Justification by faith and Orthodoxy [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Jonathan Tallon

28-11-2003, 02:21 PM

Oh dear. 10 days, and no replies... Perhaps I need to explain the reasons behind my question better.

First, I am utterly uninterested in setting off one of those 'let's compare Orthodoxy with Luther/Calvin/Cranmer/Aquinas/whoever else, and show that one side is right'. The question was not intended as bait.

But this is an area of genuine interest and importance. 'Justification by faith' was a key area for Protestant and R Catholic disagreement in the past, and a key area for ecumenical discussion today. However, I am aware that how it is perceived in these denominations is based on utterly different principles from those that operate in the Orthodox church.

Therefore, it is important, (particulary so for non-Orthodox), to learn what the Orthodox church 'hears' when St Paul speaks that we are 'justified by faith' (Romans 5.1 - and I am aware that one of the issues may be which English word is best used to translate dikaios and its derivatives).

I also have a personal agenda in asking this question, which is that I am studying the homilies of St. John Chrysostom looking at this issue. I therefore do have some opinions of my own, but I would prefer to hear other, wiser and more experienced voices before venturing what I have learned.

Yours in Christ,

Jonathan

Fr John Wehling

29-11-2003, 01:05 AM

Jonathan,

How 'bout sharing some of what you have culled from St John. I, for one, would like to hear your synopsis and you thoughts on what he has to teach on justification.

Fr John

Fr Averky

29-11-2003, 01:16 PM

Dear Johathan,

I would dare to say that you might not have had many responses because we have gone over those subjects many times in the last several months, and I would further venture to say, are a bit burnt out by them. It is the beginning of Christmas Lent, and we are focusing on spiritual preparation for the Nativity of Christ.

If you can acess Monachos' archives, I am sure you will find several threads which will be informative. They all bear similar names to the thread you have just started. May God help you. I am sure that our Moderator, Matthew would be happy to direct you to them. Forgive me Matthew, if I am being presumptuous.

In Christ

Fr. A.

M.C. Steenberg

30-11-2003, 01:47 PM

Dear Jonathan Tallon and others,

Regarding Orthodox understandings of the term 'justification', Father Averky has made mention to several discussions had on this topic in the past. He is quite right in directing your attention to these, and I assist in that here by indexing the most relevant archived threads. All links below open in a new window, such that you can use this message as a 'launch page' to the older conversations.

The thread Question on Salvation (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1611).
The thread Scripture and Tradition (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1668).
The thread 'What is "required" for salvation?'
INXC, Matthew

Richard Leigh

01-12-2003, 12:38 AM

Dear Jonathon,

I think we can thank Father Averky and most especially Matthew for providing all that. I would say that Page 2 of "Question on Salvation" just about covers it, with the caveat that contrary to the conclusion drawn at its end, there is no real distinction between the Lutheran and Orthodox view of "justification." This can be seen by a close look at the Orthodox responses when willing to use it. It is only a historical fact that the Orthodox don't generally use it, or the metaphor from which it comes.

Orthodoxy does have a rather broader definition of "faith" than Lutheranism does (with biblical warrant, see James 2:24) teaching them to shy away from any notion that a purely mental assent to any facts as recorded in scripture as having occurred could have any salvific effect (as Lutheranism also does, in its own way).

Speaking as a Lutheran,

Richard

M.C. Steenberg

01-12-2003, 05:14 PM

Dear Jonathan Tallon and others,

Just as a follow-up to the above, I might simply repeat my year-old response to what was in essence the same question as yours. Writing in response to an individual also called John, I remarked at that time:

I notice that in your posts, you speak of justification as, essentially, the whole core of human salvation. This is a prime example of the difference in termonological understanding [between Orthodoxy and other faiths, as discussed previously]; for Orthodoxy does not understand this to be the case. Justification is, essentially, the re-entrance into proper relationship with God that makes the saving process of sanctification a renewed possibility for man. Orthodox generally do not make a big fuss over discussing whether we are or are not justified, for that concept is not terminal in Orthodox Christianity. Christ justified the world in the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection. Through the grace of God, we receive our part in that justification, enabling the whole process of personal sanctification/deification, which is the core of salvation, to be made real in our own lives. Of course it is possible to sin whilst justified, just as Abraham, David, Paul and others were justified and continued to fall prey, from time to time, to sin.

INXC, Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

01-12-2003, 05:16 PM

Richard Leigh wrote:

Orthodoxy [...teaches its adherants...] to shy away from any notion that a purely mental assent to any facts as recorded in scripture as having occurred could have any salvific effect.

Precisely. We call this Gnosticism. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

Richard Leigh

01-12-2003, 07:35 PM

Dear Jonathan,

And so, I would second Fr. John's request that you share with us what Chrysostom has to say on the subject.

Richard

P.s. to Matthew, re. "Gnosticism":

Yes, and so would we. So, when we add "alone" to the category "faith" as that by which we participate in God's justification of us (i.e., making us dead to sin in Christ's death for sin), we exclude what St. James is calling faith. --R.L.

Richard Leigh

11-12-2003, 10:55 PM

Oh, very good, Jonathon,

if now we could just have the referrence(s).

Thanks,

Richard

Richard Leigh

12-12-2003, 02:21 AM

Dear Jonathan and company,

Some time ago, in a correspondence with David, the moderator of the Dynamis website sent me this note on the subject:

Justification is understood as an act which sets right a relationship. The propitiatory sacrifice of Christ has set aright the relationship between mankind and God. Faith affirms this.

I would add that it more than affirms it, faith attaches it; and note that the Greek word "propitiation" translates, hilarion, is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew kapporah or "covering" (as in Yom Kippur), i.e., the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant between the cherubim, where the sacrificial blood is sprinkled.

Regarding the biblical use of the term justice:

There are two pairs of words, (1) philanthropy--koinonia, & (2) piety--justice/righteousness, the information comes from Judaism: Practice and Belief 63BCE-66CE. by E.P. Sanders (London/Philadelphia, SCM Press/Trinity Press Intn'l, 1992), a noted expert in the field about which the book is written.

Sanders (p.193f, & on p.317, n.7) cites convincing evidence from the first century Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo, and the first century Jewish historian Josephus, (citing Philo's Who is the Heir of Divine Things and Josephus' Antiq.7.356, 374, 8.280, 300, 394; 9.236) on the first century usage of these words in Greek, at least among Jews. The first pair have to do with how their people are expected to treat fellow human beings, philanthropy concerns treatment of non-Jews, koinonia concerns fellow Jews. The second pair concerns one's behavior toward God and man: justice (aka righteousness) is one's right treatment of people, piety one's right treatment of God. It is even recorded that the Ten Commandments were divided into two tables (by Philo) to accommodate this dichotomy, in the fashion of which we are all well aware.

