Question on salvation

[sinjin smithe]

Another thread brought this question to mind. In the Protestant tradition(particularly the evangelicals), they teach that we are saved if believe and accept Jesus as our savior in our lives. That if we accept him into our lives, then all our sins are forgiven and we are assured of going to heaven. In Orthodoxy, we are constantly reminded of the great judgement at the end. In fact in the liturgy it states(I'll paraphrase) 'for a good defense before the judgement seat of Christ.' My question is why does the church place so much emphasis on this? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and if we believe and live a Christian life, how come in Orthodoxy we are so unassured of going to heaven?

[Owen Jones]

Dear Sinjin,

Because that is the reality of salvation. It is not a deal. It is not a transaction. It is a blessing that we continually work to squander. the idea that you can enter into some contract with God to guarantee your own personal salvation is the grossest of heresies. Further, in Orthodoxy, there is no such thing in the strict sense of a personal salvation. We are not damned alone and we are not saved alone. We can pray another into a state of salvation. God saves whomever He chooses, when he chooses. We can be sanctified by marriage, and so on. The essence of phariseeism is to spout slogans that somehow bestow a guarantee. But the spiritual life is not about slogans.

These things are all so obvious, and so Biblical, that it is truly amazing that people can invent things that are so contrary to that and then insist that they are true.

As for Christ's atoning blood, this is truly part of the mystery of salvation which we cannot begin to reduce to some kind of recipe or formula.

Finally, what is it that we all say prior to receiving communion -- I am chief among sinners. The pride of the Christian is our great enemy -- the false belief that we are better than others, that we have somehow arrived and therefore need to do no more. The desert fathers are always warning us against the possibility of squandering the gift of salvation through pride. St. Maximos went so far as to say that we can relapse into a state of non-existence.

I would say that the key element in Christian faith is precisely is sthat there are no guarantees. It is precisely that which distinguishes true faith in Christ from all false religions.

With that said, there is no need for anxiety. We are encouraged to be confident that God fulfills His promises to us. The problem is not with God, it's with us.

[M. Trifa]

Does "being saved" mean simply going to heaven? Is going to heaven our only ultimate goal? There is no spiritual transformation, no happiness that can be achieved in our earthly life?

[sinjin smithe]

Dear M. Trifa,

You raise an excellent question that I have been wondering about for sometime. I wondere to if going to heaven is our only ultimate goal.

[Justin]

I would say that Jesus conquered death by death; it's misleading to say that "Jesus died on the cross for our sins". I don't think it's wrong to say it, it just has to be understood in the correct context. Unfortunately, it is usually said in an almost contract-like context. (e.g., 1. Jesus dies as a condition of a contract [usually called a covenant], 2. we agree with the terms of the contract, 3. we're free from consequences listed in the contract). Orthodoxy sees both the concepts of salvation and covenant as something like marriage, not a legal contract. Marriage, of course, is about growth. Certainly at the beginning there is something profound that happens, yet the marriage is a marriage throughout the years, and the marriage is by no means invincible to the corruption of this world. In Orthodoxy, then, we look towards judgment day and pray for a good defense before the great judgment seat of Christ just like we might say that we hope for a good and long-lasting marriage. Someone might say "well yeah, but didn't you already get married? what is the point of getting married if you have no assurance that you will be married in the future? didn't the marriage take care of this?" The answer to this (especially the last question), of course, is "not necessarily". Divorce happens. So does falling away from God. The NT (including Paul) says that we are judged according to what we did here while on earth in faith. If, then, we must use the language of contract (as misleading as it is), we would have to say that after signing the contract we have to not break the contract afterwards. Judgment day is for declaring who didn't live up to the contract; and for those who stayed true to Christ (fulfilling the contract), there is no condemnation.

[sinjin smithe]

Justin responded to the fact that we can lose our salvation, something which some Protestants claim cannot happen, that once we are saved, we are saved. I was reading today it said that God's purpose is not to make us happy but to make us holy through temptations and tribulations, is there any truth to this?

[wb thompson]

An interesting problem. St. Isaac of Syria says: "Without temptations, God's concern is not perceived, nor is freedom of speech with Him acquired, nor is spiritual wisdom learnt" and so on. But we are all familiar with the plea, "Lead us not into temptation"!

[Justin]

One reason I do not like to discuss "salvation" with Protestants is because we mean different things by the word. The Orthodox mean a process by salvation, God's working through us by His uncreated grace; whereas Protestants usually speak of a moment in time. So when we say that "baptism saves," they don't hear "baptism bestows grace upon us as part of a life-long process," but they hear "baptism is a work that saves, we are saved by a deed". The Orthodox view, indeed, is that we are saved by temptations. If you do a study of temptation, tribulation, etc. in the Bible you'll find this over and over. Genesis, James, 1 Cor., Sirach, Wisdom, and 1 Peter in particular have very explicit passages that talk about the idea of our being tested and perfected, that we are perfected, saved, and "enter into the kingdom of God" through the tests. The Orthodox, then, believe that we are saved through trials, not in spite of them. (hence the reason we read what we read in the Fathers, such as the quotation of St. Isaac the Syrian). Orthodox then would offer "sorrowful joy," they would say that we should pursue God, through which we would gain contentment. At least, that is how I understand things; if I am wrong someone please tell me!


I think the quote by St. Isaac presents a paradox, but these are one of the wonderful things about Orthodoxy http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif It is indeed true that we pray for God to not lead us into temptation, and yet James and Paul says that temptations lead to our perfection, and eventual salvation. We find a similar problem when we are told that we are to help the poor and needy: if trials help and lead to salvation, why should we help lessen suffering, aren't we hurting someone's path to salvation? This is not a contradiction, though it can indeed be a problem. I think the most practical answer is that at some point we need to stop praying that God not lead us into temptation, and instead endure it in happiness, thanking God for his goodness. In other words, it's ok to say you don't want to be tempted lest you fall away from God, but once the temptation sets in, we must focus on overcoming it, and doing so with joy and Christian virtue. Think of it this way, let's say that there is a task that you know you might be asked to do for the Church. You really don't want to do it, and you make it clear that you would rather not do it. If the task should fall to you, though, for whatever reason, your attitude should change from one of not wanting to do it to one of accepting the task as one assigned to you, and one that can be beneficial for your salvation.

I think this is especially hard when dealing with others (though perhaps I am just speaking for myself here). I find it harder to apply this principle when suffering effects others than when it effects me. But that's fine, it's all part of the wonderful paradox. Because while we are called personally to endure trials with joy, we are called also to help those in need. So we don't necessarily relate to those around us with the same mindset that we think about ourselves. Or perhaps I'm just talking too much. Perhaps if one read what the Fathers said about this it would go much further (for a bit of what they say, you could check out what they say about James 1:1-4 (http://www.geocities.com/stainlesskings888/james1.html) and James 1:12-15 (http://www.geocities.com/stainlesskings888/james1part2.html) -- I apologize for plugging my own site, I really think it could help though)

[Moses Anthony]

M. Trifa, Sinjin, Justin

The principle of sin is a reality that some people would like to not exist at all, however because of its consequeces Jesus died on the cross.

Redemption IS a legal term, like covenant, of which we have an eternal one through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. The purpose of our redemption is that we might once again enjoy the fellowship with God enjoyed by Adam in the garden of Eden. But; even that isn't the "ultimate goal". The fact that Jesus destroyed "death by death" is the basis, not just for communion with God but also the foundation for man to be re-united with the destroyed image in which he was made, the image of God. The Apostle Peter wrote that God gave us "His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature..." Again redemption is a legal term, as is implied in the word promise, which we correctly infer to mean to have conditions, as in a contract/covenant.

The "ultimate goal" of God is not a people full of legal fear; If that were so, Jesus would have been pleased with the Pharisees. However, Jesus did say to the Pharisees that they had "...neglected the weighter matters of the law, justice and mercy..."

"Be perfect, even as I am perfect", this goal is only possible if we, through the daily struggle, are transformed through the promises of God (in the hands of the Holy Spirit)to participate in His nature, our "ULTIMATE GOAL".

the unworthy servant

[Justin]

James,

I'll try to respond to each part of what you said. I may very well be totally misunderstanding what you are saying or I might just be blinded by what I think you are saying; please forgive me if I am: I do not intend to misrepresent you.

1. Jesus did die on the cross, Jesus did conquer death by death, Jesus did conquer sin by his life and death. However, had Adam never sinned Jesus would still have come. Adam's sin wasn't the cause that led to God coming to earth; but rather, God's coming and leaving was helpful regarding sin and death. I do not mean here to downplay the importance of Jesus freeing us from sin and death, I only wish to stress that this was not the only reason for Jesus' coming. I sometimes get the feeling that people believe "forgiveness of sins" (use whatever theological term you wish to describe it) was the only thing Jesus was here to do. Orthodox anthropology seems to disagree with this idea.

