Holiness

[Andrew Latz]

In Orthodox spirituality there seems to be a lot of emphasis on waging war against one's fallen nature. I wondered what sort of emphasis is placed on the idea of God's people (collectively and individually) being holy already. Also wondered whether this remained theoretical or filtered through into every day thought and life, and whether it's present in the liturgy.

[Justin]

I can't say much on this subject, but wanted to mention something from just before communion (communion being as personal and unifying/corporate as you can get in life). It is said, speaking of the faithful members of the Church receiving communion, "Holy things are for the holy". In response we say "One is Holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ, in the glory of God the Father." So it is recognized that only the "holy," or those who are sincerely striving for holiness, within the Church, can participate in the mystery; but at the same time it is acknowledged that no one could do anything good, or have any holiness, except by the grace of God.

cf Nicholas Cabasilas, A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, (SPCK, 1960), pp. 88-90

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Andrew,

You wrote:


In Orthodox spirituality there seems to be a lot of emphasis on waging war against one's fallen nature. I wondered what sort of emphasis is placed on the idea of God's people (collectively and individually) being holy already.

This is a very good question. Justin has already given a good first response, through his quotation of the text in the divine Liturgy, which proclaims 'The holy things are for the holy' - i.e., the holy Gifts now consecrated, then to be partaken of by those who are prepared, are for those who are holy. The gifts made sacred and holy in the offering of the sacrifice of the Eucharist are offered to those made holy in the mystery of baptism.

Your question actually has a great deal to do with this latter mystery of baptism. In this sacrament, one is joined to the Church and 'made holy', that is, 'illumined' with the light of truth that is God's Spirit, which comes uniquely and fully to dwell in the individual's heart (through the adjoining mystery of the holy chrism, or chrismation). In some sense, the baptised person is joined to ultimate holiness at this point. One can ever after speak of him or her as among the 'holies' (i.e. holy ones) to which the phrase in the Liturgy refers.

The struggle of human life, as a baptised member of the Church, then becomes to realise (perhaps better, to actualise) in the reality of a freely-lived life the holiness of which one has become a partaker. This is the very heart of Christian asceticism: to overcome anything and everything within us that divides and separates us from the holiness that God has fashioned in our persons. Fighting against what is fallen in our selves is only important because we know that at the core of human existence is holiness. Our asceticism only matters because we are convinced that there is something pure, something radiant beneath the mess of our distorted passions.

In the office of the Ninth Hour, Psalm 85 (86 in the Hebrew versions) is read, which contains the line: 'Bow down Thine ear, O Lord, and hear me; for I am poor and in misery. Preserve Thou my soul, for I am holy.' I am in misery for I am fallen and routinely falling; but I am holy for I am an image of God, baptised into His communion and the Temple of His Spirit. From such imagery comes the popular expression of the ascetic mission: to 'become what you are' - i.e., to actualise one's holiness through the purification of fallenness.

The personal struggle of the Christian is thus one of holiness coming to light (literally, to the Light of God) through the struggle against sin. But this is also the reality of the whole people of God in the Church: this chosen people is also holy, divinely inspired and indwelt; yet it must ever struggle -- actively, fervently, desparately struggle -- to become what it is. The people of God, as the 'race of the baptised', must work with all the repentant conviction of each individual person for the realisation of its true nature.

I hope this is slightly helpful in considering your question.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Andrew,

Matthew's answer would make a good one for a Lutheran as well (readers take note!). Thus, I can continue the thought by saying that according to Scripture, the true children of Abraham are the children of the promise, i.e., those who have the faith of Abraham. As Jesus said, "If Abraham were your father you would have done what Abraham did..." Of course there is a lot behind that, involving the Akeda, or sacrifice of Isaac... with which the sacrifice of Jesus accords, but, to go on with the thought, Jesus said that God was able to raise "children to Abraham" from these rocks --- thus, as St. Paul instructs, not all who are born to Abraham are his seed (offspring, children), but all who believe what he believed are.

Richard
(Serving a Lutheran mission to Jews)

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Andrew,

I find your question to be very interesting and insightful, but again, perhaps you might tell us what your own Church teaches about the questions you have just posed. I would just like to know: what does "Holiness" mean to you, and how does one attain it? Also, what would your Church say constitutes "God's People?" I am also very interested to find out what your own personal beliefs are on these two questions.

Fr. A.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Averky,

I hope Andrew is not offended if I answer some of the questions you asked him, or that you are offended either. I think its fair to say that in protestantism "God's people" refers to the Jews. Not all of us. But then, Lutherans don't consider ourselves "generally protestant." We're a bit more, how shall I say it? > "orthodox" [again, note the lower case].

I don't know if Andrew is Nazarene. The Nazarenes are a conservative offshoot of the Methodists, founded by the 18th century Anglican priest John Wesley. They are "Armenian" and besides that, believe "sanctification" is a second work of grace, above and beyond "salvation" and where the believer has been made "sin free." I don't know if Wesley ever experienced "sanctification."

At any rate, "sanctification" is "being made holy" or, as I said (to them) sin free.

Andrew may be looking to see if "sanctification" as a doctrine has any patristic roots, or if there is any Orthodox experience of expression of it. I trust Andrew himself will correct and/or modify anything I said here to fit his own situtation, but since you asked, he hasn't answered yet, and I knew at least that much, I thought I'd try to help.

Yours,

Richard

[Lawrence]

In the opening line of The Way of a Pilgrim The Pilgrim begins his narration with, "By the grace of God I am a Christian, by my deeds a great sinner..."

Combine this with Nil Sorsky The Monastic Rule, "But those who sincerely seek to repent, and who seek God in love and fear, and have him alone before their eyes and walk, according to his commandments, God will accept all of them, granting his mercy and giving them his grace and glorifying them. Thus all of the Holy Scriptures assures us of this."

It's not safe to regard oneself as holy (and to add to judge others), but to remain humble acknowleging one's fallen nature through repentenance and pray that God through his mercy glorifies us and delivers us from passion.

In Christ,
Lawrence

[Fr Averky]

Richard,

Thank you for your good answer, but I am still waiting to hear from Andrew himself-I have simply asked him, and do again, what he or his Church believes about the questions he has posed - I am not trying to be in the least contentious ar offensive, I would like Andrew to share with us some of what his education has given him.

Fr. A.

[Andrew Latz]

Dear All,

Fr. A. has indeed asked me several times what I think about the questions I have asked. It seems to me he thinks this will help him understand the reason I ask those questions and thus put him in a better position to answer them.