Thus, Habakkuk's (LXX Ambakoum's) [2:4] prophetic claim that "The just shall live by faith," can only mean that those who treat their fellow man right do so out of properly dwelling on God, and Paul I think might add "can only do so by such dwelling." Justification, then comes to describe being put in proper relationship with fellow human beings. It rests (according to this theory) on proper piety, which is "faith in Him whom He has sent" not on following rules of behavior, even if God is the one who gave them, because ultimately that falls to watching oneself (egoism being the ultimate form of idolatry).

BTW, I think a corollary to St. James' "faith without works is dead" could be "works without faith are unembodied," (since "whatever is not of faith is sin" [Rom. 14:23] and "without faith it is impossible to please Him" [Heb. 11:6]) after all, his statement "...I will show you my faith by my works," was spoken by a man who, though (perhaps because) in the family of Jesus himself came late to true belief in His Messiahship.

So, test and see if that isn't Orthodox.

Yours,

Richard

P.s., then, we could look at Archimandrite Hierotheos Vlachos' three (?) levels, or different definitions of faith...
--R.

Waldemar

12-12-2003, 06:03 PM

Richard Leigh wrote: Orthodoxy does have a rather broader definition of "faith" than Lutheranism does...

Rather, indeed!

For idle faith and works without faith are both rejected in the sight of God. Let us consider what has been said in the light of the following: for God, who has shown himself to us as being of three hypostases, has also shown this most evident way to us. And, indeed, know also that faith, hope, and love [cf. I Cor 13:13], the golden threefold rainbow, when kept by us, effects salvation for us.

And now we will elaborate at length: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" [Heb 11:1]. In faith, the impossible is possible; weakness becomes strength; suffering is painless; and the perishable, imperishable; and the mortal, immortal. Indeed, "this is a great mystery" [Eph 5-32]. Hope is a wealth of unthinkable riches, and without doubt it is a treasure beyond treasures. Love is the source of faith, a depth of mercy, a sea of humility, and exaltation of holy souls, a likeness to God, as far as is possible for humans. Apart from these three it is impossible to find salvation.

Let us consider whether it has not been said in vain, that apart from faith, hope, and love, it is impossible to be saved. For as we, indeed, need the eyes of our body for viewing visible things, so doubtless we have need of faith for the study of the divine things. For as knowledge of the matters comes according to the proportion of the accomplishments of the commandments, so also the knowledge of the truth comes according to the measure of the hope in Christ [cf. Jn 7:17]. And as, indeed, it is meet to worship nothing else than God, so one should not hope in any other than God alone who is the One who cares for all [cf. Mt 4: 10]. As he who has hope in man is accursed, so blessed is he who rests in God. And just as the memory of the flame does not warm the body, in the same manner faith without love does not effect the light of knowledge in the soul. Indeed, it is impossible for love to be found apart from hope. Hence, the Holy Fathers say one thing is permanent: the hope in God. All other things are not in reality, but merely thought. He who has fastened his heart on the power of faith has nothing without works. And when one has nothing, he limits everything to faith. Indeed, the power of faith is in good works. And he who has been deprived of love, has been deprived of God himself. One ought to strive in such works and also hope in Him. For if you ask yourself or another true Christian on what ground the ones being saved have hope of salvation, he would by all means say that we hope only in the mercy of God.

From:

The Reply of Patriarch Jeremiah II
to the Lutheran Tubingen Theologians,
Concerning the Augsburg Confession http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/faithalone.htm

Waldemar

13-12-2003, 02:24 AM

Re: "...there is no real distinction between the Lutheran and Orthodox view of "justification."

Speaking as Lutherans and Orthodox Christians, the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission made the following distinctions:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html#salv

8th Plenary of the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission
2 - 7 August 1995, Limassol/ Cyprus

AUTHORITY IN AND OF THE CHURCH:

B. UNDERSTANDING OF SALVATION IN THE LIGHT OF
THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

At the 5th Joint Commission Meeting of the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue in Bad Segeberg, Germany, 1989, it was decided to continue the work of the dialogue under the new theme, "Authority in and of the Church." This theme, with special reference to the Ecumenical Councils, was discussed and elaborated with an agreed statement at the 7th Joint Commission Meeting in Sandbjerg, Denmark, 1993, and it was agreed that the "Understanding of Salvation in the Light of the Ecumenical Councils" be the theme of the 8th Joint Commission Meeting in Limassol, Cyprus, 1995.

For the Orthodox Church, salvation is a gratuitous gift of God offered in Jesus Christ to all human beings (1 Tim. 2:4; Jn. 3:17), which they must both freely choose (Rev. 3:20) and work for (1 Cor. 3:13, 15:58; Phil. 2:12). According to St. Paul, this is synergia (1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 6:1). Once this gift of the divine grace is accepted by faith, Christ truly becomes the doctor of the souls and bodies of the faithful in the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God and the mysteries of the Church. He purifies their hearts (Ps. 50/51:10, Acts 15:9) and constantly renews their minds (Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 4:16), leading them from illumination/justification (2 Cor. 4:6) manifested by prayer in the heart (Rom. 8:26; Eph. 5:19, 6:18; Col. 3:16) and keeping of the commandments (1 Jn. 3:22), to glorification (Jn. 17:22; 1 Cor. 12:26). The Orthodox Church does not hold that humanity inherited the guilt of the sin of Adam and Eve and is therefore worthy of eternal damnation, or that God chose from those thus guilty certain ones only to be saved without personal merit, or that Christ died on the Cross only for them, or that Christ loves only those sinners who are destined for heaven, or that God had to be reconciled to humanity by Christ's crucifixion.

Lutherans understand the saving work which God accomplishes in Christ through the Holy Spirit primarily through the concept of "justification." For Lutherans, justification is God's gracious declaration of the forgiveness of sins for the sake of Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, and at the same time the free gift of new life in him. Through the liturgical life, preaching, and sacraments of the Church, the Holy Spirit enables us to have faith in the gospel, that is, in God's gracious promise of forgiveness and new life. This promise is received by faith alone (sola fide); this means that salvation is by Christ alone, and not by any human works or merits. In faith Christians entrust themselves entirely to God's grace in Christ for salvation. In this way they enter a new relationship with God, as St. Paul says: "since we are justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1). Justification is a real participation in Christ, true God and true human being. In the Church, the believer by faith participates in Christ and all his gifts, and so has a share in the divine life. The presence of Christ in faith genuinely effects the righteousness of Christ in us, and leads believers to the sanctification of their lives. In this way, believers work out their salvation in fear and trembling, trusting that God in Christ is at work in them, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Phil. 2:12-13).