2. There are indeed legal terms used in Christianity, as there are also business terms (St. Seraphim and his use of "acquistion" comes to mind) and agricultural terms (Jesus certainly used them often). The question is, which language best presents salvation and covenant (and especially, which relates the concepts best today). I'm not against legal terms per se, I'm just against using them as though they are the end all. Marital language or healing language seem to me to be much better vehicles for relating God's work (covenant and salvation), if only because we as humans have a tendency to distort/corrupt legal language and concepts quicker than we do marital or medicinal language. The connection between Church and Christ are spoken of (if only typologically) in marital terms (Eph. 5); the covenant of God with Israel is spoken of in marital terms (Israel committed adultery, they didn't break a contract). Can legal aspects be applied to these two "relationships"? Sure, I'll concede that. But is that the best conceptual vehicle, generally speaking, to relate the message we must relate? I think God the healer would be much more appealing to people (even if they didn't like his prescription) than God the lawyer.

[Pamela Hristov]

Lose our salvation...(from Justin and Sinjin's message) I was a Protestant for 45 years and an orthodox for less than 2 years; never in all of my years was I taught that I couldn't lose my salvation. To the contrary...in the churches I was brought up in ..(both Nazerene and Methodist; one grandfather a Nazerene and the other a Methodist)I was continually reminded that if I didn't follow in the right path....that I would go to hell. I spent about ten years going to "hell and brimstone meetings"..or tent meetings as they were called in the south during my teenage years...all these "meetings" taught me was that I was sinful and needed to work harder to be a "good christian". As a child and young adult...I knew...just knew that I was going to hell....never once did I feel safe in being baptised or "saved" as they use to put it. As a child and young adult, I was terrified. From 18 to age 45 i didn't step near a church as I knew from previous teachings that I was (plainly put) going to hell. So my question is to Justin, Sinjin and others...what protestant faith taught or practiced that salvation could not be lost?

[Pamela Hristov]

I have to add one more thing...I chose to become an orthodox christian because I believed that it was the "first church". I felt that what it taught was the closest to Jesus word that I could come. However, I do not believe that "being orthodox" makes me better than anyone else. I have to be honest I feel like there is alot of "protestant bashing" here. And that is not in the true spirit of any religion.

[Justin]

I apologize for attacking Protestants, Pamela, it was not my intention to do so. I only wished to draw distinctions between what Protestants teach/think (which I think is incorrect), and what I think. I didn't intend to be bashing them, and apparently if you are getting that impression, then I was indeed doing that. I'm sorry for going too far.

I also was in a Protestant Denomination (Wesleyan Holiness group) that beleived you could "fall away," but my over-generalization (which I must now admit was wrong) spoke mainly of those Protestants who believe in Once-saved-always-saved theology. I'm not sure where this entered into modern theological thought, though I suspect all Calvinists are OSAS, and probably many with Calvinistic tendencies (e.g., in the Southern Baptists) believe in eternal assurance and the inability to fall away. Some well known Protestant teachers who believe in this inability to fall away are Charles Stanley, John Ankerberg, Hank Hanegraaff, and Dave Hunt. I read Daniel D. Corner's "The Believer's Conditional Security" a few years ago, and he lists dozens more teachers who teach this (I can give more names if you'd like)

[Pamela Hristov]

Apology accepted Justin...Perhaps I am also just a bit defensive when it comes to the Protestant religion.

[Moses Anthony]

Justin,

I'll try to answer as quickly as I can as my eyes are screaming that they need sleep.
There are a multitude of names in the O.T. by which the Israelites described God. The key to understanding these names, is knowing that these names arose from the situation each person was in. An example of this is Hagar, after she had been sent away from Abraham and Sarah. Alone with Ishmael and about to die of thirst, Hagar put her son under a bush , turned her back and cried out. In answering, God became "The God who sees"(I think this is El-Roi). The point is that to different ones, God was known in different ways, i.e, God of Truth, God of Love, etc,etc,etc.

The longing that's the greatest in a persons life, will probably be the area where God's voice will be heard the loudest, and the way in which He will be known most intimately.

the unworthy servant

[Richard Domina]

Spiritual Knowledge is like riding a seven speed bicycle. You can get where you're going in low gear but with a shift up to a higher gear you get there a lot quicker and with less effort while still riding the same bike. I say this after reading Jame's comment on the name's of God where he states; 'The longing that's the greatest in a persons life, will probably be the area where God's voice will be heard the loudest...' If we only could see that this is the Key to the Kingdom than we would understand all of scripture.

[David Galloway]

Pamela,

In reply to your question asking which expressions of Protestantism advocate the teaching of Eternal Security (ie "Once Saved, Always Saved) this teaching is rooted in the teachings of Calvin and Knox, and is an integral part of any Reformed school of theology(Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, etc). The short history of Southern Baptists is a almost tidal swaying back and forth from accepting most Calvinistic teachings to refuting them and replacing them with Arminian teachings.

In the area of the United States where I live (South Carolina) the general consensus is that Southern Baptists believe in an Arminian doctrine of conversion(one can choose to accept Christ's sacrifice) but a Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance(one cannot fall away from the life in Christ no matter what sins are commited including suicide). This is based on Calvinistic teachings that before the creation of the world God chose who would go to heaven and hell and men have no say in the matter. This was the subject that led to my dismissal of Evangelical doctrine when I was a Religious Studies major at a small Southern Baptist college and encountered this theology. It is for the most part inconsistant, but seeing as each Baptist parish is accountable only to itself, there are many inconsistancies.

I hope this helps.

[Vic Rozumny]

Hello!

This is my first post on this site. I was baptised into the Russian Orthodox church as an infant, but my family did not attend church (nor believe in God) during my childhood. On March 8th, 1998 I put my faith and belief in Jesus Christ after an Evangelical Presbyterian church service. I did indeed have a "conversion" experience that was very real, very personal, and very dramatic. I was, in many ways, Saul in the 21st century, before my conversion. The Holy Spirit of God did indwell my heart on that day, of this I have no doubt (Ephesians 1:13,14 states that we are "sealed" the moment that we believe). What I do doubt, at times, is what I see in the church (I am currently a member at a non-denominational Evangelical church), and the variances in theology and practice. There seem to be, as Scripture points out, many false doctrines abounding (if these are indeed the last days). I guess I feel myself in a states of confusion right now. I sometimes look at the monastic history of the Orthodox church and something inside of me longs for it. It is so difficult to live in this fallen world and to follow Our Lord. There is so much tempatation and evil in the world, I can see and understand why monks first segregated and seperated themselves from the world in order to truly follow Christ.

There are, in fact, a few verses which seem to speak to the possibility of one's "losing" his salvation, having their name blotted out of the Book of Life, but there are far more verses which speak to the security of our salvation by faith alone, not by works. There are also many more verses that speak to predestination (Calvinism) than there are verses that speak to freewill (Arminianism). Can anyone truly read Romans 8:28-30 and argue that we have a choice?

My question is what is the stance of the Orthodox church? If someone could give me an official position and also the Scripture which supports them I would be very grateful. I would also like to know the official stance of the Orthodox church on the Protestant church. Does the Orthodox church believe that the only "Christians" who will spend eternity with Christ are the Orthodox? Thank you so much for your time and patience! God bless you!

A confused Protestant

[Owen Jones]

Dear Vic,

I doubt that an "official position" will eliminate your confusion. I especially would suggest not indulging in "last days" fantasies which are always rife during periods of cultural decline. The Church's "official positions" always develop in response to pastoral problems. Afterwards, they take on a life of their own, as if there were eternal verities out there in the form of theological propositions that shower down upon us. To understand the Church's "official positions," we must first undergo some kind of ascesis. It doesn't mean we have to go fast in the desert for 40 days. But we do have to undergo some kind of self-criticism.

I have had a lot more success personally in working on myself and getting help through wise counsel on specific problems (not intellectual problems but living problems). The intellectual confusion then goes away. Unfortunately, there are very few individuals in the Church capable of givine wise counsel beyond the most obvious, so going to some practical spiritual counsel in books is OK -- beginning with Holy Scripture of Course. The problem is that we tend to read this stuff analytically, instead of allowing ourselves to be critiqued and judged by what we read.

My view is that the Orthodox way is as follows: right living leads us into right thinking and not the other way around. There is a specifically Orthodox body of instruction on right living. As I said, if this instruction is followed, then theological confusion tends to evaporate.

[erich von abele]

Owen

right living leads us into right thinking and not the other way around. There is a specifically Orthodox body of instruction on right living. As I said, if this instruction is followed, then theological confusion tends to evaporate.

