Eastern vs. Western ideas of God

[Chuck S.]

Greetings in the name of the Lord!

I hope this subject hasn't been addressed here before, if it has forgive me.

But I was wondering if everyone could point me to some articles (preferably online as I don't really have a 'book budget' at this time) on the differences between Eastern and Western concepts of God?

It certainly doesn't have to be comparative in nature, it can simply be writings on without much comparing. (because I already know what the west teaches)

The reason I ask, is because I have a friend, (Roman Catholic) who isn't at all devout, or anything, just a typical American Catholic. But they made a comment about God thinking that God was punishing them to draw them closer to Him.

Now of course I do understand God allows bad things to happen to us, to strenghten us, to bring us closer to Him, to make us more holy etc...But ths friend's idea was more of the attitude that God was doing bad things to prove He is right.

Or another example someone might say, "Why does God want me to suffer"...

I know there is a distinct difference between East and West on this. The west for the most part sees God sitting on the edge of His throne, just waiting for us to mess up so He can smite us, strike us with a lightening bolt, and prove He is 'holy'...

You know the idea tha God is full of 'Divine wrath' and anger, and He created hell for all those 'evil sinners' because He is holy and righteous. (but of course He sent the baby Jesus who is 'the nice one') :=)

And I know this is not how Orthodoxy understands God to actually be. And I have a sound, but basic understanding of Orthodox thought on this. I just haven't really done a lot of reading, and don't really know how to articulate the Eastern thought of this.

Does everyone understand what I'm refering to? And what I mean by this? I of course don't mean God doesn't correct us as a loving Father. And may allow us to go through hardship...I dont mean that.

What I'm refering to is the Western idea of a God who is out to punish people, or that He wants people to suffer, or the age old questions if someones house burns down they ask, "Why did God do that?" when it was probably just bad wiring.

So I guess I'm looking for Orthodox articles that deal with subject, either comparatively, or even, maybe even preferably, that simply have the spirit of Orthodox thought in them.
Have I been clear, or was I not?

Again, online stuff is preferable, but book recommendations will be useful too. And of course any of your thoughts you feel may be helpful is fine as well.

Thanks,
In Christ, Thomas

[Elizabeth]

www.oca.org (http://www.oca.org)

If you click Orthodox Christianity you will see lots of options available with articles covering many different areas of interest to Orthodox Christians.

[Photini]

Try www.philthompson.net (http://www.philthompson.net)
There is an article there entitled River of Fire, or something like that, that talks about this same thing.

Hope it helps. Maybe also www.orthodoxinfo.com (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com)

[Fr Averky]

I do not think that I would recommend River of Fire, if it is the one written by the late Dr. Kalomiros. In the late 60's and easrly 70's, he was highly respected in Traditional Orthodox circles. Sad to say, near the end of his life, he went over the edge, and convinced many people to float around in boats awaiting the Second Coming of Christ. As I remember it, River of Fire might be too much for an unprepared Roman Catholic to read.

Respectfully,

hieromonk Averky

[Alvin Kimel]

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this idea that there is an "Eastern" understanding of the loving God that may be contrasted with a "Western" view of a God who is out to punish people. This is surely a gross caricature of the Western understanding of the Holy Trinity and a gross caricature of the Western understandings (note plural) of the Atonement.

I just read the "River of Fire" article. I found it interesting--it's particularly valuable for its citations--but it's obvious that the author does not know the writings of Western theologians and spiritual writers. I certainly did not recognize his "Western" view of God as being anything like the God I was taught about or teach as a Western Christian.

[Photini]

The article made sense to me. As young teenager I went to a certain Protestant youth conference every summer and was fed "fire and brimstone" types of sermons for a whole week at a time. Many of the athiests I knew back then turned from God for mainly two reasons. The first was for scientific types of reasons, and the other was because they couldn't follow a God who would have His Son killed just so He wouldn't have to punish us. If I remember correctly, there were more atheists in my high school graduating class than there were Christians.

[Elizabeth]

Dear Alvin:

Have you ever been exposed to the Calvinistic or Lutheran viewpoints? Those who teach predestination used to give hell and brimstone sermons.

Perhaps the Puritans had more of these leanings. Maybe that is why Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote Young Goodman Brown. He saw the hypocrisy of the Puritans and their fire and brimstone beliefs. Maybe this is what led him to abandon his faith and go into the occult.

Since you are Anglican, your beliefs would more closely resemble Catholicism than Calvinism. Isn't that true.

Your sister in Christ,
Elizabeth

[Loretta]

Dear Chuck,

I would have to agree with Alvin's post.

It looks like your friend does not know his faith very well. His remarks sound more Protestant than Roman Catholic.

Your willingness to help your friend and concern is quite admirable.

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear fellow discussion participants:

It is sad to learn from Fr. Averky's post that Dr. Kalomiros veered off into something like lunacy at the end of his life, and certainly "The River of Fire" gives a one-sided view of Western theology which one ought not to take for the whole picture--but it is also true that the understanding of God that Kalomiros describes is fully Orthodox, while his depiction of the Angry God of the West is deeply rooted in Western Christianity, Protestant and Catholic, and consequently deeply rooted in the psyches of all of us who bear the heritage of Western Christian culture, even if we ourselves are Orthodox.

Alvin Kimel, it is certainly true that the Angry God, the God of Punishment, is now little emphasized in vast areas of Western Christianity, but that does not mean He has been formally disavowed. Has the Catholic Church disavowed the theology of juridical atonement developed by Anselm of Canterbury, for example, which became central to its understanding of salvation? Anselm put forth the idea that Christ had to die in order to satisfy the outraged Father's requirement of punishment for sin; Christ died, in other words, to protect us from the Father's wrath. Is Calvinism now dead among Protestants, with its heresies (I do not use the word lightly) of a God whose justice wills the eternal torment of certain infants in Hell? Can American Christians of all kinds fail to recognize the psychological, cultural, and spiritual implications of the fact that one of the first great works of early American literature was the sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (1741; see http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm), by the immensely influential preacher Jonathan Edwards? Or the presence of countless legatees of Calvin and Edwards in our midst to this day?

I speak as one who, though Orthodox, carries the disease of this sort of theology in my blood and has wrestled with its bitter legacy throughout my life. That is not for a moment to deny the synergy of love between the True God and countless holy people in the various Western Christian traditions throughout the ages, who have managed to apprehend, proclaim, and manifest His all-merciful love despite the burdens of certain of their churches' official teachings. Nor is it to deny the commendable redirection of much Western theology away from the Angry God in recent years: may that redirection continue and become an entire repudiation in favor of the vision of God the all-merciful "Lover of Man" once held by the whole of the Undivided Church. But let us not deny the historical, and hidden contemporary, presence of this hideous distortion of God's image in our midst, in the deep background of our culture, our families, and, for some of us, our faiths.

Yours in Christ,

--Jurretta

[Owen Jones]

Dear Juretta,

These things are not absent in Orthodoxy (or Scripture!!). It's a question of balance. In Orthodox Christianity, the wrath of God and punishment are balanced against our doctrine of spiritual progress in which we can attain a condition of perfection, to the extent humanly possible, and this requires a new doctrine of suffering. When a virtuous man suffers in this life, we have the example of Christ who suffered, not as a punishment for anything, but as an opportunity to show God's glory. So this does not necessarily mean he is being punished. Hence, Orthodoxy or, "right glory." However, this does not negate a belief in punishment for sins.

There is clearly a fear of God's wrath in the writings of many of the Orthodox saints, desert fathers, etc. who wish to obey his commands, in part at least, so as not to incure his displeasure and punishment.

