God's nature they do not want "disrespected in any way," almost as if it impugns God is He wasted effort to die for people that wouldn't be saved, or the whole doctrine of "imputation of righteousness" wouldn't be as neat and clean.

Pertaining to the imputation of righteousness, I have come independently to the conclusion (and have been happy to find this is John Piper's position) that we are made righteous in Christ because believers are in union with Him. Again, I don't know all the technical details, but the Church is one flesh with Christ, then how is it not clothed entirely with His righteousness?

Irresistible Grace

This doctrine goes along with the first two. If no one can believe apart from God's grace and if God chooses people despite of their works or wisdom, it is both Biblical and logical that those who God chooses will have their faith perfected to the measure He intends to give them.

Now, there is an obvious objection to this: people reject the Gospel all the time, how can this be true?

Again, this goes back to my understanding of monergism/"real" synergism. God works with men and God always achieves the desired result He sought to have. Because God always achieves the result, it is in that sense He is the one in true control (though man freely responds positively and negatively to God's overtures.) So further, it is in that sense grace is "irresistible." Because, if God is indeed at work in the hearts of believers, often in ways we have can't overtly feel or understand, how do we even know to resist it sometimes? And, being that God knows the length of our lives, He will do His work until He accomplishes His result. So, in this sense grace is certainly irresistible. Anyone who rejects God does so freely and has done so because God did not so desire to be particularly gracious with this individual and perfect the monergistic/"real" synergistic work within that person.

Now, while John of Cassian did not refute this idea in Conference 13, it is my understanding that he took issue with it. This is essentially where him and Augustine would be in opposition. But again, I think John of Cassian's opposition is more practical than theological. It opens up God to accusations of being biased, choosing some and not others, and having the Gospel reach some people and not others.

However, if we work under the assumption that grace is truly grace, then the idea that there are unsaved people is not appalling. Again, all people justly deserve condemnation. It is grace that is undeserved.

This dialogue between Augustine and John of Cassian (albeit indirectly as I don't think they directly responded to one another) is why Prosper of Antiquaine wrote "Call of the Nations," which is why I'm reading it.

Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

I already covered this earlier in this thread. One, some people in tradition almost reject it outright, and the Scripture though it has promises of perseverance has practical warnings to live as if it weren't true. So again, the doctrine is true because God who began the work will complete it without fail, but it is an idea that is not as important as the need to work out or salvation in fear and trembling, to have produce good fruit as these are the substance of faith. It is of central importance to understand that the works in themselves never justify a man, but rather a man God has justified will be compelled to perform good works.

 

[ArmyMatt]

while I can see your line of reasoning (and agree with it in certain circumstances), I do still wonder if your way of viewing the TULIP Calvinism, is the way it has always been believed. in other words, if you profess something that Calvin woulda chased you out into the streets about, are you really Calvinist?

 

[abacabb3]

Point taken. Maybe we need to get another Calvinist on this thread to verify or object to what I have written.

From my experience in three calvinist churches, what I would say here would be considered apologetics, and not outside the realm of thought. Because, what is essentially important is God's sovereignty in all things, which I view as stated here (as long as we are all in agreement) is upheld. If I am not "Calvinist" enough because I don't believe Limited Atonement is a terribly important doctrine, I ask by detractors to show me from Scripture where the idea carries such weight so that I am compelled to emphasize it.

 

[Ignatius21]

Also, if we look at "TULIP," it appears to me the doctrinal tenets therein need not be "controversial" as long as we don't add to the Scripture.

I will echo what ArmyMatt has said above...I believe your treatment below would probably not pass muster among those who would consider themselves to be "truly Reformed" or "conservative Reformed" or "Fundamentalist (in the early 20th century intellectual/academic sense of the word, i.e. not God-denying liberals). It probably would be embraced by the more mainstream Reformed who've adapted their views somewhat, often through a deeper study of the early Fathers and the realization of how diverse their thinking truly was. So I'll go point-by-point through what you've written below, hoping to provide a decent Orthodox take on things. As you've seen by now, there is no point-by-point Orthodox counter-position to Calvinism. It just isn't there. If any of my fellow Orthodox here (especially those with Reformed backgrounds) think I'm misrepresenting anything, then by all means, please slap me

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin) This sums up that no one can "choose" faith apart from God's grace. It appears we are all in agreement on this. Now, for me to make claims that man has no free will whatsoever and that men don't cooperate at all throughout the whole process wouldn't simply be correct. I would add, however, that the idea of "free will" is not a notion as important Biblical thinkers as it would be to the Church Fathers, many of whom had profound understandings of Greek philosophy. This is why for me, I have no issue with saying how the whole thing works is mysterious.

First, if you're equating this term with "Original Sin" then you are breaking new ground. I have never heard them equated before, although they're certainly related. The Eastern thought on Original Sin does differ pretty substantially from the Augustinian and later Western thought. A major difference is that in the East, the idea of an inherited guilt or legal condemnation never really took root. At least, not in the sense that it did in the West. The best way I can think of to view it, is that Adam fell into bondage to sin/death/devil through his sin. All his children--that'd be us--are not born guilty before God of his sin. We are, however, born into the consequences of it, which includes that bondage--it's covenental, like the OT, where the children born to the father who had been (a) conquered by the enemy or (b) couldn't pay is debt, were born in slavery to the one who'd conquered the father. Maybe it's "six of one, half dozen of the other" but the notion that an infant is born deserving of eternal hellfire, because Adam sinned, is not something I encounter in the Fathers, in scripture or in any representative reading of Orthodox doctrine. Still, during lent we pray the Penitential Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, which includes such words as: How shall I begin to mourn the deeds of my wretched life? What can I offer as first fruits of repentance? In Your compassion, O Christ, forgive my sins. Come, my wretched soul, and confess your sins in the flesh to the Creator of all. From this moment forsake your former foolishness and offer to God tears of repentance. My transgressions rival those of first created Adam, and because of my sins I find myself naked of God and of His everlasting kingdom. Alas, my wretched soul, why are you so like Eve? You see evil and are grievously wounded by it; you touch the tree and tasted heedlessly of its deceiving fruit. Instead of the person Eve, I have within my inward being an "Eve" of passionate thoughts which though seemingly sweet never lose their bitter taste. For failing to observe just one of Your commandments, O Savour, Adam was justly exiled from Eden. What then shall I suffer for continually ignoring Your words of life? I've heard some say they prefer the term "radical corruption" when describing the human condition after the fall. In the sense that our hearts are corrupt, and that there is no part of the human person that is untouched by sin, I believe we would agree. After all, as Jeremiah says, "The heart is deceitful above all, and desperately wicked." All parts of our person are polluted by sin, and in our wretched confusion, we mistake darkness for light. Like rats in a garbage heap, we hide from the light when it shines on us because it burns our eyes. But here's where I believe a difference lies. In our view, receiving the gospel is like having the light of day shine upon us after spending a lifetime in our dark, dank prison cell where our fear of death held us captive to Satan. But when the light comes, we see around us that the door of the cell has been broken off. We've been set free, because our captor has already been defeated! That's the Gospel message--the king has come and has won the victory, and is calling all his people back to himself. Now, with this new light, we can see the way out. But it goes further...with the message, and the light, comes God's own Spirit, working in and with our own spirit, to get up off the floor and cast of the chains, and follow the way out. In the Calvinist view, at least as presented popularly, it would be more like shining the light into the cell, onto our dead corpse that is rotting in the jail. God's spirit doesn't just work in and with ours...He can't, because we're stone cold dead. He has to resurrect our stinking cadaver, then cut out the dead heart from it, and install a new heart that loves God. Only then can his Spirit work together with ours to lead us out into the light. I do not believe this latter position to be biblical, or to be the teaching of the Fathers that I've read. We must be shown the light, we must be told that we've been set free, and we need God's Spirit to work within us to have the strength and desire to get up and leave behind our stinking prison cell. BUT, we still can choose to continue loving that cell, whether through selfishness, or through fear, or whatever. We believe that God will still allow us to choose to follow our own stubborn desires, even if those lead to destruction.