The unavoidable inference here is that Protestants and Catholics are not living right; or that, if they are, it has not led to right thinking; or that if they are and it has, right thinking has been complicated by the disintegration of Christianity, though not so complicated that it cannot be seen by you, because of... right living.

[Owen Jones]

It's not just right living in a general sense. An atheist can live right. He can be honest, hard-working, not lie cheat or steal, be a good citizen, a good parent, etc. But the early Church rightly understood that what was necessary was a transformation of our sense perception, both our physical and spiritual sense perception, to enable us to see Christ for who He really is, to be able to see the things God made as they really are -- including the ability to see within, to see ourselves as we really are, as the greater cosmos, as St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain puts it. The liturgy only makes sense in this context. Otherwise, it is just a pietistic exercise.

Without that transformation, there really is no such thing as the Church. That is what the Church is for -- to bring about a healing of our distorted sense perception. Without that healing of our corrupt bodies and sense perception, the Church is nothing more than a dogmatic institution, or, as in today's Church, a membership club like the Masons or the Rotary. A place to go to to make us feel good and give us some sense of belonging.

This inward transformation is the constant theme in Orthodox ascesis. Now, that is not to say it is the only way someone can be saved. Let's not get into that issue. It is simply a precondition to be able to understand Scripture, to be able to theologize rightly, and it is the whole basis of the Orthodox doctrine of deification. The church dropped its discipline that required this ascesis as a precondition of receiving communion. So now it is really left up to the individual. But the principle remains the same. It is the whole meaning of Pentacost. At Pentacost, the disciples still could not see Christ for who he really was. They had to have their senses transformed. Then they knew. When Christ ascended, if there had been cameras, He would not have appeared on film. He only appeared to those who, chosen by God to see him, had pure sense perception.

This is why Fr. Arseny reported that after he had a near death experience in the Gulag, he could actually see people's souls as a light, as fire. Some burned brighter than others and he was ashamed because he had inwardly judged some of them as having no soul. It is why we have halos in our iconographic tradition, because people with purified senses can see them.

The Fathers are consistent in their teaching that one begins with sensible reality and we cannot begin to examine intelligible reality until we have purified our sense perception and acquired stillness. We are not prepared to theologize until we have made a certain degree of progress along that path. That is why in the early Church discipline, the catechumens were not allowed to stay for the sermon. It wasn't a hazing process. It was because they knew that catechumens could not be exposed to theology prematurely. The theology of the Church was a secret, holy mystery, not something publicly chatted about. Not because of persecution, but because it was powerful and dangerous and reckless to talk about it cheaply. It is why St. Paul said that in taking communion without adequate preparation, some have become sick and some have even died.

There simply is no such tradition of ascesis in Portestantism. And it is rarely spoken of only in rarified domains within the Roman Catholic Church. Which is why you see so many RC's dabbling with Eastern meditation and such. It's why when some unconventional Catholics like Madam Guyon begin to experiment with the path of inner transformation, they are condemned as heretics. Because this tradition is largely lost in the West. But as recently as the 19th Century you still have Orthodox saints such as St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain writing about this. Maybe some more recently that I don't know about.

So when we get together to "chat" about theology, we do so at grave risk to our souls, really, because we do so while our perception is still corrupt. We do so pridefully, thinking that we want the truth, but what we really want is to think highly of ourselves. Thinking that we possess the truth.

Finally, for now, another consistent theme of the Fathers is that truth is not something that we know, but rather a realm that we enter into. It is something that we live but it is a realm between this world and the next that habitate. Whereas today we tend to objectivise the truth and reduce it to dogmatic formulations. Just give me the right dogma, we say, but that puts the cart before the horse.

Now, that is not to say that just becoming an ascetic person is the answer. It is supposed to be within a Christian context. Ascetisim just for the sake of asceticism misses the point as well. It is a precondition to entering the fullness. It also does not mean that we all have to be equally transformed ascetics, all living on a high spiritual plane. For most of us it is good enough to just try to obey the ten commandments and worship in the traditional way. But then we should probably stay away from theological debates.

[John Vrablic]

I have read a few of the respones on the list regarding salvation. I am a Catholic (Lutheran).

Lutherans do not say you are once saved always saved.

I would like to ask a few questions

1. Did Christ Atone for each and every sin that you have or will commit?

2. As an orthodox christian are you now justified?

3. As an orthodox christian are you still a sinner?

4. If the answer to 3 is yes than on what basis are you justified before the all holy God?



John Vrablic

[Clark]

Mr. John Vrablic wrote:


"1. Did Christ Atone for each and every sin that you have or will commit? 2. As an orthodox christian are you now justified? 3. As an orthodox christian are you still a sinner? 4. If the answer to 3 is yes than on what basis are you justified before the all holy God?

This post is proof that Protestants (including Luthero-Catholics) and Orthodox simply speak different theological languages. These questions can't be given "simple" answers, because the whole system of language that they use is different, and so is the whole theological framework that lays behind them. Orthodox would never ask these questions, at least not in these forms. And even if they did, the terms used mean very different things. When Protestants (and some Catholics) talk about Christ "atoning" for our sins, they mean something pretty radically different from what Orthodox do when they say the same thing. The term "justified" is a killer, since the post-Luther West interprets it in a way that would make an Orthodox burst into sad tears and run away to do penance.

But at least #3 is easy: yes, we're all still sinners.

[Vic Rozumny]

Brother Owen and the other brothers of all denominations who were gracious enough to reply,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. Firstly I must confess that I am most certainly a man full of pride. A constant prayer before Our Father is that He would show me this pride in all of its awful manifestations and help to drive it from my heart. With this said, I would also like to state that I never "chat" about theology. There is nothing more important to me in this world than the Holy Scripture. I will reference Scripture throughout this post, if this is not accepted practice for this forum then please forgive me now, I am ignorant until corrected, hopefully with loving kindness. I will reference Scripture because the Holy Scripture is Truth, and I have a burning desire to know this Truth more fully. I have no theological training. I had never read the Holy Scripture until that day in March of 1998 which I referenced in my original posting. I have read the Scripture constantly since that day. I have read it constantly because I desire to know my Lord and Savior. I have not ever read it with the intent to hoard it over others. As iron sharpens iron. (Prov. 27:17) The Word of Our Lord is Life, as Our Lord Jesus Christ is Life. He and the Word are one and the same. (John 1:1,2) To "chat" about Scripture is to denigrate Scripture, and to denigrate Scripture is to denigrate Our Lord. I humbly submit 1 John 1:1-3 as a preamble to a discussion that I pray will be filled with the fruit of the Spirit. A discussion that will not focus on our differences as followers of Christ, but as those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Please forgive me now if I at some point, through my ignorance of the Orthodox Church, offend anyone with anything that I profess within this post. This is surely not my intent nor my desire. I have come to this discussion, and begun my study of Orthodoxy, with what I hope is a spirit of submission and a heart that desires to learn. I have not come to pass judgment on the Orthodox Church, or any other church. Please accept this as my word to you all.

Brother Owen I have carefully read your post numerous times. I must admit that I am not your intellectual match in matters of debate, nor in eloquence of presentation. I would like therefore to respond to your post not with my opinion, or with the opinion of other men. I would like to respond to your post with the Holy Scripture. The same Scripture that has bound all men of God to each other and to Christ for these last 2,000 years. Yes, this same Scripture has unfortunately separated many men over the last 2,000 years also. I humbly submit that much of this separation is the result of the pride of man. This is unfortunate in many ways. It is unfortunate for the dis-unity that it breeds within the followers of Christ, but I fear the greater impact is the image of the Faith that it presents to a fallen world that is seeking the Truth. (John 13:34,35)

I apologize for my long-windedness at this early stage. I felt compelled to address a few matters before I answered your post in earnest.

You state: But the early Church rightly understood that what was necessary was a transformation of our sense perception, both our physical and spiritual sense perception, to enable us to see Christ for who He really is, to be able to see the things God made as they really are -- including the ability to see within, to see ourselves as we really are, as the greater cosmos, as St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain puts it. The liturgy only makes sense in this context.

What you term as "sense perception" I submit as the Holy Spirit indwelt. (1Corinthians 2:11-14)(2Timothy 1:14) and many other Scriptures attest to this truth.
With the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and also the potential for the grieving of the Holy Spirit. The indwelt Holy Spirit can be grieved by the sin of man. (Ephesians 4:30) The heart can be hardened by this sin. I am a living testimony to this. I thank my God that the conviction of the Holy Spirit has led me countless times to the cross of Christ to ask of His forgiveness and to repent of my sin. (1John 1:9,10).