So One cannot reduce God or Christianity to love. God is much more than love. He is a God of justice, afterall, and without some penalty, how can there be justice.

The problem in the West is that the doctrine of spiritual progress has dropped off the radar screen as the balance, but especially in conservative Protestantism. You still have it in the Roman Church, but they focus so much in Rome on what the Church says you must believe, that the operational principles of Christianity become obscured. And so you are left either with believing the right things and avoiding sin or risk going to hell -- and nothing more tha that; or -- liberal Christianity which says, in reaction to that, that since God's love is infinite, anything we do or believe is OK.

[Photini]

In most of the books I have read thus far concerning this subject, it has been explained that it is the same "fire" that will cause suffering and punishment for the unrepentant and that will bring blessedness and illumination to those in the process of purification....according to the health of my soul. Have I understood this wrong?

Thanks,
photini, the clueless

[Rebecca]

"Never say that God is just. If he were just you would be in hell. Rely only on His injustice which is mercy, love and forgiveness."

--St Isaac the Syrian

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear Owen:

Forgive me for being cursory, but I must turn off my computer as I leave for the next ten days and do not have time to give your comments the thorough response they deserve.

Briefly, then, we do disagree about the Orthodox Church's understanding. In a sense, one cannot say anything at all about God or His nature and attributes, because He is the Uncreated One beyond all our categories of creaturely understanding. Nevertheless, insofar as we can affirm anything at all about Him, our affirmations begin and end with "God is love" (I John 4:16; note that St. John the Theologian continues with these words: ". . . and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17: In this is love perfected with us, that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so are we in this world. 18: There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love.")

There is a balance, but it is not between love and justice, for His love and His justice are one and the same ("do not call God just," St. Isaac the Syrian says somewhere, "for while we were sinners, Christ died for us!"--His justice has nothing to do with our notions of justice), but a balance between love and freedom: His infinite love, and the absolute freedom He grants us as the bearers of His image.

He loves us, infinitely, unalterably, and completely ("the Lord Himself is all love," writes St. Silouan the Athonite; and again, "the Lord is love insatiable!"--and one thinks of the memorable words of Archimandrite Lev Gillet, who called God "Limitless Love," "Amour sans limites"). But we in our freedom can turn from that love--we do so constantly, and we can do so completely and permanently, if we will--and insofar as we do so, we alienate ourselves from Him, from the encounter with Love, to the point that love itself begins to become alien to our own being, and therefore a thing of torment.

That is the deeper truth behind the anthropomorphic language one sometimes finds in Scripture and even in the saints, concerning God's "anger." In truth, His anger is nothing other than the burning effect of Love on that which has chosen to oppose it.

Or, in words attributed to St. Anthony the Great:
"God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honour Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honour Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind."

From this flows the Orthodox understanding of Hell, most eloquently expressed by St. Isaac the Syrian: "It is not right to say that sinners in Hell are deprived of the love of God. But love acts in two ways: as torment to those who have turned against it, and as bliss to those who live in accordance with it . . The love of God will be a torment to those who have failed to acquire it within themselves" (I may be slightly misremembering the words of this quotation, but not its meaning). Thus God's "judgment" is nothing other than the awesome encounter of our sinful selves with the criterion of absolute Love which is His person, a truth beautifully expressed in icons of the Last Judgment such as that in the great Byzantine church of Chora, which shows the flames of Divine Love embracing the just and the unjust alike, with the just experiencing as bliss what the unjust experience as torment.

This is not at all a weak or comfortable idea. I tremble--literally--at the thought of what it would mean for me in my current condition to encounter Absolute Love and be searched with His Light. I am nowhere near "acquiring the love of God within [my]self." No one gets off the hook here easily, Owen--very much to the contrary. The demands of Absolute Love are absolute, "costing not less than everything," as the Anglican poet T.S. Eliot put it.

But I submit that this is indeed the teaching of Orthodoxy (see, for example, the OCA Catechism at http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Spirituality/Heaven-and-Hell.html; or the passages on Judgement and Hell in works such as Bishop Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way, Vladimir Lossky's Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church; Olivier Clement's Roots of Christian Mysticism; etc., etc.), and that while it is therefore the ancient heritage of Western Christendom also, it remains alien to the vision of many Western theologians, Catholic and Protestant, in the centuries since the Great Schism.

Yours in Christ, and wishing everyone a blessed week of fasts and feasts--

--Jurretta

[Owen Jones]

Dear Juretta,

You have read far too much into what I said and used it as a straw man to knock down. I stand by what I said. The problem, in protestantism in particular, is that the orthodox doctrine of making spiritual progress toward perfection, or deification, has been dropped off. Therefore, a juridicial understanding of salvation exists in an unbalanced way. But that does not negate the juridicial aspect of salvation. It does not negate the fact that Christ died as a ransom for our sins. etc. etc. It is a type of gnosticism for Orthodox to completley reject the juridicial aspects of God's judgment. Remember, Christ did not come to abolish the law, nor to change one jot or tittle of it.


"God is a consuming fire, and according to our inner disposition, He either illumines or burns."
Origen

[Fr Averky]

Dear Thomas,

God does not cause us to suffer, but He does allow us to suffer, and for various reasons.

There are times when He will withdaw Hs presence from us, seemingly abandoning us in order that we will turn to Him. Sometimes He tests our love for Him.
A good example of this is the story of the Prophet Job, wherein God permits many sorrows and trials to befall Job. He allows for Job losing his family, his flocks, his crops, everything. His friends berate him, pointing out again and again how God has abandoned him but he never loses faith in God. In the end, of course,
Job never loses faith, and God rewards him many times over for his faiithfulness. He rebukes Job's friends, and tells them to pray to His servant Job and He will do as Job asks.

In the Old Testament, we see many times when God chooses to punish the people of Israel, and even Moses was not permited to see the Promised land because of His doubts. More than once, God even threatened to destroy the people of Israel, but through the intercession of the saints, like Abraham, He changed His mind.

When Jesus Christ died on the cross, He died for our sins for all time. As Owen points out, Christ did not come to change the Law, but to fulfill it. and as he also says, Christ did not take "punishment" for mankind, but to show how much His Father loved the world.

One important aspect of God's love, is Mercy, for even though He may righteously punish us for our sins, it is not so much a matter of "justice" as it is mercy. St. Ephraim the Syrian says that justice and mercy are like straw and a match, and again, when justice is present, mercy will not abide. Having been raised a Roman Catholic, I still attempt to approach situations in which discipline is needed with my sense of justice. Our bishop, on the other hand, always approaches problems with a heart full of kindness and mercy.

Several yers ago, we had a seminarian who wasone of the first students to come here from the former Soviet Union. He was basically a thug; dishonest, a liar, disobedient, and always arguing. Finally, the hieromonks had had it with him. One by one, they requested that this miscreant be told to leave. Finally, the bishop said to one of the, "So. you want me to throw him out do you? And, if he goes to New York and returns to his old life of drinking and terrible dishonesty, will you be responsible if he loses his soul? Better we be patient with him, and little by little, by God's mercy, he will improve." Many times our bishops have been accused of bering foolish, fo letting too many trouble makers go unpunished, but it is that they are merciful, and on the day of Judgement, God will show them much mercy for the mercy that they have shown to so many others.

Once, St. John of Shanghai was standing on the kliros of the cathedral of Shanghai, and during his sermon, a priest openly accused Vladika of being a snake, a liar, a thief, and many other terrible things. After liturgy, shocked and angry parishioners came up to the saint and told him that he should punish the priest for having insulted him in such an ugly manner. Vladika merely replied that perhaps the priest was right, but at any rate, he had no intention of even saying anything to the priest!