The reason behind all the questions I ask is the following: to find out about the Orthodox Church: its life, its doctrines, its scholarship and so on. Hence my initial reluctance to post about what I thought - this is a website about Orthodoxy, not really about my view on things. However, I don't want to be rude to Fr. A. and he does have a point so I will try to be brief.

I think women should be allowed to be clergy. I was interested in Matthew Steenberg's comment that Orthodox Church structure is based on Jesus' ministry. I'd like to know the hermeneutical moves involved in such a position. I think how Jesus fits into his historical context is intriniscally related to this. I as yet know very little indeed about hermeneutics, and I have no nuanced view about how Jesus fit into, and deviated from, first century Judaism (though I broadly agree with NT Wright from what I know).

As for holiness, Steenberg's answer was enormously helpful. (One question, Matthew, is the purpose of ascesis actualising our holiness or communing with God or both?) Richard was both right and wrong. The Nazarene Church has for a large part of its history believed in a second experience of sanctification. The American Nazarene Church still does largely. However, other parts of it see this view as biblically unsustainable. I agree with the latter position. I wasn't looking for sancitification in the Fathers, I was trying to understand Orthodoxy.

Two further comments. Nobody has offended me. I don't mind you asking in the least, Fr A, your questions. I find you interesting and insightful and I know you are driven by pastoral care and love. Richard: of course I don't mind if you post your thoughts. The time difference means I'm away when you're all writing!

Secondly, I am a member of the Anglican Church by default. I grew up in low church chaismatic churches and now attend a low church nazarene church (not charismatic). All of this (except the latter, a conscious choice) has been by default. I am not a member of a Church not because I do not want to be or do not think it is important, but because joining one is such a momentous decision I need to get it right. For the time being I go to my local church, which, incidentally, is very good.

I may one day become Orthodox, the future is unknown. The fact that women are not allowed to be clergy is something that causes me great distress, and will perhaps prevent me joining the Church. To clarify: I don't think this issue is anything to do with rights or people wanting to be clergy. If no women wanted to be clergy the issue would still be there. This is to do with the broad sweep of the Bible as I currently see it: that of God recreating the whole of creation and that involving restoring equality, one aspect of which is that women clergy should be allowed.

My apologies in failing at my attempt to be brief. I hope that is everything.

In Christ,
Andrew

P.S: Fr. A., did you get my email?
PPS: Justin is correct (on another thread): I did not mean Orthodox theology is speculative at all, I was joking with Justin about his quip about Protestant speculative theology. Sorry if I upset anyone.

[Teo Kia Choong]

I was 'listening' in to the discussion. Generally, I would like to add to the whole conception of how different or similar the Protestant-evangelical position about sanctification is. I am baptised in a Bible Presbyterian church, which would be classified under the tradition of the Reformers like Calvin and John Knox, who emphasized the primacy of all scripture over the liturgical traditions practised by the church throughout the centuries, but I came from an Anabaptist-Mennonite Brethren Brethren background.

Generally, regardless of the differences between Anabaptists and Bible Presbyterian Christians, in terms of the views towards use of force and the stand towards war, baptism(the mode and the validity of the particular modes) etc., what stands as a common ground between both is the belief that sanctification is a lifelong process of being made holy in Christ, as the Holy Spirit works to conform us to Christ's image. For many reasons, mainly because the nature of Christlikeness is manifest in us as Christians more and more(day by day) as we relinquish the hold on our selves and surrender in heart, mind and spirit to God, this can hardly be classified as a 'once-in-a-lifetime' type of experience unlike in some Charismatic and proto-Pentecostal churches, which believe that sanctification is achieved when the Holy Spirit falls on a person and consumes him or her with the love and desire for God instantly such that he or she becomes sinless or impregnable to the attacks of sin. This hardly falls in line with the positions of Anabaptists, Protestants, or Orthodoxy for that matter of fact.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I may one day become Orthodox, the future is unknown. The fact that women are not allowed to be clergy is something that causes me great distress, and will perhaps prevent me joining the Church.

Christ said to the rich young man: "give away everything you own and follow Me." That man went away greatly distressed and was prevented from joining Christ.

To clarify: I don't think this issue is anything to do with rights or people wanting to be clergy. If no women wanted to be clergy the issue would still be there. This is to do with the broad sweep of the Bible as I (emphasis added) currently see it: that of God recreating the whole of creation and that involving restoring equality, one aspect of which is that women clergy should be allowed.

How do you define "equality" and how is it essential to salvation?

I came to Faith with baggage and preconceived notions. I had a great deal of trouble accepting many things the Church taught. Most things I have learned since becoming Orthodox make sense, enough for me to trust the wisdom of the Church in the things I do not yet understand. We have to realize that much that we "believe" is based on the faulty reasoning of "this world" and God is not of "this world." The foolishness of God is wiser than men. One of the things I did when I became Orthodox was to accept what the Church taught rather than what I wanted to believe. Often the TRUTH of Christ is different from what we think it ought to be. It certainly was hard to accept by certain of the Jews, who wanted their Christ to be a warrior king to defeat the Romans, or by those who were "turned off" at His teaching about eating His flesh and blood, or by those who simply refused to accept that He could dare to call Himself the Son of God. Some people want Christ to be the person who simply told everybody to be nice to each other. Many want Him to be a great teacher but NOT God the Son, the divine Logos. We need to find out, like the Apostle Peter, who Christ is as revealed by the Holy Spirit, rather than who we want Him to be. (Matt 16:13-17)

At least, that is how it seems to this simple mind.

Herman the simple

[Richard Leigh]

Hi everybody! Herman, and Andrew...

We Lutherans believe we can defend from Scripture anything the Fathers taught that was true. We believe that what they taught was true because it was scriptural, properly understood (we realize there are improper and heretical uses of scripture).

We are in fact suspiscious of what appears the introverted direction espoused in Orthodoxy as dangerously subjective, but that is partly due to our ignorance of Orthodox ascesis which in fact learns (or rather receives) discernment by practice. We really ought to know better, since Luther did say (as I've mentioned on a different thread) that affliction is one of the three key ingredients to becoming a theologian. We are in fact uncomfortable with affliction of the ascetic type. But I digress.

There are several Lutheran Churches throughout the world, and one here in the USA which follow the Lutheran hermeneutic regarding the ministry as that it is strictly functional. Pastoral leadership is a gift and call of God the Holy Spirit through the congregation issued for the purpose of order only, and the sex of the official is secondary to what the congregation can see as expressive of order, such that whether or not a woman can be in that position depends on cultural constraints only.