You go on to state how the Church can become nothing more than a social club, "A place to go to make us feel good and give us some sense of belonging." I agree wholeheartedly with this point. The Protestant churches who are earnestly seeking after Our Lord constantly battle this same battle. I feel that a distinction needs to be made in this regard however. When Jesus speaks about the tares among the wheat He speaks of apostacy within the Church. The church as infiltrated by the unbelieving. The enemy who came in the night and sowed the tares.(Matt.13:24-29) This is where most Protestants (I cannot speak to the position of any other church) make the distinction between the Body of believers and the church. The church, in a Protestant sense, can mean the physical building and all those within it, while the Body is meant to signify those who have, not to ruffle any feathers, believed, are saved, selected, etc. however you would like to classify, or not classify this. As I write this I feel the consternation that it may be causing amongst this audience and I apologize. I would suppose that if there is no surety of salvation, then there can be no Body of Christ, at least not on this Earth. I say this with the utmost respect for the Orthodox Church.

You also state
At Pentacost, the disciples still could not see Christ for who he really was. They had to have their senses transformed. Then they knew. When Christ ascended, if there had been cameras, He would not have appeared on film. He only appeared to those who, chosen by God to see him, had pure sense perception.

I will agree again. I will also add that the means for the disciples to see Christ as He really was was, once again, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Pentacost is when the Holy Spirit was given to those who believe (have put their faith)in Christ. (Acts 2:1-4)(Acts 1:4,5)(Acts 2:38,39) and (John 14:15-26)to name but a few Scriptures.

This is why Fr. Arseny reported that after he had a near death experience in the Gulag, he could actually see people's souls as a light, as fire.

You may be surprised to hear that there have been many such visions amongst the Protestant/Evangelical church in various places around the world over recent years. The Holy Spirit of God represented as a dove (early in all Gospels) and as fire are consistent with Scripture. (Acts 2:1-4 again)

You go on to state that: The theology of the Church was a secret, holy mystery, not something publicly chatted about. Not because of persecution, but because it was powerful and dangerous and reckless to talk about it cheaply.

I cannot speak to the theology of the Orthodox church. What I can speak to, experientially, is that the there is no greater mystery than the Holy Scripture of God. With that said, there can be no understanding of the Scripture without the Holy Spirit to discern and reveal these mysteries to those who long and seek after them. I am sure that the Church fathers were men who sought after these mysteries. I will agree once again that it is dangerous to cheapen the Word of God, for Our Lord will not be mocked. Iron sharpening iron does not constitute this blasphemy according to Scripture however. I will also make a quick point that before the invention of the printing press the Holy Scrioture was not readily available to the man or woman who sat in the pews but only to the monks and learned men who hand copied the Scripture and so preserved it. Also the literacy rate of the general populace prevented reading of any sort.

It is why St. Paul said that in taking communion without adequate preparation, some have become sick and some have even died.

I will disagree here. What Paul is speaking to here is the failure of the believer to examine his own heart before taking communion. To fail to examine ones own heart and to confess ones sin and unworthiness before Our Lord before partaking of communion is indeed to mock the Creator and risk judgment.


There simply is no such tradition of ascesis in Portestantism.

I must admit that I had to search the meaning of this word as I was not familiar with it. Now that I feel I am comfortable with its meaning ( I am probably not) I feel that I can make a short comment on your generalization of Protestants as a whole. There is training and self-discipline within the Protestant church. Is it to be compared with the monasticism of the Orthodox church? No, I am afraid not. I feel that this does reference the longing of which I spoke with my original posting. Those who truly seek to know Our Lord study His Word, train themselves in righteousness (my apologies again if I offend), and practice self-discipline with the help of Our Lord, as His power is made perfect in Our weakness. (2Corinthians 12:9)

So when we get together to "chat" about theology, we do so at grave risk to our souls, really, because we do so while our perception is still corrupt. We do so pridefully, thinking that we want the truth, but what we really want is to think highly of ourselves. Thinking that we possess the truth.

I will admit that there is much of this sort of thinking amongst all of the denominations of believers. I must admit that I also am guilty in this regard. My hope and my prayer before beginning this post was that the Lord would remove this from me as I wrote and for the Holy Spirit to guide my words and my heart. (Psalm 139:23,24) I am also sure that I have failed to do this with any consistency within this post. Please forgive me.

As Clark graciously and wisely stated towards the end of his post, there seems to be a wide disparity within the denominations in language and meaning. After reading these posts over the last two days I must wholeheartedly agree. I do believe that the Spirit of Truth can and does reveal these things of God to those who seek them, and in so doing, seek Him.

I pray that my words have not offended as I pray for unity among the followers of Christ. There is so much wisdom to be shared amongst us (not speaking of anything from my mouth of course). This site has driven me to order a few books by noted Orthodox leaders. I am also reading the City of God by St. Augustine, Introduction to the Devout Life by Francis De Salles, Matthew Henry's Commentary, and the autobiography of Billy Graham as I wait for the wisdom of their Orthodox counterparts. I share this not out of pride I hope, but out of a willingness to possibly help to bring down, in some small way, some of the stereotypes that seem to exist amongst us as His followers.

I thank you for reading this long post and I welcome all comment and criticism. I am here to learn, and I have learned much over these last few days. I am also here to defend where the Spirit guides.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2Timothy 3:16,17

Blessings my brothers in the faith,

Victor

ps- We can chose to accept each others failings as imperfect sinners before a Holy God and learn from the wisdom of each other, or we can chose to segregate and denigrate. I pray for the former my brethren.

[John Vrablic]

Clark had said regarding these questions...


"1. Did Christ Atone for each and every sin that you have or will commit? 2. As an orthodox christian are you now justified? 3. As an orthodox christian are you still a sinner? 4. If the answer to 3 is yes than on what basis are you justified before the all holy God?

Yes I agree that many times we mean different things. But these are the words that God ordained to use to express his will to us in his holy word.


But at least #3 is easy: yes, we're all still sinners

Are you right now justified though?? This word is not a killer, this is how God has chosen to express himself regarding how the redemption of Christ is united to us in faith.

In a way thsi word is a killer becuase "Christ was put to death for our sin and was raised for OUR JUSTIFICATION. So in order for us to be justified Christ died for you..so yes thsi word in that sense is a killer.

Are you right now justifeid in standing before the all holy God. Gos says that no one can see his face and live and the holy David says " Lord if you judged me who could stand"..and " who can discern hsi errors" and "no one living is righteous before you".

So right now at this momnet of your life are you justified in standing before God?

If as you admit you are a sinner than how can you be justified in standing before God.

On what basis can you, knowing that the "soul who sins will die" assume to have union with God in Christ?

The issue with salavtion procalimed by God is basic.

Law of God- Disobedience= Sin=Temporal Death=Eternal Death=

God-Holy-Rightoues-No one can see him and live-We must be prefcetly holy and blameless- We must have perfect atonement if we do not obey God to the fullest.

So there is a gap there between our sins and Gods holiness.

The question of salavtion than seems to come down to how or what will we place in between our sins and Gods holiness?

John

[Clark]

John,

No one is arguing that the words "atonement" and "justification," and others, are those used in Scripture and the other writings of the church. Obviously they are. There is nothing wrong with the terms. They are scriptural and sound.

But for discussions like these, a term like "justification" is every bit a killer, like I said before, because different Christian "traditions" interpret it so differently. By your questions (for example, "Are you right now justifeid in standing before the all holy God?") you show that you interpret the term "justification" in a way that we Orthodox never would. I can't/won't answer that question, since, due to these different understandings, it's a pointless question.

An example of the problem: An orchard-owner in America calls his fruit "apples" and a farmer in Fiji calls the dung from his oxen "apples." Both receive a notice from the government saying: "Bag all apples on your property for collection next week." The American takes his fruit and bags it; the Fijian takes his dung and bags it.

The external question, "Have you bagged your apples?" would be a pointless question in this context, since "apple" means something very different to each person, and even if both people were to answer "yes," the actual reality addressed by each of them is different.

I don't mean to suggest that some of us here have nice fruit and the others have dung: but I definitely want to suggest that questions like yours are Protestant questions. They can be asked usefully to other Protestants, but not to Orthodox or a good chunk of Roman Catholics.

[John Vrablic]

Clark

Thank you for your response. I am a little puzzled and so I will try to word this so we can be on the same page.

You said


I can't/won't answer that question, since, due to these different understandings, it's a pointless question.

I do not mean to cause a ruckus here but this question of salavtion is the crux of mankinds problem.

If we cannot give an answer to the hope we have in Christ for eternal life (justification) than would we not be in trouble?

Matthew 12:37
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

So Clark if you or I died tomorrow I assume you would die as a sinner.

Revelation 21:25
In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed;

Revelation 21:26
and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it;

Revelation 21:27
and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

So nothing unclean will enter heaven.

So if we died tomorrow, what would be the justification for us to enter in full communion of the divine nature of God?

Assuming that as sinner we are unclean in some manner how than can we "partake of the divine nature" in heaven for ever and ever?