By the way, this is another instance wher the priest's mind was darkened by the Evil One against Archbishop John -this does not "demonize" him, but it shows that even those in orders have been victims of the Devil's work in such a manner.

Father Averky

[Alvin Kimel]

It is certainly true that theories of satisfaction have been dominant in Western theology, but it is certainly not the case that such theories are unknown in the East. Very early on the Church has proclaimed the death of Christ as a sacrifice and propitiation. It has interpreted the death of Jesus as the fulfillment of the levitical sacrifices: Christ is priest, victim, and altar (Origen). As soon as we speak of Jesus' death as a sacrifice, we will then ask why such a sacrifice was necessary and to whom it was (and is) offered. And as soon as we begin to ask these questions, we will find that we must think upon God's holiness and righteousness. Thus St. Athanasius, for example, asserts that God could not simply undo the mortality of humanity, because his righteousness demanded that the Law of death be fulfilled:


For death, as I said above, gained from that time forth a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God because of the transgression, and the result was in truth at once monstrous and unseemly. For it were monstrous, firstly, that God, having spoken, should prove false--that, when once He had ordained that man, if he transgressed the commandment, should die the death, after the transgression than should not die, but God's word should be broken. For God would not be true, if, when He had said we should die, man died not.

And so Christ overcomes this law of death by taking on our death:


For by the sacrifice of His own body, He both put an end to the law which was against us, and made a new beginning of life for us, by the hope of resurrection which He has given us.

Similarly, St Cyril of Jerusalem, who describes the Eucharistic sacrifice as a propitiation, wrote:


These things the Saviour endured, and made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and things in earth. For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things: either that God in His truth should destroy all mean, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God: He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ too our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness. Of no small amount was He who died for us; He was not a literal sheep. He was not a mere man; He was more than an angel; He was God made man. The transgression of sinners was not so great as the righteousness which He wrought also who laid down His life for us.

This is admittedly not St. Anselm, and I do not feel any need to defend Anselm's own theories, any more than I feel a need to defend those who asserted that Christ's sacrifice was a ransom paid to Satan. But one thing needs to be said in defense of Anselm: The heart of his theory, and the heart of all authentic Western theories of atonement, is God's love.

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Alvin,

Thank you for your interesting and informative post. It seems that after 1054, so many of those thoughts and teachings the Church in the West and those of the East had once shared eventually became as polarized as their other differences because of the split. This was further worsened, it would seem, by the actions of the reformers in the West. I am sure that this is a rather simplistic and naive statement, but it is just a thought.

Fr. Averky

[Alvin Kimel]

For an interesting article on Thomas Torrance's approach to atonement, see The Relationship between Incarnation and Atonement in the Theology of Thomas F. Torrance (http://home.apu.edu/%7ECTRF/articles/1998_articles/pratz.html)

[Chuck S.]

Thank you everyone for your replies. I had no idea I'd get this many so quickly!

I will take a look at some of the links posted, but will adhere to Fr. Averky's advice and read (if I do so it will be out of curiosity) 'Rivers of Fire' with a grain of salt.

Just to clear up one point I mentioned, when I speak of 'Western' thoughts on this, or really any topic, I certainly do not mean every single protestant group there is. But it certainly is strongly present in Calvinism, and some southern baptist circles. (like Bob Jones university for example) So I of course do not mean to lump all the west into one large generalized group, but only speak in general terms.

I'm sure this idea I was refering to is also present in the Roman catholic church as well, as my mom was raised catholic and her idea of God is exactly the same as I described. (she hasn't been to church in 35 plus years either if that tells anything, so I wasn't raised in the catholic church to say the least) Oddly enough, my dad as a protestant has the exact same view as well. So perhaps its not a common thread throughout the west, but I feel its enough to deem this as strictly 'Western' in thought.

Again, no offense was intended by deeming this 'western' vs 'eastern'...

Fr. Averky, your story of the Bishop showing patience and love to the young seminary student was very uplifting. I pray I can be that patient, and loving as he was.

Again, thanks to everyone for the links. Owen, thanks for trying to keep the view "in balance"...as that is what I am looking for, a balanced Orthodox view. Which is why I was looking for the 'opposite' view from the west.

Thanks again...


In Christ, Thomas

[John Wilson]

But that does not negate the juridicial aspect of salvation. It does not negate the fact that Christ died as a ransom for our sins.

My understanding of the word ransom is that it is completely unlike a debt which is owed, so I have difficulty fitting it into a juridical concept of salvation.

[Teo Kia Choong]

Dear Elizabeth Hanson and Juretta,

I cannot agree that the Lutheran and Calvinistic point of view determines that God decides the fate of certain infants in hell. Effectively speaking, according to the Lutheran-Calvinist point of view, God predestines the man who is to be saved, but God cannot decide the men who are to be damned. Those who are to be damned chose their own damnation, but those who are saved are saved through the grace of God. The calvinist-Lutheran position does not however erode the other fact that man is required to repent before he can be saved--the role of the sinner--but just that the sinner cannot in any way bring about his own salvation by a 'pure' act of will as in the heresy of Pelagianism.

Somehow, it seems that throughout the centuries in which the Orthodox and Catholic churches were in schism, they eventually came to emphasize different things in their theology. I understand the juridicial bit that has been going on in the last few mails. But I am wondering at the same time, what is the "balance" talked of provided by the Orthodox side? But that aside, I believe in Methodism and even in Anabaptism, the impetus towards perfection and perfectability in this life as a means of preparation for the next life beyond is very much an echo of "theosis", although most Methodists and Anabaptists do not use the same Platonizing language--a result of the fact that their liturgy and worship were conducted more in the vernaculars than the Greek or Latin tongue. John Wesley himself said that there is no onus other than to strive towards perfection as a Christian, and I do not see how "theosis" does not in fact affirm what he said.

The conception of evil in Catholic and Orthodox circles would be very different. From what little I know of Augustine of Hippo in my MA research in university, Augustine defines evil as privation, ie. an 'absence' of good--simply a negative which cannot be embodied unlike in Manichaeism. How different is the definition of evil in Orthodoxy?

Kevin

[M.C. Steenberg]

As a note on something Fr Averki said:


Christ did not take "punishment" for mankind, but to show how much His Father loved the world.

A quotation from St Isaac the Syrian:

The entire purpose of our Lord's death was not to redeem us from sins, or for any other reason, but solely in order that the world might become aware of the love which God has for creation. Had all this astounding affair taken place solely for the purpose of the forgiveness of sin, it would have been sufficient to redeem us by some other means.'

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Dear Kevin,

Many people believe that John Wesley comes closest to the Orthodox Spirit within Protestantism. But there is too much stress on emotion and feeling. When that feeling subsides, Orthodoxy has an answer. But Methodism didn't, which is why it has fizzled.

[Owen Jones]

Matthew, et al:

The quote from ST Isaac the Syrian points to the theological freedom in Orthodoxy to interpret within a broad framework. It harkens us back to our discussion of aesthetics.

