Ignatius21
Can somebody please pass the incense?
Sigh. The point I was making is that the EO have no basis for telling someone that they are interpreting scripture wrongly. If it doesn't match EO's traditions, it must be wrong.
Sigh, back at ya
I think you're still missing the point I keep hammering, which is that you likewise have no other basis for challenging someone's interpretation of Scripture except to compare it (a) to your own, or (b) to that of some group's larger tradition that you accept as more right than someone else's. You interpret a set of books (canon = tradition) according to a set of hermeneutical principles (tradition), in the mold of "sola scriptura" (tradition), seeking a literal exegesis but generally ruling out allegorical or spiritual exegesis (tradition). Occasionally you will guide yourself by some larger tradition of the ancient church, such as an Augustinian view of humanity and sin, because your tradition also determines how much tradition you use to interpret your tradition's canon.
That is why I challenged him to show me how (and I was just using regeneration as an example) regeneration could be translated as being anything other than monergistic, per the statements Christ made in John 3.
You're beginning with some presupposition of what "regeneration" even means. So as long as this example has been put forward, we can do some exegesis. If we take "regeneration" and "rebirth" to be synonymous...which they roughly are, although "recreation" may be a better fit...we have NT statements about this new birth/creation.
Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, You[d] must be born again. 8 The wind[e] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3)
So this new birth is a spiritual birth, without which one cannot see or enter the kingdom of heaven. The early church's interpretation, as Knee-V pointed out, was that "born of water and the Spirit" was a reference to baptism. It's in ancient hymns and baptismal rites, many of which are still used in Eastern churches (and others) to this very day. I believe it's preferable to stick with their understanding and practice, which indeed predates the final form of the NT canon, to what can only be called a novel view of the 16th century that divorced baptism (a "sign") from some spiritual "reality" that it "signifies."
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self[a] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Why are we dead to sin and alive to Christ? Because we died with Christ. How did we die with Christ? In baptism. I don't see how it could be much clearer, and this understanding of Romans 6 squares with the ancient church's view of things too. We are dead to sin, and now walking in newness of life, because we died with Christ in baptism. But literal water baptism is not the only way to share in death to this world. Christ referred to his own crucifixion and death as his "baptism" and told his disciples they, too, would share in it.
38 Jesus said to them, You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized? 39 And they said to him, We are able. And Jesus said to them, The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared. (Mark 10)
This is why, in my response in the "Salvation in EO" thread I referred to the significance of martyrdom for the early Church. Christ referred to his own passion and death as his baptism. He promised his disciples they would share in it. Thus the early church followed his teaching, seeing that martyrs often died as martyrs even before receiving water baptism, yet they still died with Christ, and therefore would be raised again with him. There really is one "baptism" which is death with Christ...with two ways in which one can participate. Both are really and truly death with Christ, and union with him in newness of life (regeneration!), which is also called "putting on Christ" as in Galatians:
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Gal 3)
As many as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. Notice this is inseparably related to justification by faith in this very text. Thus the ancient church likewise referred to baptism as "justification" at times, and saw it as our entry into the covenant of promise as given to Abraham (and there was the link with circumcision):
8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. (Col. 2)
Again, we were buried with him in baptism, and then made alive (you who were dead in trespasses and uncircumcision, i.e. you gentiles...note the almost exact parallel to Ephesians 2's passage about our being dead in trespasses and sin, saved by faith as the gift of God and not of ourselves...therefore note well the inseparability of "saved by faith" and baptism, and also that "dead in sin" is referring not to spiritual total depravity but to an exclusion from the Old Covenant, as shown in Col. 2's reference to "dead...in uncircumcision of your flesh...").
Having been baptized...we are regenerated...
4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3)
"Washing of regeneration" matches word-for-word the ancient phrasing about baptism. There is no disagreement that this is how the text was understood prior to the Reformation. Note again the juxtaposition of baptism, renewal (rebirth) in the Holy Spirit, and justification by grace. All facets of the same gem, so to speak. As again here:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6)
You were washed...as in Titus, regenerated, i.e. baptized, which is here equated to both justification and sanctification...that is, set right with God and set apart for God. Both justification and sanctification, in the mind of the early church, had both "already" and "not yet" aspects, and frequently were used almost interchangeably to represent either aspects of salvation, or the whole of salvation.
So in the thinking of Paul, baptism is: death with Christ, union with Christ, the start of a reborn/recreated/regenerated life in Christ, justification, sanctification, death to the law, freedom from sin, and resurrection unto life. Not to mention a true circumcision and true ingrafting into the true people of God.
So is it "monergistic?" In a sense, maybe yes. Peter says God has "caused us to be born again to a living hope." Paul says our salvation is of faith, and this faith is the gift of God. And yet, at least for the earliest church, all this was linked to baptism at a time when almost all Christians were adult converts who heard the gospel and chose to be baptized. This, for me, is the mystery. Regeneration is all the work of God, and all the work of man, because it is all of Christ who is both God and man.
In other words, when we ask how and why it's wrong, you never actually try to provide an exegetical argument or response (even if that response is driven by your EO tradition, that's fine! as long as you at least attempt a response).
Just did. And yes, I fully admit that my guiding principles are that those closest to the Apostles in time and culture have a more reliable understanding of those who came later, and their authority to interpret Scripture came not only through education (in some cases, many were not well educated) but from their close union with Christ, their holiness, and their martyrdom whether in life or in death. Any interpretation of Scripture that conflicts with the theology of the ecumenical councils will necessarily lead to errant Christology.
But as it stands, no scriptural arguments are made. Our assertions are simply dismissed as "it does not match the EO tradition, therefore it is wrong". You say "you're interpreting it according to western thought (whatever that means??) and "according to reformed tradition" (ok fair enough, but the words on the Bible's pages have to mean something! so what in fact, do they mean?!)
It should be clear by now that our approach to exegesis is not the same as yours. The words on the Bible's pages were written by men who were in the church, were written to others who were in the church, were preserved by the church, transmitted and taught by the church, canonized by the church and lived out within the church.
So far, it is extremely difficult to talk doctrine and scripture with an EO person. It seems like the mindset is that nobody can really know, absolutely, what a passage of the Bible is talking about. If it doesn't match the EO, it's wrong. If it matches the reformed tradition, it's wrong.
Yeah, I had a heck of a time getting past that when I first looked into EO. Turns out they're all about doctrine and scripture, once you're able to accept that your familiar categories are not theirs, and in fact are fairly recent historical developments. I fully believe and will always believe that a majority of Reformed categories are simply a rejection of Rome. And remain so.
In other words, apparently, to be EO you have to somehow adopt this entire new mindset and worldview. And then and only then can you properly understand scripture, theology, salvation, etc.
Same is true in reverse. In order to be Protestant, you ahve to adopt that mindset and worldview also. The difference is, for you and me, we were raised in that mindset, it was the air we breathed. A really jaw-dropping experience for me, was trying to explain Protestantism to some lifelong Orthodox who'd grown up in Romania. Much like you feel talking to me right now, they also felt from the other direction.
Right now, I'm so confused.
I'll mail you some incense. It actually helps...
Upvote
0