I certainly hope you do not think I am couching these questions or causing trouble.

Is this not what our life is about? How can we be in full communion with God and be restored back into the paradise of heaven after we die?

John

[Clark]

John wrote:


"I do not mean to cause a ruckus here but this question of salavtion is the crux of mankinds problem."

You seem to ignored the heart of everything I've said.

There's no debate over the necessity of salvation. Obviously. It's a question of theological context. Yours is fundamentally different from the Orthodox context. To discuss "justification" between these contexts is absolutely pointless, not because justification isn't an important issue, but because it's a useless project to try to discuss the intricicacies of the idea when it means something radically different to you as a Protestant and me as an Orthodox.

[John Vrablic]

Clark

I am trying not to make this pointless.

Can we assume for now that justfication means that when I die I will spend eternity with God.

That now I have the first fruits of the spirit and see dimly but when I die that I will see him as he really is and have the fullness of his spirit.

Do you agree with that?

John

[An observer]

John Vrablic wrote:


Can we assume for now that justfication means that when I die I will spend eternity with God.

I don't think we can. This is to be far too certain about things.

[John Vrablic]

If the scriptures speak about justification in the sense that

"Christ rose for our justification"
" We are justified by his blood"
Through baptism "we are justified from sin"
"We aer freely justified by grace"
"Now that we have been justified we have peace"
"You are justified from everyhting the law coudl not justify you from"
"No oen is justified by the law"
"Abarahm was justified by faith"
"By One man came justification to all"
"The publican went home justified"
"Who is it that justifies?"Romans

Than why are we being uncertain about this doctrine. What is the doctrien of justification in Orthodoxy.

Scripture plainly speaks about this at least 20-30 times in the NT.

Gods word uses Abraham as THE example of justification before God.

So why is it a problem to discuss this. Again I am uncertain why there seems to be such hesitancy to speak about this issue. I just looked up under Chrysostoms homilies and there is very clear presentation of the doctrine of justfication in his homilies.

Can someone tell me why there seems to be a hesitation?

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear John,

I do think that perhaps you misunderstand the situation somewhat. Orthodox Christians have no hesitation in speaking about justification: it is important as an aspect of the dynamic salvation of the human person, well attested to by Scripture and the other holy texts of the Church, and Orthodox are quite comfortable with the concept.

The hesitation that you have seen expressed by some of the members of this thread is not about discussing the notion of justification as a part of salvation; it is, rather, a hesitation in speaking about it within the context of the Orthodox/Protestant religious divide.

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 that Clark and others have mentioned; 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.

The above is an extreme simplification. I do not particularly wish to get into a lengthy discussion over the nature of the difference in understandings of justification between Orthodox and Protestants; but I hope that this will show that the hesitancy you witnessed was not of the concept itself, but merely of the inter-religious discussion of it.

INXC, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

Dear Matthew


The hesitation that you have seen expressed by some of the members of this thread is not about discussing the notion of justification as a part of salvation; it is, rather, a hesitation in speaking about it within the context of the Orthodox/Protestant religious divide.

I understand what you say Matthew. But how can their be eceumenical dialogue if we do not enter into discussion about this?

I am not of the mind that you havea context and I haev a context so there can be no discussion and therfore no full communion between us.

I do not accept that notion. We are all baptized into one spirit and one body, and Christ's sheep hear his voice.

I might point out as well that theologically speaking Lutheran theology is not Protestant.


I notice that in your posts, you speak of justification as, essentially, the whole core of human salvation.

Being justified is to be united to the death of Christ in baptism and to have "no condemnation for those in Christ"

IF justification consists in a real union with Christ and his blood and his cross, and if he needed to become a curse for us in order to justify us and that he allowed to humble himself even to death on a cross, and he was smitten for MY sins and scourged and all my iniquity was upon my Lord Jesus than what else can there be to salvation.

IF his death and resurection are our justification than this death and resurection IS my salvation.

I am fisrt united to the cross of Chrits in baptism where I died to sin and was "justified from sin".

I am now a new creation in Christ. That means that under Gods grace even though I sin through repentance and faith my sin by God mercy alone is forgiven me so that I am justified befoer God. and it is ONLY the cross that justifies me.

To be justified before God is to be free from sin..No??

If I sin and through Gods grace I am led to an awareness of my sin, than at that point my conscience tells me that I have trangressed Gods holy and immutable law.

I repent of my sins and ask God to forgive me my sin for the sake of Christs holy and innocent sufferings...for he is faithful and just and wil forgive me and cleanse me of all my sin, because Jesus is my advocate for me.

So justification at least biblically and in Luthearn theology is not a one time event and here I go to live my life anyway I want because I am once saved always saved.

No the daily life of a Christian is always only a return to baptism where we spiritualy died to sin and were raised with christ.

Foe my body is dead because of sin but my spirit is alive to righteouesness.

I carry around in my body the death of Christ so that his life may be made manifest, because I carry this treasure of the gospel around in my body that is an earthen vessel.

I am crucified to the world adn it is no longer I that live but Christ that lives in me...

So each and everytime I confess my sins, recieve holy absolution belive in his gospel, partake of teh Holy Eucharist I am justified before God. Or I die to sin and am raised through faith in Gods promise.

When scripture speaks of Abrahams justification it did not speak of it as only his entarnec into a relationship with God.

When Romans speaks of Abraham and says "he was credited with righteousness" this happens in Gen 15 where Abraham was ALREADY justified before God.

The point being is that justification IS salvation becuase it is only the blood of jesus that cleanses us of sin and I can only recieve that grace where God promises me that he will bestow his lavish grace upon me.

1. Baptism is the root and foundation of all subsequent grace and justification

2. The holy gospel when believed..the gospel is the power of slavation unto those who believe

3. Holy COnfession.

When we confes our sins to our priests standing in teh stead of Christ, he pronounces the grace or Justification form our sins to us

4. TEh Holy Eucharist

Even though I come to the table of the lord with sins and am heavy laden through the tears of repeantance, I am invited to cast my cares upon the Lord and I recieve in turn for my sins nothing but his grace and mercy given to me in his shed blood that ratified the new covenanat and his body that was smitten for me.

Please share with me how this understanding of justifiaction is not scriptural or catholic (orthodox)


Christ justified the world in the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection.

How so Matthew. This view that the world was justified by the incarantion, cross and resurection prior to faith or baptism is what in Lutheran circles is titled objcetive justifiaction.

This is a controversial teaching that many Lutheran denominations hold to. The atonement and justifiaction are the same coin with different sides.

But no one is justified before God without faith. YOu seem to say that everyone was justifeid when Christ became incarnate, died and rose.

From what scripture teaches no one is justified befoer God w/o faith. The reason it seems is that the atoenemnt can only be recived as an instrument through Gods grace by faith. If I do not recive this atonement I am not justified before God.

Or maybe to use terminology as you would. The word of the cross must become "incarante" in each of us if we are to be justified.

If I do not have faith in this objective atonement than the "wrath of God remains on me"

Please clarify the statement that "Christ justified the world"


The above is an extreme simplification. I do not particularly wish to get into a lengthy discussion over the nature of the difference in understandings of justification between Orthodox and Protestants; but I hope that this will show that the hesitancy you witnessed was not of the concept itself, but merely of the inter-religious discussion of it.

I see what you mean Matthew but how can we have full communion with the body of Christ if we do not discuss these issues that separte the body of Christ.

Have you ever actually studied the Lutheran doctrine of justification or salvation as it pertains to how you as an Orthodox view it?

Thank you for the gentleness of your e-mail as always

John

[Moses Anthony]

John,

The fourth Gospel says that as many as believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and received Him were given the right to be "...called children of God. That( because of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ), is our position. The Apostle Paul tells us to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". This is where I recognize that while I have the position of being a "child of God", I must deal with things such as anger wrath, malice, slander, abusive speech, lusts (of the flesh,the eyes and the pride of life), greed, living with my wife according to knowledge. In other words, the very same things every "john doe" sinner has to deal with.

Now, because as I travel this road of communion with the Almighty, being identified with Jesus through baptism into death and therefore identified also with Him in resurrection unto new life (that is how I'm seen by God), I see myself -the sinner- in need of mercy and grace. My viewpoint(a sinner)has not equaled my position (a child of God).

The only way for me to get to my position, is through the precious and magnificent promises of God; through which, as I work out my salvation ( dispasssion)I partake of the divine nature.

As my friend Dale would say when explaining something to me, "clear as mud". If I've muddied things up for you, let someone know who can better explain it for you.

tus

[Chad Duskin]

Assuming that as sinner we are unclean in some manner how than can we "partake of the divine nature" in heaven for ever and ever?