Especially the desert fathers are noted for making statements that essentially aesthetic in nature, intended to grab our attention in order to transform us, and this is certainly one of them. However, a modern liberal would take this statement to mean an endorsement of "gay" marriage. Statements such as this lead conservative protestants to brand Orthodoxy as "relativistic." Which is why it's so important to realize that there is always more to it.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Chuck,

I have met literally hundreds of former conservative Protestants, mostly Baptists, and former Roman CAtholics who were brought up on the Baltimore Catechism, who absolutely despise their religious upbringing because God was portrayed as a kind of Dr. Evil who was out to get you. At Moody Church in Chicago I attended a youth service where the young youth minister sang a little ditty about punishment for sin before about a hundred small kids that included him snapping a rat trap in their faces. There are literally millions of people who have either lost their faith altogether because of this, or have adopted some kind of New Age belief, because no Christian alternative was ever given them. Then there are those who seem to be quite happy being a Christian with this theology, but I find that when they are confronted with unexpected suffering, they often go off the deep end, since there is only one explanation for their suffering -- they have sinned terribly and are being punished! When a mother loses a child for example.

The problem goes back to the Reformation trend to want to purify Christianity of it's Greek intellectual tradition by returning to its Jewish roots. The New Testament was re-interpreted by Luther and others as an essentially Jewish document in which a theory of satisfaction for sin became paramount. Luther even had a theory that this re-interpretation of the New Testament would entice European Jews en masse to convert to Christianity, in order to form an alliance to defeat the Muslim invadors. One of his primary objections to a decadent Roman Church of his day was that they weren't doing enough to combat Islam, which at that time was very close to taking over all of Europe. When Jews expressed no interest in converting, he became extremely anti-Jewish.

In general, I would regard Protestantism as "Old Testament Christianity."

So the problem is very real. But, as Orthodox, we should not go to the opposite extreme and throw out the Jewish baby with the bathwater.

[Owen Jones]

Thanks, Fr. K, for your post, which I read after my above posting. I am disturbed by contemporary Orthodox critics who quote Anselm out of context to somehow say that his teachings are somehow foreign to Orthodoxy and the cause of all kinds of terrible heresies in the West. The key to his writings is really "fides quorens intellectum."

Liberals have to attack any theory of atonement in order to justify their idiosyncratic view of God's love. There can be no satisfaction for sin, because there is no sin. There is only alienation.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Owen wrote:


The quote from ST Isaac the Syrian points to the theological freedom in Orthodoxy to interpret within a broad framework. It harkens us back to our discussion of aesthetics.

Especially the desert fathers are noted for making statements that essentially aesthetic in nature, intended to grab our attention in order to transform us, and this is certainly one of them. However, a modern liberal would take this statement to mean an endorsement of "gay" marriage. Statements such as this lead conservative protestants to brand Orthodoxy as "relativistic." Which is why it's so important to realize that there is always more to it.

This is indeed correct. As one will probably have assumed, I offered the quotation as a piece of patristic imagery in support of the comment made by Fr Averky in an earlier message. But Owen is quite right in pointing out that such comments as that by St Isaac (and this is especially true of all such 'spiritual' writers of the desert traditions) are intended to dart into our consciousness and instil a different aspect or image of reality than that which normally resides therein.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Dear Fr. A,

I probably have a very perverted theological perspective on this, but I fear letting God off the hook entirely for sin. It is one thing to say that God does not cause us to sin, or suffer for our sins. Surely this is so. I am the sinner. Not God. However, he knew in advance when he created us that we would sin and that He would have to save us. So he is the cause in that sense, since He caused us to be. We must on the one hand preserve the principle that we are to blame for sin, not God. On the other hand, we cannot confine God to a box in which He is not involved in all of it. And so the Bible deals with this through narrative, not logic, by saying things such as, "and God hardened the heart of Pharoah against the Isrealites," etc. It is all from God. Everything. For a higher purpose. And so while I do not blame God for my sins, in a sense, He has set up a situation in which sin is virtually inevitable, so that I will know that I am not in command and will, in a sense, be forced to turn to Him as the only solution.

If there were no sin, and nature was purely benevolent so that all of our needs were provided without the need for competition, lying, and warfare, you would have the opposite paradox. WE would not need God.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but modern liberalism believes that sin can be overcome through better social and human management, so that at some point in the future, we will not need the Church (and, by implication, not need God). They have a theory of the withering away of the Church, just as Marx had a theory of the withering away of the State. The Episcopal Church is trying to demonstrate this every day. If the Church is getting smaller and smaller, it proves that they are doing their job!!!

[Donald Wescott]

I believe I have read the "River of Fire" piece before and found it to be interesting, but somewhat convoltued. I was unaware that the author ended up being mentally unstable.
I find a much better explanation to be that made by John Romanides. The link is:
http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/eastwest.html
Romanides asserts that the primary difference is the insistence in the West of trusting in reason rather than experience and observation. A quite fascinating article
His Unworthy Servant,
Donald Eusebioss

[Richard Leigh]

Teo,

You are not correct about the doctrines of predestination. It originated from Augustine, but the double predestination, ie that God predestines not only the elect but the reprobate was repudiated at the Council of Orange. Calvin and even Luther resurrected this but Luther said (in Bondage of the Will that though it is true, it is not for us to look at. The Lutheran Church however never accepted this as an article of its faith, and what you say regarding it is true for Lutheran{ism}. Calvin did teach this and it is an article of Calvinistic faith though not held too loudly in the US.

The problem the East has with it is that it denies free will, with which Augustine seems to have nothing to do.

Owen is correct regarding the the Reformation in general and Luther in particular as to the felt need to return to the Hebrew bible. The issue at the time though was repentance in the face of guilt for sin: was it really needed or could one buy one's way out? This whole thing grew with the doctrine of penance as a sacrament in the west. I do think this was peculiar to the West.

And Father Averky, there were views of the atonement expressed in terms of healing in the West as well as the East even up to the Reformation. I think that it was the Reformation that provided the "continental divide," rather than the schism of 1054.

Richard

[Rebecca]

I remember hearing an Orthodox priest once say that the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian is "cleaned up" when we see it translated. He said the original language is "give me not the spirit of sloth.." while we often see it today rendered "take from me the spirit of sloth..."

I think the "give me not" fits together and becomes consistent in God doing all things so that we can be able to see His love for us. We are blinded because we focus on the fallen things, walking around not seeing the wonder of being loved so greatly.

We'll never totally be able to grasp how much He loves us (how can we totally grasp what is infinite?), but the 'astounding affair' (what a beautiful expression) of His taking on human nature, He who "suspended the land above the water, and wrapped the heavens with clouds" as is said in the Royal Hours on Holy Friday is He who is spoken of in Psalm 103 which begins the vespers of Holy Friday, where we go on to hear that

"All creation was changed by fear, when it saw Thee, O Christ, hanging upon the Cross; the sun was darkened, and the foundations of the earth were shaken. All things suffered with the Creator of all things. O Lord, Who for us didst willingly endure, Glory to Thee."

and

"Today the blameless Virgin saw Thee O Word of God, hung upon the Cross, and she mourned within herself and was sorely pierced in her heart, and she groaned in agony from the depth of her soul, exhausted by smiting upon her breast, with hair disheveled, and cried out wailing: Alas! my Divine Son. Alas! Light of the World. Why, O Lamb of God, hast Thou departed from mine eyes? Wherefore, also the armies of the Heavenly Hosts were seized with trembling, and cried out: O incomprehensible Lord, Glory to Thee."

and

"Today the Master of creation stands before Pilate, and the Creator of all is given up to the Cross, as a lamb He is led by His own will. He is fixed with nails, and His side is pierced, and His lips are touched with the sponge, He, Who has rained down manna. The Redeemer of the world is smitten on the cheek, and by His own servants the Fashioner of all is mocked. He is a merciful Master! For His executioners He besaught His heavenly Father, saying Forgive them this sin, for they know not what they do."