Unconditional Election Again, the notion that God predestines those whom He chooses gracious with no regard of their deserts is again very much in accord with tradition, not also to say the Bible as well. Now, this does not mean that every person God elects is an ex-con or a piece of societal refuse (i.e.thief on a cross) because God also elects people who were seeking Him, albeit indirectly because they did not know the Son (Lydia, Cornelius, etc.). The one thing all these people had in common is they are the people Paul talks about in Romans 3. Further, none would be "granted" belief (Phil 1:29) apart from God being at work. The point is God acts in the lives of certain people, whom He knew He would before the world was created. God directs the preachers and the hearing. As Prosper of Antiquaine said, "Whenever, then, the word of God enters into the ears of the body through the ministry of the preachers, the action of the divine power fuses with the sound of a human voice, and He who is the inspirer of the preacher's office is also the strength of the hearer's heart." (Call of the Nations, Chap 8)

Two statements are equally true: "All whom God elects, come to faith." And, "All who come to faith, are God's elect." I've said before that when we deal with ideas like "God chooses us before the foundation of the world," it really means nothing ultimately in our own experience, because the reality transcends our language and thought. Is there any "time" elapsed between "when" God chooses me, and "when" I choose God? The best sense I can make of this, is that Ggd's choice of me, and my choice of God, are in a sense the same event. That's synergy, and that's how God operates. Your quote from Prosper of Antiquaine is precisely what the Orthodox teach happens when the man in his prison cell hears God's call (to borrow from my analogy above). I certainly don't dispute it. Whether it accords with what most would call "Calvinism" I don't know. What I do know, is that this question of divine election, that has so captivated Calvinists and Arminians, no longer holds very much importance for me. I don't know how it works, and I don't care how it works. God's wisdom and judgments are too wonderful for me and I'm happy to let God be God.

Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement) This position is I believe the weakest, and the least consequential. Whether God atones for the sins of everyone or in some divine chalkboard in heaven erased only those of His elect, neither conclusion changes the fact that there are still both saved and unsaved in the end. Pertaining to the imputation of righteousness, I have come independently to the conclusion (and have been happy to find this is John Piper's position) that we are made righteous in Christ because believers are in union with Him. Again, I don't know all the technical details, but the Church is one flesh with Christ, then how is it not clothed entirely with His righteousness?

Here's a difference with Orthodoxy. Protestantism often seems to limit the understanding of atonement, to "erasing sins" or "wiping out debts." This is but one of many facets to the mystery of the atonement. If you've read St. Athanasius, you'll see that he includes all the aspects of atonement (defeat of Satan, forgiving of sins, dying in our place, raising us to glory) under the broad heading of "Why God became Man." Or, the Incarnation. Christ became incarnate as a man. More specifically, he became incarnate as Man. He did not assume "elect human nature" and unite only the elect to God. He assumed human nature, period, and united humanity to God. Thus, the atonement is between God and humanity. As you've well said, in the end, there are still those who are saved, and those who are not. But in a broad sense, even those who die in their sins, actually were saved. The enemy was overthrown, the walls of the prison camp were smashed down, and the doors on all the cells were torn off. Those who choose to reject that rescue, choose to remain in their cells and lock the doors from the inside. Others will wander around in the light for a while, then crawl back into the darkness. They will be there when the last bomb falls on the last day, and will stand self-condemned. But they can never say they weren't saved. Since Orthodoxy understands the entire faith in the light of the Incarnation (remember, all 7 Councils were about the Incarnation), words like "Limited Atonement" are virtually meaningless to us. Those who so fervently fight to defend this point of TULIP do so for the reasons you've identified. "If Christ spilled one drop of blood in vain, for someone who never comes to be saved, then that blood was wasted and FIE UPON THE OUTRAGE!!!" Yes, God's character is now impugned and God has become less than God. From our perspective, Christ spilled his blood to redeem humanity, human nature and he did exactly that. Human nature is united to God, all of creation will be renewed, Satan is overthrown and will be cast into the lake of fire, and God will reign supreme over the new heavens and new earth. And none of that depends on how many liberated prisoners choose to stay in their cells and remain loyal to their defeated tyrant. God accomplished exactly what he set out to accomplish, and not one iota of his blood or effort was spent in vain. So we would say that the great concern on the part of some Calvinists, to ensure that nobody thinks Christ's blood was shed in vain, stems from a fundamental misunderstanding in what atonement actually is, and why Christ actually shed his blood. Or at least, a fundamentally truncated understanding of what atonement entails.

Irresistible Grace This doctrine goes along with the first two. If no one can believe apart from God's grace and if God chooses people despite of their works or wisdom, it is both Biblical and logical that those who God chooses will have their faith perfected to the measure He intends to give them. ... Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved) I already covered this earlier in this thread. One, some people in tradition almost reject it outright, and the Scripture though it has promises of perseverance has practical warnings to live as if it weren't true.

I'll treat these last two points as a single concept with several facets. In light of what I've already said above, Orthodoxy simply holds that even those who have had their eyes enlightened, who've been shown the exit from their prison, and who've had the Spirit of God present to them in hearing the call of the Gospel, can choose to reject that grace. Grace does not cease to be grace because somebody flees from it. If you're concerned not to go beyond Scripture, and I'd agree that this is a good idea, then what we have in both instances are promises and assurances that (a) God always achieves what he sets out to achieve, and (b) that believers will not be torn away from the hand of their shepherd. Coupled with these, are dire warnings of what awaits those who fall away through their own sin and folly. I've read lengthy and pointless arguments about whether these warnings are given "only to the reprobate." Frankly that idea is too silly to warrant any discussion at all. The epistles that directly warn against falling away, like Peter, John and Hebrews among others, aren't written to "elect" and "reprobate" but rather are written to baptized Christians. You've said before that when it comes to assurance, it's entirely possible that any one of us could be self-deceived in our assurance, and thus we must hold our assurance in tension with what is a real possibility that we could yet fall away. Now, when someone falls away (if we allow that one could fall away after God has truly been involved in his life), how to explain the relationship between that person's desire to turn away, and God's desire to save him? Again we're well above our pay grade even discussing it, and we probably agree that there's little practical value to holding one position over another. Can we ever say that God doesn't get what he desires? On the one hand, God "declares the end from the beginning." On the other hand, Jesus weeps over the sons and daughters of Jerusalem, who have sealed their own destruction despite how often he desired to gather them together. Anyway, to summarize, I think you've cast "TULIP" in a way that is closer to what Orthodoxy might affirm, if enough qualifications are given, but on the whole it still doesn't align. Our categories are sufficiently different that there's really no parallel that can directly match TULIP.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Point taken. Maybe we need to get another Calvinist on this thread to verify or object to what I have written.