John,
This is the key question in my mind. My understanding of the Orthodox view of justification is that justification is the process of being or becoming righteous or just. Justification is not seen in judicial terms such as an "acquittal" but as the entering of a covenant with God centered on our union with Christ (Rom. 5:1-11). There is only One Who is truly Just. In our union with Christ through Baptism, the Eucharist, and other sacraments we allow the Just One to transform us into His image. Partaking of the Divine Nature can occur because Christ became man, the Creator became a part of His creation. Before this happened man had no way to partake of the Divine Nature. God in His mercy initiated the process through the incarnation. We cannot approach a Holy God because of our sinfulness, but we can approach through a part of creation that has been infused with His Divine Nature, that is to say, God the Son. We are justified by faith (Rom 3:28), but not by faith alone (Jam. 2:17, 24). Justification is dynamic because faith is dynamic , not static. It is not just a decision, but a way of life. That is why Orthodox are hesitant to say that justification means spending eternity with God. Orthodox see justification in much the same way that Protestants view sanctification. A Protestant would be hesitant to say that sanctification was totally imparted at the moment of receiving Christ, but would say that it is a process that may not be fully realized until the resurrection.

So to answer your questions:
1. Did Christ atone for each and every sin that you have or will commit? Yes, the question is are we appropriating His forgiveness in our lives to draw us closer to His image?

2. As an orthodox christian are you now justified? I'm in the process of being justified.

3. As an orthodox christian are you still a sinner? Yes

4. If the answer to 3 is yes than on what basis are you justified before the all holy God? His mercy and grace.

The answer that you are looking for goes much deeper than I can express here. I would suggest reading Gregory of Palamas. The issue of justification touches on questions that must be answered first such as: What is grace? What is faith's role in salvation? If justification is a judicial pronouncement of acquittal given at the point of accepting Christ, why did God the Son have to become incarnate and die on the cross? Why couldn't God just proclaim men justified like He did with Abraham? If He died to pay a debt that we couldn't pay, to whom or what was the debt paid? The list could go on. But the real focus of your search should be to find out how one can find and maintain union with Christ.

Chad

[John Vrablic]

James


The fourth Gospel says that as many as believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and received Him were given the right to be "...called children of God. That( because of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ), is our position. The Apostle Paul tells us to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". This is where I recognize that while I have the position of being a "child of God", I must deal with things such as anger wrath, malice, slander, abusive speech, lusts (of the flesh,the eyes and the pride of life), greed, living with my wife according to knowledge. In other words, the very same things every "john doe" sinner has to deal with.

As a Lutheran thsi is the same "language" for me.


Now, because as I travel this road of communion with the Almighty, being identified with Jesus through baptism into death and therefore identified also with Him in resurrection unto new life (that is how I'm seen by God), I see myself -the sinner- in need of mercy and grace. My viewpoint(a sinner)has not equaled my position (a child of God).

Again right there with you...well put


The only way for me to get to my position, is through the precious and magnificent promises of God; through which, as I work out my salvation ( dispasssion)I partake of the divine nature.

This is the area that must be discussed. We all woudl agree with the first two sections of what James wrote.

1. We become children of God through baptism
2. That the reality of my inherent righteousness
falls short of the glory and holiness of God

Now the real question becomes on what basis are we saved, justified, or in perfect union with God through Christ.

So in teh first two we recognize teh need for gods mercy and grace becuase we still do not live up to teh title of child of God as we should.

Two questions

1. If we still fall short and assuming we still do not comepltely conform our lives to Christ on what basis than am I given eternal life?

In other words if I integrate an ascetic lifestyle and fast and pray and give alms and follow the ten commandments and I still fall short and still have sin than on what basis do I have eternal life?

Is it

1. Only the mercy of God since I still need his mercy and forgiveness.

And if so than what have my works accomplished in my salavation?

2. Since I performed these ascetic ideals and lived a fiathful life my works performed in grace played a part of my salvation

John

[Owen Jones]

I think John's questions highlight the limitations of protestantism. We are not saved just by God's mercy. Rather, His mercy is a precondition of our salvation. But we are saved by His Beauty. We participate freely in His Beauty. It is his beauty that saves. The protestant denial of this is reflected in the austerity of Protestant worship, which is merely an extension of the ancient iconoclastic heresy. Also, the temptation to reduce salvation to a slogan or formula is always a temptation, for Orthodox as well. In Orthodoxy, it is evident in certain controversies over the calendar, jurisdictions, etc.

By denying mankind the aesthetics of salvation, Protestantism has reduced human nature to a set of psychological relationships. This is why Protestants had to invent secular psychotherapy -- to get them off the hook. The primary pastoral problem facing modern man is the denial of a truly aesthetic dimension. This dimension, the natural dimension of our experience, must therefore be found in drugs and sex, in various aspects of nihilism including modern art and rock music. It is not something that can be repressed or denied. Only Orthodoxy can channel our natural aesthetic desire into the right direction and purpose. This is why it is so important not to monkey with the liturgy. It is not the dogmatic formalism of the liturgy that is important, but what it does to our interior nature when we participate in liturgical worship sincerely, with an open heart.

As an aside, my personal opinion is that the leading cause of depression in our contemporary world is a lack of beauty. We expose ourselves to all manner of negative images from the world the weigh down the heart.

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

I think Owen may have touched on something profound. A recent cinema closure in North London has elicited the graffito "erase our hearts", and although the occasion may be relatively superficial, the sentiment is perhaps symptomatic of a deeper anomie.

[John Vrablic]

Dear Owen

Thank you for responding.

You say that we are not saved by Gods mercy alone but by his beauty. Please share with me where scripure or the fathers claim that we are not saved by Gods mercy but by his beauty.

God declares that we are saved by the cross of Christ ALONE. This may be offensive to many but it IS the power of salvation for those who believe.

And if I can say in all honesty and humbleness...it seems the group tends to make sweeping statement of what they precive to be Protestantism.

You said


The protestant denial of this is reflected in the austerity of Protestant worship, which is merely an extension of the ancient iconoclastic heresy.

Firstly I have stated that Lutheranism is not Protestantism and Lutherans have upheld the traditional liturgy.

And I do not understand where you are going with this Owen? I had cited over 20 verses of Gods word speaking to US about our justification before him. These words of God claimed that we are justified freely and that by his death we have life and justification and many other quotes.

Your answer to that is to make a sweeping statement about Protestatism and to say we are saved by Gods beauty.

I have prayed, meditated and sufferd through Gods word the last 4 yrs and after doing this with scripture and many of the fathers of the church I have never come across a theological axiom that we are saved by Gods beauty??

You say


By denying mankind the aesthetics of salvation, Protestantism has reduced human nature to a set of psychological relationships. This is why Protestants had to invent secular psychotherapy -- to get them off the hook. The primary pastoral problem facing modern man is the denial of a truly aesthetic dimension.

WHo denies that we must perform good works? God has given us all the aesthetics we need in his holy law. These ten commandments must be obeyed by Christains for they aer a reflcetion of Gods holiness. What can you possibly perform as aestetics that is not contaiend in just one commandment...Love the Lord your God alone and with all your heart soul and mind.

Can you EVER exhaust just this one command?

I do not understand the need to delve into "aestetic" when God has revealed to us his perfect will for us in his commandments.

Ecclesiastes 12:13
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

RESOURCES ON BEAUTY:

St Clement of Alexandria, The Paedogogus ('Teacher'). There is some discussion of beauty in Book 3, Chapter 1 of this text. It is of a somewhat general nature (i.e. it does not speak specifically of beauty as 'saving'); but it helps set the context of a proper understanding of beauty. The text, which is too long to post here in full, may be found online at:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-54.htm#P4200_1302198

There is an especially revealing text among the writings of Blessed Augustine (The Confessions, Book 4, Chapter 13), who states:


"These things I knew not at that time, and I loved these lower beauties, and I was sinking to the very depths. And I said to my friends, 'Do we love anything but the beautiful? What, then, is the beautiful? And what is beauty? What is it that allures and unites us to the things we love? For unless there were a grace and beauty in them, they could by no means attract us to them.'"

This notion that God's beauty is what draws us to Him, and that in the vision of His beauty, which leads to the vision of God Himself, we are propelled into union with the Creator, is often expressed in the material terms of the beauty of creation. Here God's own beauty, in the image of which and toward the draw of which man was created, is understood as manifested, to a lessened degree, in the very fabric of His creation. Thus, through the 'residual beauty' of God in His work, the draw to divine union is found. This is evident, for example, in Augustine's commentary on Psalm 145 (section 9):


"This framework of creation, this most perfectly ordered beauty, ascending from lowest to highest, descending from highest to lowest, never broken, but tempered together of things unlike, all praiseth God. Wherefore then doth all praise God? Because when thou considerest it, and seest its beauty, thou in it praisest God. The beauty of the earth is a kind of voice of the dumb earth. ...And this which thou hast found in it, is the very voice of its confession, that thou praise the Creator. When thou hast thought on the universal beauty of this world, doth not its very beauty as it were with one voice answer thee, "I made not myself, God made me"?"