I wonder if the discussion of our 'suffering' is not misguided to think it's a punishment. Perhaps it is more an obstacle placed in our path so that we will choose to strive against things that blind us to God's love and to seek after God:

"the Bridegroom cometh in the midst of the night and blesssed is the servant whom He shall find watching; and again unworthy is he whom He shall find heedless. Beware, therefore, O my soul, lest thou be borne down with sleep, lest thou be given up to death, and lest thou be shut out from the Kingdom. Wherefore rouse thyself and cry: Holy, Holy art Thou our God, through the power of Thy Cross save us"

and

"I see Thy Bridal Chamber adorned, O my Savior, and I have no wedding garment that I may enter therein; O Giver of Light, make radiant the vesture of my soul and save me."

[Alvin Kimel]

Chuck, may I suggest that your first step with your friend is to show him that the Catholic Church does not teach the understanding of God that he seems to believe, no matter what he thinks he learned growing up in the Catholic Church. Here are a couple of short popular articles I found on the net by a Catholic laywoman:

What is God Like? (http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/godlike.html)
Our Father Loves and Understands Us (http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/begin.html)

You might also recommend to your friend Scott Hahn's book A Father Who Keeps His Promises (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892838299/qid=1060442547/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_11/102-2077069-1531344?v=glance&s=books).

Also point your friend to this talk by Pope John Paul II: God the Father Loves You (http://www.petersnet.net/research/retrieve_full.cfm?RecNum=822)

Even if your friend becomes interested in Orthodoxy, it's always best to first help him to appreciate the authentic Catholic understanding of God.



(Message edited by Strider on 09 August, 2003)

[Owen Jones]

I believe that God gives us suffering as a gift to lead us toward Him. Without suffering, who would want God? Not as an escape from suffering, but as the only meaningful answer to the questions posed by suffering.

[Elizabeth]

Dearest Owen:

Right on!

Suffering and illness sometimes bring a sinner to Christ precisely because he is humbled and can not do things for himself. He becomes dependent on others for his very life and begins to realize that he is ultimately totally dependent on God.

An Orthodox Priest told us about his father who had not been very religious. Naturally, this priest prayed for his father's salvation. Next, his father was striken with a terminal illness, so the good son prayed for a miracle. The dad repented and told his son that a spiritual healing was far more important than a miracle. In fact, the father said that he needed this time to repent and prepare to meet Christ. When the father died, the son grieved but rejoiced in his dad's salvation, which was the greater miracle.

Lovingly in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Owen,

I almost forgot, regarding your post 619: "When Jews expressed no interest in converting, he became extremely anti-Jewish." He was never anymore anti-Jewish than the rest of the soceity in which he lived (including that of a number of already converted Jews who then wanted to burn all the copies of the Talmud they could find).

Also, some Jews (at lest one) did convert as a direct result of Luther's ministry, but you are right, there was not the en mass conversion he excpected commensurate with his eschatological conjectures, so he turned on them. But again, it was a return to the general feeling of the Franko-Germanic populace.

Richard

[Rebecca]

Without suffering, who would want God?

I don't know if I would go that far personally (just my opinion as I am not truly knowledgeable of patristic thought on this), but to me it seems that it's more that we naturally incline toward God, but we allow other things to distract us and cloud our vision (the fallen world that twists our faculties which are naturally meant for God, but are twisted in a "passionate" way). Rather than abandoning us to this, God intervenes and helps guide us back to Him, where our nature is fulfilled (in Him). Seems like I've read something along these lines in Orthodox writings somewhere, but it could be jumbled in my mind so nobody should take this as anything but a possibly incorrect random thought...

[Rebecca]

Hi Elizabeth,

Your post reminds me of someone else's experience when her father was in the hospital for a quintuple heart bypass surgery at the age of 71. Several years prior to the surgery, her dad had been told he was experiencing TIA's and that he had a blockage in his carotid artery. Whenever her dad would come to her house and visit her, he would be careful not to turn his head a certain way, since that's where the blockage was..

While the daughter happened to be visiting her parents on her yearly vacation, her dad was taken to the hospital for tests because he experienced lightheadedness while doing morning calesthenics. Tests revealed that he had a clot in his heart that could dislodge at any moment and kill him (somewhat extraordinary in itself in the gentle symptoms that took him to the hospital, rather than an acutal heart attack that would have further damaged his heart).

The daughter was in the hospital room when the cardiologist began talking about the upcoming bypass surgery, and told them that the only thing that could be a danger was if her dad had blockages in arteries to his brain. Her dad then told the doctor that he'd been diagnosed with such blockages previously. The cardiologist went on to say that they'd still want to do the surgery as long as he hadn't been experiencing TIA's. Her dad told the cardiologist he'd been diagnosed as having TIA's.

This put her dad in a pretty critical situation, because it was the blood thinner he was getting in an IV that was keeping the clot in his heart from killing him. Without the surgery, he was "stuck" there in the hospital on the blood thinner, with the clot ready to dislodge. They ordered another test with a neurologist for the following day, and the daughter went home that evening.

The daughter said that as she prayed that night, she asked God what she should pray for. The thought occurred to her to ask for the very best thing for her father whom she loved. Thinking about what that would be, it occured to her to pray that God allow her father to see that He loved her dad, and that if it was His will that her dad be able to have the life-saving surgery, then so be it.

The next day, the tests showed no blockages in carotid artery, and the following morning, the daughter and her brother were in her dad's room before he was taken to surgery. Her dad took her hand in one of his, and her brothers in his other hand and said that he wanted to share with them a dream he had been having repeatedly the last couple of nights.

Her dad said in the dream, he was in a really peaceful place. There in the peaceful place, he realized he didn't have his wallet with him (her dad had always been very careful of his wallet and id, in fact he always kept his old wallets even when he got a new one). When he realized in the dream that he didn't have his wallet, "someone" told him that "you don't need that here." Her dad then told his children "that's a pretty good place isn't it? where you don't need your wallet?"

The daughter thought about this, she said, because if you don't need your wallet, then you don't need any ID (they already know you). She concluded that these comforting dreams were God's gift of revealing His love for her dad, and that God had let her know the right thing to pray for.

While her dad was in surgery, she and her brother were in the waiting room. At one point, her brother became extremely anxious, remembering how her dad's heart hadn't started back up right away in the first bypass surgery 14 years before. The daughter said that she felt an extraordinary feeling of peace and comfort around that time, but didn't say anything to her brother, because she doubted whether the peace was God preparing her for her dad's death or letting her know that everything was ok.

Her dad came out of the surgery fine, and was with his family for over two more years.

[Justin]

Teo Kia Choong


...Augustine defines evil as privation, ie. an 'absence' of good--simply a negative...

Some Fathers in the east would have considered this an agreeable belief. I would tend to agree with them.

[Justin]

"In short, do not regard God as the cause of substance of evil. Do not imagine that evil has a substance peculiar to it. Wickedness does not exist like some living thing. We cannot set it before our eyes as something existing. Evil is a privation of good. The eye was created, and blindness came into existence with the loss of eyesight. So if the eye had not been destructible by nature, blindness could not have come into the world. In the same way evil does not exist in its own right, but comes into existence through the manipulation of the soul..." - Saint Basil the Great, God Is Not the Author of Evils, 5
..........

