What is 'required' for 'salvation'?

[Owen Jones]

Dear Tom,

While American Protestantism is based on the idea of "what do I have to do to ensure my salvation" Orthodoxy does not begin with that question. Ironically, the Reformation was supposedly fought over the "works righteousness" of the Catholic Church, but what more glaring example of works righteousness could there be than the question, "what do I have to do to ensure my salvation?"

So what question does Orthodox Christianity begin with? I don't know that there is a single question, but the sincere desire to do God's will is certainly a good starting point. But how do we "know" God's will? There is rarely an obvious answer to that question in a world filled with religious choices.

So we often want to have certain, absolute answers to our questions, such as "what must I do to ensure my salvation," so that we don't really have to engage in any inner struggle.

As far as I know, no Orthodox theologian claims that there is ever a guarantee of salvation. One saint goes so far as to announce that it is possible to relapse into a state of non-existence. So not only can we lose our salvation, we can cease to be.

Unless one defines salvation perhaps more comprehensively than most religious people tend to do these days. I think in Orthodoxy that is the key difference. We don't simply define salvation in terms of rewards in the afterlife. We define salvation in terms of becoming the true bing God created us to be, starting now! That is salvation. It sounds like too much of a "process" to unlearned religious ears who have been raised on this notion that there are simplistic answers to the problem we all share: our fallen state of existence. And that that fallen state can only be repared in the afterlife.

This is a round about way of saying, "taste and see..." Attend Orthodox services frequently for a year. Open your mind, open your soul to the liturgy working on you. Then make a decision based on how you feel inside.

But I think one might say with confidence that Orthodoxy, instead of ensuring your salvation, will insure your salvation.

[tom just]

I thank you for your response but perhaps I should rephrase my question. According to St. Paul (in 1 Corinthians 15:1-9 and Romans 1:16) belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a prerequisite (and a case can be built that this is indeed all that is necessary) to our being saved as a believer in the Church Age (or Age of Grace) which we presently live in. Do you belief that a firm and sincere belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he died on the Cross for our sins, was buried, and arose from the dead on the third day is sufficient for one's salvation? Tom

[Herman Blaydoe]

Does satan believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He died on the Cross for our sins, was buried, kicked satanic posterior, arose from the dead on the third day much to his grief? I bet he does, sincerely and firmly and painfully.

Knowing something is one thing, wacha gonna do about it is something else entirely yes?

Just some simple thoughts from a simple mind

Herman the simple

[Richard McBride]

Dear Tom

Herman makes a good example of your question. But since you don't feel that Seraphim, Owen Jones, answered your question, you will probably feel that Herman too has not quite understood you problem.

They have both given good Orthodox answers precisely at your quandary. But instead of merely making up a new question to produce the answer you expected, it would be well to re-read Seraphim's post. That would be a beginning to getting involved in the question/answer yourself.

Perhaps, you might want to contemplate the answer by answering the question, "Why Does Seraphim&'s answer not serve the purpose you expected?"

richard mcb

[Owen Jones]

Dear Richard,

I love it when Jesus answers a question with a question. Although obviously some people became murderously angry with him when he did that and immediately began plotting to have him killed.

I think there is a lesson in that. If I were to demand an answer from Christ of a question, such as, how do I achieve salvation, he's likely to say, "see that poor man over there? Give him everything you have and follow me. Then I will begin to deal with your question." My response is likely to be, "But wait! You don't understand. I can't do that until you answer my first question!!! Then what is he likely to say or do? I think we already have the answer to that.

Seraphim

[Owen Jones]

Dear John,

I'm sure I ran across it in the Philokalia and I'm pretty sure it was St. Maximos, but that's the best I can do.

[Daniel Jeandet]

If we believe in Jesus and and keep his commandments out of love for him, and try to repent and be humble, and sincerely desire to keep all the traditions of the apostles that they handed down (through the Orthodox faith), then I believe that we would find salvation.

Am I being un-Orthodox by thinking we can tell someone what it takes to be saved? Why are you guys avoiding the question as if the answer is unknown?

There is even a patristic quote that comes up on the homepage from St Antony in which he answers this very question.

Sorry, now that i look back, I see that this man is asking how to ENSURE his salvation. I dont know anything about that.

[tom just]

I liked your responses to my question on salvation. My question has been answered and I like the answer. Actually, Richard, as you indicated the first response from Seraphim was the correct answer to my question. I liked Herman's response also.

I think what prompted my question in the first place was that I was having a problem (perhaps subconsciously) with legalistic requirements for salvation. I have been following a Bible study and recently it is concentrating on salvation based on the scriptures. I am drawn to the writings of the Saints in the Philokalia and was trying to tie this Bible study on salvation with their writings. Could a poor ignorant soul as myself who loves prayer of the heart not be saved by some legalistic requirement was my concern. Tom

[Fr Averky]

Dear Thomas,

It is important for you to begin to trust God and His mercy. If one falls into legalism, he actually endangers his soul, and in a very direct way. When the young man asked our Lord what he must do to be saved, the Saviour gave him the answer that Christians have been taught over the ages, that is to love God with all our heart and all our mind, all our soul, and our neighor as ourself.

As so many of the messages of our Lord in the Holy Gospels, His words are deceptively simple. " Sure" we say to ourselves, "I can do that!" But when we try to to love God with all our heart, and especially try to love our neighbor as we would want to be love, we hegin to see how difficult it is.

Yet Thomas, as in all things, if we truly and humbly cry out to God, asking Him to send us the grace to strengthen us in our faith, comfort our sorrows, and subdue our pride and our doubts, in time, and with our effort and cooperation, God will show us mercy and show us the way.

Unfortunately, like all of modern mankind, we foolishly rely on ourselves, thinking that we can solve all of our own problems. Falling prey to the lies of this world, we listen to the hype of those who have no spiritual knowledge, to those who claim that such and such has "empowered" them. Yet Our Lord, when He taught us to pray tells us that God is "the kingdom, the power, and the glory." All power, all authority is in the hands of God.