I am not a member of such a Lutheran church, but of one in the Missouri Synod which still eschews this as "gospel reductionism." We understand God to have distinguished the sexes at creation and to have assigned differing functions to them "ontologically", some say at creation, others at the fall. I take the former, myself.

Richard

[Elizabeth Hanson]

My dearest Richard:

Christ is glorified in His Saints!
May He also be glorified in us!

Within Orthodoxy, there are men and women monastics, clergy, and laity who heed the call to theosis. The saints who reach theosis are the true theologians within Orthodoxy. No Ph.D. is required as in Catholicism.

Are you aware that the term "theologian" has different meanings in the East and West? A western theologian does not have to be a saint. He/she can even be heretical and that is precisely why the western church is in such a mess right now.

Yours truly,
Elizabeth

[Teo Kia Choong]

From what I know, Bible Presbyterian churches do not allow women to be in the position of the pulpit as a pastor or ordained minister or leader, despite their proximity to Lutheran churches in the practice of advocating what the Church Fathers taught(on the basis that they must be affirmed by scripture and through a correct understanding).

Other evangelical churches have asked for a justification, but the case as made by Bible Presbyterian churches has been very simple on the basis of what is said in the Book of 1 Corinthians that God does not suffer a woman to lord it over a man and to preach and prophesy(in the sense of teaching the prophecies of/in the Bible) in church. That does not in any way mean that woman is inferior to man, but simply that God has fore-ordained roles for them to fulfill right from the moment of the Creation. It is only with the Fall that the desire of the woman for the man--the metaphorical figure of speech uttered in the curse after they were driven out of Eden--simply another means of stressing the woman's desire to lord it over man when both are equal, is manifest as a problem.

One must distinguish between the "ontological (different) roles" God has fore-ordained for man and woman, as opposed to the essentially equal position of man and woman. In that sense, because woman do not serve in a church as a pastor, that does not mean a church is advocating misogynist values or practising sexism. In that same way, the stipulation for women to wear veils in Anabaptist churches does not mean they are inferior beings, but simply that they are commanded to be silent in church and not to preach.

This is a mirror of the relations between the Persons in the Trinity, where each Person(Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is equal in position, but the Son chooses to subject Himself to the Father's Will and the Holy Spirit to the Son's. In no way is a subordinationist view allowed here unlike in the case of Clement of Alexandria and certain others. I am at a loss here as to how to explain this mirroring of the Trinity in the relationship between man and woman, and maybe someone else can offer some clearer explanation.

[Teo Kia Choong]

By the way, I was wondering, Elizabeth, when you were referring to "saints", what you meant by it? The "saints" (oi hagioi in the Greek tongue) is a common figure of speech used by Paul to address believers in a certain local church throughout the New Testament. It does not necessarily refer to the canonization of a Christian as a 'saint' by the Pope, something which is not found in the Bible. Effectively, the phrase refers to a community of Christian believers living and practising the faith actively.

In the case of what you have said, it seems that you have a preconception that Protestants and Catholics fall into the category of the Western Church, which is an idea highly stigmatized by Protestants especially, because we regard our distinctive--the Protestant distinctive(if I can use such a misleading phrase)--not to be geographical unlike the Roman Catholic Church which has stressed its primacy over other patriarchal centers in history.

A saint has to be a theologian, and if one stresses what Karl Barth(a German Reformed theologian) has said, "In the kingdom of God, everyone is a theologian". Nobody is not a theologian in that sense, just as nobody who professes his faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour is not a saint in an equal sense.

[Elizabeth Hanson]

Within Catholicism, I was taught that the husband and wife are united in Matrimony by Christ. So you have three persons united in love: Christ, the husband and the wife.

Within Orthodoxy,
Marriage unites the couple in holiness and it is God who joins the two together. It used to be that the marriage bond was sealed by the reception of Holy Communion. Hence, both the husband and wife were to be of one faith. Matrimony is therefore a school of sanctity.

Hope this helps,
Elizabeth

[Elizabeth Hanson]

My dearest joy: Christ is Risen!

I'm using the greeting of St. Seraphim of Sarov who achieved theosis in his lifetime and who literally glowed as a flaming pillar of God.

This is what we are all called to be: Saints like him! However, you really cannot understand this whole concept of theosis until you are united to the Holy Orthodox faith, until you become part of Christ's Holy Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.

It has everything to do with a true repentant heart to the point where you become dispassionate and totally on fire with love of God. To attempt this without the guidance of a holy Priest is foolishness.

Hope this helps!

Elizabeth

[Elizabeth Hanson]

Here's a neat website that might answer some questions.

http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Elizabeth,

Yes I know the different definitions of "theologian" East ans West. Let me digress here a moment for Teo Kai Choong's sake. We are using the terms "East-West" somewhat metaphorically. We are talking primarily about a cultural mind-set, and by East we mean Byzantine. But certainly, to Assyrian non-Chalcedonian Christians, what Catholics call "Eastern Orthodoxy" are geographically West of them. By West, here we generally mean "Latin," but we can also think in terms of Kipling's ditty "The East is East and the West is West, and never the twain shall meet."

Having said that, What Elizabeth was referring to was that in Greek based byzantine (for want of a better term for now) thinking, "Theology" refers to the experience of theosis. Thus, St. John the divine (= theologian) was such because of his experience on the Isle of Patmos. That's what she means by "saint" BTW, someone who has experienced God in what might be described as a "face to face" contact, such as Moses had, with the same result, BTW, that one actually glows (her referrence to St. Sarov's becoming a flaming pillar of God was not hyperbole.

That said, Elizabeth, I've always thought Luther's statement regarging becoming a theologian was fairly much along the Orthodox line of thinking.

Yours,

Richard

[Elizabeth Hanson]

My dearest Richard:

Christ is glorified in His Saints!
May He also be glorified in us!

Thank you Richard for your explanation. I was experiencing a loss of words as I really didn't understand his question. You explained it better than I could have.

When I took undergraduate studies in a Catholic university, I was taught that Catholic theologians were those who studied God. It seemed that these theologians were dissecting God into tiny pieces until some even proclaimed, "God is dead."

A lot of my classmates left the Catholic Church and became atheists. The 60's and 70's were a time when many lost their faith in God. Between 1965 and 1995 almost 25 million Roman Catholics left the Catholic Church in the United States alone.