9th Plenary of the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission
31 July - 8 August 1998, Sigtuna/Sweden

AUTHORITY IN AND OF THE CHURCH

C. SALVATION: GRACE, JUSTIFICATION AND SYNERGY

Lutherans seeing that Christian life is a continuous struggle against sin and "flesh" (cf. Gal 5:16-18), and being afflicted by this experience do not look to their own good works, or their own failures, but look to Christ on the cross and his resurrection and trust in God's promise, the word of forgiveness in the Church. Therefore Lutherans place specific emphasis on the forensic dimension of salvation. They stress that God forgives sin and imputes the righteousness of Christ to sinners through faith, and that we may therefore for salvation rely entirely upon the Father's mercy in Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit (cf. II Cor 13:13).

For the Orthodox, the redemptive work of Christ is received by the believer in the Church, His Body, to whom the promise of forgiveness of sins has been given by the Lord (cf. Mat. 18:18). In faith and humility, the believer puts his trust in the truth and power of the said promise, in the unsearchable riches of Christ's mercies (cf. Eph. 2:4, 3:8) and His boundless love for humankind (philanthropia) and in the prayers of the communion of saints (cf. Heb. 12:1, 22-23) and the intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos (cf. John 2:3; 19:26-27). The struggle against passions (cf. I Cor 9:24-27, Eph. 6:10-17) in the power of the Holy Spirit is a participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. It aims at the purification of the heart (cf. Mat. 5:8) and the illumination (cf. Mat. 5:14, II Cor 4:6) leading to glorification (cf. John 17:22; II Cor 3:18, II Peter 1:4).

Richard Leigh

14-12-2003, 01:10 AM

Dear Waldemar,

Thank you for the link and the posting, even though it was, as I understood him, exactly what Jonathan did not want to precipitate. What I had said about justification was in referrence to what had been said by both "sides" on this forum. I appreciate your bringing the dialogue and its fruit to our attention though, about which I have just a few comments:

The Orthodox Church does not hold that humanity inherited the guilt of the sin of Adam and Eve and is therefore worthy of eternal damnation,...

but it (She?) does hold that everyone sins, and without God's aid continues in sin, is unable to save oneself, or even initiate one's salvation, in contrast to the Pelagian heresy, correct?

...or that God chose ... certain ones only to be saved without personal merit

It is Calvinism, not Lutheranism, which teaches that God's grace is limited. But help me out with the phrase, "...without personal merit..." in this context.

Then:

For the Orthodox, the redemptive work of Christ is received by the believer in the Church, His Body, to whom the promise of forgiveness of sins has been given by the Lord (cf. Mat. 18:18)

Question, did that just say that the promise is given "to The Body" rather than "to the sinner"?

In faith and humility, the believer puts his trust in the truth and power of the said promise, in the unsearchable riches of Christ's mercies (cf. Eph. 2:4, 3:8) and His boundless love for humankind (philanthropia)...

We're together so far, but:

...and in the prayers of the communion of saints (cf. Heb. 12:1,22-23) and the intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos (cf. John 2:3; 19:26-27).

I would say that at my current stage, faith in someone else's faith is stretching a bit (but remember, I am not here instructing the Orthodox!)

And finally:

The struggle against passions (cf. I Cor 9:24-27, Eph. 6:10-17) in the power of the Holy Spirit is a participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. It aims at the purification of the heart (cf. Mat. 5:8) and the illumination (cf. Mat. 5:14, II Cor 4:6) leading to glorification (cf. John 17:22; II Cor 3:18, II Peter 1:4).

I think I can speak for "us" Lutherans in saying that this is acceptable to us since (and only because) the motivation is not for personal gain, i.e., to "win points with God" and gain His favor (the RC motivation against which we protested and which we "reformed," i.e., for ourselves), but to participate with Him in what we have come to call our "sanctification," or growth in grace.

Lovingly yours,

Richard

Richard Leigh

14-12-2003, 02:18 AM

Dear Waldemar,

Since you brought Jeremias II's 16th century private correspondence with the Tuebingen scholars into the picture I must caution you and all on the list that first of all, the correspondence was not official, and second of all, the copy of the Augsburg Confession under consideration was a Greek (and Latin) translation of one of its variants and therefore not official either.

In order to explain anything further, I must alert you to the Lutheran principle of interpretation which the "Law-Gospel" distinction is. Every communication from God to humanity is seen as either "Bad news" ("Law," not that law is bad, only that the outcome of not obeying it is bad for us) and "Good news" (Gospel, i.e., the promises, first of forgiveness for breaking the law, but also strength and God's life in Christ and the Holy Spirit to obey).

I said that to lay the groundwork for our consideration over what the patriarch called the golden rainbow, faith, hope, and love, whereby we are said to be saved, but I also need to comment on his statement that faith comes from love. This is only true when speaking of God's love for us. Thus, our faith is born of God's love. God's love is the source of His good news gospel.

Hope is what we have coming. When it arrives it will no longer be a hope but a posession. Faith is in what we cannot see face to face, when our hope is no longer hope, our faith will no longer be faith, for we will see. But Love undergirds both, and survives both, but in us, love is obedience of the law.

We are to fear and love God to obey his commandments, but we can only do that on the basis of His life in us, which we have by our faith, his love. Our faith is a reception of His love, and can be a source of our returning of His love. Thus many have noted that our definition of Faith, which is too narrow to include "historical faith" of some "gnosis" of God, includes "hope & love" as well (or the R Catholic definition of the terms.

Yours,

Richard

P.s., I think the lislt will be better off by our avoiding polemic on the issue, and this really isn't a forum to hear what Lutheran's teach. --RL

Owen Jones

14-12-2003, 02:51 AM

"I would say that at my current stage, faith in someone else's faith is stretching a bit (but remember, I am not here instructing the Orthodox!)"

Yet this is Biblical. We can be sanctified by a spouse. It is a very selective reading of Scripture to say that I can't have faith in another's faith. It's high time that people got over a 500 year beef against the Catholic Church and accepted the reality that salvation is not a purely personal, individual thing.