"For even as fire cannot cool us, so Good cannot produce the things which are not good. And if all things that have being come from the Good (for it is natural to the Good to produce and preserve the creatures, and natural to evil to corrupt and to destroy them) then nothing in the world cometh of evil. Then evil cannot even in any wise exist, if it act as evil upon itself. And unless it do so act, evil is not wholly evil, but hath some portion of the Good whereby it can exist at all. And if the things that have being desire the Beautiful and Good and accomplish all their acts for the sake of that which seemeth good, and if all that they intend hath the Good as its Motive and its Aim (for nothing looks unto the nature of evil to guide it in its actions), what place is left for evil among things that have being, or how can it have any being at all bereft of such good purpose? And if all things that have being come of the Good and the Good is Beyond things that have being, then, whereas that which exists not yet hath being in the Good; evil con*trariwise hath none... So the Good must have Its seat far above and before that which hath mere being and that which hath not; but evil hath no place either amongst things that have being or things that have not, yea it is farther removed than the Non-Existent from the Good and hath less being than it.

'Then' (saith one perchance) `whence corneth evil?'... The true answer whereunto will be that evil (qua evil) causes no existence or birth, but only debases and corrupts, so far as its power extends, the substance of things that have being... Evil in itself hath neither being, goodness, productive*ness, nor power of creating things which have being and goodness... the Good, on the other hand, wherever It becomes perfectly present, creates perfect, universal and untainted manifestations of goodness ; while the things which have a lesser share therein are imperfect manifestations of goodness and mixed with other elements through lack of the Good. In fine, evil is not in any wise good, nor the maker of good;' but every thing must be good only in proportion as it approacheth more or less unto the Good, since the perfect Goodness penetrating all things reacheth not only to the wholly good beings around It, but extendeth even unto the lowest things, being entirely present unto some, and in a lower measure to others, and unto others in lowest measure, according as each one is capable of participating therein.' Some creatures participate wholly in the Good, others are lacking in It less or more, and others possess a still fainter participation therein, while to others the Good is present as but the faintest echo." - (Pseudo-)Dionysius the Areopagite, The Divine Names, 4 (http://www.ccel.org/r/rolt/dionysius/)

[John Curtis Dunn]

Not God. However, he knew in advance when
he created us that we would sin and that He would have to save us. So
he is the cause in that sense, since He caused us to be.
------------

Owen began the paragraph from which the above was snipped out by writing:
"I probably have a very perverted theological perspective on this..."

So, I must ask: How does Owen differentiate his reasoning from that of Adam's reasoning in the Garden? "The women whom thou gavest me.."

Doesn't the logic of such reasoning actually begin with the Serpent who spoke to Eve saying: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." [Gen 3:5]

What the serpent promised Eve and most probably what Eve promised to Adam, was that by their own reasoning they would be able to see into the mind of God. They would be able to differentiate between good and evil in the mind of God. And it does seem that Owen's perspective follows that reasoning: "Our evil circumstances and sins began with God who made us."

I do not dispute with the logic of the reasoning, for that would be to fall into the trap of the reasoning itself, but I do dispute the truth of the reasoning. First, because it is a reasoning which is post-paradise. For as soon as Adam and Eve ate of the tree, they were already on the path out of paradise. Prior to that eating, they were fliting upon the path, testing out by their senses its appearance to determine for themselves the truth of God's warning: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." [Gen 2:17]

It is foolish for man to reason his way back into Paradise, and then from there to judge God.

That last point also raises the question whether God came looking for Adam to judge him? Was that the whole of the goal and intent of Adam's experience in Paradise? Did God really create man to judge him? Did God really need or desire a courtroom drama to satisfy his own proof of Justice? Was man really created to be only an actor on the stage of God's courtroom drama?

The primary purpose of ogic in Anslem's argument is to offer an explanation for the existence of death. In this also there is post-paradisial reasoning which suggests and logically deduces that death is a punishment created by God. The death penalty is then presented as the ultimate expression of God's justice in His Court room drama, of which we all are but play actors serving and bolstering God's ego.

But did God create death? The Wisdom of Solomon answers in no uncertain words: "For God created not death. He created man to be immortal, and made him an image of His own eternity. Nevertheless, through the envy of the devil death came into the world." [Wis. 1: 13, 2:23-24]

The legal myth also propogates a notion that "forgiveness" is a result of a change within God towards man. The atonement salves God's offended righteousness, Holiness and Justice, enabling God to regain His own composure. Without this salve being applied to God's boiling wrath, God would be incapable of pardon and acquittal of sins. The end result being that God saves us from Himself.

The forgiveness of God is not extracted out of God, it is wholly free and without compulsion or coercion. The death of Christ does not make God into a debtor towards mankind. God owes no man forgiveness, rather He gives it freely out of His own love for mankind. In Protestantism, this idea of the debt of God has been widely disseminated. So much, that many assume that when each man dies, for God to accept just one, necessitates that He accept all, otherwise God appears capricious and nit-picky.

john

[Owen Jones]

My point in making the statement, John, was not to judge God. But simply to highlight the paradoxical nature of existence. A lot of the theories regarding atonement for sin are an attempt to overcome that paradox. And while illuminating in some sense, are really inconclusive. Which is the reason why there is no conciliar dogma on the meaning of atonement. It's really impossible. SO there are different schools of thought.

The Owen Jones school of thought is not to equate God with Pontius Pilate, wiping his hands, denying responsibility. God assumes ultimate responsibility for our sins, otherwise, why send His son to die for them? If there were no need for atonement of sin, then there is no need for a cross. Christ could have died in a humble estate in old age, then risen from the dead and ascended. When Orthodox condemn all of these atonement theories altogether, they seem to me to go so far as imply that there is no atonement at all. I think we need to be very careful about that.

I do not believe that God the Father, in sending His son to die on the cross, is rectifying a mistake he made in creating us. Heaven forbid. He is simply revealing Himself more fully, in the fullness of His time. But he knew before creation that all of this would have to be. That's the paradox. There is no theology that can resolve that paradox.

Which always puzzles me regarding Christ's struggle with God's will. Which implies that Christ, in His human state, did not have the Father's foreknowledge. Which seems to justify some subordinationism in Christology????

By the way, all Reason is post paradise. There is no other reason. And I don't believe that God created in order to have someone he could judge and punish!!!!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Owen wrote:


The Owen Jones school of thought is not to equate God with Pontius Pilate, wiping his hands, denying responsibility. God assumes ultimate responsibility for our sins, otherwise, why send His son to die for them?

Perhaps the matter is slightly more nuanced than you present it here. Thus far we've used such notions as 'responsibility' fairly loosely. But what does it mean, in this context, for you to claim that God has 'ultimate responsibility for our sins'? You've already related this in some manner to the foreknowledge of God vis-a-vis the eventual sin that would be commited by His human creation. But does foreknowledge of an abuse of freedom necessarily equate to 'responsibility' for the fact of that abuse? Human parents also 'create', i.e. engender, children whom they know -- not guess, but know -- will fall into sin at some point in the latter's lives; but are these parents thereby responsible for the fact of the children's sin?

It seems to me that, from one angle, we can answer 'yes' to this question. But if we do so, are we not in some manner diminishing the significance of responsibility as united to the individual? I have done all manner of things in my life that can be seen, many causes-and-effects later, to have been 'of influence' in the commission of sin by another: I have taught students materials which they then misused, or doctrines which they then misquoted and misapplied. Am I then 'responsible' for their misuse and misapplication of what I taught? If we answer 'yes', then does not the whole issue of responsibility become so global that it loses its value as a guage of one's relationship to God and other men? Teachers could not teach, parents could not bear children, and God Himself could not create in a holy way if such is the whole manner of our conception of 'responsibility'.

God is in some sense 'responsible' for all thing, certainly. God is all in all, and nothing exists apart from His divine power. But this is a responsibility of a different order than that of personal implication in particular acts, especially sinful acts.