From my experience in three calvinist churches, what I would say here would be considered apologetics, and not outside the realm of thought. Because, what is essentially important is God's sovereignty in all things, which I view as stated here (as long as we are all in agreement) is upheld. If I am not "Calvinist" enough because I don't believe Limited Atonement is a terribly important doctrine, I ask by detractors to show me from Scripture where the idea carries such weight so that I am compelled to emphasize it.

well, it's not just that we'd need another Calvinist, we would need those from the past to see what has been consistent. if someone is just a part of some theological fad that comes and goes, one would wonder if they really have the Truth (not speaking about you, just saying in general).

 

[abacabb3]

I will echo what ArmyMatt has said above...I believe your treatment below would probably not pass muster among those who would consider themselves to be "truly Reformed" or "conservative Reformed" or "Fundamentalist (in the early 20th century intellectual/academic sense of the word, i.e. not God-denying liberals).

I posed the question to fellow calvinists, this is how they responded thus far: http://www.christianforums.com/t7806987/

In our view, receiving the gospel is like having the light of day shine upon us after spending a lifetime in our dark, dank prison cell where our fear of death held us captive to Satan. But when the light comes, we see around us that the door of the cell has been broken off....But it goes further...with the message, and the light, comes God's own Spirit, working in and with our own spirit, to get up off the floor and cast of the chains, and follow the way out.

In the Calvinist view, at least as presented popularly, it would be more like shining the light into the cell, onto our dead corpse that is rotting in the jail. God's spirit doesn't just work in and with ours...He can't, because we're stone cold dead. He has to resurrect our stinking cadaver, then cut out the dead heart from it, and install a new heart that loves God. Only then can his Spirit work together with ours to lead us out into the light.

I do not believe this latter position to be biblical, or to be the teaching of the Fathers that I've read.

First, neither caricature is from the Bible or tradition.

Second, what I seen between the two is a difference in emphasis, but not in truth. Because, if God does send the light so you can see you're stuck in a dark prison cell (Book VII Plato's Republic anyone?), aren't you still stuck in your cell? And, even if you see in you are in a cell and the door is opened, but God does not plant the seed of desire to leave the cell, aren't you still a prisoner apart from that grace?

Again, I am not interested in describing exactly how the process works. I cannot tell you every aspect of that. But, what I can tell you it is God who begins the work and God who completes the work, from the first step to the last. And, apart from that grace of God, we are dead in sin and have no hope.

So, you can contrive any sort of allegory you want, but the fact remains, apart from God's grace, we are doomed. We will never, ever choose God apart from God beginning a work in us. And I am aware, John of Cassian or Chrysostrom might have not liked how strongly I am putting it, but I am simply taking even what they made clear to it's logical conclusion: if God must begin the work and God sustains the work, then God is totally in control and man is as good as dead apart from God's grace. In fact, because the Bible says we were "Dead in our tresspasses," in a very real sense we were dead.

For what it is worth, while Plato uses the "cave allegory," which is what your prison example essentially borrows from, the Bible speaks more specifically of the "natural man" which cannot know things of the Spirit, and the "spiritual man" that can know Christ. Whatever example we use, it is important to note that their is a qualitative difference in the natures of the unsaved and saved man, one experiencing the grace of God and his spirit responds freely but in accord with the grace given to him and another freely left in his own devices that cannot make that first step toward the Light.

So, man is completely free, but God is in complete sovereign over man, and while man can respond to God, apart from God working in the process it goes nowhere.

This is why Calvinists understanding of the predestined elect has some importance. If we don't understand the centrality of God's choosing of a peculiar people of himself, the story of Scripture and reality itself is less intelligible. The Calvinist can say God elected a group of people, they happened to live in the west for most of history until now, and that God did this because this is what He wanted.

Now, someone who has a confused understanding of how God saves people might concede to Propser of Antiquaine's point, that God blesses both the preacher and the listener, but somehow God could not bless them enough so that outside a certain geographic range the preachers became ineffective and the listening became culturally irreconcilable with the message.

This begs the question, couldn't have God blessed the preachers with improved linguistics, preaching ability, transportation, or random circumstances where they would have been more successful. Could have God softened the hearts of the people east of India and Parthia, where essentially the spread of Christianity stopped in its tracks, with a more receptive demeanor? All of this seems certainly within the power of God which we all agreed to here.

So, here is our key theological difference. While the Calvinist would be inclined to see that God clearly passes over people and does not show grace, but rather leaves them to their own devices and they die in their own sin; those who misunderstand this view that all people are equally entitled to grace and a God that would pass over people when He has the power not to is unfair.

The latter mindset has several weaknesses. First, it makes grace not grace. God is compelled to forgive all equally, then that means all equally deserve forgiveness. The problem is, forgiveness is not deserved.

Second, it makes the understanding that God is the initiator and perfecter of faith unworkable, even though we all agree to this. Because if God, without violating free will, can so affect a heart so that it becomes new and inclined to freely choose God, it begs the questions why God does not do this for every single person on earth, or at least, why can't God do it faster than better? Surely, he could have prevented many a great missionary from succumbing to disease and blessed others with far greater wisdom, so that they would be more effective instruments of God.

Lastly, it begs the question why we flagrantly pray for God to keep us from temptation, but deliver us from evil. Or to incline our hearts towards Him. or to save our brother, mother, son, friend, or whatever. We know God can work these things, he has the power to make it work somehow. Look at your own signature: "Only pray that I may have power within and without, so that I may not only say it but also desire it; that I may not only be called a Christian, but also be found one." This speaks volumes of how God can incline our hearts. But why doesn't he always? Or why can't He do it better?

This is why the Calvinist view of election makes sense in both Scripture and reality. i don't think anything that I have written here violates free will, explicitly violates the Scripture or tradition. If you may, I'd be happy to get into more detail to start citing how it would be in accordance with all these things.

 

[Ignatius21]

I posed the question to fellow calvinists, this is how they responded thus far: http://www.christianforums.com/t7806987/

Not to be a downer, but I have little hope you'll get very far before your thread becomes another duplicate of every other thread on that forum. At least one person there has actually addressed your question, though, which is a good start And he identified the focal point as "total depravity" which is pretty accurate.