Compare this with Hymn 2 from St Ephrem the Syrian's Pearl:


"It is by the mystery of truth that Leviathan is trodden down of mortals: the divers put him off, and put on Christ. In the sacrament of oil did the Apostles steal Thee away, and came up. They snatched their souls from his mouth, bitter as it was.

Thy Nature is like a silent lamb in its sweetness, of which if a man is to lay hold, he lifts it in a crucial form by its ears, as it was on Golgotha. He cast out abundantly all His gleams upon them that looked upon Him.

Shadowed forth in thy beauty is the beauty of the Son, Who clothed Himself with suffering when the nails passed through Him. The awl passed in thee since they handled thee roughly, as they did His hands; and because He suffered He reigned, as by thy sufferings thy beauty increased.

And if they showed no pity upon thee, neither did they love thee: still suffer as thou mightest, thou hast come to reign I Simon Peter showed pity on the Rock; whoso hath smitten it, is himself thereby overcome; it is by reason of Its suffering that Its beauty hath adorned the height and the depth."

Finally, for the time being, I might also offer a very recent (2000) thought on this matter, delivered by Metropolitan +SAVA of Warsaw and All Poland, who said:


"The Paschal night is an evangelic proclamation of the Resurrection of Christ, a unique witness to the transfigurative power of the Holy Spirit, and the power with which have been endowed the sotorological aegis of beauty and hope. Beauty and hope are joined in the Resurrection of the Savior and the intercession of the Holy Spirit so as to sotorologically materialize that quality which is responsible for drawing to itself the attraction of those who have been given the Divine gift of sensitivity."

The same Metropolitan also wrote:


"The Love of God and His Beauty are that which are the Salvation of the world. Beauty is the ontological and sotorological quality not only of aesthetics. We Orthodox are sensitive to that quality which is called "spiritual beauty" (Dukhovnuyu Krasotu) and ajoin it to the Divinity of God. For this reason, Dostoyevsky correctly claimed that 'Beauty will save the world'."

I would strongly encourage anyone interested in an 'introductory text' to the Orthodox conception of saving Beauty, to read the full transcript of the Metropolitan's speech, available online at:

http://www.svots.edu/Events/Commencement/2000-Keynote-MetSawa.html

INXC, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

Matthew

Thank you for your response

I do not deny that Gods beauty draws us to himself. For the father draws us to Christ. yes his creation is beauty and the grace and mercy of Christ is beauty.


But the question is not whether we as united to Christ revel and bask in his beauty. The question revolves around the notion of whether we aer saved by Gods mercy or beauty.

So As you quote Augsutine says

"This framework of creation, this most perfectly ordered beauty, ascending from lowest to highest, descending from highest to lowest, never broken, but tempered together of things unlike, all praiseth God. Wherefore then doth all praise God? Because when thou considerest it, and seest its beauty, thou in it praisest God. The beauty of the earth is a kind of voice of the dumb earth. ...And this which thou hast found in it, is the very voice of its confession, that thou praise the Creator. When thou hast thought on the universal beauty of this world, doth not its very beauty as it were with one voice answer thee, "I made not myself, God made me"?"


Amen and Amen. There are numerous verses in Gods word praising his creation.

Psalms 27:4
One [thing] have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to enquire in his temple.

Psalms 29:2
Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.

So that is not the issue of whether we shoudl glorify God in his beauty.

The question is how is teh fall of Adam recpaitulated? How was reconciliation of mankind wrought and adn hwo do we partake of that reconcilaition where the Lord was

2 Corinthians 5:19
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Now to say God is beautiful adn that he is holy is to honor his charecteritics.
But his beauty does not save us, does it. If I think Chrits is beautiful that does not save me. Only the cross and resurection save me.

To say God is beauty and that his beauty draws us to him adn to conclude that it is not his mercy that saves us but his beauty is what I was questioning.

Matthew do you beleive that to say that God does not save us by his mercy alone but saves us by his beauty is orthodox?

John

[Owen Jones]

Thanks Matthew, for the quotes.

I cannot stress enough the importance of the pastoral significance of the Christian doctrine of beauty. It is the Beauty of Christ's suffering on the Cross, the Beauty of the Cross, that transforms our nature. This is the true scandal of Christianity which the world cannot accept. It is easy for the atheist to comprehend a system based on forensic atonement, since at least it has a certain justice about it, even though they would deny the very basis of it -- they would at least condescend to the logic of it. But what the atheist or the worldly individual cannot comprehend is the beauty of it. He recoils viscerally at the thought. How can this be? Where is the justice in that?

The true Orthodox heart rejoices in his own sufferings because that is what permits him to be like Christ, not that he is being punished for a past sin, or the sins of his fathers, thereby setting him free of his debt to God (or Satan), but because he now truly understands the meaning of life -- of Christ's life. As Mathew the poor preached, the Christian suffers just as Christ suffered, for no good reason. This is not to contradict any theory of forensic atonement, and I personally am uncomfortable with any ORthodox attempt to simply write off the forensic theory of atonement. But surely there is a higher reason for the Cross than simply purchasing our debt to Satan.

I can't tell you how many times on an almost daily basis I encounter people who claim to believe and yet cannot accept suffering other than as a just punishment (pharisaical conservatism or traditionalism), or as something that makes no sense and must therefore be utterly apart from God (liberalism). The whole "modern" crisis is grounded in the gnostic fantasy of equating suffering with evil, i.e. something that we are told that we must all work together to vanquish, by virtue of superior social organization.

[John Vrablic]

Owen

I want to calrify by what you mean that the cross is beauty. When I look at the cross I do not see beauty I see teh sins of the world being borne by Christ as the perfect fulfillment and revelation of Gods justice and Mercy and love for us.

It is only through the cross that we can understand God. So I agree with what you say about suffering but about teh cross being beauty I am not sure.

Yes on the cross is hidden our salvation but these verses in Isaiah don't lead me to look at the cross as beautiful, they lead me to thank Christ for his humbling himslef to die for me.
The cross leads me to repentance and faith.


Isaiah 53:3
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Isaiah 53:4
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Isaiah 53:5
But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Isaiah 53:8
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Isaiah 53:9
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.

Isaiah 53:10
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.


John

[Richard McBride]

Very Nice Aesthetic Observations, Seraphim!

I wish I had said that; but then, I lack in many things, as you know.

richard mcb

[M.C. Steenberg]

From the same speech of Metropolitan +SAWA:


"Beauty is a manifestation of the inner essence of creation, a reflection of God's creation before the Fall, and a Paschal hope-filled form of creation's re-creation.

"Beauty, goodness, and truth are strictly integrated with each other. Love of them is a means by which the human being becomes ontologically transfigured. This is made manifest through the power of the Holy Spirit, Who is a personal spring of all spiritual beauty.

"It can be claimed that Orthodoxy has preserved for all of Christianity the inestimable treasure that is the experiencing of the Holy Spirit. This Spirit is constantly called upon creation, through the ceaseless intercession of the Church. He who calls upon the Holy Spirit, by calling upon the Holy Spirit, shows his total dependence upon God. The Holy Spirit constantly renews him and integrates him. For this reason, our knowledge of man, the Salvation of man, as well as our knowledge of the Church, is utterly pervaded by the workings of the Holy Spirit. This equally regards theology, liturgy, and iconography. Due to the workings of the Holy Spirit there takes place a metamorphosis and transfiguration of mankind. There takes place an internal unity between the liturgical life of the Church and the external liturgy of the human heart."

One must not look solely to the discussions of the beauty of creation as leading to the contemplation of and affection for the Creator. This is but part of the picture.

In Orthodoxy, it is God's beauty itself which transfigures the world. It doesn't simply make it 'pretty'; it transforms it into His own beauty. In Orthodox iconography, the 'halos' at the heads of the saints do not hover above their persons, but emanate from behind - a sign that their grace is not simply God's love shining down upon them, but God's own radiance emanating through them, in them, from them. God's beauty, His light, has transfigured their very persons. His beauty, which is the true beauty and light of the universe, has become their own. It has cast aside their darkness.

God's beauty transfigures. Christian spirituality begins and ends here. The transfiguration wrought by that beauty saves. We can discus the merits of pithy sayings on 'salvation by grace' or 'salvation by mercy', but these are essentially attributions of God's motivation in saving and His relationship to man as Saviour. But it is God's essence, His perfect beauty, becoming united to and thus transfiguring man, that saves.

INXC, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

Matthew

That is very beautifully said.

I agree that God is beutiful

I agree that the incarnation and the joining of Gods divine nature and human nature is beauty

I agree that God transforms us.