If there were no need for atonement of sin, then there is no need for a cross.

Yes, but let us not too quickly assume that 'atonement' and 'acceptance of responsibility' equate to the same thing. The teaching of the Gospel is rather substantially that God acts in the Passion for the redemption of a sin that is not His own. It is the selfless act of the divine man 'for the life of the world' that is made manifest at the crucifixion, not the act of a God burdened by the weight of responsibility for the fallen state of man.

[Owen Jones]

There are also nuances in the opposite direction. We have to be on guard against being overly responsible. That is the cause of most of the world's oppressive regimes, religious and secular. People take too much responsibility, and in doing so, they feel they have a right to dominate others. While I am responsible for my sins -- no one forces me to sin -- my responsibility still has limitations. Not only can I not save myself from my sins, I am born into a sinful world, into sinful conditions, into a state of corruption, which I did not cause to be. At some point, for my sanity if nothing else, I have to turn all of that over to God.

[John Wehling]

Owen wrote:
>>God assumes ultimate responsibility for our sins, otherwise, why send His son to die for them? If there were no need for atonement of sin, then there is no need for a cross. Christ could have died in a humble estate in old age, then risen from the dead and ascended. <<

Some of you might find interesting what St Gregory Palamas says regarding this issue. He says in Homily 16.1 that the "Son of God could clearly have saved man from mortaliy and servitude to the devil without Himself becoming man.... But the incarnation of the Word of God was the method of deliverance most in keeping with our nature and weakness, and most appropriate for Him Who carried it out, for this method had justice on its side, and God does not act without justice.... Justice before power is the best order of events, and that force should come after justice is the work of a truly divine and good Lord, not of a tyrant." (Homily 16.1-2)

Fr John

[John Curtis Dunn]

The Owen Jones school of thought is not to equate God with Pontius
Pilate, wiping his hands, denying responsibility.
-------

"Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unot the hath the greatest sin." [Jn 19:11]

So then, according to your reasoning, who had the greatest sin?

Also, what gymnastic move do you use to jump over: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." [Js.1:13]

john

[Owen Jones]

As Matthew suggests, John, it's a nuanced point.

[John Curtis Dunn]

As Matthew suggests, John, it's a nuanced point.
--------

Which points aren't? My questions remain valid questions to which your nuanced points need further elaberation.

Was it not Locke who said something like: "... press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions."

john

[Richard McBride]

monochos: paradox (and the answer to the question)

paradoxos

I am used to thinking of 'paradox' in its juxtaposition of contraries. But the word ends in, doxa. This is a warning that there may be ambiguities afoot -- certainly, a warning to anticipate nothing less than the curiosity of doxa itself. For we are commonly used to hearing this word as, 'Glory' (Doxa soi Kurie, doxa soi).

But in the term above it means, 'mere opinion' -- especially, that opinion which others have of one's self. In fact, the doxa of the Second Commandment, and in everything that follows by the Fathers, is an invention (at least in terms of what had been normal Greek usage prior to its usurpation by New Testament Scripture). None of the NT refers back to the normal Greek meaning of the term.

Now in English, it is clear that the older Greek meaning comes down to us completely ignoring any intervention by the New Testament. In a purely secular manner, we accept it in its pre-Incarnational status as para - meaning beyond or contrary to; and dox - meaning a matter of opinion.

Thus, by several indications we are warned of this word, 'paradox': Its ancient usage is not only less than holy, it resorts to the low form of knowledge we speak of as 'mere opinion'; contrarily, its usage in New Testament Scripture is quite the opposite, for it refers to that highest form by which we may experience God Himself, Glorification; and thus we very nearly create an oxymoron when we Christians bring the two meanings together.

It thus occurs to me, when we are speaking of God, that the term 'paradox' may come packaged in its own warning label: This term is dangerous to your health. Consider Seraphim's statement:

"My point in making the statement, John, was not to judge God. But simply to highlight the paradoxical nature of existence. A lot of the theories regarding atonement for sin are an attempt to overcome that paradox. And while illuminating in some sense, are really inconclusive. Which is the reason why there is no conciliar dogma on the meaning of atonement. It's really impossible. SO there are different schools of thought."

The problem is only compounded among the "different schools of thought". Once one realizes that one has stubbed one's toe on one of these Divine paradoxes, the caveat says, "OK, forget it lads. You've screwed this one up well as you may -- until the Holy Spirit tips the scales." Its like another of those fruitless attempts to prove the existence of God.

I supposes that would be the general situation. More particularly, the problem with atonement is that it lies in God's purview, and we all know how exclusive a club that is. We are not in the club. We don't know the secret signs and the hidden meanings. All we have is the reason left to us after being kicked out of the club -- that, and the help of the Paraclete when our receivers are working. Like the Airplane sects in New Guinea, we have our little devices for depicting the divine order, and while we do receive answers based primarily upon our need, it is also an oft repeated lesson, for me, in recognizing the humble nature of my present understanding.

Still, I suppose, we are bound to dabble in these paradoxes, no matter how obvious be the warnings. We cannot seem to help wallowing in mere opinions, while the Big Show is about an entirely different kind of Doxa.

PS
Also, I realize that my urges do not drive me toward the very intelligent problems with which Richard Leigh and Father K wrestle. So, I am insensitive to much of their concern; I hope they can forgive me my doltish responses. For me, the address of much heavy theology is by the admittedly simple minded realization, that Divine Time is different than human time. I never worry about the question, Why did God create a people whom He knew were going to sin? For to me, this belongs under His type of Time: His time, in my stupid terms is, That which was, is now, and ever shall be. Thats the answer to the question.

[John Wilson]

Dear Owen,

did God our Father send His Son to die, or did His Son freely offer Himself?

John

[Owen Jones]

Both

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

[Owen Jones]

It's not a question of "worrying about" an unanswerable question, Richard. When you ask an unanswerable question, there is another possible outcome. A spot of wisdom and humility and a realization that certain paradoxes cannot be overcome, either by human thought or human action.

[Chuck S.]

Thanks to everyone for the additional links and advice! Again, I really appreciate it!

and while I'm not really interested in getting involved in this hugely philisophical debate...;) I would like to give just some food for thought...

Why did God create us even though He knew we would sin?
I think I once read a sufficient answer elsewhere. And that is because God is Love, and Love by it's very nature means, among meaning things, the act of sharing.

The Creation was God's way of sharing His existance and His love with other beings.

He created mankind to participate in His own eternal love, to the level a created being can participate! In fact, to me, God's love is even greater because He did know we would fail. It would have been easy for Him to create the universe if humans would never had fallen. But He chose to create us, despite the problems we as the human race would cause one another, and the entire creation. (which Paul said is groaning since the fall)


Maybe this isn't sufficient for some of you...and perhaps I'm just a simpleton, but this is more than enough for me.

The fact that God knew He would leave His glory, become a man, suffer pain and death before He ever created us tell me His love is ineffable.

There is a secular song that says, "I could have missed the pain, but then I'd of had to miss, the dance!"

To me, God could have chosen not to create, thereby foregoing all the pain He underwent on the Cross, but then WE would have had to miss the Glory of Life in Him. The fact He offers us the chanc eto participate in Communion with Him is proof (to me) that God is indeed love. (ist John 4:8)

To me, going beyond this to try and understand God's mind is just not possible. But then again, the song I quoted is a country song, and thus I probably am a simpleton...LOL!

Thats my 2, or 3 cents. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Thanks again for all the advice and links!