I have a couple comments. I don't know whether you'll find them satisfactory. Probably not. But we have reached a point at which I think that you, and we, are agreeing as far as we can semantically. At this point the root issue becomes philosophical, of the nature that you have to this point rejected as unnecessary mumbo jumbo. We've come full circle to the original blog post that you ignored for exactly those reasons. But these subtle differences you've stated no interest in, actually make a world of difference. And, without knowing it, I believe you are in fact strongly adhering to a particular view of God, though stating that you are just reading what's in the Bible.

Forgive me for bringing it up again. But the difference lies in the understanding of God's very existence as being either "absolutely simple," or not. Augustine affirmed. The East largely denied. Trent absolutely condemned the Eastern view as heresy. Calvinism is virtually indistinguishable from Rome on the point, having imbibed it completely, mostly (I'm told by those knowledgable about philosophy) from Aquinas. Let me show where it comes into play.

Second, what I seen between the two is a difference in emphasis, but not in truth. Because, if God does send the light so you can see you're stuck in a dark prison cell (Book VII Plato's Republic anyone?), aren't you still stuck in your cell? And, even if you see in you are in a cell and the door is opened, but God does not plant the seed of desire to leave the cell, aren't you still a prisoner apart from that grace?

...

For what it is worth, while Plato uses the "cave allegory," which is what your prison example essentially borrows from, the Bible speaks more specifically of the "natural man" which cannot know things of the Spirit, and the "spiritual man" that can know Christ. Whatever example we use, it is important to note that their is a qualitative difference in the natures of the unsaved and saved man, one experiencing the grace of God and his spirit responds freely but in accord with the grace given to him and another freely left in his own devices that cannot make that first step toward the Light.

At this point, we would ask the seemingly silly question, "Ah! But what is the light?" In my analogy of visible light, it's something created, radiating out from a source, caused by a source, but of a different kind than the source. Clearly in salvation nobody is talking about literal, physical light. But, In the Western view, the Augustinian view, the "light" or grace by which God illumines us, leads us, guides us and prompts us, is not actually God himself, but rather something created by God to have some effect on something outside of God. Not altogether different from physical light radiating out from the sun. For Augustine...and those who follow him...God's essence (what he is) is identical to God's energies (what he does). In this view, one cannot actually be illumined by the actual light of God, because that would mean that the finite man is participating in the infinite essence of God, and that's a big no-no for everyone's theology of God.

(I admit at this point to relying heavily upon many summaries of the thought of Augustine and his followers, not having read much of him directly. But what I have read, especially on the Trinity, certainly sounds like what's described by historians I'm reading).

For the East, for Chrysostom, for many others (at least according to historical theologians), ultimately crystalized in Photios, Palamas and others in the East--all Fathers who are mostly anathematized by Rome, prior to the Reformation--the light that illumines man, is God. God's energies are not identical with God's essence, they are distinct and many, yet they are truly divine, and not merely products of divinity created to have some effect. They are not conduits of God, but they are God himself. Man can actually, truly, mystically participate in God's own life by partaking of these energies, yet without partaking of his essence. This view does not suffer from the "no-no" described above. God remains supremely "other," supremely unknowable, and yet fully immanent and absolutely personal to us.

So what does this mean for the poor schlubs in the prison cell?

If he's Latin, it means that God creates a light that will illumine him and show him how to get out of the cave. Yet, for man to respond to that light, would mean that man would have to of his own initiative get up and follow, which he can't, because he's still "dead" in his sin. Thus God must also (next? together with?) create some effect in man's heart, enabling him, or "energizing" him to get up and follow the light. If God ever were to remove that created energy that is moving man along, the man would fall down flat again. So it's necessarily God who initiates, God who responds to himself, and God who completes his own work. Man "cooperates" but only in some subordinate way. Man's energy kind of runs alongside God's, but in no way touches it or interacts with it.

If the guy in the next cell over is Greek, the light that illumines him is actually a manifestation of God himself. That light has, in itself, the very presence of God that animates the heart of man. It is not one of many created things that God uses to accomplish his will, but rather it is really and truly the presence of God, that permeates and interpenetrates man. Man's energy co-operates with God's energy, not just moving alongside of it, going along for the ride, but actually participating and uniting with it. The two energies, divine and human, remain distinct, but yet are one. Hence, synergy in the truest sense of the word.

This ultimately is why the Orthodox will reject your assertion that Augustinian monergism is actually "real synergy." It isn't. It can't be. The philosophical basis precludes real participation in the energies of God, and therefore precludes synergy itself.

So, man is completely free, but God is in complete sovereign over man, and while man can respond to God, apart from God working in the process it goes nowhere.

And man is never apart from God. That's the thing. As a very common Orthodox prayer says, God is "everywhere present, filling all things." The energies of God are everywhere, all the time. They created all things and they sustain all things. Whether a particular man resonates with those energies, is irrelevant to the fact that those energies are nonetheless present. So yes, we all agree that man is dead apart from God. Man is without hope. Grace must be present. God's blessing of both the preacher and the hearer, really means that God himself is present in what is preached, and God himself is present in the hearing of what is preached.

This is why Calvinists understanding of the predestined elect has some importance. If we don't understand the centrality of God's choosing of a peculiar people of himself, the story of Scripture and reality itself is less intelligible. The Calvinist can say God elected a group of people, they happened to live in the west for most of history until now, and that God did this because this is what He wanted.

Now, someone who has a confused understanding of how God saves people might concede to Propser of Antiquaine's point, that God blesses both the preacher and the listener, but somehow God could not bless them enough so that outside a certain geographic range the preachers became ineffective and the listening became culturally irreconcilable with the message.

This begs the question, couldn't have God blessed the preachers with improved linguistics, preaching ability, transportation, or random circumstances where they would have been more successful. Could have God softened the hearts of the people east of India and Parthia, where essentially the spread of Christianity stopped in its tracks, with a more receptive demeanor? All of this seems certainly within the power of God which we all agreed to here.

We can speculate all we want. Neither of us can answer this question. Was it God's will that the people of one region not hear the gospel until 1000 years after those in some other region. Yes. And no. In different senses. All we can do is go with what is actually revealed to us, and that is the command to preach the gospel to all nations.

So, here is our key theological difference. While the Calvinist would be inclined to see that God clearly passes over people and does not show grace, but rather leaves them to their own devices and they die in their own sin; those who misunderstand this view that all people are equally entitled to grace and a God that would pass over people when He has the power not to is unfair.

The fact that you think you've identified our key theological difference, shows that you are presupposing the western view of the nature of God. What you've said only makes sense if God's grace is something created (or an abstract "unmerited favor" by which some created blessings come to some and not others).

The latter mindset has several weaknesses. First, it makes grace not grace. God is compelled to forgive all equally, then that means all equally deserve forgiveness. The problem is, forgiveness is not deserved.

The problem with the Western view of grace, is that it makes grace not God. Man can never fully experience or be united to God. Salvation is more than forgiveness. Salvation is union with God. Such union is only fully possible of God's energies and man's energies truly unite, touch, and inseparably mingle--yet without confusion.

Gosh...kinda sounds like the orthodox confession of the two natures of Christ, huh?

