Theosis vs Justification and Sanctification

[Orthodox Andrew]

Thanks, hopefully I'll get to it eventually. Lately I've been having the bad habit of buying books faster than I can read them.

You're looking at the man who orders 10 books at once.

 

[Lotar]

You're looking at the man who orders 10 books at once.

You'e just barely got me beat Wednesday, I had to force myself not to buy Eusebius' book on the history of the Church.

You should look at my collection, only one book was written after 1600

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

You'e just barely got me beat Wednesday, I had to force myself not to buy Eusebius' book on the history of the Church.

You should look at my collection, only one book was written after 1600

I'm telling you Amazon loves me. Until I realized recently that I could read, I really didn't buy any books. But after I found literacy, I think I could open my own Orthodox library. *ANDREAS GETS AN IDEA TO OPEN HIS OWN LIBRARY. HOWEVER HE PLANS ON CHARGING PEOPLE $10 A DAY FOR TAKING OUT A BOOK. SADLY HE FALLS OFF HIS CHAIR AND FORGETS HIS PLAN DURING HIS STAY IN THE LOCAL HOSPITAL.*

 

[Iacobus]

Hi Lotar

Are you familiar with the series of letters exchanged between followers of Luther and the Patriarch of Constantinople in (I think) the mid-16th century? I'll confess that I haven't read them carefully, but they may be instructive. If you like, I'll try to dig up a URL or a cite. As I recall, the net result, after several letters were written by each side, was that the Patriarch decided the correspondence was pointless.

I guess I'm curious now. I might go find them just for the fun of it.

James

 

[Rilian]

No, believe me, we are much different than Baptists
Though it is true that many are too influenced by kwave, etc., and do not have a correct understanding of our doctrine...

I remember reading a quote by Jaroslav Pelikan saying that when the LCMS became Southern Baptist and the ELCA became Methodist, he became Orthodox...

Someone already pointed out what I think is the chief distinction, namely the different understandings between East and West of the implications of the Fall.

Here's a couple of links for what Iacobus was talking about, one is html and one's a pdf . It's interesting to note the Lutheran scholars were from Tübingen which was the site of much of the unraveling of traditional Protestantism in the 19th century.

Kripost, I liked The Orthodox Way.

 

[countrymousenc]

Lotar: You'e just barely got me beat Wednesday, I had to force myself not to buy Eusebius' book on the history of the Church.

Buy it!!! Don't pass that one up.

May I recommend (if no one else has) Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (can't remember the author's name right away; book's upstairs). The author was educated at the seminary in Kiev back before the Russian Revolution, and the book was translated into English by the very respected (but now departed) Fr. Seraphim Rose. If you want something to sink your teeth into, it's the one. I've just finished the introduction and first chapter - don't skip the intro.

As for Theosis vs Justification and Sanctification.... vs?

Lutheran theology, insofar as it reflects the Augsburg Confession, is still too Roman (Western) for Orthodox tastes. The big difference (please don't take offense; none intended) is the Western view of Original Sin, which is that Adam's guilt is inherited. In the Orthodox view, it is the effects of that sin that we have inherited, as well as a proclivity to sin, living, as we do, in a fallen world. That difference also affects how we view justification and sanctification, of course. Do be aware, however, that Orthodoxy is not, repeat, not Pelagian. We know that theosis depends upon God's grace. Everything does.

 

[Lotar]

Hi Lotar

Are you familiar with the series of letters exchanged between followers of Luther and the Patriarch of Constantinople in (I think) the mid-16th century? I'll confess that I haven't read them carefully, but they may be instructive. If you like, I'll try to dig up a URL or a cite. As I recall, the net result, after several letters were written by each side, was that the Patriarch decided the correspondence was pointless.

I guess I'm curious now. I might go find them just for the fun of it.

James

I've read them, but it's generally agreed that both sides were talking passed each other on a lot of the subjects. Both sides also mistakenly believed that they agreed on original sin. 90% of the content was devoted to the filoque.

