theosis and deification

[FireDragon76]

This is correct to me from an LCMS and Confessional point of view.

I'll be honest, I no longer understand what FireDragon is arguing. This is very much a Lutheran teaching. If we sin or reject Christ, that is equivalent to denying him.

God doesn't reject us for every sin we do. Luther makes that clear when writing to Melanchthon with his infamous "Let your sins be strong".

Some Orthodox, I fear, would have us be scrupulous to a fault, and I think that is the purpose of the Lutheran teaching, to have confidence in God's grace. Saying Peter was a sinner is true, but it is not God's final word for him. It's not like he was in a state of grace one moment and then not in the next, as pastor Jordan Cooper would point out, justification does not work that way. Peter grieved because he had denied Christ, he didn't brush it aside as one devoid of a living faith would. The spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak. Satan had sifted him, but Jesus has prayed that his faith would be strong, and what God speaks is never in vain.

Some Orthodox have a real problem with our monergism, and that cannot be swept aside. they also have a problem with the simul in simul iustus et peccator. That Christ saves sinnners. Some have a Catholic polemic of infused righteousness as being what is fundamental to theology, that imputation is but a "legal fiction" without meaning.

A good artistic work that deals with this theme would be Shusaku Endo's novel Silence. It's pure Theology of the Cross. That even our denial of Christ is not God's final word for us. That Christ came into the world, scandalously, to be trampled on by sinners.

 

[~Anastasia~]

God doesn't reject us for every sin we do. Luther makes that clear when writing to Melanchthon with his infamous "Let your sins be strong".

Some Orthodox, I fear, would have us be scrupulous to a fault, and I think that is the purpose of the Lutheran teaching, to have confidence in God's grace. Saying Peter was a sinner is true, but it is not God's final word for him. It's not like he was in a state of grace one moment and then not in the next, as pastor Jordan Cooper would point out, justification does not work that way. Peter grieved because he had denied Christ, he didn't brush it aside as one devoid of a living faith would. The spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak. Satan had sifted him, but Jesus has prayed that his faith would be strong, and what God speaks is never in vain.

Some Orthodox have a real problem with our monergism, and that cannot be swept aside. they also have a problem with the simul in simul iustus et peccator. That Christ saves sinnners. Some have a Catholic polemic of infused righteousness as being what is fundamental to theology, that imputation is but a "legal fiction" without meaning.

A good artistic work that deals with this theme would be Shusaku Endo's novel Silence. It's pure Theology of the Cross. That even our denial of Christ is not God's final word for us. That Christ came into the world, scandalously, to be trampled on by sinners.

As I understand monergism - that man has no part whatever to play in the process of salvation - no I can't understand that. It makes us puppets of a sort - whoever is saved or not has nothing to do with themselves, except they don't initially reject God's grace?

But maybe there's SOMEthing of a common ground. We would say we cooperate with the grace of God. It's still God who does all that is necessary. But our cooperation necessarily entails at least an effort to turn from sin. Yet in the end, we still depend on God's mercy. I think it is unlikely that most of us will ever even know every sin we commit, much less manage to overcome them all. But I think it is important that we try, at least as part of our natural response to God as ones who are being saved.

 

[FireDragon76]

As I understand monergism - that man has no part whatever to play in the process of salvation - no I can't understand that. It makes us puppets of a sort - whoever is saved or not has nothing to do with themselves, except they don't initially reject God's grace?

Lutheran monergism is sacramental. It's God's work done through human hands. It's not a philosophical statement about human free will as in Orthodoxy or some Calvinist circles.

Luther was pretty clear in his commentary on Genesis that he rejected interpretations of predestination that implied we were merely puppets in the hands of an impersonal fate.

Monergism attacks at the heart of pride. If all I come to God with are my sins, that I'm not adding in a bit of my good will or anything like that, then I have nothing to be proud of, because I am only an unprofitable servant. That's why so many people scoff at Dr. Luther's teachings, because deep down we want something to add to the finished work of Christ, so then we can be our own Savior in some way.

I think it is unlikely that most of us will ever even know every sin we commit, much less manage to overcome them all. But I think it is important that we try, at least as part of our natural response to God as ones who are being saved.

When I was in the Orthodox Church as a catechumen, I saw practically every single sin I did or thought and it filled me with despair at times, especially as I had no assurance of my salvation or the salvation of anybody else I cared about. And the existential fear, even terror, that grips you when you see God's holiness. Despair can be a serious threat spiritually, and holiness can be a huge burden psychically. That is what Lutheran theology is really aimed at, somebody who is struggling with spiritual burdens. But it isn't merely about that, and it has the tools to speak to other spiritual problems as well.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'll be honest, I no longer understand what FireDragon is arguing. This is very much a Lutheran teaching. If we sin or reject Christ, that is equivalent to denying him.