Lastly, it begs the question why we flagrantly pray for God to keep us from temptation, but deliver us from evil. Or to incline our hearts towards Him. or to save our brother, mother, son, friend, or whatever. We know God can work these things, he has the power to make it work somehow. Look at your own signature: "Only pray that I may have power within and without, so that I may not only say it but also desire it; that I may not only be called a Christian, but also be found one." This speaks volumes of how God can incline our hearts. But why doesn't he always? Or why can't He do it better?

I don't know why God does what he does, when he does, or doesn't. Nobody does. We can both affirm that God does all things according to his sovereign will and purpose. Yes, the Orthodox constantly pray that God incline our hearts toward him, that he increase our faith, that he lead us into loving him more. And God does so, not by creating some sort of effects in us from afar, but directly, by his own energies working in and through us, together with ours. At this point what I'm saying probably looks a lot like a big puff of incense. Which is a good thing, because God is known in stillness, silence and mystery.

This is why the Calvinist view of election makes sense in both Scripture and reality. i don't think anything that I have written here violates free will, explicitly violates the Scripture or tradition. If you may, I'd be happy to get into more detail to start citing how it would be in accordance with all these things.

None of what you've said thus far about Augustine or any other fathers, takes into consideration their essential understandings of God's own being. You seem to be assuming that Cassian, Chrysostom, and others were all on the same basic page, and just differed in details, or fell along different points in a spectrum.

I believe that absolute predestination, and monergism (with synergism being syn in name only) are necessary conclusions from the basic Western understanding of God's essence as absolute simplicity, and his energies as created projections of himself, rather than uncreated permeations of himself in and through his creation. If God's will is the same as his love, is the same as his justice, is the same as his anger, is the same as his creative power, is the same as his predestination--then for God to exist, is for God to predestine. Hence, I believe that all Western synergists--Protestant, in particular--seek to cling to synergy while failing to appropriate its actual basis. The resulting systems are therefore necessarily incoherent. On a Western view of God, Calvinism--or something very much like it, such as Thomastic Catholic thought--rules the day. It's self-consistent, and others are not. Congratulations, if you're Protestant, then Arminians really are the inconsistent ones.

Anyway, I'm sensing we've come as far as we can, and agreed as much as we can, before we have to step into this gulf in between that separates seemingly similar thoughts. Dismiss it if you will. But if you continue to read the Fathers without grasping what they actually thought about these particular issues, I really don't believe you'll ever fully appreciate how their minds were working.

 

[abacabb3]

I really want to give careful thought to a lot of this, but I have a bowl of chili to make before I go to work. I appreciate your comments and will address them. And again, if there are whole dimensions to the Christian faith I do not understand due to my own ignorance or intellectual inability, I apologize.

That being said, I do think we are cutting hairs though over the ideas of being spiritually dead (Calvinist viewpoint) and "blind" (your example.) Because again, both of us say the same thing: apart from God acting, nothing happens. And apart from God continuing to act, nothing happens. Please ponder this: Could God's role in salvation be any greater if the preceding is true?

If not, the difference is largely semantic and it is merely the pride or intellectual inability to understand the perspective of the other, that both of us cannot be in full agreement as to how God saves man and how reliant man is upon God.

Further, let me add in light of your comments, that if all things occur from God's direct participation and infusion in a man's Spirit, giving man a true Spirit to cooperate, of course that is Biblical and it is what I have been saying all long. God does not rip out hearts of stone, puts in hearts of flesh and winds us up again. We literally have His Holy Spirit. We are in union with God at all times when we are saved. This is why "real" synergism is also "real" monergism. God IS the process, we are nothing apart from God.

But I am going too far for myself, contemplating the mind of God. I have hit my own limitations. I pray for wisdom everyday that God will give me increasing understanding. We must be grateful for the measure of faith God gives each of us.

 

[Ignatius21]

I really want to give careful thought to a lot of this, but I have a bowl of chili to make before I go to work. I appreciate your comments and will address them. And again, if there are whole dimensions to the Christian faith I do not understand due to my own ignorance or intellectual inability, I apologize.

I believe there are whole dimensions to the Christian faith that we all fail to understand. The great luminaries of the faith, down through the ages, recognized their own inability to comprehend. And at the end of the day, they recognized that the simple man living in his simple home, denying himself for the sake of his family, and saying simple prayers to the God he served, can easily be holier than the scholar who wrote mountains of books. Thomas Aquinas is remembered to have had some sort of "mystical" experience of God toward the end of his life, causing him to put down his pen and declare all his life's work to be "straw."

Also, the business about essence and energy, and many other topics, aren't things any of us would ever encounter. I never saw it until I blundered upon Orthodoxy. And when I first heard and read it, I said "Oh COME ON, you've gotta be kidding me! You guys are just making this stuff up!" It's taken many years to begin to see that it really is something that was of great importance to the Fathers. It's part and parcel of how they came to understand the Trinity and Christology. What at first seemed to me a disconnect between the early fathers, and then the later ones who built upon them (like Athanasius, the Cappadocians, etc.) began to make more sense. I now see a real continuity between the thought of the later fathers and their predecessors, the later ones just rose to meet new challenges as the Church spread, new heresies arose and Christianity came to be established and had to look more inwardly at its own core doctrines and rituals. You still see some wall of separation there, where it seems as though the later Fathers (though still pretty early) somehow wandered away from Scripture and the teachings of the earlier Christians. That's still a disconnect between how you and I view the matter, although at one time I was very much in your shoes.

That being said, I do think we are cutting hairs though over the ideas of being spiritually dead (Calvinist viewpoint) and "blind" (your example.) Because again, both of us say the same thing: apart from God acting, nothing happens. And apart from God continuing to act, nothing happens. Please ponder this: Could God's role in salvation be any greater if the preceding is true?

If not, the difference is largely semantic and it is merely the pride or intellectual inability to understand the perspective of the other, that both of us cannot be in full agreement as to how God saves man and how reliant man is upon God.

Above the level of philosophical doctrines of how God is manifest to his creation, it seems we do agree at least in the principles that God is fully sovereign, and that man is fully reliant upon God.

As an aside, I do wonder what to make of the sometimes profound disagreements that arise in Christian history, where two sides have huge rifts over some issue, but ultimately that issue seems to make little difference to the overall faith. For instance, the division between Orthodox and "Oriental" centers largely on the specific wording that was accepted at Chalcedon. The Catholic-Orthodox accepted it, the Alexandrian/African/Oriental did not. They remain separated from us to this day. And yet, oddly, their doctrines of sin, salvation, and how God works in our lives seem to be virtually identical to what the Orthodox believe. In fact, the Coptic understanding of salvation is much closer to Orthodoxy (again, nearly identical) than is the Catholic understanding of salvation, despite the fact that both Orthodox and Catholics (and most Protestants) accept Chalcedon. To me, despite rejecting Chalcedon, the Coptic view of salvation seems more consistent with Chalcedon's Christology than that of the Catholics and Protestants who accept it!

If you go right around the traffic circle, and I go left, and we meet in the same place...was the argument even worth having? It does make me wonder.