 

[Eusebios]

Thanks, hopefully I'll get to it eventually. Lately I've been having the bad habit of buying books faster than I can read them.

This is a bad habit?
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.

 

[Suzannah]

Buy it!!! Don't pass that one up.

May I recommend (if no one else has) Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (can't remember the author's name right away; book's upstairs). The author was educated at the seminary in Kiev back before the Russian Revolution, and the book was translated into English by the very respected (but now departed) Fr. Seraphim Rose. If you want something to sink your teeth into, it's the one. I've just finished the introduction and first chapter - don't skip the intro.

As for Theosis vs Justification and Sanctification.... vs?

.

HI!!! I'm fairly certain you are referring to Michael Pomazansky. Incredible book! A must read for you Lotar....I think because of your extensive knowledge already, you would really like it. I think it is out of print. You can read it online here for free:
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0824.HTM

 

[Lotar]

I remember reading a quote by Jaroslav Pelikan saying that when the LCMS became Southern Baptist and the ELCA became Methodist, he became Orthodox...

Ah yes, the imfamous quote.
LCMS has been having some turmoil over the liturgy, which I am sure he was refering too. But we're finally coming out on top and putting an end to the abuses. If a church want's to do a contemporary service, they must still have a traditional service, and the contemporary service can only change the songs, not the liturgy. Hopefully well get rid of the contemporary stuff all together soon.

Someone already pointed out what I think is the chief distinction, namely the different understandings between East and West of the implications of the Fall.

Probably so.

Here's a couple of links for what Iacobus was talking about, one is html and one's a pdf . It's interesting to note the Lutheran scholars were from Tübingen which was the site of much of the unraveling of traditional Protestantism in the 19th century.

Yes, I've read it before. I'll try to look up one Lutheran perspective I read before as well.

 

[countrymousenc]

HI!!! I'm fairly certain you are referring to Michael Pomazansky. Incredible book! A must read for you Lotar....I think because of your extensive knowledge already, you would really like it. I think it is out of print. You can read it online here for free:
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0824.HTM

Yes, that's the one. Thanks, Suzannah! (I forgot to look when I went upstairs. :o )

 

[Rilian]

LCMS has been having some turmoil over the liturgy, which I am sure he was refering too. But we're finally coming out on top and putting an end to the abuses.

Interesting. One thing I would have assumed to be verboten in traditional confessional Lutheranism are icons, but according to this site that appears not to be the case.

 

[Lotar]

Buy it!!! Don't pass that one up.

I'm already reading 3 books at once

I'll get around to it eventually.

May I recommend (if no one else has) Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (can't remember the author's name right away; book's upstairs). The author was educated at the seminary in Kiev back before the Russian Revolution, and the book was translated into English by the very respected (but now departed) Fr. Seraphim Rose. If you want something to sink your teeth into, it's the one. I've just finished the introduction and first chapter - don't skip the intro.

I'll give it a go.

As for Theosis vs Justification and Sanctification.... vs?

Lutheran theology, insofar as it reflects the Augsburg Confession, is still too Roman (Western) for Orthodox tastes. The big difference (please don't take offense; none intended) is the Western view of Original Sin, which is that Adam's guilt is inherited. In the Orthodox view, it is the effects of that sin that we have inherited, as well as a proclivity to sin, living, as we do, in a fallen world. That difference also affects how we view justification and sanctification, of course. Do be aware, however, that Orthodoxy is not, repeat, not Pelagian. We know that theosis depends upon God's grace. Everything does.

Why would I take offense?

Of course I know that there is the East vs West veiws here, we don't hide the fact that we follow the western tradition. It's obvious from the earliest writtings that we have always looked at things differently. But what I am trying to see is if we really aren't that different, just looking at the same thing from a different view.

Just like our talk on atonement the other week, where we believe basically the same thing, just look at it differently and emphasize different points. In this same way, Lutherans tend to put and emphasis on justification and Orthodox tend to put an emphasis on sanctification, but neither of us would ever say the other was not essential.