I agree about this quote reagarding the holy spirit

"our knowledge of man, the Salvation of man, as well as our knowledge of the Church, is utterly pervaded by the workings of the Holy Spirit. "

You than say


In Orthodoxy, it is God's beauty itself which transfigures the world. It doesn't simply make it 'pretty'; it transforms it into His own beauty.

Romans 8:19
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Romans 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,

Romans 8:21
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Romans 8:22
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Romans 8:23
And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.

Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Romans 8:25
But if we hope for that we see not, [then] do we with patience wait for [it].

Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Aren't we forgetting about SIN?

Creation has not been completley transformed until the resurection. Just like you and I are and will NOT be completyely transformed until the resurection.

The reason is sin. That is why Gods "beauty" is supremely manifested through the cross where Christ takes away the sins of the world and the Holy Spirit bestows upon me not only the forgivness of my sins but the love that is shed abroad in our hearts to love God and to love of which scripure says

Matthew 22:36
Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?

Matthew 22:37
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Matthew 22:38
This is the first and great commandment.

Matthew 22:39
And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

And than you say


But it is God's essence, His perfect beauty, becoming united to and thus transfiguring man, that saves.

So it is only my transformation united to Christ that saves me.

If that is the case than how do you know Matthew when you have been transformed enough.

So it seems than that the basis for eternal life is the extent of my transfromation into teh image of Christ.

What happens when you eventually die and you are not completely transformed, than what is the basis for eternal life?

I assume not being completly transformed connotes that you will have sin in your life. IF your salvation is based upon how well you have been transformed than at teh judgement do you plan on placing the evidnece of your transformed life before the judgement seat of God?

Psalms 19:12
Who can understand [his] errors? cleanse thou me from secret [faults].

Romans 7:18
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.

Daniel 9:18
O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.

Psalms 143:2
And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

Job 9:14
How much less shall I answer him, [and] choose out my words [to reason] with him?

Job 9:15
Whom, though I were righteous, [yet] would I not answer, [but] I would make supplication to my judge.

Job 9:16
If I had called, and he had answered me; [yet] would I not believe that he had hearkened unto my voice.

Job 9:17
For he breaketh me with a tempest, and multiplieth my wounds without cause.

Job 9:18
He will not suffer me to take my breath, but filleth me with bitterness.

Job 9:19
If [I speak] of strength, lo, [he is] strong: and if of judgment, who shall set me a time [to plead]?

Job 9:20
If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: [if I say], I [am] perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Job 9:21
[Though] I [were] perfect, [yet] would I not know my soul: I would despise my life.

So all I am trying to say is if you mean beauty to mean grace tahn yes Gods grace does transform us. being united to Chrits by faith transforms our lives. BUT teh basis for our eternal salvation rests soley in Gods mercy and not in the advancemnet of my transformation,....for

all have fallen shirt and have been justified frely by God grace

John

[Chad Duskin]

I guess the easiest way to answer your question John is to say that to the Orthodox there is not just one thing or event that saves us. Salvation is rather a process that is initiated by God through His mercy and sustained by His grace. The Greek word for save or salvation is also the word for heal or healing. It has to be seen in terms of a healing process rather than in economical or judicial terms. Unfortunately, some of these subtle nuances of the language get lost in translation. Another example are the words justification and righteousness. They are from the same word in Greek but there is no really good way to translate "to make righteous" or "making righteous" so English uses the word "justification" which has overtones that are foreign to the Greek sense on the word. The fact that it is a process gets lost, and so salvation gets seen as an event rather than a process. Because salvation is a healing process it can be described many different ways in scripture. Look up the word "saved" or "salvation" in a concordance and read everything scripture has to say on the subject. It can be very eye opening.

Chad

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear John,

You have demonstrated, with fine clarity, one of the major points of divergence in the understanding of God, man and salvation between Orthodox and Lutheran thought.

We simply do not believe in salvation as it is proclaimed in Lutheran teaching, which you have accurately represented; even if Scriptural verses in extract can be quoted in support of it.

No amount of friendly discussion, however worthwhile it may be, will change the fact that Lutheran and Orthodox belief is, in this regard, fundamentally different.

INXC, Matthew

[Chad Duskin]

John,
after reading your last post I now realize that you are thinking entirely in Protestant terms in regard to salvation. In Protestant thought salvation is being saved from the punishment of Hell. Heaven and Hell are held up as two choices that one must choose between. The real choice is between Life and death. Life being union with Christ and death being separation from God. We know that God wishes for all to be saved, but He will not violate man's free will. One must want to seek out how to unite themselves with Christ. Things that I do and things that others do can either move me toward Christ or away from Him. That is why you will hear Orthodox asking God to "save us" through the prayers of the Saints or the Theotokos. To ask what the minimum one has to do to be assured of being on God's "good side" makes no sense to most Orthodox. God is love and has made it possible for anyone to turn to Him in faith. Everyone is on God's "good side" so to speak because Christ has reconciled the world with God, but many still choose to remain separated from Him (death). We have complete assurance that God forgives our sins, but we are not cocky about it.

This conversation has many parts to it that would take up too much space to describe in this forum. They are all woven together and taking apart one thread to examine it unravels the whole. Concepts and definitions need to be agreed upon as to meaning before they are used in discussions such as this. I would really suggest reading Orthodox writers as they can devote whole books to single subjects such as this. I'm sure Matthew can suggest some to start with.

Chad

[John Vrablic]

Matthew

You stated


No amount of friendly discussion, however worthwhile it may be, will change the fact that Lutheran and Orthodox belief is, in this regard, fundamentally different.

If that is the case I agree that discussing this will not change the fact that teh two theologies are different. I assent to that.

BUT my issue becomes there is only ONE true gospel. FOr whoever would preach a gospel different than what Paul did is anathema

So if the two theologies cannot be harmonized than quites simply one is a false gospel and the other is not assuming one presenation of the gospel is catholic and apostolic.

So which one is a false gospel. I don't care which one as long as I follow the Lords gospel I do not care where that is, because where the gospel is there is the church of Christ.

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear John,

I have no doubt that you are well aware, and were as you posted your recent question, of what the response offered in this community would be. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif You wrote:


So if the two theologies cannot be harmonized, then quite simply one is a false gospel and the other is not - assuming one presentation of the gospel is catholic and apostolic. So which one is a false gospel?

Obviously, the Orthodox Church believes that the Gospel as it is proclaimed in this Church is the true and right Gospel of Christ. It is in gratitude for this that the faithful cry out in the Divine Liturgy, 'We have seen the true light! We have received the heavenly Spirit! We have found the true faith, worshipping the undivided Trinity; for the Trinity has saved us.' Deviations from this Gospel as it is proclaimed by the Church are always viewed as just that: deviations. They may be great or slight, and they may not all be intentionally malicious or blatantly blasphemous; but they are all variations and thus dilutions of 'the true faith'.

But I rather surmise, from past discussions, that your question has another, attached to and lurking behind it; namely, how does one know which gospel is the correct and true Gospel. We won't bring this up again here, as the topic was rather exhausted some time ago in the old 'Scripture and Tradition' thread, in which you were a participant. Suffice it only to say that Orthodoxy teaches, and has always taught, that the test of genuine teaching is the apostolicity of doctrine as verified in the succession of the bishops within the tradition of the Church. No other way is permitted.

So with regard to the present topic of salvation through the beauty of God, it is the teaching of the Church that a departure from this understanding of salvation does, indeed, represent a departure from the fullness of the true Gospel of Christ.

INXC, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

Matthew

So we agree that the gospels are different and that one is a deviation from the true gospel.

And now than we come to the question,w aht than is the true gospel and how can we recognize this true gospel.

You answer that it is in teh succession of bishops that authenticates your gospel.

1. Rome teaches that they have the true gospel becuase THEY have succession of bishops

IF there gospel is also a deviation form yours and they have just as a legitamate succession of bishops than thsi succession of bishops cannot be the safeguard of the gospel can it?


John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Please forgive, but I rather specifically stated that I do not wish to start up this debate again, as we spent a great deal of time on it at an earlier date; and I believe that in that discussion the Orthodox view was well presented. You can use the message board search feature (http://www.monachos.net/forum/search.php) to find those older posts and re-read them, if you are interested in refreshing yourself as to the Orthodox view.

It is not that this is an invalid topic for consideration, but rather that the Orthodox Church has a very specific answer to the question of how the true Gospel is guarded and ascertained, and that this answer is not a matter for re-interpretation. Once the Church's view has been elucidated, you can choose either to abide by it or dismiss it; but the teaching itself is non-negotiable.

INXC, Matthew

[Moses Anthony]

John,
I think you should e-mail Eric. It appears that the two of you have much in common, and to discuss.

tus