M.C. Steenberg

14-12-2003, 04:18 PM

Dear all,

This is proving an interesting thread; and I'm glad to see that we're conscious of and dutifuly cautious against it becoming another 'Orthodoxy vs. Protestantism' discussion, which we're not meant for here. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Richard (Leigh), in your last point you wrote:

I said [the earlier bits of the post] to lay the groundwork for our consideration over what the patriarch called the golden rainbow, faith, hope, and love, whereby we are said to be saved, but I also need to comment on his statement that faith comes from love. This is only true when speaking of God's love for us. Thus, our faith is born of God's love. God's love is the source of His good news gospel.

This is a tricky subject of which to speak, since language inherently makes it difficult. But I think it important to point out that the notion expressed in the part of your message that I've rendered in boldface requires some clarification in Orthodox theology. We must keep in mind that we (Orthodox) believe Pelagius to have been wrong, but in his response to Pelagius Augustine also went wrong, by going too far. Pelagius was not as wrong as Augustine felt, and Augustine was not as right (on this issue) as many have continued to think him to be.

In Orthodox thought, all that is good 'comes down from Thee, the Father of lights', i.e. comes from God. There is no genuine good that does not come from God, because goodness itself is an aspect of God's being -- a divine 'energy' of the grace of God, to take us back to the terminology of another current thread. But creation is also a physically manifest aspect of God's goodness, His creative radiance; and this is especially true of man in his formation from the dust. There is, inherent in the composition of man as icon of God and summation of the Trinity's creative activity, the grace of God sufficient for goodness. This is especially important for our discussion, because it means it makes very difficult any discourse that would speak of 'God's love for us' as springing forth faith, and 'our own love' doing the same. How do we distinguish the two? Should we distinguish between them?

The Orthodox answer is that in the mystical composition of the human person, the grace of God is manifest at the core of that person. This means that man, when acting in accordance with what is his own nature, acts thus in accordance with God's grace, for he is acting in and of God's grace. For God to act and for righteous man to act, are one and the same thing. We can never authentically separate the love of God for humankind and man's own intrinsic being as created manifestation of God's love. Thus it is wrong to think that we can ever positively act apart from God's grace (as was the distortion of Pelagius), since the human person as icon (imago) of God can never so act in a positive way; but it is also equally as wrong to think that the 'reception' of God's grace for the manifestation of God in our lives is something 'external' or 'added' to that which is the human person (this is where Augustine's response to Pelagius went too far).

The heart and soul of the above is to note that in Orthodox thought there is no reason to modify the statement 'faith comes from love', to be clarified as meaning 'God's love for us'. No. It comes from our love for God, welling up from the depths of our own hearts; and if we become enough aware of what lies in our heart, we come to know that the fact of our love, borne there, is a manifestation of the grace of God that is our own formation and composition as human persons. To speak of God's grace, as His love, acting upon or to our hearts is (in this regard) to distort the Orthodox anthropology of the human person.

I might note as an aside: it seems easy enough, in our modern-day desire to find common ground and unity across faiths, to suggest that this view and that manifested in the (official) confession of Augsburg are in essence the same. But at his core, Luther was too predisposed to the overreactions of Augustine's anti-Pelagian discourse, and Melancthon and others to follow only became yet more staunch in this view. Taken for its larger scope, over-anti-Pelagian sentiment leads to the false distinction between 'faith' and 'works' that stood right at the corse of much of the reformation disputes. It is in this matter that the Orthodox and Lutherans have never agreed, for even when 'common statements' on 'faith and works' are released by both churches, these address only the end of the problem, not its core.

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

14-12-2003, 04:50 PM

At the risk of beating another dead horse, the problem that Luther AND the Roman Catholics faced in 1500 was essentially a philosophical problem, not a theological problem as such. This is due to the impact of voluntarism and nominalism in the medieval Latin West.

And I would define that problem as a kind of Newtonian approach to theology in which the human and Divine "poles" if you will are reified into objectivized entities that bang up against each other creating new forces and energies that were not there before. This objectivization process is at the heart of the problem. The alternative is not a subjectivization process, but rather a clear understanding of the nature of 1) the Divine/human dialogue that constitutes history and 2) the nature of the created order itself as iconic of the Divine nature. The human psyche is not something that has a separate existence of its own but rather is the locus of Divine presence (Parousia) in the world. Hence, the human psyche is constituted by Divine Presence and not some historical event that we call Creation as if it lasted for seven days and then ended, and since then all we have are Newtonian type (or Hegelian) events.

Patristic Orthodoxy has never yielded to this objectivazation temptation. There was the period in which icons were objectivized, thus leading to the iconoclastic controversy, but by the Grace of God that issue was resolved, with the outcome being a proper view of the icons, (and hence human beings) and avoiding a successful reaction to that which, in the case of the Latin West, was too late to prevent.

Fr Averky

15-12-2003, 02:53 AM

My Dear Owen,

Oh, how could we survive without the mind and philosophy? What would we do? Father Seraphim Rose was able to rise above philosophy and turned his clear and educaed mind to God, and became a model monk, being possessed of inner peace and solitude. Through his mind, he found the silence of the Desert..

I do appreciate your words concerning the icons, thank you.

Fr. A.

Daniel Jeandet

15-12-2003, 03:44 PM

Great post Owen, thankyou also for its compact form. Not that I object to long posts, but sometimes I know I am missing something because I dont bother reading it all.

This is something I have been discussing alot with a friend of mine the last few days. He has recently rejected Catholicism and is trying to dismiss all organised forms of Christianity, although he does believe in Christ, Adam, the fall etc. We have been debating the relationship between God and the creation, and it has really helped me articulate what it is I believe and forced me to defend its patristic basis.

Basically we were discussing science and reality and knowledge and the creation. After a while, it was clear that our understandings of the cosmos at some point diverged and we were left with very different conclusions regarding the nature of the creation, Gods relationship to it and, of course, what this means for the spiritual life. I said his approach was Newtonian and then I explained what I meant by that. When I explained the way the Orthodox approach these matters, he was shocked, and accused me of being a new-ager. He found it very difficult to accept that the Fathers taught these things, in particular the notion of "inner priciples of created beings" and the ongoing energising of created reality by God's energies rather than a universe with established rules into which my friend insisted "God no longer needs to intervene".

I have found it very hard to clearly exlain these things to my friend, he simply scoffs at them, as if they are loopy or illogical. I encourage him to read the Fathers, and he accepts that they are an authority on such things, but I am beginning to suspect that sometimes we find these truths difficult to accept because thay bring an immediacy and intimacy back to the human/divine relationship that is actually quite awsome and perhaps a little scary for those who have been raised within western Christian traditions. Also I think it may be a little too simple.