Further, let me add in light of your comments, that if all things occur from God's direct participation and infusion in a man's Spirit, giving man a true Spirit to cooperate, of course that is Biblical and it is what I have been saying all long. God does not rip out hearts of stone, puts in hearts of flesh and winds us up again. We literally have His Holy Spirit. We are in union with God at all times when we are saved. This is why "real" synergism is also "real" monergism. God IS the process, we are nothing apart from God.

What you just said above, is about the most orthodox ("small-o" and "Big-O") thing you could say. No Eastern Orthodox Christian would disagree.

Now, I will leave it to your Calvinist commentators to determine whether your statement is aligned with their beliefs. Of course, then it becomes a game of "Will the real Calvinist please stand up?" since there are many camps within that label that all disagree. The PCUSA liberals say they are the real heirs of Calvin, and the staunch Westminster loyalists say they are the real heirs, and the "Federal Vision" people say no, they're really the real heirs, and on and on it goes.

I will say, though, that the verse from Jeremiah about "removing your heart of stone, and giving you a heart of flesh" is often presented by prominent Reformed teachers like Sproul and others, in a very literal sense, to say that God must monergistically replace your old heart (that hates God) with a new heart (that loves God). What you've said above, accords more with Orthodoxy (as I've experienced it) than with Calvinism (as I've experienced it).

But I am going too far for myself, contemplating the mind of God. I have hit my own limitations. I pray for wisdom everyday that God will give me increasing understanding. We must be grateful for the measure of faith God gives each of us.

Amen, my friend!

It was in realizing these limitations that I came to understand that I had to look at a bigger picture. As we've discussed before, I came to see that the same Fathers who I was scouring to examine their nuanced understandings of faith, works, sovereignty and free will, also shared a particular view of the Church and how Christians relate to God through it. I just don't think one can reject the necessity of apostolic succession and still claim to stand in the same line as any of the Fathers. I very much now believe that if apostolic succession failed, that if the visible church came off the rails, and we're left holding Bibles trying to piece it back together, then God's promise to his Bride has failed. Each of us becomes a little church, building up his or her own particular doctrine of this or that, and then voluntarily assembling with like-minded people for so long as they continue to agree with us...or until we have some epiphany and realize that we were wrong all along. Either way, the church becomes something that men build up, rather than a reality that is give to us, and guarded by God.

And if you don't mind me asking...but it's been on my mind for a while...

You've said repeatedly that you accept the real presence of Christ's body and blood in communion. You don't care to explain how it's present, it just is present. And here, you'll get no arguments from the Orthodox. But how many Protestants, how many Reformed, how many Baptists, have written tomes to explain precisely why the Eucharist is NOT the real body and blood? The relevant chapters of both the Westminster and London Baptist confessions explicitly reject the notion that the bread and wine are anything more than symbols (and of course are also myopically focused on rejecting the "Popish Mass" as synonymous with real presence). I will just go crazy and wager that most people in your current church, elders and pastors included, do not accept a real presence. In fact, may well consider it blasphemous.

You know that each time you receive communion, you do so holding to a different belief (and even contrary belief) than those who are serving it to you, and those who are partaking around you. Is this really "one body?" Is this really "one cup?" Are you actually communing with them? Does this not bother your conscience?

Forgive me for asking, but I just can't help but winder...wonder.

 

[abacabb3]

Again, so much to respond to, but I can respond quickly to the Lord's Supper. I'm actually allergic to wheat, so out of necessity I do not partake very often.

To be honest, I would simply view them as dead wrong on the issue, same as head coverings. It is a clear ordinance of the church and the real presence is both the simplest Scriptural understanding and is explained in detail by even the earliest church fathers. Same for head coverings for that matter. However, I see a proper understanding of both not worth fighting about, just as the EO understanding of salvation as outlined here, despite its differences, is fine with me. The main things that scares me about RCC and EO is the Mary stuff, which I just don't see in Scripture and early tradition. Icons themselves don't bother me. It is how and why they are venerated.

 

[Ignatius21]

Again, so much to respond to, but I can respond quickly to the Lord's Supper. I'm actually allergic to wheat, so out of necessity I do not partake very often.

To be honest, I would simply view them as dead wrong on the issue, same as head coverings. It is a clear ordinance of the church and the real presence is both the simplest Scriptural understanding and is explained in detail by even the earliest church fathers. Same for head coverings for that matter. However, I see a proper understanding of both not worth fighting about, just as the EO understanding of salvation as outlined here, despite its differences, is fine with me. The main things that scares me about RCC and EO is the Mary stuff, which I just don't see in Scripture and early tradition. Icons themselves don't bother me. It is how and why they are venerated.

A couple of quick points...from the gut, as it were, and hopefully without derailing this thread.

1. I agree with you that they are dead wrong on the issue. And for that matter, I'm also coming to understand head coverings as perhaps not as "socially relative" as I've always tended to view it. Head coverings have always been a part of Orthodox worship, though they are largely falling out of use in the more "modern" American parishes, including mine. I don't see it as a church-rending issue, but I'm beginning to think that head coverings are actually God's will for worship in the church. After all, Paul tied it to creation itself, not to what's in vogue around us.

2. The "Mary stuff" does take some getting used to, I will not disagree. I find the Orthodox views more consistent and less rigid than the Catholic, and the "ex cathedra" dogmas about immaculate conception and assumption are not part of Orthodoxy (on the former, it doesn't even make sense because we don't have the same view of Original Sin, and on the latter, it's Orthodox dogma that Mary did actually die bodily). I cannot explain how the marian doctrines and practices and veneration came to have such a supremely high place in Orthodoxy. It's absolutely true that these practices developed over time, and have tended to fluctuate, and to vary from place to place and from time to time. I've reached a level of comfort with it, and it's one place where I have had to voluntarily submit my own reason to the larger mind of the Church through the ages. I still cannot say that Mary plays an especially large role for my own particular spirituality, but that varies among all people.

3. Icons...definitely worth another thread of their own

4. Let me see if I understand where you stand on the Lord's Supper. I think I see your thought process as roughly this: (a) the real bodily presence is the Scriptural, historical, traditional and obvious correct understanding; (b) the Baptists, including your fellow congregants and ministers, are "dead wrong" on the issue, (c) it isn't worth fighting over; therefore (d) you continue to partake of the Supper together with them (wheat allergy not withstanding). Still, have you clarified this with your elders? Have you informed them that you believe in the real presence, think they're dead wrong on the issue, but also think it's not worth fighting over, therefore you think it's OK for you to receive the Supper from their hands, while inwardly completely disagreeing with them about its nature and purpose? Let me propose a hypothetical case: you have this talk with them, they tell you that YOU are wrong, refer you to 99.999999999999999999999% of all Reformed writing on the topic, and then say that you should stop receiving the sacrament until you have corrected your misunderstanding. This now presents you with a dilemma. On the one hand, you wish to submit to godly authority in the Church...scripture and the Fathers are crystal clear on this. On the other hand, you believe sincerely that the Supper is the literal flesh and blood of our Lord...scripture and the Fathers are crystal clear on this also. Now what?