So, what did Luther say regarding theologians that differs from what the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

Yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

(Message edited by chanterhanson on 23 July, 2003)

[Fr Averky]

Dear Andrew,

Thank you very much for answering my question. Further, I did not ask in order to challenge your beliefs or ideas, but to simply know where you are coming from when you post your questions. Sorry to say, I did not receive your e-mail; perhaps you can send it again.

I can only say to you that now that you have been exposed to Orthodoxy, do give it some consideration. I am sorry to think that the question of the ordination of women could be a stumbling block for you, but for each convert to Orthodoxy, there has been a question, whioch in time, and by God's grace was answered. If you choose to remain in your present denomination, try your best to "love God with your whole mind, your whole heart and your whole soul, and your neighbor as yourself." God bless you, Andrew!

Fr. A.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Elizabeth,

It was to his students. Luther cautioned that anyone can be a "theologian" after the manner of the "scholastics" i.e., bookish people, they can expound and expound on their own ideas and forget what God said, and grow long donkey ears and bray and bray! He said a true theologian is one who experiences God, and that can only come from three things, prayer (to the Holy Spirit for enlightenment as to the passage of Scripture under consideration), meditation (of the Hebrew sort, which means turning the words over and over in the mind and even on the tongue, i.e., repeating them reflectively) and affliction (various sorts of persecution).

Andrew and Father A.,

It so happens I recall hearing that a woman "theologian" (western def.)Lutheran pastor (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago. I wish I could remember her name!

Richard

[Teo Kia Choong]

Dear Elizabeth,

Do I take it according to the idea you asserted of a Spiritual Guide that a Christian must then have a Spiritual Director in the sense that Saint John of the Cross(Sant Juan de la Cruz) advocated? If that is so, there may not be actually much difference between the Catholic and Orthodox churches in this aspect.

[Elizabeth Hanson]

Dearest Richard:

I remember reading about the former Lutheran pastor who converted to Orthodoxy also. I think she wrote an essay which was published in a Concilar Press book. I will look it up and see if I can find it. Conciliar Press, Ben Lomond, California, published three books containing true stories of conversions. One dealt with Britains converting to Orthodoxy, one was devoted to women converts and the other dealt with men who were in the protestant ministry who found their way home to Orthodoxy. All were very helpful to me when I converted to Orthodoxy in 1996. However, every convert has to face his own unique struggles.

Yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

[Elizabeth Hanson]

My dearest Teo:

I hope this is the proper address.

Having been a Roman Catholic until 1995, I can say there are tremendous differences with spiritual direction between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church. The details will probably be best answered by Father A.

All I can tell you is from my own personal experience. Within Catholicism I struggled in vain against sins that seemed to overpower me. The priests even told me that I would probably never change. After three years safely within Orthodoxy, I was a totally new person, even my health dramatically improved. The impossible happened because with God nothing is impossible. The joy I feel now is tremendous; however, the struggle I had to go through could only be described as a purgatory on earth, but well worth it.

I suppose you realize that the Orthodox do not believe in a place called purgatory nor do they believe in indulgences as do the Catholics.

A lot of spiritual direction within Catholicism encouraged us to obtain indulgences so that we and our loved ones wouldn't have to spend much time in purgatory.

In Orthodoxy, the Priests encourage their flock to undergo purification of the passions in this life so that they may attain union with God (theosis) even on this earth.

To me this is a big difference.

Hope this helps!

Yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

[Teo Kia Choong]

Dear Elizabeth,

Thanks for your reply. In Singapore, there are few Orthodox churches owing to our geographical location near Malaysia. Generally, the whole sustained Christian dialogue or polemic of difference does not occur between Catholic and Orthodox per se, but between Protestant and Catholic.

As a Protestant Christian for many years, I would say that we do not believe in the notion of purgatory as well. The whole confessional system practised under the Roman Catholic church, which advocated compulsory confession under the laws of Lateran IV (1215), has devolved into this system of indulgences and pardons which was of course sold for money in the Middle Ages, thus leading to popular Reform sentiment against its corruption.

Just a note about theosis from my own viewpoint. Theosis, which stipulates in a simple creed(am I right here?) that 'God became man that we may become gods'is somewhat akin to that mention of the divine fire of charity that burns in the Christian according to Augustine: a desire for God and the subsequent purification and purgation of the Christian soul from his sins gradually as he becomes more and more consumed in that love for God. John Wesley(an early Reformer in many senses with his emphasis on scripture over tradition), in his constant stress on the need for the Christian to lead a perfected life, is not even in denial about this, and I suspect that this is very much where he seems to allude to 'theosis', without using the language familiar to Orthodoxy though.

Kevin/Teo Kia Choong

[Fr Averky]

Dear Richard,

Oh well, a friend of mine who was Orthodox for many years became a Lutheran -then came back to Orthodoxy again, quite a swing, don't you agree?

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Andrew,

I was reading through you answer concerning my query concerning your beliefs and one part of it raises a question:

You state: "If no women wanted to be clergy, the issue would still be there. This is to do with the broad sweep of the Bible as I currently see it. That God recreating the whole of creation and that restoring equality, one aspect of which is that women should be allowed.."

Where in Holy Scriptures is there any notion of "equality" spoken of, and why do you think that it is a necessity that everyone and all things be equal? And how do you find that this equality you speak of has been "restored?" One of the Optina Elders said, "No one, absolutley no one is equal except the Holy Trinity." Then perhaps the key to you own broad statement is "..the broad sweep of the Bible as I currently see it." To Orthodox Christians, that statement would seem to be a sign of spiritual instability, or, more likely, just youthful enthusiasm, for which you are easily forgiven, or perhaps that freedom which you enjoy as a young Protestant "theologian" allows you have an understanding of the Holy Scriptures subject to revision at some futiure date. I am not indending to be offensive, but for us in the Orthdodox Church, it is not possible to have a "current" view as to what the Holy Scriptures mean, for we rely upon those Fathers of the Church, like St. John Chrysostom and St. Theophylact the Bulgarian, and others, who were as inspired by the Holy Spirit to interpret what they read as were the Evangelists who wrote the Gospel, or the Apostles who wrote the Epistles. I personally could not rely upon the current view of a twenty one year old man who is a college student, for I myself would never make bold to interpret Scripture, for I do not consider myself in such a spiritual league as those whom the Holy Spirit visits. I am too poor, weak, sinful and passionate to be so presumptuous; On Sanday afternoons, one can turn to any number of television channels and listen to well-meaning pastors, some with no more than a Bible College education ( Andrew, in the U.S., many Bible colleges are not accredited and cannot give a B.A. degree) bodly interpreting scriptural passages. I am not particularly judging them, but I could not accept their teaching authority. So forgive, me, but I am sure that you are a very lovely young man, and I hope and pray that if it is God's will you will be a worker in His vineyard, so I am finding myself having to disagree with this particular view when it comes to "Equality."Could you please give some solid proof for this current view of yours, for I would be very interested to know from whence it came, and perhaps you can give us a few proposals for future revisions.