The funny thing is, I kind of know how he is thinking, and the fear of letting it go. Following my conversion to Orthodoxy from a mish mash of occult and new-age beliefs, I remember trying to eliminate all those new-age ideas from my mind (i even threw away my copy of tao te ching), but without a really good teacher, and being scared to read some things (like philokalia or theological works that people said were too heavy or because of fear of prelest), I ended up just framing all my beliefs in the classic western way, and losing all that was good in my old worldview, without discerning what wisdom there was in it. It is just so easy to separate everything in our minds, its the way we are taught to think. It takes quite a bit to break your mind away from that stuff, and with very careful reading of the Fathers and thier commentators I started to realise that its more about letting go of what you think you know, than trying to grasp what you think you dont. but suffering also really helps and theres no shortage of that.

Anyway, long post, kind of off topic. Goodnight.

Waldemar

15-12-2003, 04:09 PM

Richard Leigh wrote: Since you brought Jeremias II's 16th century private correspondence with the Tuebingen scholars into the picture...

I'm not sure what you mean by "private" but I'd like to now read the full text of the Three Responses by Patriarch Jeremias II. Can anyone point out a source of the full text so that I can steam open the envelopes so to speak?

Owen Jones

16-12-2003, 12:56 AM

Regarding Seraphim Rose, he did not reject the philosophical insights that he had gained as a disciplined scholar and searcher after the truth, as if it were some separate sphere of reality that was no longer of consequence, only that he found intellectual completeness, if you will, in the Christian ascetic life. He treated music the same way. He did not reject Bach as somehow of no consequence.

If a mathematician finds God in math, he does not leave math behind and reject it as a sphere of knowledge no longer worthy of attention. It is foundational to his development and remains so. Likewise with history. We as Christians reject the Marcionite heresy that the Old Testament history is now made irrelevant to our own historical consciouness. It is foundational, but it is given new meaning and significance. The same with all created things. The extreme gnostics believed that the Gospel was a call to treat the world and created things as if they were mere illusion or something to be contemptuous of, or to be escaped from. Faith is not an escape from reality but participation in reality.

M. Rallis

16-12-2003, 01:38 AM

Dear Waldemar:

"I'm not sure what you mean by "private" but I'd like to now read the full text of the Three Responses by Patriarch Jeremias II. Can anyone point out a source of the full text so that I can steam open the envelopes so to speak."

A book titled "Augsburg and Constantinople", by Father George Mastrantonis, published by Holy Cross Orthodox Press in 1982, contains the English translation of the sixteenth century dialogue between the Orthodox and Lutherans that you inquired about in your post #99.

Owen Jones

16-12-2003, 03:04 AM

III. Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low; and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits.

What are we to suppose St. Gregory The Theologian meant when he says, "to philosophize about God?"

Richard Leigh

16-12-2003, 04:00 AM

Dear Matthew,

I am quite enthralled by that post of yours and I am still learning a great deal from it. You have stated the distinction between the Orthodox and the Augustinian views of the fall better than anyone I have ever read, and I thank you for it.

In fact, it returned me to the puzzle of why the patriarch would "approve" the second article of the Confession, which is in regard to "Original Sin."

Taking a leaf out of my own post to Wadlemar that the version of the Confession sent to the patriarch was a "Variata," it occurred to me that the version of that particular artilce might in fact be different than what is regarded as official. Now FYI, Melanchthon, its author, is known for having varied the Confession over the years in his attempts to find unity between waring protestants. This in the end proved unsuccessful, and it shed what many consider an unneccessarily bad light on him. But this paticular version which is considered his own translation was done with the help of the Orthodox Deacon Demetrios, and the help he gave was to give "liturgical language" that could cast the thoughts in ways acceptable to Orthodox ears. Ultimately this failed too, except apparently with regard to some of the things the patriarch did in fact approve, such as this second article. So, I got out my purloined copy of this Greek version (which typescript I cannot read, but luckily it is accompanied by a Latin translation which I can, and which I compared with the Latin of the original official 1530 Augsburg Confession. Lo and behold, it is a full 90 words longer, doubling the article in length!

It will take me a while to translate this (high school Latin is not sufficing!), but when I do (or, perchance when I find an English translation already done, I know one is out there somewhere) I will let all of you on the list know what it says.

Owen,

I agree that the question for Luther and his contemporaries was (is) a philosophical one.

Waldemar,

by "private" I only meant unofficial, i.e., in a court of law it amounts to hearsay as to what the relationship between parties (churches) is, as accurate a description of the Orthodox position as Jeremias' side may be. I realize it has the status of a "Symbolical Book" in Orthodoxy, but that isn't even as "official" as for us to call something a "symbolic document} (that would, for us, place it up there with scripture -- (don't start!)

The correspondence is translated out into English for us all to read (but sadly without the Confession it is about, so remember it won't be any standard Augsburg Confession you can easily get your hands on) in the book Augsburg and Constantinople by the late Fr. George Mastrantonis.

Yours,

Richard

P.s., I myself am not satisfied with the reformers arguments in favor of the philioque clause. --RL

Fr Averky

16-12-2003, 06:34 AM

Dear Daniel J.

What?

Fr.A.

Waldemar

16-12-2003, 02:04 PM

Dear Richard Leigh and Michael Rallis,

Thank you both for the book recommendation!

I will read it and return like "Moses come down the Mountain" onto these boards against Lutheranism!

(Just kidding, RL and Matthew S.)

Moses Anthony

16-12-2003, 04:15 PM

Dear Owen,

I suppose that we will never know just what St. Gregory the Theologian meant by "...to philosophize about God. However; from where I sit in the era of Church History (our time will be written about), it seems to me that philosophizing about God, would be like the students of Alexandria or Antioch sitting aaround bantering about unproven hypotheses.

It apppears that we're attempting to resurrect ideas/doctrines about The Creator of heaven and Earth, which circulated during and after the times of Plato & Aristotle. Not to mention Christological doctrines of the Apologists which the Church heretofore has rejected.
If as you say we are in our search for God, to find Him in our mind, Why judge the thoughts and intents of our hearts.

I remember some time ago after reading the Psalms, I made the remark, "...God is greater than the light which surrounds Him." That created a minor storm, partly due to misunderstanding of terms. I meant to relay that we can by our inrellect, comprehend light. However even then, light, or glory is beyond anything we know. How then do we say that we can grasp the unknowable, by delving into our own minds?