We know further that the Saviour chastized the Pharisees for their love of authority and their soulless keeping of the Mosaic Law. In their folly, they thought that by meticulously keeping rules, they justified themselves and were found righteousness in the sight of God. Yet, when the Messiah came for their salvation, they detested Him, and immediately plotted to kill Him, and belittled Him and His message. When He healed the sick and gave sight to the blind, they claimed that His works of love and mercy were surely the works of the Devil.

As having heard confessions for many years, I can tell you that many people get so caught up in worrying about almost insignificant legalities, that they cannot see the very real sins and passions which are keeping them far from God, and ultimately, their salvation.

Thomas, I give you the same advice that I havfe given to so many others: Say your morning and evening prayers faitfully, asking God to forgive your sins, thanking Him for His many mercies and blessings to you, and asking Him to grant you the strength to turn from evil and do good as our Saviour commanded. Go to Chuch as often as you can, trying not to be late and when your are there, be attentive. Make sure that you do some spiritual reading every day, for St. John Chrysostok has said that if a Christian does not do this every day, he has little chance of salvation. Very importantly, keep the Fasts of the Church, not granting your self an "economia" for this or that reason. And lastly, perhaps the most difficult of all, is to treat others as you would like to be treated-with love, respect, patience, and love.

This might sound too simplistic for you, but if you can do all of these things, and do them well and with love and fear of God, you will begin to sense that overall, you will be more at peace with yourself and with others. It will not happen in a week or a month, perhaps not even a year, but when God's Grace begins to fill your life, believe me, you will know it,

With love in Chrisrt,

Fr. A.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Do you believe that a firm and sincere belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he died on the Cross for our sins, was buried, and arose from the dead on the third day is sufficient for one's salvation?

No. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Sometimes Orthodox people shy away from the direct response (I accuse no one here, of course: I speak of general tendencies only). The Orthodox answer to this question is simply 'no', and a resounding no at that.

When Scripture notes that if we believe in Christ, His death and resurrection, we shall be saved, we should mentally underline and italicise the 'shall' of this proclamation. Believing does not mean that we are saved, but that from this framework, this base of belief, we may attain unto salvation. Herman has rightly pointed out that even Satan believes in the divinity, incarnation, passion and resurrection of Christ, and as the devil believes in Christ's divinity as the Son of God.

INXC, Matthew

[tom just]

I get the impression that everyone is sitting around waiting for some poor guest or new member to ask a question so that they can pounce on them with these responses which have been rehearsed over and over. Matthew's comment above got me to thinking about the response "that if Satan believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ then he is saved". I think you all are overlooking one aspect of this statement. A large part of this issue is that I believe, as a believer, not only in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but that I believe in my salvation as a reult of this belief. Now if Satan believes he is saved by his belief then he is a fool. I am talking about a believer who is born again as a result of his belief and receives the Holy Spirit. Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. I believe that I have just answered my original question to my satisfaction. I believe that evidence of the gift of the Holy Spirit is confirmation of one's being saved. Now you wil probably come up with someone who was deceived in this, but I will rest on my faith.

I have said nothing of my background, but you have judged me and found me guilty of what I am not sure. I will say this of my background I am a born again Christian with the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. So what denomination does this make me for I give it none other than I have stated.

Now on the other hand, on this issue of salvation you are adding conditions (or works) to those which Paul states are necessary for our salvation as I mentioned before in 1Cor 15:1-9. Paul sums up his case for our salvation in Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:.

Jesus did the work on the cross. Are we to say it is not enough? That I have to do something more. That I must be Orthodox or Baptist. That I must perform certain religious rituals. No, I believe that Jesus did all that was necessary for our salvation and that all is necessaary for my salvation is: That I by the grace of God have faith in my salvation thru my heartfelt belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ - period. That he died on the cross for my sins, that he was buried and arose from the dead after 3 days, and by his blood I am saved. That is what Paul says and he is the Apostle to the Gentiles in this the Church Age. As a result of this I am born again as evidenced by the gift of the Holy Ghost. I am transformed by this. I am a new creature in Christ. 2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

But, if I do works for my salvation then I can boast of my accomplishments and God is in debt to me. Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. So you think I am adding legalism and I think you are adding works.

I am trying to be amiable and humble about this. The reason I liked your responses is that I want more than to be saved. Your responses gave me encouragement to go beyond just being saved. Prayer of the heart brings me into God's presence, his manifest presence where I can experience that peace beyond description. Where I have the potential to experience him thru my senses as much as a human can. I want to experience as much of God as he is willing thru his grace to share with me. I am happy with what he has shown me so far and must admit feelings of unworthiness due to my sinful nature. My greatest doubts concern feelings of wonderment of why he has blessed me a sinner as he has. I have nothing to boast of, but am trying to get across where I am coming from.

Your criteria for salvation sounds more like the criteria for those who enter a monastic life. Does this mean only monks will be saved? I don't think so. So what is God's plan of salvation for ordinary people in this age? You have to admit that most are not candidates for a monastery. If everyone was a monk who would do the work in the world. Who would grow the food. Who would build buildings. Who would produce all the necessities of modern life. Who would be fruitful and multiply. Those ordinary people of the world have a right to salvation and I believe that Paul tells them what is required for their salvation without them giving all to the poor and joining a monastary.

Respectfully,

Tom

[Justin]

No, I believe that Jesus did all that was necessary for our salvation and that all is necessaary for my salvation is: That I by the grace of God have faith in my salvation thru my heartfelt belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ - period.

Christ said "I will build my Church". What happens if that Church that he built disagrees with your minimalistic criterion? http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif I will grant that you tried to be humble in your post, but which is the sign of a humble man: holding on to his own opinions and understanding, or allowing others who are more knowledgable (let's say, the Apostles, disciples of the apostles, etc.) to teach you? If the body of Christ (with Christ as it's actual head) is indeed a continuation of the incarnation (which would indeed be "a great mystery"; Eph. 5:32), then rejecting the Church Christ founded and directs would be the same as rejecting Christ himself. Perhaps this is why some of those early Christians made statements like "if you do not have the Church as your Mother, you cannot have God as your Father."

[tom just]

I did not mean to imply that I did not attend church or that one does not have to attend or support a church. I am not trying to create my own religion. I am just a simple man, not a theologan. Since I am drawn to prayer of the heart I thought I should try to acertain the Orthodox" view of salvation. The things I have mentioned are pretty straight forward and are from the Bible.