Respectfully yours,

Fr. A.

[Andrew Latz]

Fr. A.,

equality in the Bible: breifly: Gen 1, male and female are created in the image of God. Paul in Galatians seems to be removing any barriers to being a member of God's people based on gender, race, social status. And, depending on your view of the Trinity, if you think they are all equal, and we are made in God's image, then you have 'equality' there too.

My concern is not that 'everyone and all things be equal' (I don't even know what that means), my concern is that no barriers to serving God based on gender should exist when we are one in Christ. None of that is very rigorous, but that's the sort of thing the Bible seems to be saying as far as I can tell.

Obviously that sort of language doesn't sound helpful to Orthodox ears. I realise that. However as a Protestant any ideas are judged against Scripture, Tradition (not in an Orthodox sense clearly), reason and experience. How you balance those things is debateable. The point is that all I can do at the moment is follow God as best as I understand God, and the main source of information (with all appropriate caveats) is the Bible. I can't yet submit myself to the Orthodox Church's understanding of Scripture if it contradicts what seems to be the plain meaning of Scripture. (have you ever known the Church to say something you thought contradicted Scripture? If so, how did you resolve things?)

I've never considered anyone to be inspired in the same way as the biblical authors. I'd have to think about that. I do respect tradition, though haven't yet worked out a rigorous understanding of it.

As for future revisions...that made me smile. I realise a 21 year old who knows very little indeed can't say too much, it's just that this issue seemed simple to me. Clearly I should look into it more thoroughly. For 'revisions' - see Bishop Ware's interview - I found that most encouraging.

I do appreciate this dialogue: thanks.

andrew

[Rebecca]

have you ever known the Church to say something you thought contradicted Scripture? If so, how did you resolve things?

For myself, I assume that I do not yet fully understand. I find this to be a most productive assumption under which to operate. Helps keep the mind open and receptive to learning, and helps keep me from thinking "I know."

For what it's worth, I really believe that the moment we say "I know" we turn our eye away from God, Who Is and is unknowable, infinite, eternal, all mighty, all knowing (though we are His temple and He dwells within us and "has revealed Himself to us"), and focus on our pitiful and limited selves. It's the action of the Holy Spirit within us that draws us close to Him, not our own ruminations, as Mr. McBride says. Ultimately, I believe that if we do as Fr. A says: love God, or even as Fr. Thomas Hopko has said: if we want to love God (or even just want to want to love God), then He will open the door.

Interestingly, when I read the interview with Bishop Kallistos--and thank you for posting the link, by the way...that site has another article by him that I really enjoyed reading too--- what I saw was him saying the theologians need to tell us why the Church is as she is, not suggesting that she needs to change. I took that to be along the lines of what others have said here to the effect that throughout the ages, the Church has expressed and re expressed the same Truth she has known all along in order to respond to those who question or who promote something other than this Truth she knows.

I'm not a theologian and it's also not my place to try to make that expression. I believe there are deeper meanings in the context of this issue of the liturgical role of men and women, of priests and laypersons. It's always been interesting to me that from the beginning in the Orthodox Church, a priest cannot have Liturgy by himself; he needs the people there. Different from what Rome says, if I understand their teaching right.

Anyway, just some thoughts. Hope you have a pleasant day, Andrew.

[Herman Blaydoe]

My concern is not that 'everyone and all things be equal' (I don't even know what that means), my concern is that no barriers to serving God based on gender should exist when we are one in Christ. None of that is very rigorous, but that's the sort of thing the Bible seems to be saying as far as I can tell.

Are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit "equal?" Does the Son take the role of the Father or can the Holy Spirit BE the Son? Is this not a barrier of sort? Does not Holy Scripture teach us that people are given different gifts and different roles? Are all teachers, are all prophets? Clearly equality and roles do not equate.

In my 27 years as an Orthodox Christian (coming from a Protestant background like yourself), I have not found anything that contradicted Holy Scripture in the teachings of the Faith, even if there have been things that, for a time, where not easy to understand. Took me a while to understand and accept the Church's reverence for the Theotokos, for instance. It was not the Church's teaching that needed amending, it was my understanding of Scripture that needed to be broadened. You can say that Holy Scripture contradicts Holy Scripture if you look at it narrowly enough. In one place our Lord says that those who are not against us are for us and in another that those who are not with us are against us. This can be made to look contradictory, unless we widen the view a bit to see the BIG PICTURE, that two sides of the same coin can be opposite but NOT contradictory.

By definition, Holy Tradition cannot contradict Holy Scripture because they are one and the same. Scripture is Tradition written down, and God is bigger than a book, even THE Book. Remember, the Church is older than that compendium of writings that is often referred to as The Bible.

[Andrew Latz]

Rebecca: good point, I'll think on it. I wonder if there is some danger in saying 'I'm not a theologian' and resigning yourself to things? Don't we all have to think about things?
Herman: yes, and God is probably bigger than Tradition too. On this point: what is the big picture as far as women are concerned? What if the Church said Jamaican people can't have liturgical roles? Or Greek people? Or anyone earning less than £25,000 per year? How is that different?

Also, has the Church never made mistakes? Is there no room for it to be wrong at all? Isn't that dangerously similar to trusting ourselves rather than God? Where's the room for God to be surprising?

Please don't construe this as an attack, I want to know how you answer these questions because you have a very high view of Church and I've never encountered it expressed this way before.

many thanks
Andrew

[Owen Jones]

Just a jejeune comment about holiness. It seems to me that the key to a Christian holiness is powerlessness, or, more exactly, embracing powerlessness as an underlying attitude about everything and a way of life.

[Rebecca]

Dear Andrew,

To what (or Whom) do you think I am "resigning" myself?

seriously..

I accept your comment that I may not be thinking, since I recognize that I have a limited mental capacity. But that does not stop God from loving me....He made me that way after all... http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Herman Blaydoe]

Andrew, coming from a Protestant background like you, I can understand your mistrust of "The Church." Took me a while to get over it also.