The saint after whom I am called is said to have spoke with the Almighty face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Moses dwelt for weeks in the very presence of God, on more than one occassion, and all he got for such a powerful experience was a fading glory. I do not deny that our intellect/minds are not to be taken lightly. Nor will I say that we must reject whatever we might comprehend by the use of intellect, which is one of many gifts from God. But pure intellect , what is that, a manifestation or an entity?

When is our philosophizing about God nothing more than having itching ears, wanting to hear something new, entirely unprofitable to the well being of our souls.

As I said earlier in this post, this smacks of old Trinitarian and Christological agruements which were then, and should be now, rejected.

a sinful and unworthy servant

P.S.
Last night I atttended the memorial service for the Very Rev. Fr. George Praeda, of blessed memory. A Protopresbyter from the Romanian Orthodox Church, he was currently attached to the O.C.A. He fell asleep in the Lord on Dec.11th. Although he was retired, he often concelebrated with my former priest in our pan-Orthodox community, and when my former priest was transfered, he willingly stepped in so the community wouldn't be without a priest. Fr. Praeda spoke four languages, and really loved the Church and the Divine Liturgy. He was 86.

Daniel Jeandet

17-12-2003, 02:50 AM

Fr.A,

Well, I dont know really, it was late (about 3am) and I just typed away. It didnt really belong to this thread, it was just that Owen said something really well that I had been trying less succesfully to explain to my friend that day.

Perhaps you could make your question more specific so I can tell you what you want to know.

Melissa

17-12-2003, 03:15 AM

Owen -- Ok, I'm new and wasn't going to post anything yet, so I may mess up here. I don't want to offend you or anyone, but I may. Please forgive me if I do not speak well, and I ask you to accept that this repsonse to part of your recent postings is from my heart. One reason I converted to Orthodoxy was to end my experience of the endless search for God that was occuring in my denomination. I know I have a lot to learn, and wonder what you mean, what is encompassed by your search for God - if indeed you would say you are searching. I have realized at times in my life that what I thought was searching for God was my search to avoid the unpleasant in myself (a great and tempting distraction); or for a way to articulate what I "knew" in my heart but struggled to find words for. I wonder if this is what you mean? Once I decided I had been awakened to a beginner's understanding of the Gospel (by the grace of God), the "search" was over and what was left was learning how to live the Gospel. That also means I choose to struggle with what church tradition says, in order to understand it's application to my life, not to try to "understand" it in a way that makes my life easier, or less complicated. My frustration with the philosophizing I experienced in protestantism was that it seemed to serve the culture, not Christ.
Forgive me if I have erred and please correct me as needed. Melissa

Matthew Panchisin

17-12-2003, 04:40 AM

Dear Owen and James A. Anthony,

Owen's Quote

III. Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low; and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits.

What are we to suppose St. Gregory The Theologian meant when he says, "to philosophize about God?"

Jame's Quote

I suppose that we will never know just what St. Gregory the Theologian meant by "...to philosophize about God.

From what I understand the word "philosophy" comes from two Greek words, phileo (love) and sophia (wisdom), and literally means a love of wisdom.

There is a mutually dependent relationship as such you can not have one without the other. So sound reasoning would say if there is love there is wisdom and if there is wisdom there is love. So if there is love and wisdom there would be sound "philosophy". As such, a sound philosophizing about God would be done with much reverence and sound of true tones and sound beautiful to the ear. Such are the "words" of St. Gregory the Theologian and the other writings of the Orthodox Fathers.

Hence if it "sounds" chaotic to sound reasoning it has a something missing.

HE IS HOLY

In Christ,

Matthew P.

Owen Jones

17-12-2003, 06:34 PM

It is not my position to correct you on anything Melissa so I would prefer to not put discussion on that level.

In Orthodoxy there is always the element of personal struggle, inwardly with the demons, and outwardly this is reflected in the holy life. But it is not just an individualized or personal struggle. The whole cosmos is struggling to return to God. Mankind is a cosmion and, as such, is the best representative of that struggle, and the Church serves as an icon of that struggle. So the search to which you are referring really never ends. Partly because we cannot know God in His Essence, and we must always be striving to know and do His will, and there are competing forces always working to pull is in an opposite direction. There is inner peace that is promised us, and inner harmoney, but one cannot simply arrive at that state and stop there. There is never stasis in the spiritual life. Perfection, in Orthodoxy, is a dynamic principle, as are all spiritual principles in Orthodoxy. The Divine-Human dialogue is a dynamic one, not a static one. So we do not arrive at an end-point called perfection. Perfection really means always striving in the right direction, and making progress toward that goal with unwavering devotion.

So I would argue that the search for God is a fundamental principle in Orthodoxy, yet it carries with it a more profound meaning than it does in other "denominations." From a Protestant perspective, to search for God implies a kind of lostness in this world and an expectation of either heavenly reward or earthly transformation. These are gnostic versions of the search which tend to be frought with anxiety.

So it is not only possible, but in a sense, required, that we continue our search but not out of anxiety. Now, that search takes on individual, personal characteristics. For someone with prophetic gifts it means one thing. For the average Christian it simply means striving to do good and treat people right. For the monastic it means something else again. The standard is different, and yet the same for everyone at the same time. But it cannot be overly defined.

God wants us to search for Him and He makes this inevitable because he places in us a desire (eros) to search for him, and he remains unseen and well beyond our capacities acquire. That mystery is something to be celebrated and lived, not overcome.

The tragedy in Protestantism is that the idea of God (or us for that matter) as mystery is rejected.

In any mystery, there is a plot, and characters and dialogue, and a writer and a reader. And in every mystery story, the reader begins in the middle of the story, and the end is never really an end. There is always a sequel that remains to be written.

Owen Jones

17-12-2003, 06:37 PM

My primary point in providing this quote, Matthew, is that, for St. Gregory the Theologian, "philosophizing about God" is an equivalent term for theologizing. It may not be exactly the same, but it's not entirely different, as most would have it.

Effie Ganatsios

18-12-2003, 09:32 AM

Melissa, first of all – Welcome to Monarchos!

Can I butt in here and give you my personal views concerning “the search for God” and “finding him” and so on.