In Christ, Thomas

[Margaret Lark]

"Why did God create us, even though He knew we would sin"? I hope it doesn't sound vastly arrogant to say that I understand God so much better since becoming a parent. I know, I know -- *no* human being can ever hope to understand God. But sometimes I think about the people who asked us why we had kids, even though we knew what a "horrible" world they would be born into, and I think -- "Just because." Because we wanted our love to grow and grow, into infinity. Because we wanted to spread it around even more. Because we knew that whoever God chose to create, would brighten the world in a way that no one else could; that a corner of the world would remain forever dark, if this person were not in it.

And the really astonishing part, now, is that there is a *third* person who would never exist if we had chosen not to have children -- our new grandson. We can't see his future, any more than we could see our kids' future. But the world is a brighter place because those three people -- our daughter, our son, and her son -- exist in it. I think that's why God created us; He just thought the world would look a little better with this one particular person in this one particular place, hopefully offering Him worship in a way that no one else could, because no one else would have those particular experiences.

Woolily, Zhavronok

[M.C. Steenberg]

Why did God create us, even though He knew we would sin?

You might be interested in reading this older thread:

Why would God create a world that He knew he would have to save? (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/10006.html?1044450940)

Though not technically related, the following older thread might also be of some interest:

Suffering / Hope & Prayer (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/6300.html?1035958159)

INXC, Matthew

[Kieran P.]

I just dipped in and out of this thread and I have to say - as a "Roman" Catholic - that I've never come across this notion of God as a punisher. It doesn't play so great a role in our spirituality at all. Maybe I'm just reading the wrong book, and talking to the wrong monks and nuns.

We're aware of God's judgment and His just punishment, but we don't tailor our spirituality to suit our fears. Nor are we told what to believe by Rome. Of paramount to the Catholic is their concience. If we find something the Church teaches goes against our concience, then we're answerable firstly to our concience.

The notion of Catholicism being centralised to the point of us being told what to believe is ludicrous.

I think we approach God from different angles to the great churches and saints in the east, but this is partly due to different experiences of Him, which is dependent upon His grace. So God is love, and He's transcendent, and He's incomprehensible to us, but He certainly isn't laying in wait for us, nor is He stern, or unforgiving.

He's actually been very patient with mankind, as far as I can see - and most especially patient with those who attend His churches! :-)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Kieran wrote:



I just dipped in and out of this thread and I have to say - as a "Roman" Catholic - that I've never come across this notion of God as a punisher. It doesn't play so great a role in our spirituality at all. Maybe I'm just reading the wrong book, and talking to the wrong monks and nuns.

We're aware of God's judgment and His just punishment, but we don't tailor our spirituality to suit our fears. Nor are we told what to believe by Rome. Of paramount to the Catholic is their concience. If we find something the Church teaches goes against our concience, then we're answerable firstly to our concience.

The notion of Catholicism being centralised to the point of us being told what to believe is ludicrous.

I think we approach God from different angles to the great churches and saints in the east, but this is partly due to different experiences of Him, which is dependent upon His grace. So God is love, and He's transcendent, and He's incomprehensible to us, but He certainly isn't laying in wait for us, nor is He stern, or unforgiving.

He's actually been very patient with mankind, as far as I can see - and most especially patient with those who attend His churches! :-

I began my conversion through Catholicism so there is much in what Kieran says that I recognize to be accurate. A central difference I think however is still to be found in how we relate to authority within the Church. And this is highlighted by a conversation I had with Roman Catholic friends quite a few years ago as I was converting to Orthodoxy.

My Roman Catholic friends first off were insistent that there was no essential difference between us but only shades of meaning or tendencies. But when I pointed out that we do not accept the kind of supremacy among our bishops as is found in the idea of Papal supremacy they replied that they followed not what the Pope said but rather their conscience.

To this I answered that this way of relating to the Pope or a bishop was not consistent with Orthodox ideas of authority either. After all most of these young and idealistic friends held to ideas clearly outside the pale of Catholic theology & practice. So I said that within Orthodoxy although we certainly have a relative & not absolute honour in regards to our hierarchy, we cannot be in diametrical contradiction to them on the level of theology or praxis and consider ourselves to be faithful Orthodox Christians.

Really it was at this point that the conversation could go no further because although it was difficult for my friends to recognize there really is a fundamental difference between us in this way of seeing where authority comes from within the Church.

To develop this in just a few brief words. Papal supremacy and a concept of authority and teaching definitely was a central & popular concept within Catholicism until the changes from the 1960s on. From this point on it is often difficult to know which changes truly represent Catholic teaching and which are interpretations at variance with this. Many Catholics of a more conservative bent even say that a number of these changes reflect a distortion of Catholic teaching. From our perspective this gives the impression of 'churches within the Church' which actually is found and accepted now as a normal part of western church life. To us this reflects a fundamental distortion of what the Church is.

For us Papal supremacy and following your conscience in a way that leads one to an opposed faith with one's own bishop are two sides of the same coin.

Authority in fact within the Church comes ultimately from neither but from another source.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kieran P.]

Hiya Father Raphael,

It's Catholic belief - as you know - that in matters of doctrine the teachings of the Church are infallibly espoused and binding on the faithful. So in these matters, it's beholden to the Catholic to understand what they're being taught - and to live their lives accordingly. This doesn't mean we check our brains at the door. And it doesn't mean that all papal pronouncements come at the whim of the Pope, without collegial discussion.

When I referred to our concience, I was referring to certain matters which are down to the day to day living of Catholics within the church. Each of us - as individuals - will answer for our own actions. You, too. We can't use Church doctrine as a cover, though that's infallibly taught. We must still live according to what and how we understand and then use our concience as an individual.

There might be circumstances which the Church hasn't clearly taught us on, and our actions must reflect our beliefs - but primarily must be an action of good concience.

If your friends "held to ideas clearly outside the pale of Catholic theology & practice", then these ideas were not Catholic, and their actions must be judged accordingly. Simply because we exercise our concience doesn't mean we should exercise it at the expense of our beliefs - or what the Church teaches.

Your insights into Vatican II are interesting. I see a lot of tensions and frustrations from hard-core conservative Catholics and Liberals, so called. So much so, that the Traditionalists accuse the Pope of being a liberal...and the Liberals accuse the Pope of being too conservative!

I understand how, to an outsider, it gives an impression of confusion. We get the same impression when we see how Orthodox Churches vary in their approaches. Within the Church, however, the same criteria must apply: we remain faithful and follow what the Church teaches.

But - in concience - we can express dissatisfaction.


Authority in fact within the Church comes ultimately from neither but from another source.

We'd share this belief also. We don't believe that Church Authority comes from man, but from that other "Source" (capital S!).

(Memo to mods - Where's my smileys when I need them?)

God bless...and thanks!

[John Charmley]

Dear Kieran, Dear Fr. Raphael,

This dialogue, conducted in a spirit of love and a desire to understand, is a model of how to do this often difficult task of exploring what the other really believes.

It points up, among other things, how time can alter perspectives. English perspectives of Roman Catholicism when I was young were almost uniformly hewn from the wood of ancient prejudices; I can remember my parents shock when my first girl friend was a Catholic; they would have welcomed anyone else - but not her. I thank God that times have changed, and that perspectives have changed with them.

Yes, of course, our different histories have left us with some different views, but God is so vast and so unknowable, that there is room to explore these in this forum in the spirit which you both bring. Thank you for such an example. You have both said in different places here that discussion and agreement should never be at the price of the truth - but you have demonstrated for all of us that is need not be at the price of Christian love, either.


In Christ,

John