When I think of the church to be honest I don't think of a denomination. I think of all the true believers. Jesus knows who they are. Whether they have just come to Christ from a most sinful life or they have lived a pious giving life for many years. There are many who belong to a church which are not part of the church I think of. Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

When we are born again and God comes into our lives, then we are transformed and thru the presence of the Holy Spirit God is with us. We are no longer drawn to a life of sin, but gradually thru God's great mercies and grace we are changed to one acceptable to him. We no longer live for ourselves but for Jesus Christ.

[Justin]

When I think of the church to be honest I don't think of a denomination. I think of all the true believers.

I guess maybe a good question then is: Is this what the early Church taught? This isn't really about antiquity, though that plays a part; it's more about continuity. What did the early Christians say, and if they were wrong in what they said, what does that tell us? What does that imply?

I don't want to press things, because it'll undoubtedly seem like I'm just trying to badger you into my own Church, so let me just say something more of a personal (less polemical!) note (and you can have the last word... to me anyway http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif ). I was originally baptized a Catholic, though I was raised in nominal Protestant homes. At 18 I joined a Wesleyan Holiness group and became something of a fundamentalist. I even began attending the denominational college as a Bible student. After a short time I found that I could not stay Wesleyan (or Protestant in general) in good conscience. Eventually, I came to firmly believe that Christ did indeed do what he said he did, found a Church. From what other passages in the Bible say, it also became apparent to me that this church was intimately connected with Christ, and that her earthly pastors were important (cf Eph. 5:22-33; Heb. 13:17). I set out on a journey looking for that Church, and I think that it was when I stopped looking so hard (when I let God get a word in, instead of continually asking asking asking questions), that I became Orthodox, having honestly believed that this was the Church that Christ our God had founded. I realise a Protestant might very well say something similar (but end up a Baptist or Methodist), but I'll post the above nonetheless, for whatever it's worth (Fr. Arseny, a popular figure in contemporary Orthodoxy, thought it a good practice to share conversion stories and tidbits).

[tom just]

Dear Justin

My last post went before I was ready. Sorry. I have reread your post. Like I said I am not an intelectual so be patient with me. I think what you are saying is that the only true path to salvation is thru the Orhodox Church. That the mystery that Paul refers to in Eph 5:3x is that the Orthodox Church is the church which Jesus founded and is directing even today. Therefore if I am not a memeber of an Orthodox Church and am not seeking salvation thru the doctrine of the Orthodox Church I am lost. Also I shouldn't read the Bible but depend on church doctrine because due to my sinful nature I am bound to be mislead. Whereas the Father's and Apostle's of the church down thru the years have preserved the true doctrine of Lord Jesus Christ. And apparently that is only revealed within "Orthodoxy". I am a little confused as I thought the Bible was the inspired word of God. Also I thought that in the NT I was getting firsthand doctrine from Christ Jesus and Apostle Paul. I guess my problem is I am not smart enough to absorb it without being led astray by my sinful nature. So now have I got it? Tom

[Daniel Jeandet]

The following text Tom, is from the writings of one of the Churches most trusted and revered teachers, St Maximos the Confessor. He was possesed of great Faith and also the prayer of the heart of which you speak, which he aquired through his great works of ascetic labour.

"Love is a holy state of the soul, disposing it to value knowledge of God above all created things. We cannot attain lasting possesion of such love while we are still attached to anything worldy.

Dispassion engenders love, hope in God engenders dispassion, and patience and forbearance engender hope in God; these in turn are the product of complete self control, which itself springs from fear of God. Fear of God is the result of faith in God.

If you have faith in the Lord you will fear punishment, and this will lead you to control the passions. Once you control the passions you will accept affliction patiently, and through such acceptance you wil aquire hope in God. Hope in God separates the intellect from every worldly attachment, and when the intellect is detached in this way it will aquire love for God"

If no works are required of us Tom, if we accept that we are saved by simply believing without needing to do any work on ourselves, then not only are we in error, but saddest of all, we will be depriving ourselves of a journey towards and through and by the power of, infinite Love and eternal blessedness. The Saints experienced these states on this earth, in this life, totaly detached from the world and free of deception and self-love, they became angels in the fesh and experienced a taste of the blessedness of the future world while still in this age of repentance and choice.

Do not deprive yourself of at least the possibility that you are wrong and the words of these holy and God bearing men are a testament to the true Christian path and the Holy Church in which they were born.

A clear prerequesite for having been saved is death, but clearly, the only prerquesite for being saved, or salvation, the process of being saved, of WORKING out our salvation, is faith.

[Justin]

Tom,


So now have I got it?

Nope, you're overreacting http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Richard McBride]

monochos; "I get the impression that ..."

Billy Graham comes to mind. I was startled in a TV interview when he said, Yes! I know I am saved!

I wondered, Is that the faith of a mustard seed, the faith that can move mountains, the faith to know I am saved? ................Or is it a delusional?

Probably, the only way to really test if such is true faith, is do as the devil suggested to Christ: Throw yourself off a high precipice, and let the angels catch you. If anyone has the temerity to imagine they are saved, then playing catch with the angels should be a small matter.

A more prudent person would ponder where such speculations comes from?

I think that such speculation (that one be "saved") does NOT come from God.
In my experience, God does not work this way.

How do you know that the 'feel good' which comes from so many delusional belief is true or false? Primarily, I suppose one begins with the knowledge that our Savior is not in the business of making people feel good.

Then you go from there -- if the Paraklete has indeed gotten you to that point.

In any event, it is wise of Justin to stop arguing these things. Such arguments only reveal the stubbornness of those who indulge them, little more. Not a good way to seek God. Rather, we should despair over our chances for salvation. It is never a safe bet.

[Owen Jones]

The overall impression I get from reading the desert fathers is that they live in a state of spiritual joy and ecstacy, precisely because they are always worried about their souls, and are always striving to overcome their passions. Their sins are even more worrisome to them, and more obvious, and the sin of spiritual pride and complacency is always on their minds. Because they might lose their souls! And my impression from Scripture is that the psuedo holy man is most at risk. The self-righteous religious man is judged most guilty.