God is here. He is in us. I know that my soul wants union with God. I don’t have to find him – he is here waiting for me. What I have to do is get rid of all the rubbish that is separating my soul from union with him. How? By following the instructions we have been given by the Bible,, by the Fathers and by enlightened people who have lived before us. Years and years ago I read something that has remained in my mind and helps me to see things simply and clearly = imagine God is light and you are sitting enclosed in a room. There is a window between you and the light but the window is dirty and isn’t allowing the light to come through. The dirt on the window that is withholding God’s light from the room and you is, of course, the sins we all commit daily. The pride, the greed, the arrogance, the sloth, the business : busy – ness that doesn’t allow us to simply sit still and listen to what God is saying to us……… a whole heap of rubbish that needs to be dealt with a little at a time.

Various practical methods are available to enable us to combat our fallen selves and free our soul or spirit to unite with God. We pray, we fast, we love, we repent, we accept. We praise God by saying “Thy Will be done”. We rejoice… something that we often forget to do. We listen to the voice within us – it will tell us how we should behave.

St.Theophan the Recluse can answer you concerning conversion to Orthodoxy and what happens after :

“The Mystery of Repentence gave you forgiveness in everything and you appeared pure before the face of God. Holy Communion brought you into closer communion, or renewed your communion with the Lord Jesus Christ, and filled you with every beneficial power. Here you are then, prepared for the job.

If only it were sufficient for the correction of our inner life to make a wish and have everything appear in the best way, or to say a word and have everything suddenly come true; then there would be no more reason for you to go to such trouble. Everything would happen for the best, and you would not have to desire it. However, such is the law of moral, free-willed life, all the more in its damaged essence, that there be steadfast perseverance. Beneficial help is available, but you still have to exert yourself and struggle, and struggle with yourself above all.

Our inner lives never get put into the proper order all of a sudden………. Two or three little rules… is all you need.

The cause of disorder (our inner disorder) is that our spirit has lost its original foundation. Its foundation is in God. The spirit gets back to it again through remembrance of God. Thus, the first thing is this : it is necessary to get in the habit of unceasing remembrance of God, along with fear and reverence.

…….. Be with the Lord, no matter what you do; and turn to him with your whole mind…..

Do not do anything that your conscience prohibits, and do not omit anything that it says to do, whether great or small. The conscience is always our moral guide……………….A conscience with reverential remembrance of God is the wellspring of true spiritual life.

Nothing more is needed than these two rules……………..

That, then is all! Remember God with reverence, obey your conscience, and arm yourself with hope through patience……………”

The above is an excerpt from The Spiritual Life and How to be Attuned to It.

Again, I welcome you to Monarchos and hope we will have many beneficial discussions together.

Effie

Melissa

19-12-2003, 03:55 AM

Dear Effie,

Yes, yes, and yes -- what you've said so well makes sense to me. Struggle I identify with and am willing to undergo (however reluctantly or obtusely sometimes!)for the joy of being in closer communion with our Lord.

I was just having difficulty with a common Protestant idea of searching for Christ -- the real Christ, the historical Christ, was He divine? let's just think what we want to think, forget those church fathers --I don't mean to imply that all Protestants take that approach, but I know from experience that an increasing number do. So I needed, and received, clarity about terms.

Thanks you for your caring response.
Melissa

Fr Averky

19-12-2003, 06:52 AM

Effie,

You are my Mother in Orthodoxy, and how do I love and respect your wise words, for they are from the heart, and from a heart that loves God. I thank you for all you have given me and to all of us. You have my greatest respect.

Many times when discussing Orthodoxy as a "life to be lived," as oppossed to " a truth to be known," although that is an important part of it, I have used you as my example. I am not saying any of these things to flatter you or to make you feel proud, but to point out how you and your good husband truly try every day to live God-pleasing lives, and in the end, that is really what our life is about; not the "accomplishments" of this world, but the preparation for the next. By the wisdom and practical sense you have displayed in your posts, I have seen that your Orthodoxy is simply a natural part of your life, and that you do not have to face the struggles that we converts do, for we are so effected by our Western mentality that it is hard for us to just give up our desire to figure everything out, and submit our hearts and souls to the will of God. Such words as "humble," obedient," "believing" are words that for us converts are hard to even invision, much less put into practise.

Your presence on Monachos is so important, because in you we have a person who has been Orthodox all of her life. It does not even matter how much you might "know" about theology, praxis, ethos, etc, but that what you have to say comes natrually to you. Melissa, listen to Effie, for I certainly do.

Respectfully,

Fr. A.

Fr Averky

19-12-2003, 06:59 AM

My Dear Daniel,

To explain: I was myself extremely tired and ready to retire when I read your post. I was so tired, I felt like I was reading something in Chinese, not because of your good words, but because by that time my mind was so scrambled, I could not have made sense of anything I might have read. So, "no worries," I was rather laughing at myself, and I ask forgiveness if my word "what?" caused you any concern.

Much love in Christ,

Fr. A.

Fr Averky

19-12-2003, 08:19 AM

Dear Friends,

In my post on "Orthodox attitude to the Bible," I quote Metropolitan Hierotheos at length, but I would like to add a few of his words here:

"Theology is the fruit of man's cure and the path which leads to cure and the acquisition of the knowledge of God."

"The Scholastics acknowledged God at the outset and then endeavored to prove His existence by logical arguements and rational categories. In the Orthodox Church, as expressed by the Fathers, faith is God revealing Himself to man."

(Thomas Aquinas) claimed that Christian truths are divided into natural and supernatural. Natural truths can be proven philosophically, like the truth of the existence of God. Supernatural truths- like the Triune God, the incarnation of the Logos, the resurrection of the bodies - cannot be proven philosphically, yet they cannot be disproven. Scholasticism linked theology very closely to philosophy, even more so with metaphysics. As a result FAITH WAS ALTERED and scholastic philosophy itself fell into complete disrepute when the "idol" of the West- metaphysics-collapsed. Scholasticism is held accountable for much of the tragic situation created in the West with respect to faith and faith issues."

"Protestants do not have a "therapeutic treatment" tradition They believe that in believing in God intellectually constitues salvatrion. Yet salvation is not an intellectual acceptance of truth; rather it is a person's transformation and divinization by grace. In the Holy Scripture it appears that faith comes by hearing the Word and by experiencing "theoria" (the vision of God). We accept faith at first in order to be healed and then we attain to faith by theoria, which saves man. Protestants, because they believe that the acceptance of the truths of faith, the theoretical acceptance of God's Revelation, i.e. faith by hearing saves man, do not have a "therapeutic tradition." It could be said that such a conception of salvation is naive."