 

[abacabb3]

I've reached a level of comfort with it, and it's one place where I have had to voluntarily submit my own reason to the larger mind of the Church through the ages.

You see, this is my approach to the Scriptures in a sense. Head coverings don't make sense to me, and at first glance neither did monogamous homosexuality as a "sin," but these and other issues laid out in Scripture I just accept and lean not on my own understanding.

Now, I am going to try to more formally laid out my thoughts on the subject, but I have major issues with the idea that the Church as a united institution still exists. But, I can be delusional and missing the fact that both Scripture and tradition reflect the obvious preference of keeping the church catholic.

Let me see if I understand where you stand on the Lord's Supper...

You do.

Still, have you clarified this with your elders?

Good question. My wife and I were interviewed and they wanted more to know if we believed in basic tenets of Reformed Theology and if we agreed on baptist teachings on baptism (my wife was a member of a Presbyterian Church of America congregation, and to be honest, sometimes I think her heart stays there.) Further, they wanted to know if we would subject ourselves to church discipline.

We were supposed to become members of the church when we were out of the country, but never did due to that trip and another reason which if you were really curious about we can private message or something, but it is marital in nature.

The pastor knows I disagree about head coverings, but out of respect I don't push the issue. Knowing I would be picking a fight, I haven't got into the Real Presence after a sermon or anything, but in a more casual setting (during an event or something) I have no problem bringing it up. I just never thought to do it.

Let me propose a hypothetical case: you have this talk with them, they tell you that YOU are wrong, refer you to 99.999999999999999999999% of all Reformed writing on the topic, and then say that you should stop receiving the sacrament until you have corrected your misunderstanding. This now presents you with a dilemma. On the one hand, you wish to submit to godly authority in the Church...scripture and the Fathers are crystal clear on this. On the other hand, you believe sincerely that the Supper is the literal flesh and blood of our Lord...scripture and the Fathers are crystal clear on this also. Now what?

Well, I could not recant what I know to be true and unless convinced by Scripture I would not. If it came to a head like that, I would let the church decide whether my opinion would be worth denying membership/kicking my wife and me out over. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it!

 

[abacabb3]

But the difference lies in the understanding of God's very existence as being either "absolutely simple," or not. Augustine affirmed. The East largely denied. Trent absolutely condemned the Eastern view as heresy. Calvinism is virtually indistinguishable from Rome on the point, having imbibed it completely, mostly (I'm told by those knowledgable about philosophy) from Aquinas.

Again, I plead ignorance. However, I would say, if we can place geographical constraints over the spread of idea, how do we know the east is right and the west is wrong when both make claim to apostolic succession? Aren’t we ultimately affirming the superiority of one geographic subgroups ideas over another, based upon their merits?

the light that illumines man, is God. God's energies are not identical with God's essence, they are distinct and many, yet they are truly divine, and not merely products of divinity created to have some effect. They are not conduits of God, but they are God himself.

I cannot confirm or deny that “the West” rejects this, but it is correct, as believers know God in Christ by the Holy Spirit. Christ is the Light of the world. So, we know God by our union in Him, which He is the initiator and perfecter of.

So it's necessarily God who initiates, God who responds to himself, and God who completes his own work. Man "cooperates" but only in some subordinate way…That light has, in itself, the very presence of God that animates the heart of man. It is not one of many created things that God uses to accomplish his will, but rather it is really and truly the presence of God, that permeates and interpenetrates man. Man's energy co-operates with God's energy, not just moving alongside of it, going along for the ride, but actually participating and uniting with it.

To be honest, I really don’t see the difference between these two positions. It is semantic and philosophical, but if the Church didn’t divide over it for over 1,000 years, the differences cannot be so crucial.

So yes, we all agree that man is dead apart from God. Man is without hope. Grace must be present. God's blessing of both the preacher and the hearer, really means that God himself is present in what is preached, and God himself is present in the hearing of what is preached.

Amen.

The problem with the Western view of grace, is that it makes grace not God. Man can never fully experience or be united to God.

Again, I don’t think this would be mine or John Piper’s position, though in your view we might be missing certain philosophical aspects. But, I don’t view these as critical to the faith.

You still see some wall of separation there, where it seems as though the later Fathers (though still pretty early) somehow wandered away from Scripture and the teachings of the earlier Christians.

Well, it is the East’s contention that the West did this, and the West’s contention that the opposite is true. So, if that presumption is not faulty, why is mine?

 

[Ignatius21]

You see, this is my approach to the Scriptures in a sense. Head coverings don't make sense to me, and at first glance neither did monogamous homosexuality as a "sin," but these and other issues laid out in Scripture I just accept and lean not on my own understanding.

Now, I am going to try to more formally laid out my thoughts on the subject, but I have major issues with the idea that the Church as a united institution still exists. But, I can be delusional and missing the fact that both Scripture and tradition reflect the obvious preference of keeping the church catholic.

I respect your desire to submit to God. At some level we all must compare what we hear, with what we believe to be true, and determine whether someone is in accord with what we consider to be an authority. Certainly there's ambiguity in Orthodox Church teaching in certain areas, disagreement and the like. Some of the greatest heresies have come through bishops. Still, if Scripture teaches that we are to submit to the teaching and discipline of those ordained to such a function, there must be some way by which we can know to whom we should actually submit, besides simply whether a given elder agrees with what we think the Bible teaches. Or else, however much we may say we submit to this or that church, what we really submit to is our own understanding of the Bible, which means that ultimately we submit to ourselves. I can't get around this conclusion.

And after several weeks of intensive discussion, I also have to conclude that the reason you have "major issues with the idea that hte Church as a united institution still exists," is that no such institution going back to about the 3rd century matches your reading of Scripture or the Church fathers. I again humbly sumbit to you that, however noble and pious your intentions, what you are really doing is seeking to submit the Church to yourself, rather than vice versa.

Good question. My wife and I were interviewed and they wanted more to know if we believed in basic tenets of Reformed Theology and if we agreed on baptist teachings on baptism (my wife was a member of a Presbyterian Church of America congregation, and to be honest, sometimes I think her heart stays there.) Further, they wanted to know if we would subject ourselves to church discipline.

We were supposed to become members of the church when we were out of the country, but never did due to that trip and another reason which if you were really curious about we can private message or something, but it is marital in nature.

The pastor knows I disagree about head coverings, but out of respect I don't push the issue. Knowing I would be picking a fight, I haven't got into the Real Presence after a sermon or anything, but in a more casual setting (during an event or something) I have no problem bringing it up. I just never thought to do it.

...

Well, I could not recant what I know to be true and unless convinced by Scripture I would not. If it came to a head like that, I would let the church decide whether my opinion would be worth denying membership/kicking my wife and me out over. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it!

I will PM or email you because I am curious about what led to your decision not to become members of your current congregation. My wife and I took a very long road to finally reaching a place (Orthodoxy) where we both feel like we've arrived together.