If God wants women to be priests, He did not cc: me on that email. How do YOU KNOW that God allowed His people to be mistaken for 2000 years? What indeed is the BIGGER PICTURE? God indeed is bigger than Tradition, so Tradition teaches us.

Personally it was a thorough examination of history that gave me confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in wisdom and Truth, even as it did for a famed former Lutheran Historian, Jaroslav Pelikan (who also became Orthodox after writing many many volumes on the history of the Church).

I think that for you, the ordination of women represents a "better" understanding of Holy Scripture, while to the Orthodox mind, it represents a "change" to Holy Scripture. I have to wonder, are we so much wiser than the people who walked with Christ Himself? Do we get smarter the further in time we get from Christ or closer to Christ? Is Luther so much smarter than Polycarp? Does Calvin trump Chrysostom, simply because he came along later?

[Justin]

I can't yet submit myself to the Orthodox Church's understanding of Scripture if it contradicts what seems to be the plain meaning of Scripture. (have you ever known the Church to say something you thought contradicted Scripture? If so, how did you resolve things?)

I can't think of any example of tradition contradicting scripture (in fact, I'd say that that would be the same as Jesus contradicting himself since Jesus is the head of the Church and giver of tradition, but then I realise to affirm that you have to affirm certain ecclesiological beliefs first). I can, however, think of many many examples from tradition that contradicted my understanding of Scripture. Just with St. John Chrysostom, I can think of three seperate instances off the top of my head in which his interpretation differs from the one I had (those Scriptures were: 1 Cor. 3:15; Jn. 11:16; 2 Tim. 2:11-13). We don't necessarily have to take St. John's interpretation as infallible truth (since the mind of the Church as a whole has not insisted that this is the only possible interpretation), but it would have been very easy at certain points to say "oh, well obviously he's wrong on this, this shows that we can't really trust the saints" or "well see, this just shows that you can't just trust 'tradition,' but that you have to look at it critically". I don't think these would be proper conclusions, however, just based on the fact that a Saint has a different interpretation of Scriptures (or even a wrong interpretation).

[Herman Blaydoe]

What is meant by "plain meaning?" As agreed to by consensus of knowledgeable people, or "to me"? Does not the existance of many different interpretations of Scripture argue against "plain meaning" as an infallible method of interpretation? If it is sooo plain, how come so many people get it wrong? The fact that we are discussing this very issue seems to contradict the idea of "plain meaning." Personally, I am generally happy to defer to the concensus of respected sources over my own interpretation. That concensus is generally referred to as "Tradition." GK Chesterton gives the following charming defintion of tradition: Allowing your ancestors a vote on the subject...

[Lawrence]

Andrew,

If I may offer you the following link.

www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm)

In Christ,
Lawrence

[Elizabeth Hanson]

Dearest Justin:

Re: St. John Chrysostom and infallibility

In Orthodoxy no one is infallible including the saints, only Christ is the exception. When a saint is canonized, the Church is not ruling on his writings. He could have made some errors as he is human. The question asked is: did he die fully repentant and within the Church? Is he worthy of our veneration as a Holy One of God?

Your truly in Christ,
Elizabeth

[Justin]

In Orthodoxy no one is infallible including the saints

I'm sorry, did I say otherwise? Perhaps it was a bad decision to use the world "necessarily" in the following sentence:


We don't necessarily have to take St. John's interpretation as infallible truth

What I meant by that was not that a saint could be infallible, but that a Saint could nearly-perfectly articulate an infallible truth of the Church. The Gospel writers such as St. John the Theologian are a good example of this. Sorry if I confused anyone by my poor choice in language http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Justin]

PS. I meant to have a frown after my first sentence ("I'm sorry, did I say otherwise?"). I wasn't trying to be smug, but honestly was sorry that I had apparently, inadvertently, said something that I had not meant to say.

[Owen Jones]

For the life of me, I don't understand how the Church can be infallible, simply by proclaiming itself to be infallible. This self-proclamation comes relatively late in the life of the Church, by which time it was run by lawyers.

Scripture and Tradition are not true because of some doctrine of infallibility. They are true because they ring true, and because of what happens to us when we apply their principles in our lives that is demonstrable. Infallibility is not a demonstrable principle. It's a theory at best.

[Justin]

Right owen, and that gives you an excuse to disagree when you don't like what the "lawyers" say. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/sad.gif

[Herman Blaydoe]

Thanks be to God, neither we nor the Church are required to be "infallible." In fact the argument can be made that the idea of infallibility destroys the concept of free will, since the infallible person or institution is deprived of the free will ability to CHOOSE to be wrong.

The Church does not depend on infallibility. It depends on Holy Scripture, the Concensus of the Fathers, and Tradition as typified in our worship since we pray what we believe and believe what we pray. The prayers of the Church are really the best way to learn Orthodox theology.

[Justin]

The Church does not depend on infallibility.

I guess my concern is that some seem to take that theory to unorthodox extremes. Like our friend Owen here, who thinks the "lawyers" made a mistake because they ignorantly condemned Origen. But thankfully we are more pious than lawyers like Saint Justinian, and can see how wonderful Origen is! (for those who didn't catch it, that was sarcasm)

I've read the word infallible while reading the Fathers. If you don't care for the word and think it is "western terminology" or some other such thing then I have no problem with that. The Fathers did teach that the Church, which is in part Christ himself, is infallible though. Dositheus was not the first one to state this regarding the Church, as though he was making an innovative claim in reaction to the Reformation (though apparently some would like to argue something akin to this).

I made a promise to myself when I came back that I wouldn't get involved in verbal arguments with Owen again, so I had best make a hasty retreat from this thread! :-)

[Herman Blaydoe]

As Bishop Tikhon (OCA) likes to say: "When the Pope speaks the Truth, he is infallible. When anyone speaks the Truth, THEY are infallible." Truth is not an idea, a theory, or a book. It is a PERSON--Christ the Lord. To express that Truth, the Catholics depend on the magisterium and the papal office "ex-cathedra." Many Protestants depend totally (sola) upon the compendium of writings referred to as The Bible. When we Orthodox speak of "infallibility" and the Church, it is my understanding that "the Church", however you define it, does not depend on any single office or book or agency in discerning truth. That which the Church accepts must pass 3 different tests. It must not contradict Holy Scripture, it must be agreed to by the concensus of the Fathers (for example, some of Origen's ideas were not in accord with the others), it must not conflict with that which has been accepted before (believed in all places, at all times). Therefore, ANY and ALL rightly-believing bishops are infallible, because--I believe it was Irenaeus who said--"where the bishop is, there is the Church." HOWEVER, whenever a bishop starts spouting something different from his brother bishops, he is no longer "infallible" and somebody--either his brother bishops, or his flock--will move to set him back on the straight and narrow, as inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit. That is why we don't need an infallible book or person--we have Faith that the Holy Spirit will provide what is needed, when it is needed, to keep the Bride of Christ spotless and not even the gates of hell shall prevail against her.