"A faith is a true faith inasmuch as it has therapeutic benefits.If it is able to cure, then it is a true faith. If it does not cure, then it is not a true faith. ...a true scientist is the doctor who knows how to cure, and his method has therapueutic benefits, whereas a charlatan is unable to cure. The same holds true where matters of the soul are concerned. The difference between Orthodoxy and the Latin tradition, as well as the Protestant confessions, is apparent primarily In the method of therapy. This difference is made manifest in the doctrines of each denomination. DOGMAS ARE NOT PHILOSOPHY, NEITHER IS THEOLOGY THE SAME AS PHILOSOPHY."

(from "Orthodox Spirituality a brief introduction" by Metropolitan of Nafpatjos, Hierotheos)

In the end.*our faith should be a simple matter, for God reveals Himself who like Him, are meek and humble of heart. Sad to say unlike our good Owen Jones, we spend far too little time thinking, reading and learning, yet to juggle that learning with the needed simplicity is very difficult. Yet do we see in the lives of the saints people like St. Philaret of Moscow, a man of profound piety and love of God, a brilliiant poet, linguist, statesman, and a miracle-worker, a real simplicity of heart. Look at St. Igantii Briachaninov an aristcrat and officer of the Imperial engineering corps -his holy writings have inspired generations of monastics and lay people alike. St. John of Kronstadt was a graduate of the theological academy, but his pastoral love touiched thousands upon thousands of people.

Going back, St. John Chrysostom was a brilliant theologian, as were the Cappadocian Fathers; yet they are not known so much for their intellectual brilliance as they are for their holiness. We who have converted from Catholicism and Protestantism bring with us a lot of old "baggage." Let us pray that in time we will forget it and leave it along the road somewhere. Let us thank God for whatever intelligence He has given to us, and use it well, but let us open our hearts to Him so that he will reveal Himself to us -let that be our goal.

lovingly,

Fr. A.

Melissa

20-12-2003, 02:37 AM

Dear Father Averky,

God blessed me with your post #597 at just the right time. I needed to talk with someone at work about faith, transformation, and salvation, and how those concepts applied to, in this case, an issue in that person's life. What a timely, clear explication. And a good reminder to pull out that book and Orthodox Psychotherapy, too.

Again, you have guided me well.
Thanks be to God.
Melissa

Rebecca

20-12-2003, 03:28 PM

these beautiful quote from St. Isaac of Syria were on the monachos main page this morning...

Blessed is he who consumes the bread of love, which is Jesus! He who eats of love eats Christ, the God over all, as John bears witness, saying, 'God is love'.

--St Isaac of Syria

The intellect will not be glorified with Jesus unless the body suffers for the sake of Jesus.

--St Isaac of Syria

Effie Ganatsios

21-12-2003, 08:42 AM

Father Averky’s comments : “Yet do we see in the lives of the saints people like St. Philaret of Moscow, a man of profound piety and love of God, a brilliant poet, linguist, statesman, and a miracle-worker, a real simplicity of heart. Look at St. Igantii Briachaninov an aristocrat and officer of the Imperial engineering corps -his holy writings have inspired generations of monastics and lay people alike. St. John of Kronstadt was a graduate of the theological academy, but his pastoral love touched thousands upon thousands of people.

Going back, St. John Chrysostom was a brilliant theologian, as were the Cappadocian Fathers; yet they are not known so much for their intellectual brilliance as they are for their holiness.”

Father, first of all, thank you for your kind words. No need to say that I don’t come close to your gentle evaluation of me – the only thing I can say is that I try but I continually trip over myself……………

I’m glad you mentioned St. Philaret of Moscow – he speaks to my heart and each time I read something that he has written I feel as if he were actually sitting in front of me and speaking to me personally.

I agree with you – intellectual brilliance and holiness are not in any way incompatible. We aren’t sheep! God has given us brains to think with and we must use them. What we must not do is use knowledge in such a way as to disguise our own lack of faith. If anyone on this forum has ever been part of a debating team, they will know that it is very easy to argue both sides of a question using logical, astute reasoning in each case.

Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov’s search for truth was very similar to what most of us experience today. We are full of pride and think that because of our “western” way of thinking (this “western” way of course is as old as time as it originated in Ancient Greece) we are somehow capable of divining God’s will in ways that no-one has thought of before.

Describing Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, Archbishop Theophanes of Poltava tells us that “The searching youth (a military engineer) inquired in turn of mathematics, physics, chemistry, philosophy, showing his profound knowledge of them; then of geography, geodesy, languages, literature; but he finds that they are all of the earth. In answer to all his agonized questioning he received the same reply similar searches receive in our even more "enlightened" 20th century: "The sciences were silent."

Bishop Brianchaninov's own words :

“This thought (God’s answer after many agonizing prayers) inspired me to study
faith in the sources, in the writings of the Holy Fathers! 'Their
holiness,' the thought said to me, 'vouches for their trustworthiness:
choose them for your guides.' I obeyed. I found means of obtaining the
works of the holy pleasers of God, and in eagerness I began to read them,
investigate them deeply. Having read some, I would take up and read
others, read them, re-read them, study them. What was it that above all
else struck me in the works of the Fathers of the Orthodox Church? It was
their harmony, their wondrous, magnificent harmony. Eighteen centuries,
through their lips, testified to a single unanimous teaching, a Divine
teaching!

'Have you seen,' they say, 'anyone deceived by false teaching, perishing from an incorrect
choice of ascetic labor, then know that he followed himself, his own understanding, his own opinions, and not the teaching of the Fathers' (Abba Dorotheus, Fifth Instruction), out of which is composed the dogmatic and moral tradition of the Church. With this tradition as a priceless possession, the Church nourishes her children.”

Fr Averky

21-12-2003, 11:53 AM

Dear Melissa,

Thank God. Little of that post were in my words, but were those of Metropolitan Hierotheos, a real intellectual and Christian Philospher and a humble and holy bishop of the Orthodox Church. I just found the words, but God provided them for your use. Oh how good He is to us, Melissa!

Fr. Averky

Melissa

22-12-2003, 12:52 AM

Father - Re: post 604 -- How good He is indeed! M.

Patrick Walsh

17-08-2005, 05:12 PM

My old Lutheran pastor has sent me this from the Augsburg Confession:

"1. Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4."

Of course, this is the age-old question of justification which has divided the Protestants from the Romans who claim to be Catholic.

As far as I can tell though, the term "Justification" does not even enter into Orthodox theology. How do we talk to people who do not even ask the right questions? The issue of justification seems to imply, "What conditions will force God to allow me into heaveb."

Thankfully, God is not a just God, for he has from his boundless compassion shown us mercy again and again in the Eucharist.

What is the Orthodox position on this question? Or does the Orthodox even ask this question?

feofil