[Fr Averky]

Dear iin the Lord Thomas,

First of all, please forgive Justin and Daniel because they are sincere young men who are also very young to the Church and they are quite zealous at times.

I would say that the majority of members on this message board are converts, and each of us could tell you as did Justin, how we made our way to the Orthodox Church. I ask you to be patient with us if we seem too anxious to "prove our point." It is very important that I tell you that the Orthodox Church does not hold to the idea that non-Orthodox Christians have no chance at salvation and will be lost. If you were to check our community's archives for even the last few weeks, you see where I covered this question in a post. Briefly, we belive that God knows the heart of man since he created all of mankind in His image, so He will judge therm. As for Orthodox Christians, who sincerely believe that the Orthodox Church is that Church which Christ Himself founded, as oppossed to a Luther or a Calvin, or Knox, or Henry VIII, because they were just men. This, so we simply believe that we have the fulness of the Truth. and because of this we are told if we should ever leave the Orthodox Church and join another, the we will be lost. So you see, it is not as you might think, for we bear the heaviest responsibility.

One very important aspect of Orthodox Christianity, is that the Chuirch reserves for herself the interpretation of the Bible. In the first place, it was the Bishops of the Orthodox Church meeting in Council who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to put the Bible together.*Then, throughout the centuries, and especially in the earlier centuries of the life of the Church, ancient Fathers, inspired by the Holy Spirit interpreted the Holy Scriptures. We do not feel that any of us, sullied by our passions, impuriy, sinfulness, fears and doubts could pick up the Bible, begin to read, and be able to understrand what the words mean spiritually. Even our Lord says many times during His life; "Let he who has ears to hear, let him hear," for even these days you can tell someone something, and suddenly you realize that they did not comprehend at all what you said to them.

Please forgive us in our zeal, for Orthodox Christians have along history of discussions, even heated ones, when it comes to matters of the faith. The greater majority of the early bishops and Fathers were Greeks, and they were trained to debate in the classical Greek philosophical method of logic and reason. You can see this in St. Paul's letter when he talks about the fact that if Christ is not risen from the dead, then the Christian way of life is but folly. Going from point to counterpoint, he builds up his argument that Christ did indeed die for our sins, rose from the ded, thus granting us eternal life.

In the 4th the Arian heresy, which threatened the very life of the Church, rose up because the Alexandrian deacon Arius said that Jesus Christ is not God, but a man given divine attributes, or that he might be an angel or a dem-god.. The Orthodox position was held by St. Athanasius, who said that a creature could not save his own people andx had to be both God and man., by using logic and reason, he and the Church triumphed in the end.. During the time of the conflict, people would pour out into the streets, priests, monks , nuns, and laypeople, andthey would have shouting matches which often ended in physical violence, with both side clubbing their "spiritual" opponents. This is because the Truth so much to them, Thomas. So, aren't you glad that Justin could not get at you with a club? (Just joking, Justin!)


Plesase forgive us if we seemed to be jumping on and you and condemning you, but those of us who came to Orthodoxy see its great value, and in a rather heavy-handed way, we have put too much pressure on you. In the Orthodox Chuirch, all Truth is held in the rich treasury of Tradition, and the Bible fits into that Tradition, for the Church did not spring from the Bible as many of our Non-Orthodox friends wouild believe, but the Bible came from the Church. The Church had existed for over 300 years before the Bible as we know it came into existence, thus the Church is its true keeper and interpreter.

I would hope that community members, especially the young ones, in their zeal, were asking you to take a serious look at Holy Orthodoxy. I am well aware that you asked a seeminly "simple" question., and were a bit overwhelmed by the response! You see, the answer is not so simple. Thomas, we dare not take our salvation into our own hands, gleaning what we think Scriptures say, and forming our own spiritual journey. To us , it would be like geting into a row boat and going out into the Antlantic ocean during Hurricane Isabel! Again, I ask you to take a serious look at Orthodoxy despite our sinfulness and failings.

I am a monk, and I will tell you, in our Church, the rules of prayer, fasting, and the spritual ife are the same for monks and layeople, for it is the Orthodox Christian life, and it is not something that we "know," but is something that we live..

In Christ,

Fr. A.

[Daniel Jeandet]

Forgive me Tom and everyone, I did not realise that I was too zealous. I am so sorry if I made you feel pressured or whatever.

Certainly Tom, you will be in Heaven before me.

I did get some more quotes from the Fathers on the subject we were discussing, and I will still quote them here, but without my vain comments.

I just thought that if we present the words of our Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, we could show that all theological and other problems were solved by them already and that they do speak of the many questions people ask about Orthodoxy.

Tom, I quoted Saint Maximos earlier because I thought I remembered him saying some things about a pledge of salvation. When I picked up the book though, I first found the things on faith hope and love that I quoted above, and they seemed relevant to your comments on salvation by faith, so I posted that instead.

Now, going back to the Philokalia and finding the words I wanted to post the first time, I discover that it was not St Maximos, but St Theognostos who wrote,

“Be persuaded by me, you who ardently and in all seriousness long for salvation, make haste, search persistently, ask ceaselessly, knock patiently and continue until you reach your goal. Establish a basis of firm faith and humility. You will have achieved what you want not simply when your sins are forgiven but when, fearlessly and joyously separated from the flesh, you are no longer exited or scared by the eruption of any passion.

Ask with many tears to be given the full assurance of salvation, but – if you are humble – do not ask to be given it long before your death, in case you grow negligent or indifferent. Ask that you may obtain it when you are close to your departure – but make your request in all seriousness, lest out of presumption you should delude yourself into believing that you posses such an assurance only to find, when the time comes, that you have failed to attain it. Where will you go then, unhappy man, deprived of the foretaste and unquestionable assurance of salvation by the Spirit?

Slothful and inexperienced as you are, you too should “go to the ant” (prov. 6:6): imitate its simplicity and insignificance, and know that God, self-sufficient and superabundant, has no need of our virtues. On the contrary, He richly bestows His gifts on us and through His grace saves those who are consciously grateful, though in His compassion He also accepts whatever work we are able to do. If then, you labour as one in debt to God for blessings already received, you do well and Gods mercy is close to you. But if you think that God is in your debt because of the good things you imagine you have done, you are quite deluded. For how can the bestower of gifts be the debtor? Work like a hired servant and, advancing step by step, you will by God’s mercy attain what you seek.”