It is true that we believe that you make too light of Original Sin. We do believe that original sin is more than just an inherited guilt, but it effects us so that we are born without fear of God or a true faith in God. Indeed, that is what we consider the sin, not so much that we are guilty for what Adam did, but we are guilty of not fearing the Lord our God. In the same way, Baptism is not a get out of jail free card, but a beginning of the healing of this wound, sparking true faith and God imparting His grace upon the child or convert.

Now, how I see it, our views on original sin have more of an effect on how we view conversion, namely the relation between election and free will. After that point, I think it has less of an impact.

 

[Lotar]

Interesting. One thing I would have assumed to be verboten in traditional confessional Lutheranism are icons, but according to this site that appears not to be the case.

No, we like icons. We're also known for our stained glass windows. One thing to remember, in the Formula of Concord we reaffirmed all the anathemas of the 7 councils.

Our difference is that we don't what such things as venerating icons and invoking saints to become dogma. If you read our talks with Rome, you will see that in the case of reunion, our consern is not with the practice of prayer to Saints, but whether it will be required.


Edit: I don't know if it's just me, but the big eye Jesus always creeps me out...

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Ah! I ordered that book. Unfortunately it will take around 8 more weeks for it to come in. Is it really that bad?

OPPS! I just saw your post now.

No it's not a bad book. It's a good book, but it just lacks some meat on it's bones.

 

[prodromos]

I don't know if it's just me, but the big eye Jesus always creeps me out...

I assume you are talking about the Pantocrator from St Catherine's on Mt. Sinai? I love that icon

 

[countrymousenc]

Lotar, perhaps if you read about what the various features of the icons mean, it would help you not to be creeped out. I have to admit that, at first, some of the icons were difficult for me to look at for very long; I felt unworthy. I think that I knew (before I "knew") that to look upon the icon was a way of being in the presence of the one portrayed. None of us are worthy (in our own rights) to stand in that Presence, except we acknowledge our unworthiness and are humbly grateful for what He accomplished for us.

 

[Lotar]

Lotar, perhaps if you read about what the various features of the icons mean, it would help you not to be creeped out. I have to admit that, at first, some of the icons were difficult for me to look at for very long; I felt unworthy. I think that I knew (before I "knew") that to look upon the icon was a way of being in the presence of the one portrayed. None of us are worthy (in our own rights) to stand in that Presence, except we acknowledge our unworthiness and are humbly grateful for what He accomplished for us.

I know what it means, He is both God and man, just something about it is creepy. I guess I'm just wierd...

 

[Photini]

Our fallen nature did not have as a consequence our "permanently ceasing to exist". Even those who lived and died before Christ did not cease to exist but continued to exist in Hadês. Christ's mission was not to ensure our eternal existence, but to rescue us from Hadês.

But what is true existence? What is it to be truly human? There is no true existence apart from God. Furthermore, there would be no bodily resurrection had Christ not been resurrected. We would have been eternally torn apart.

St. Mark of Ephesus uses this "salvation from non-existence" to refute the RCC doctrine of Purgatory. The verse in I Corinthians that ends with "....but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire," St Mark explains that ALL people will be saved from eternal non-existence...however, some will be in eternal fire and others in eternal blessedness.

 

[nikephoros_spatharios]

But what is true existence? What is it to be truly human? There is no true existence apart from God. Furthermore, there would be no bodily resurrection had Christ not been resurrected. We would have been eternally torn apart.

St. Mark of Ephesus uses this "salvation from non-existence" to refute the RCC doctrine of Purgatory. The verse in I Corinthians that ends with "....but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire," St Mark explains that ALL people will be saved from eternal non-existence...however, some will be in eternal fire and others in eternal blessedness.

I guess the way I see it, is in a nutshell the following:

In Pre-Fall times: man in Paradise with God. in BC times: body decays+soul in Hades. In AD times: body decays+soul waiting 2nd coming. Post-2nd coming times: body+soul reunited and renewed --> new resurrected existence for everyone, which is experienced positively or negatively by each person.