Yeah. I agree with your assessment. I think the key here (and this is where I think that a lot of this is based on linguistic difference and semantics) is what you said: "after the Resurrection he was restored by Christ". Lutherans would point to this and say, "yes, exactly! Christ restored him, but it is not the case that he restored himself"

yes, but I think the point here is that while Christ restored him, it was because he sincerely repented and wanted to be restored, and Christ knew this from before the creation of the world.

 

[FireDragon76]

yes, but I think the point here is that while Christ restored him, it was because he sincerely repented and wanted to be restored, and Christ knew this from before the creation of the world.

That's framing it as being about Peter's obedience rather than God's power to save. You've just turned a Gospel story into pure Law.

 

[ArmyMatt]

God doesn't reject us for every sin we do. Luther makes that clear when writing to Melanchthon with his infamous "Let your sins be strong".

Some Orthodox, I fear, would have us be scrupulous to a fault, and I think that is the purpose of the Lutheran teaching, to have confidence in God's grace. Saying Peter was a sinner is true, but it is not God's final word for him. It's not like he was in a state of grace one moment and then not in the next, as pastor Jordan Cooper would point out, justification does not work that way. Peter grieved because he had denied Christ, he didn't brush it aside as one devoid of a living faith would. The spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak. Satan had sifted him, but Jesus has prayed that his faith would be strong, and what God speaks is never in vain.

Some Orthodox have a real problem with our monergism, and that cannot be swept aside. they also have a problem with the simul in simul iustus et peccator. That Christ saves sinnners. Some have a Catholic polemic of infused righteousness as being what is fundamental to theology, that imputation is but a "legal fiction" without meaning.

A good artistic work that deals with this theme would be Shusaku Endo's novel Silence. It's pure Theology of the Cross. That even our denial of Christ is not God's final word for us. That Christ came into the world, scandalously, to be trampled on by sinners.

actually, to look at Orthodox prayers, our confidence is only in God's grace and that He came to save sinners. and of course in many cases our denials and sins are not God's final word for us. this is practically the theme of our Holy Week services. seriously, this post is just wrong looking at what we pray.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's framing it as being about Peter's obedience rather than God's power to save. You've just turned a Gospel story into pure Law.

nope, because as I said before, St Peter's ability to be obedient at all is given by God. so, no.

 

[ArmyMatt]

When I was in the Orthodox Church as a catechumen, I saw practically every single sin I did or thought and it filled me with despair at times, especially as I had no assurance of my salvation or the salvation of anybody else I cared about. And the existential fear, even terror, that grips you when you see God's holiness. Despair can be a serious threat spiritually, and holiness can be a huge burden psychically. That is what Lutheran theology is really aimed at, somebody who is struggling with spiritual burdens. But it isn't merely about that, and it has the tools to speak to other spiritual problems as well.

and, our prayers actually point out the only sins we know are the ones God knows we can deal with. and the mercy of God extends to what we don't know we do. there is no way we see all that we do and God specifically holds stuff back so we don't despair.

 

[FireDragon76]

actually, to look at Orthodox prayers, our confidence is only in God's grace and that He came to save sinners. and of course in many cases our denials and sins are not God's final word for us. this is practically the theme of our Holy Week services. seriously, this post is just wrong looking at what we pray.

I don't deny that there aren't points of contact between Lutherans and Orthodox on this matter, particularly in Orthodox liturgy and prayers. Nor do I deny that the Gospel is not present in your church, albeit not always as clearly as it could be. The Pascha homily by St. John Chrysostom is pure Lutheran Gospel.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That wasn't really explicit in the language you used. Language matters for us Lutherans.


I don't deny that there aren't points of contact between Lutherans and Orthodox on this matter, particularly in Orthodox liturgy and prayers. Nor do I deny that the Gospel is not present in your church, albeit not always as clearly as it could be. The Pascha homily by St. John Chrysostom is pure Lutheran Gospel.

I said it in an earlier post, that the freedom to choose is a grace of God. it was explicit in an earlier post.

as for the second point, then it's clear that our confidence is in God alone in spite of any sin we commit.

 

[FireDragon76]

nope, because as I said before, St Peter's ability to be obedient at all is given by God. so, no.

Obedience is about Law, and Law always accuses. the way you shape the story is a subtle condemnation on Peter and anyone like him.

When Lutherans talk about Peter's denial, it's generally in a way that we identify with him and have faith that God will see us through similar trials. We don't hold him up as an example of faithlessness, but as a reminder that even the greatest of saints can fail.

 

[FireDragon76]

and, our prayers actually point out the only sins we know are the ones God knows we can deal with. and the mercy of God extends to what we don't know we do. there is no way we see all that we do and God specifically holds stuff back so we don't despair.

Isn't this a rather romantic notion of what happens in ones spiritual life, though? There's alot there that just don't hold up to scrutiny. All I have to do is wander around these message boards and see alot of people struggling with despair. Whether it is from God or not doesn't matter in the end so much as the fact that people experience it as so. Just saying "God is merciful" is not always good enough. We need mercy concretely in our lives, and that is what grace is about.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Obedience is about Law, and Law always accuses. the way you shape the story is a subtle condemnation on Peter and anyone like him.