“Strive to receive a sure, unequivocal pledge of salvation in your heart, so that at the time of your death you will not be distraught and unexpectedly terrified. You have received such a pledge when your heart no longer reproaches you for your failings and your conscience stops chiding you for your fits of anger; when through God’s grace your bestial passions have been tamed; when you weep tears of solace and you intellect prays undistractedly and with purity; and when you await death, which most people dread and run away from, calmly and with a ready heart.”

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Daniel,

Thank you for your good words,and especially for your humble and good Christian response. Glory be to God for that, Daniel!

love,

your
Fr. A.

[Tom Just]

I notice that several new messages have shown up and that the tone has changed. But, I am going to send this anyway because halfway through this message I began having fun with it and most of it is in jest anyway.

Yes Owen you are right I am a sinner. I am probably a psuedo holy man and self-righteous religious man as well. Now I haven't accused any of any of you of anything. All I did was ask the question how does one acheive salvation from an Orhtodox point of view.

I have heard the expression and have found it to be true in my case, that what we judge others on is often a serious problem for us who are doing the judging. Also by making little of others we puff ourselves up. There can be pride in suffering and humility. So I would suggest some of you could do a little self analysis yourselves.

Could there be some religious pride as you anxiously wait for the next message so you can straighten that person out and send him/her to the wretched sinner pit.

I wonder what kind of a reception Jesus would get here. Probably a lot like he got back in 29AD.

Someone just answer one question. Is everyone who disagrees with this community destined for Hell?

I thought the Muslims were the main problem for Christians. But maybe its fellow Christians who are so sure their denomination's doctrines are right and leave no room for compromise.

Since I have received the following thoughts and gotten no response otherwise over the past 3 days I guess I must conclude that:

The Orthodox Church is the only valid church denomination today.

One needs to be Orthodox for any possibility of salvation and then they can only be sure of the outcome of their salvation after they die and see where they end up.

One should not read the Bible for he may fall into self-pride and create a false religion.

If one is born again and baptized with the Holy Ghost, one should never witness this to others as this would be a sign of pride and self-righteousness.

Since the Orthodox Church owns the "Jesus Prayer" non-Orthodox persons should refrain from practicing "prayer of the heart" as one will undoubtedly come into prelest and become insane (I through this in extra - I got it from previous threads).

Never witness or mention any "pleasant feelings" which come as a result of prayer of the heart or the Holy Spirit or any other religious activity for these "feelings" are undoubtedly demonic in nature and indicate that the individual is undoubtedly in prelest. Insanity will soon follow. Best see someone who can cast out demons as soon as possible. Fortunately my mentor at church has that gift so I'll have him check me out. Maybe since he hasn't picked up on this previously, his ability to discern spirits needs a tune up.

I was wandering do Orthodox types witness to unsaved individuals to win them over to Jesus. Or do you just wait for them to come to the church. For if you do witness I was wondering what you say - what is appropriate to say?

Apparently it is okay to witness about pain and suffering just don't mention any pleasant feelings, joy, or happiness.

As I've said I am not a Bible scholar, but this sure isn't sounding very scriptural to me. But I undoubtedly misinterpreted the NT when I was reading it. And any commentary or Bible studies I followed were undoubtedly from individuals who were not Orthodox so they were probably working for Satan.

Now you are probably getting pretty anoyed with me about now. Well I think what I've said is as fair as the messages I have been getting from you. In fact I don't think I've said anything above which wasn't said to me in the past 3 days except for the Jesus Prayer thing.

Thank God this is a free country and I can just walk away from this message board knowing I will never become Orthodox. Oops never say never. God works in mysterious ways. Yes despite all your flattery and building up of my ego I just don't think I am Orthodox material.

If part of the reason for this forum is to attract new people to become Orthodox I would soften the message a little.

On a serious note, I think one of the things which grieves God's heart is when Christians behave the way you and I have in the last 3 days. I admit some of this is my fault, but a person can take so much religiousity, put downs, etc, and then he breaks. I made the comment that I think there will be people in heaven from all denominations. They will be there because of the love in their hearts for Jesus, for God and for their neighbor. I try to be understanding towards other denominations. It's like there are 50 states in the USA. So I am from Florida should I dislike someone just because they are from Kansas? I know this is oversimplifying things especially to a bunch of monks. Actually I envy you guys and have often wished to be a monk. I realize you have a different view of things than more worldly types like me. I am willing to overlook differences between various Christian types figuring God is in control of all of this and he knows what he is doing.

So fellow Christians of Monastos.net I love you. Hoping to laugh over this little interchange in heaven some day. Lighten up. Smile. May the Joy of Lord overwhelm you. Love Tom

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Tom,

Your last message really was rather surprising, at least to this reader. You have charged all the members of this forum with a manner of response that simply was not exhibited. Please recall that it was you who asked for the Orthodox view on what is required for salvation. You evidently did not like the answer, but this is no reason to accuse others in the manner that you did.

If you would like to understand how Orthodoxy views this question, we can progress. Otherwise, if the goal is simply to express your distaste for what is obviously a system of belief quite different from your own, there is little point in continuing this thread.

INXC, Matthew

[Archbishop Constantin]

Saint Paul directed his Epistles (=Letters) to various Churches and individuals, but the other Epistle writers, wrote universal Epistles that are for all the Christians and for all times. I prefer to write my letters (for I am not worthy to write an Epistle) TO ALL THE SAINTS, with some rare, but necessary, exceptions.

One exception has to be, that I give a direct answer to our brother Herman: THE DEVIL KNOWS VERY WELL WHO THE GOD, IN THE HOLY TRINITY IS AND HE TREMBLES! The problem with the devil is, that there is never any asking for forgiveness, because simply the devil is not about to repent. There are many passages in the Scriptures that speak of the unrepentance of the devil. Especially at the incident of a herd of contraband pigs, the mad men said "What do you want to do with us now, Jesus, Son of the Most High? Do you want to torture us before our time has come?". In another incident, a young man possessed by demons, when he was asked his name, he said Legion, because that many devils were inside of him.