This does, however, raise other practical questions. Like, if you aren't formally members of your church, how can you possibly submit to their authority if you aren't under it? Aren't you presently living outside the "visible church" by anybody's definition? Aren't you receiving communion from a body that you aren't actually in formal communion with? Does it not gnaw at your conscience to know that you are (1) receiving communion without being in communion, (2) in a sense receiving the benefits of church membership (i.e. the Lord's Supper) without the "investment" (i.e. membership and submitting to their leadership, "as to the Lord")?, and (3) receiving the elements that they openly tell you are NOT NOT NOT the Body and Blood of Christ, while believing them to be wrong on the matter, but still receiving anyway? This strikes me almost like saying the Pledge of Allegiance with my fingers crossed behind my back. Receiving communion from ordained ministers, is a statement that "I am of one accord with this body and its teachings."

One thing you must surely know from your readings of the Fathers, is how important and utterly central to them was the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Thus to decide "Well, it's not really important enough to get into a fight over" seems to run counter to the essence of the very fathers whose views you believe you uphold. I would venture to guess that if you did finally bring this up, formally, it would not be long before you were in a standoff with your own elders over whose interpretation of Scripture is correct, and at some point it will come down to "Will you accept and submit to our authority, or won't you? And if you won't, you must refrain from taking communion in our church." Which means you'll have to leave, and go...where? To the Lutherans? They're actually not far from the views of salvation we've already been discussing...closer, I believe, to the Fathers than are the Calvinists generally, and they sure as heck uphold the real presence. But...they formally baptize infants and teach baptismal regeneration...is that worth fighting over? You can find some Anglicans who hold to real presence, or at least leave it so vague that you can believe anything you like, but there's that whole infant baptism thing there, too...and for goodness' sake, some Anglicans even give those little suckers communion (which may or may not be the Body and Blood of Christ!).

How long until you really are, formally, a one-man church?

I'm not trying to beat you up on this point. I'm just really baffled about how you reconcile all this.

Again, I plead ignorance. However, I would say, if we can place geographical constraints over the spread of idea, how do we know the east is right and the west is wrong when both make claim to apostolic succession? Aren't we ultimately affirming the superiority of one geographic subgroups ideas over another, based upon their merits?

Yes, you do have an excellent point. It isn't just about geography, of course, but yes those who have become Orthodox have come to a conclusion after a very lengthy process, that the Orthodox are in accord with the Fathers and the Councils, and the Catholics are not. Like I said above, each of us on some level does have to use reason and thought (and much, much prayer!) to do our best to discern who is right, and who isn't. None of us is immune to this.

To be honest, I really don't see the difference between these two positions. It is semantic and philosophical, but if the Church didn't divide over it for over 1,000 years, the differences cannot be so crucial.

It took 1500 years for the Reformers to split over justification, purgatory and the primacy of the Pope. Is that, therefore, even less crucial?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Again, I plead ignorance. However, I would say, if we can place geographical constraints over the spread of idea, how do we know the east is right and the west is wrong when both make claim to apostolic succession? Aren’t we ultimately affirming the superiority of one geographic subgroups ideas over another, based upon their merits?

I would say that it is about maintaining the faith and not altering it. even when I was trying to disprove Orthodoxy before I started converting it became clear who changed. even modern Catholics to include the current Pope have said that the Orthodox have maintained the ancient teachings and worship.

 

[Ignatius21]

I would say that it is about maintaining the faith and not altering it. even when I was trying to disprove Orthodoxy before I started converting it became clear who changed. even modern Catholics to include the current Pope have said that the Orthodox have maintained the ancient teachings and worship.

Here is where I could play a sort of devil's advocate (which probably has a different meaning on a Christian discussion board ) and ask something like this:

What's the difference, in principle, between the process by which you determined that Eastern Orthodoxy has maintained the faith, and the process by which abacabb3 has determined that nobody has? Presumably you looked at Scripture, the early Fathers, the later Fathers, the Councils, and modern manifestations of various churches, and you drew a line that went from the Apostles, through the early fathers, through the later fathers, down through the councils and toward the East. He's drawn a line that went from the Apostles, through some of the early Fathers, through a wee little bit of Augustine, and then goes POOF! and kind of disappears.

You see continuity, he does not. Where is the difference, in your opinion?

 

[abacabb3]

At some level we all must compare what we hear, with what we believe to be true, and determine whether someone is in accord with what we consider to be an authority. Certainly there's ambiguity in Orthodox Church teaching in certain areas, disagreement and the like...Or else, however much we may say we submit to this or that church, what we really submit to is our own understanding of the Bible, which means that ultimately we submit to ourselves.

So, you have a very valid concern in your search for certainty: you take as a matter of faith that Christianity is true. I get that. You also take very seriously an implicit assumption in Scripture, and an explicit assumption in tradition, that the Church institutionally will always be there to be guardian of the authentic Christian faith.

So, the question becomes which church is the "authentic" one. Most of them can be thrown out apart from the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics (there are historic Indian and nestorian churches I believe, but let's put that aside).

Now you need to use your discernment to find which one of these is actually the authentic one, because they all claim to be. You throw out the Oriental Orthodox for bad Christology and you throw out the RCC for bad ecclesiology, and you settle with the EO.

Now, we have a few assumptions here. If you throw out the RCC for bad ecclesiology, what if they had the better soteriology? Or what if your view of CHristology was wrong, and the Ancient Orthodox had it all right all along?

What if they all had it wrong at several junctures? Then, if we "overlook" these, which one do we settle on as the "authentic" one, because even the early church was authentic and had problems at the same time.

This seems to me to be the problem of purposely avoiding being a church of one--we may be looking in vain for the correct institution to pay obeisance to. Further, we end up being a church of one anyway by going through the process, because instead of searching high and far for authentic Christianity, we search high and far for the authentic church.


At some point, you have to be like St. Athanasius and know that "even though the 'Church' is saying this, they're wrong!"

Personally, I'd like to see us return to a catholic apostolic church, and there can be baptists, and there can be presbyterians, and there can be orthodox, and we're all Christians. However, the institutional schisms appear too far gone now, so we'll just all have to settle for the invisible church.


I'll reply to the rest, but I am coming on an end of a lunch break!

 

[ArmyMatt]

What's the difference, in principle, between the process by which you determined that Eastern Orthodoxy has maintained the faith, and the process by which abacabb3 has determined that nobody has?

if no one has Jesus Christ is a liar, because He promised the gates of hades would not prevail over His Church, He promised the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into ALL truth. even if that were true, where is the work of the head of the Church and the Spirit? seems a pretty weak God that cannot keep His own body together.

He's drawn a line that went from the Apostles, through some of the early Fathers, through a wee little bit of Augustine, and then goes POOF! and kind of disappears.

in part see the answer above but I think I would also say that if I am coming to a break at basically one early Father, whose writings are different from others, I would look at those others and NOT just Augustine.

but I think it comes down to how one can believe in a God that can keep Israel together for all those centuries, pours out the Spirit on all flesh at Pentecost, and then somehow loses the ability to keep His flock together.