When Lutherans talk about Peter's denial, it's generally in a way that we identify with him and have faith that God will see us through similar trials. We don't hold him up as an example of faithlessness, but as a reminder that even the greatest of saints can fail.

obedience is not always about law, but can be about love. in fact, St Paul tells wives to be obedient to husbands for that reason. it is no condemnation about St Peter at all.

and as for your second point, again, we would agree that is one correct way to read that scripture.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Isn't this a rather romantic notion of what happens in ones spiritual life, though? There's alot there that just don't hold up to scrutiny. All I have to do is wander around these message boards and see alot of people struggling with despair. Whether it is from God or not doesn't matter in the end so much as the fact that people experience it as so. Just saying "God is merciful" is not always good enough. We need mercy concretely in our lives, and that is what grace is about.

it's not romantic at all, especially when looking at the Fathers and Mothers of the desert. just because folks struggle with despair doesn't mean grace isn't concretely working. it just means folks are struggling. the life of St Tikhon of Zadonsk proves that point.

 

[FireDragon76]

obedience is not always about law, but can be about love. in fact, St Paul tells wives to be obedient to husbands for that reason. it is no condemnation about St Peter at all.
.

Lutherans don't talk about love in that way as being anything but pious-sounding condemnation. We emphasize love as a free response to the Gospel, not a condition on our justification . The reality of our lives is that we are not loving, but God commands us to love anyways. By his grace, we can, in a small way, love our neighbor, but that's not the ground upon which God loves us and justifies us. He loves us because he created us and he wills to justify us.

Like John says, this is love, that God loved us, not that we loved God.

 

[FireDragon76]

it's not romantic at all, especially when looking at the Fathers and Mothers of the desert. just because folks struggle with despair doesn't mean grace isn't concretely working. it just means folks are struggling. the life of St Tikhon of Zadonsk proves that point.

We disagree that being a monk is necessarily the only ideal for the Christian life. A simple little thing like Davey and Goliath can be just as much a teacher to us today as any Desert Father or Mother. I don't mean that as an insult, but we don't limit teaching moments of our faith to monastics who renounced everything earthly and lived highly ascetical lives.

Some of the most spiritually enlightening moments at my church are when the pastor or one of the ladies of the church delivers a little sermon to the children gathered around the altar. Living as a Christian is not necessarily a matter of great feats of asceticism. Love doesn't have to look like that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Lutherans don't talk about love in that way as being anything but pious-sounding condemnation. We emphasize love as a free response to the Gospel, not a condition on our justification . The reality of our lives is that we are not loving, but God commands us to love anyways. By his grace, we can, in a small way, love our neighbor, but that's not the ground upon which God loves us and justifies us. He loves us because he created us and he wills to justify us.

Like John says, this is love, that God loved us, not that we loved God.

well, yeah, I don't dispute this point and am not sure why you made it. Christ also says if we love Him, we keep His commandments. there is no pious sounding condemnation anywhere.

 

[ArmyMatt]

We disagree that being a monk is necessarily the only ideal for the Christian life. A simple little thing like Davey and Goliath can be just as much a teacher to us today as any Desert Father or Mother. I don't mean that as an insult, but we don't limit teaching moments of our faith to monastics who renounced everything earthly and lived highly ascetical lives.

Some of the most spiritually enlightening moments at my church are when the pastor or one of the ladies of the church delivers a little sermon to the children gathered around the altar. Living as a Christian is not necessarily a matter of great feats of asceticism. Love doesn't have to look like that.

I never said it was the only ideal (read St Anthony and the cobbler). merely that your point when looking as something romantic and not concrete is false. I also never defined love that narrowly. again, see St Anthony's encounter with the cobbler.

 

[FireDragon76]

I never said it was the only ideal (read St Anthony and the cobbler). merely that your point when looking as something romantic and not concrete is false. I also never defined love that narrowly. again, see St Anthony's encounter with the cobbler.

Luther and several of the early Reformers quoted that story of St. Anthony as an example of how God recognized holiness in our ordinary vocations.

We do have respect for monks like St. Anthony and St. Bernard historically, for their devotion to Christ, but we also recognize that there is alot of potential pious vainglory if monasticism is placed on a pedestal.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Luther and several of the early Reformers quoted that story of St. Anthony as an example of how God recognized holiness in our ordinary vocations.

We do have respect for monks like St. Anthony and St. Bernard historically, for their devotion to Christ, but we also recognize that there is alot of potential pious vainglory if monasticism is placed on a pedestal.

so do we. in fact, we have a ton of stories of holy monks being edified by holy laity in the city. so, again, no romantic idealism here.

and we have the term prelest for such spiritual delusion. again, read the Fathers and Mothers to see how cautious Orthodoxy is concerning these issues.