I also want to say a word to dear Loretta, whose writing about her struggle with the devil has impressed me! Keep up the good work! Wrestle with the devil! Ask Christ to help you and He will make you come out of it triumphant!

Alas! The proverb "tell me who is your friend and I will tell you who you are" could not be more profound, than when it comes to the Orthodox View of Salvation. Because we live in a western oriented society and we have learnt to think like westerners... For a western mind looks forward to salvation, since, according to his thinking, he has committed something wrong. To the western mind salvation means forgiveness of sins (in this world?), with the result of gaining the priviledge to live in Paradise.

But a real Christian is absolved of the "original sin", through his baptism and if he loves Christ, he will do His commendments. A Christian should not look at salvation in the sense that St. Peter asked the Jews to look at, on the Day of Pentecost. He was talking to those, who, not only denied Christ, but they condemned Him to death and he was executed. Yes! I would agree with that kind of admonition, also. A Christian is looking forward to "Theosis" ("diefication" is a very poor translation), he/she is looking to becoming the PERFECT IMAGE OF GOD. A Christian has to hope for much more than just forgiveness of sins and the priviledge to reside in Paradise. It is my opinion that the idea of "Theosis", was actually revealed by God to Saint Athanasius (not in the way it happened to Joseph Smith, the Father of the Mormons), whose real name we do not know, because he became known by his nickname: "he who preaches immortality" (=Athanasius). This Theosis thing is so strong, so important and so powerful that, when St. Paul started to talk about Christ's mother, he was so much overtaken by the mystery of the Incarnation, that he forgot to mention her name, when St. Roman, the Melodist, set himself to write the hymnology of the Nativity, he began to talk more about the second coming of Christ than His Nativity and when St. John of Damascus sat down to write the hymnology of the Funeral Service, he forgot about the dead man and his corpse and praised and glorified God for the day that He will return. This is why the Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church, seems ambigueous when she speaks of "salvation", misunderstood by the poor estranged brothers/sisters of ours and she should not be trying to make any excuses about it, in any way shape or form. Anyway, in common terms, when we speak about salvation, we understand it with its negative meaning: to be saved, is to be saved from going to hell... Becoming THE PERFECT IMAGE OF GOD (Theosis), certainly has nothing to do with salvation and this is what an Orthodox Christian is looking forward to and he prays: "a good account [see? even our liturgical translations have a western influence! Accounting for something is not a defense] before the awesome Judgement Seat of Christ, let us ask of the Lord!".

It is unfortunate that the western mind has become parallel to a Judaic mind... This is what happens when someone tries to interpret the Scriptures wihout any spiritual help! The Jews of old had a very undefined concept of what happens after death. They decided that all the souls of the dead went to this never-never land called Sheol, "where even God did not remember them any more1" (do you see any similarity between Sheol and Limbo?). So, our estranged brothers and sisters have a problem understanding about the state of the human soul after death. Parhaps we should recommend they read "The Soul after Death" by Fr. Seraphim Rose. So, they have trouble asking the intercession of someone who has passed on, through prayer...

These estranged brothers/sisters of ours have also trouble in praying for the betterment of a loved one's condition, after his death. When someone dies, it is true that he/she cannot change his/her condition, because there is no repentance, good works etc. after death. Even Orthodox brothers/sisters doubt the effect of the prayers for the loved ones, I have even heard priests say that: "the prayers for the loved ones are for the living and not for the dead!". Didn't our Lord say that what is impossible for man, it is possible for God? Then why do we doubt His Words? Before I became a clergyman, I was an engineer and I have been accused of still thinking like an engineer. Look at what conclusions we can draw from those few words spoken by Christ: what is impossible for man, it is possible for God! What can God do for a dead man? "Resurrect him and judge him", will be the western answer. But isn't God All-Powerful, All-Merciful, who loves the just and shows mercy to sinners? So, what would prevent God, in His infinite mercy, to give some of His mercy to this poor dead man, whom he just resurrected back to life? Well, we hope that He will give it and give it abundantly. Because the only variable that exists for us after death is the infinite Mercy of God. Everyone is saveable due to God's infinite mercy, but none of us will ever know how God will meat out this precious gift that requires no qualification and no achievements! In view of this, when a western minded person tells us that he/she has been saved, he is trying to coerse God in His decision making process, he/she is trying to outguess God's will, in short it is an attempt at bossing God around. The word to describe this attempt is called blasphemy...

+ Arzobispo Constantino

[Richard Leigh]

Your Grace:

Father Bless! Your words are a joyous onslaught, an avalanche of peace!

Dear Tom, pay attention to this one, it is important for us non-Orthodox to remember to define our terms, and get our interlocutor's definition as well. What do any of us mean by "save"? What is "salvation" for any of us? Biblically, "salvation" is rescue from some condition of ill. Thus various waring emperors called themselves their conquest's "saviors", and thus is Jesus "salvation" as St. Gabriel would relate it to God's Mother (the Virgin Mary).

Yes, your Grace, what you say is true. Let me point out that the illness of the West, and of the 21st century (for the oikumene, or whole inhabited earth is being "westernised" as surely as the the near and middle east was hellenized the last millennium before the Nativity!) is such that it cannot see (without help) the life beyond the grave on any but a two-dimensional screen, unless one "extends time" beyond where time is perceived and purgatory is invented, for, surely (we wrongly surmise), once the goal is reached (or lost) what more can be done? And let me point something else out: what you say about the Judaic "Sheol" is equally true of the Homeric "Hades." Our God is only God of the dead as well as the living now because Christ has been to the grave and back! But surely His words are true that no one that dies in the Lord truly sees death.

Well, "Theosis" is ultimate salvation, for to be "God" by grace is to be rescued from all which is not God. It is not a word that jumps readily out of Scripture, but "participation in divinity" does and we can be assured that that is what is being talked about. But Jesus is the pathway to this salvation and as long as we cling to Him we are as saved as can be experienced in any particular time or place. It is when we're not that the worry should come, but we can take heart in the fact that only the saved worry that they might not be (the rest could care less) For them let us pray!