Herman the infallibly simple

(Message edited by herman_b on 24 July, 2003)

[Justin]

Please pardon me for any offense that I have caused. Most of you know that I speak without thinking at times. I'm not saying this as an excuse, but to my shame. (and I understand what you are saying Herman, and don't disagree... I think I am just too reactionary)

[Herman Blaydoe]

Justin, I assure you that no offense was taken on my part. I can be a debating pit bull myself.

I only posted because I have come across those in the Church who do, in fact, believe (or need to believe) the Church is "infallible." In such situations, we do need to be careful in how we define "the Church" or what Owen says is indeed very appropriate. I contend that this notion of "infallibility" is a strawman. It is superfluous. The Church doesn't need to be "infallible" because Christ promised HE would keep His Bride spotless. All the Church simply has to do is keep proclaiming the Truth as given by Christ to His Apostles, as explained by the Fathers, as proclaimed the bishops, as acknowledged by the people, as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Herman the simple

(Message edited by herman_b on 24 July, 2003)

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Herman Equal-to-the Apostles,

( I am smiling lovingly, Herman).

Thank you for your very good post. Our seminary taught the same thing-that when any Orthodox bishop is "rightly dividing the word of truth," he is "infallible" in the sense is that he is adhering strictly to the teachings, doctrines, canons and Tradition of Holy Orthdodoxy Should he depart from those teachings, his clergy, monasticsaand faithful are to question this, and if he remains staunch in his unorthodox beliefs, then they are to leave him for a sound shepherd.

Justin, we have to be very careful in our choice of words, because what tthey mean in Western terms and what they mean as understood in Orthodoxy can be quite different. Owen was quite right when he reacted to the statement about the Church being "infallible."

It is the Latins who feel that they must dogmatize everything in order to add to the authority of the papacy. Glory be to God, we have no such considerations.

Fr. A.

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Andrew,

Death knows no nationality, race, creed, age, religion, or gender! Hows that for equality?
A long time ago as a Charismatic (Assembly of God)in the military, I went on a retreat to an R&R base in the Phillipines. The guest preacher in his talk on prayer spoke directly to husbands from the book of 1Peter, "Husbands live with your wives in an understanding manner as a fellow heir of the grace of life, lest your prayers be cut off." At that point he gestured as though holding up a string with one hand, and the other hand acting as scissors, going snip to illustrate the meaning of the word.

The Holy Scriptures tell us that,"...in Christ there is neither bond nor free, male nor female, Jew or Gentile, but we are one in Christ."

At different times it has been pointed out that understanding the meaning of what someone is saying -over the internet- can be quite difficult, due to how each of us may mean words which we use. Equality is one of those words! As the Holy Apostles have pointed out quite sufficiently, as heirs to the grace of life, all people, everywhere, are on equal footing, without which footing all other arguements are really of no consequence. However; the interpretation and meaning of equality as found in society outside the Church, has become the understanding of those within the halls of the Church, so that we are having the discussion we're having.

When we (those of us who left Methodism) were investigating Orthodoxy we talked with the V. Rev. Fr. Gordon Walker. He told us that upon entering Orthodoxy from Protestantism there were some things he just had to swallow, one major point was the Church's teaching on the Theotokos. As Protestants we're of the frame of mind that the teachings of the church must fit into our rationale. This totally destroys the credibility of the Church if we are there to find the way to salvation. The Church has authority because she is under the authority of her head. And if we are of the mind to become members of that body, we too must come under authority. Each of us can only find our place in society, if first we have found our true selves in Jesus Christ. This discovery cannot take place anywhere but as a member of the Church.

One of the very first things done before Baptism and Chrismation is a renunciation of "the world, the flesh, and the devil." The Church is not McDonald's where we can have it our way!

Each and every person who has began the journey to theosis has been given both a gift and a "ministry" in which that gift is best put to use. To preach literally means, to cast abroad (think of sowing grass seeds). As the Holy Apostle Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth, we are all ambassadors for Christ, and on behalf of Christ we entreat all men, be reconciled to God. And considering us as adequate, God has entrusted to us the word of reconciliation. What an awesome and humbling responsibility.

That is something all true Christians must answer for, but then not everyone is to be set apart as an elder/deacon/presbyter/bishop of the Church. It is here that I must humble myself, and accept the teaching and guidance of the pillar and support of the truth.
Forgive me for rambling on so!

the unworthy servant

[Owen Jones]

Would someone please tell me where it is written in Scripture or Holy Tradition that there is equality in death? EVerything I have seen written says just the opposite. There is justice in death but that justice depends on God making distinctions, according to how we have lived our lives, and according to his mercy and judgment which is beyond our ability to fathom. Hardly a statement on equality!

And at the risk of sounding redundant, harmony or unity is not the same as equality.

It seems to me that to argue that there is equality in death is no different than saying that there is equality in the fact that all men eat and evacuate. WE are simply referring to the animalic nature of man. In that sense, we are all the same. But that hardly speaks to our nature in the fullest sense. The fact that we all metabolize calories does not establish a doctrine of equality, or that our bodies ultimately run down and run out of steam.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Everbody dies, death is often referred to as "the Great Equalizer"--that is unless you are Enoch, Elijah, or Elvis.... ;)

'Erman the simply unable to resist temptation

[Alvin Kimel]

Over twenty years ago the Lutheran theologian George Lindbeck wrote an article on infallibility that I still find persuasive.

Lindbeck likens a religion to a language system, constituted by beliefs, stories, symbols, rituals, and moral and ascetical practices. A religion is a culture that shapes and forms our lives and experiences. Lindbeck notes that virtually every religion, and certainly Christianity, is committed to affirming specific affirmations as infallible. That is to say, in any given religion those affirmations that ground or guarantee the religion are, for it, infallible. Lindbeck writes:


These are those central propositions which are essential to its identity and without which it would not be itself. They are sure, certain, and unquestionable, because to suppose that it is possible that they might ever be shown to be false is to envision the disappearance of this particular religion, of the faith by which one lives. The believer can, of course, envision this possibility, either abstractly or by having real doubts, but insofar as he is within the circle of faith, the central credal affirmations are essential, unquestionable, infallible” (The Infallibility Debate [1971], p. 117).