Yours in Christ,

Kissing your right hand,

Richard

[Tom Just]

I must aplogize. I assumed that Orthodoxy's theological precepts and doctrines were Bible based. If I understand Archbishop Constantin and Richard Leigh correctly, Orthodoxy has based much of its doctrine on the writings of early Saints and church fathers. It also seems that this doctrine of early Saints and church fathers does not have to be based on or backed by scripture. Evidently Orthodoxy's concept of salvation is not so much Bible based as based on writings of early Saints and church fathers. Since I expected to find these doctrines in the Bible, I was confused by my inability to find them. I remember thinking it strange that hardly anyone quoted any Bible verses, but I also remember references to various Saints. This is a revelation to me, for I thought all Christian Churches based or at least confirmed their doctrine thru Bible scripture. Tom

[John Curtis Dunn]

It also seems that this doctrine of early Saints and church fathers does not have to be based on or backed by scripture. Evidently Orthodoxy's concept of salvation is not so much Bible based as based on writings of early Saints and church fathers.

If by Bible based you mean, and are asking whether, the Chruch Fathers searched the Scriptures and added up the number of verses and divided by their own presuppositions and ideas of what the Greek meant in this passage or that passage, then no, Orthodoxy is not bible based.

john dunn

[Waldemar]

I came across the following early in my journey to the Orthodox Church. It served as a guide then as now:


Differences Between Orthodox Teaching on Salvation
And That of Protestants

by Paul Jacobson

Protestants and particularly evangelicals take a "minimalist" approach to salvation. They focus on salvation as justification, "I can go to heaven rather than hell." Plenty of people recognize that being a Christian is more than just a matter of "fire insurance," but it is easy to be fooled by one's own sales pitch--Just accept Jesus as your savior. Plenty of people think that is all there is to it.

Furthermore, the "saved by faith" emphasis is a strong filter on one's Bible reading. In Romans 10, St. Paul writes: if you will confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (v 9). My evangelical training led me automatically to think in terms of a "punctilious" confession. It is not good to argue whether this particular passage refers to a one-time action or a recurring one.

But in his sermon the Orthodox priest in Orthodox fashion, of "confessing with our mouth" each time we receive Holy Communion. The Orthodox approach to salvation is "maximalist": "How can I be most saved?" .

One gets a sense of this teaching from St. John Chrysostom's "Baptismal Instructions," Talking to the newly baptized, he says (3d Instruction):

Let us say again: Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things, who does all things and transforms them. Before yesterday you were captives, but now you are free and citizens of the Church; lately you lived in the shame of your sins, but now you live in freedom and justice. You are not only free, but also holy; not only holy, but also just; not only just, but also sons; not only sons, but also heirs; not only heirs, but also brothers of Christ; not only brothers of Christ, but also joint heirs; not only joint heirs, but also members; not only members, but also the temple; not only the temple, but also instruments of the Spirit.

Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things!. You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit." [Ancient Christian Writers, p. 57]

St. John uses other descriptions of baptism,
marriage, enrollment in the army, putting [on] a white robe (which they literally did). He goes on to urge his listeners to keep their robes spotless:

Knowing, therefore, that after the grace of God everything depends on us and on our zeal, let us be grateful gifts which have already been given, so that we may make ourselves worthy of still greater gifts. [24]

Therefore, I exhort you who have just deserved the divine gift to keep careful watch and to guard the spiritual garment bestowed on you, keeping it clean and spotless. Let those of us who received this gift in the past show a far-reaching change in our lives. It is possible, if we are willing, it is possible for us to return and go back to our former beauty and luster, if only we will do our fair share . . . . The soul which was once sullied and became disfigured and disgraced by the multitude of its sins can quickly return to its former beauty, if we give evidence of ample and exact repentance." (circa ad 390) [pp. 90-91]

I think one can construct from the Church Fathers a "normal" Christian life: instruction, baptism, on-going participation in the life of the Church: repentance, confession, receiving the Eucharist. But it is rare that you will find them attempting to answer the question "What can I get by with and still be saved?" or "How far can one be from this 'norm' and still be saved?"

They did have to deal with the question of "how necessary is baptism?" during the persecutions. What of the catechumens who were martyred before baptism? It was in this context that the belief in 'martyrs being baptized with their own blood' arose.

At the other end of the Christian life, many saints (as recognized later by the Church) died with a profound sense of their own sinfulness and unworthiness before a Holy God.

I have found the Orthodox approach to Scriptures, especially on matters of salvation, to be very "integrative." Christ's incarnation, ministry, death, descent into hades, resurrection, ascension; our sinfulness, repentance, baptism, carrying our cross, 'doing to the least of these', running the race, confidence in God's love and mercy, fear of falling away, putting on the new nature, . . . . There is no tendency to pick one aspect of salvation "to reinterpret everything else to fit." The parable of the goats and the sheep is taken as seriously as Ephesians 2:8-9.

Orthodoxy often insists that the whole truth lies in holding on to two (or more) apparently contradictory concepts: God is both One God, and Three Persons; Christ is one person, two natures. The same applies to our salvation. On many points where a Protestant wants and either/or answer, an Orthodox will insist on both/and.

Source:

http://www.stjohndc.org/stjohndc/english.htm

[Waldemar]

GOD AND MAN

The development of the doctrines concerning the Trinity and the incarnation, as it took place during the first eight centuries of Christian history, was related to the concept of man's participation in divine life.

The Greek Fathers of the church always implied that the phrase found in the biblical story of the creation of man (Gen. 1:26), according to "the image and likeness of God," meant that man is not an autonomous being and that his ultimate nature is defined by his relation to God, his "prototype." In paradise Adam and Eve were called to participate in God's life and to find in him the natural growth of their humanity "from glory to glory." To be "in God" is, therefore, the natural state of man. This doctrine is particularly important in connection with the Fathers' view of human freedom. For theologians such as Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) and Maximus the Confessor (7th century) man is truly free only when he is in communion with God; otherwise he is only a slave to his body or to "the world," over which, originally and by God's command, he was destined to rule.

Thus, the concept of sin implies separation from God and the reduction of man to a separate and autonomous existence, in which he is deprived of both his natural glory and his freedom. He becomes an element subject to cosmic determinism, and the image of God is thus blurred within him.