These infallible affirmations may thus be understood as constituting the depth grammar of the religion.

Lindbeck proposes that within the Christian religion doctrines function as grammatical rules, as communal norms that stipulate how one may speak and live the Gospel rightly. Many of these rules are of a purely practical nature (e.g., “give to the poor,” “go to Mass on Sunday”) and some concern beliefs and their verbal expression (e.g., “when one speaks of Jesus of Nazareth, attribute to him both human and divine predicates”). Of the latter, there are some doctrinal rules that are recognized and authorized by the community as being fundamental, permanent, and irreversible. They constitute the essential rules governing Christian proclamation and discourse. They are the dogmas of the Church. These dogmas ground the identity and life of the Christian community and express the depth grammar of the language of faith. They are infallible and binding precisely in the sense explained above. If the Church were to depart from these doctrinal rules, it would in fact cease to be Christian and would become a different kind of religious community. Or as another Lutheran, Robert Jenson, puts it:


Every theological proposition states a historic choice: ‘To be speaking the gospel, let us henceforward say “F” rather than that other possibility “G.”’ A dogmatic choice is one by which the church so decisively determines her own future that if the choice is wrongly made, the community determined by that choice is no longer in fact the community of the gospel; thus no church thereafter exists to reverse the decision (Systematic Theology [1997], I:17)

If this approach is true, then it logically follows that the organs, whether ecumenical council or papal office, that enunciated the community-defining, infallible dogmas must have been guided and inspired by the Spirit in such a way that we must call their decisions infallible.

[Owen Jones]

That's a very helpful take on the issue of infallibility. Thanks. If you are going to learn to speak English, then you have to follow certain infallible grammatical rules. The problem comes in when one makes universal claims of infallibility. Grammatical rules in English cannot be applied to Russian or Arabic. So there is still an open question there. So I think the analogy breaks down at a certain point. English makes no claims to be a universal grammar. Yet as Orthodox Christians, we do make such a claim, and well we should. Only I think it is in the iconic aspect of Orthodoxy where the claim should be focused. Orthodoxy is the most natural way for people to live. There has to be an idea of universal humanity at stake here, for that idea to make sense. What faith truly represents the fullness, or completeness of human nature? Both descriptively and proscriptively? That's where our case should rest.

[Priest David Moser]

Owen asked:

"Would someone please tell me where it is written in Scripture or Holy Tradition that there is equality in death?"

Herman responded:
"Everbody dies, death is often referred to as 'the Great Equalizer'"

Actually while there is a kind of "defacto" equality in death expressed by the fact that all are subject to it, Holy Tradition does not uphold the idea that there is equality in the life after death - rather there are "many mansions" in the Kingdom of God and our place in the Kingdom of God is related to our stuggles in this life. Heaven is not a "flat" society - but has many ranks and levels and roles within it. We need only to look at the angelic hierarchy to see that there are a variety of roles and duties and strengths and places in the spiritual realm.

Priest David Moser

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Owen; re; Fr. David Moser
Owen: As Charlie Brown would say, "Good grief"
Fr. David, THANK YOU!


subdeacon Moses

[Richard Leigh]

When Scripture, which is infallible because it is from God who is infallible, says "There is neither male nor female etc." it is not speaking of equality but oneness. Equality requires more than one. The oneness of which scripture speaks is with God.

God makes the church one with Him, but it is He who is infallible.

As it looks to me so far, Orthodoxy is orthodox when it simply affirms what is true in God, discovered "empirically" in the spirit (noetically, as the fathers say), but since true, will not contradict scripture with regard to spiritual realities. Anything that does can ever be true, regardless of what that one might think, or from whom that one may have heard it. Eventually the truth will come out. But I have been told that what makes something Orthodox is its Truth. I am willing to believe that.

This is why Jensen's approach cannot be true. It comes from a Romish sort of ecclesialogy which it supports, and is definitely not Lutheran (in case you wanted to know).

"As Protestants we're of the frame of mind that the teachings of the church must fit into our rationale." -- Jas. Anthony 133

That sounds more Jehovah Witness than any Christianity I've been associated with, so just let me say it isn't Lutheran any more than it is Orthodox.

That may be true of some forms of Protestantism, but it certainly isn't Lutheran

"One of the very first things done before Baptism ...'the world, the flesh, and the devil.'" -- Jas. Anthony 133

Yes, at least regarding baptism and this for Catholics and Lutherans as well. I don't know about the rest.

Richard

[Alvin Kimel]

I'm sorry, Richard, but I'm afraid that I do not understand your criticisms of Lindbeck and Jenson.

Both are proposing that dogmas be understood as analogous to rules of grammar. They express how one speaks and enacts the Christian faith properly.

A true dogma is one that is constitutive of the faith and thus irreversible. Such a dogma must be understood as a product of the work of the Spirit, and thus infallible, because if the Church got it wrong there is no longer any church capable of recognizing the true Gospel.

Now since dogmas do not fall out of the sky but are imposed upon the Church by authorized authority, then those who impose a dogma must be, in those specific cases, inspired and infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.

Now maybe this approach ain't Lutheran, not that it matters to me and not that it apparently matters to either Lindbeck or Jenson; but it sure makes sense to me.

I have no problem saying that the Council of Nicaea spoke infallibly when it declared the homoousion. Do you? Do you believe that the homoousion is reversible? I sure don't, and I bet you don't either.

Cheers.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The council in Nicea did not need to speak "infallibly", it simply needed to declare the Truth. I really do not understand this need for infallibility. How do we know which councils expounded truth? Only, really, by the testimony of the following councils whose first action was often to "AMEN" the proceedings from the previous ones. There were also "robber" councils. They could just as easily declared themselves "infallible" but the addition of one statement means, in the end, absolutely nothing. As soon as anyone says "THIS is infallible" I run for cover. The Truth is the Truth, it does not change. It does not have to be proclaimed "infallibly", it merely needs to be proclaimed. We don't need to know who is infallible, we merely need to know what is right. This idea of infallibility only confuses the debate.

I believe that the concept of infallibility destroys the concept of free will. Infallible means unable to be wrong. If we are unable to be anything, we are no longer creatures of free will, I think, but then again, I am of simple mind and certainly not infallible.