Freedom in God, as enjoyed by Adam, implied the possibility of falling away from God. This is the unfortunate choice made by man, which led Adam to a subhuman and unnatural existence. The most unnatural aspect of his new state was death. In this perspective, "original sin" is understood not so much as a state of guilt inherited from Adam but as an unnatural condition of human life that ends in death.

Mortality is what each man now inherits at his birth and this is what leads him to struggle for existence, to self-affirmation at the expense of others, and ultimately to subjection to the laws of animal life. The "prince of this world" (i.e., Satan), who is also the "murderer from the beginning," has dominion over man. From this vicious circle of death and sin, man is understood to be liberated by the death and Resurrection of Christ, which is actualized in Baptism and the sacramental life in the church.

The general framework of this understanding of the God-man relationship is clearly different from the view that became dominant in the Christian West--i.e., the view that conceived of "nature" as distinct from "grace" and that understood original sin as an inherited guilt rather than as a deprivation of freedom.

In the East, man is regarded as fully man when he participates in God; in the West, man's nature is believed to be autonomous, sin is viewed as a punishable crime, and grace is understood to grant forgiveness. Hence, in the West, the aim of the Christian is justification, but in the East, it is rather communion with God and deification.

In the West, the church is viewed in terms of mediation (for the bestowing of grace) and authority (for guaranteeing security in doctrine); in the East, the church is regarded as a communion in which God and man meet once again and a personal experience of divine life becomes possible.


From:

Decani Monastery in Kosovo (Church Doctrine section) http://www.kosovo.com/default1.html

[Herman Blaydoe]

There is nothing taught by Orthodoxy that is not based on Holy Scriptures.

Mr. Just needs to be reminded that the Church existed before the compendium of writings that we call Holy Scripture existed.

[Fr Averky]

Thomas,

As I said to you you yesterday, the Church did not spring or grow out of the Bible, for the Church existed as an institution BEFORE the Bible was arranged .

"Bible Based" assumes "sola scriptura," that all Truth is found only in the Bible, but so much that we believ as Christians is not in the Bible. I gave you an excellent example: the Bible does not clearly say that Christ has two natures, Divine and human, but the Church fought a battle to preserve that teaching when the majority of the Christians at the time had become Arians.

The Nicene Creed, which is the definitive statement as to what the Chuirch believes was formulated at the First Ecumenoical Council in 325 A.D. The Church was not founded at a tent revival in Topeka, Kansas in 1887. I explained that Fathers, who were as insired to interpret the Bible as were the holy men of God who wrote them interpreted them. I do not really believe that Mr. Moody, Mr. Armstrong, or the renowned Mr. Joseph Smith were as close to God as the Fathers were. And I do not think that Amy Semple McPherson or Mary Baker Eddie were classic "women of the Bible."

Like Matthew, I am tiring of you, because you don't really want to have an open mind, but want to argue, and your are beginning to simply waste time. When a person asks a question sincerely, then he is willing to listen to another point of view, but you are now just begging the question and baiting us, and I do not think that that that is proper behaviour if you are Saved, and you say that you are. I can only pray that you are.... We poor ones are still struggling-we fall, but we get up again, always relying on God's mercy, not and the"glory" we can give Him.

Since you are Bible Based, tell me why Protestants reject the words of Jesus Christ when He says, "Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven?" If every word of the Bible is absolutley true, then why do you reject it? Jesus Christ said, "Take, eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you, for the remission of sin." He also said Thomas, "not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven." You talk of "pleasant feelings" -please tell me of the people who speak of having pleasant feelings in the New Testament. Jesus Christ healed people by saying that their sins were forgiven and why were they sick?*Because they did not feel so pleasant, No, because they had sinned, and Christ forgave them. Where in the New Testament do you hear people waving their right hand and shouting, "Praise Jesus.? " In he Biible, Thomas, it says that the three blind men shouted out to Jesus Christ as he passed by them, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on us!" When the woman came in the time he was dining, did she jump up and down and scream, "I am saved by the blood of the Lamb !?" No Thomas, she washed His feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair. When Our Saviour said to Zachaius to come down, for salvation had come to his house, did Zachaius, oink like a pig, giggle, and roll on the ground, and laugh his head off? No, Thomas, he repented, and said he would pay back four-fold what he had stolen. And finally Thomas, when the Pharisee, so proud of himself, accounting before God his many good deeds how he kept the Mosaic Law, how carefuilly he tithed, and being glad that he is not like other men, jerking his head a litlte, sneeringly indicating that sinful creature in the back, for after all, he is "Saved," Thomas-Saved! Yet, the Publican, a humble man, stands in the back, his head held low in shame before God, acknowledges his sinfulness, and says, "Lord have mercy on me a sinner. And Thomas, did our Saviour say, "Well, golly, that Pharisee is my kind of man!" The Pharisee knew the Law, he accepted the Law, and he lived by the Law - he knew what Moses had taught in the Pentetouch, therefore it only stands to reason that he was saved! Don't you agree with me Thomas? His entire life was based on what he knew from the Scriptures, and since that itinerant Preacher-man did not fit his idea of the Messiah, well, he and his friends were just going to have to kill such a blaphemer, Thomas- kill Him. Forget that He showed love and mercy, gave sight to the blind, and raised the dead-no He did not live his life according to Scripture-the Law! He had the nerve to go to a man at the pool at Bethseda who had been ignored and neglected for thirty eight years, and tell that man to take up his bed on the Sabbath! Inspired by Beelzebub, He cured a man blind since birth! He went to where god God-fearing Jewish people were taking care of thier pigs, and rove them into the sea, just so some old lunatic could be free of only 2000 demons. Can you imagine Thomas? I think I remember our Lord telling the Pharisee that they kept the letter of the Law, but not its spirit. And since they were saved, did He not say something to them about whitened sepuclchres? I think I remember that phrase like that n the Bibe, so it must be true, and it is.

No, Thomas, Jesus Christ asked which man went away having pleased God. And it was not the man who had pleasant feelings, and knew the Scriptures-it was the man who did not feel good about himself. He was growing spiritually, he was saving himself, but the man who thought himself*"saved," well, Thomas he was lost. Where does it say that God needs or relies upon our praise? In the 50th Psalm it says, "A broken and contrite heart is the acceptable sacrifice to God." A contrite heart, not a jubilant one, but a heart seeking God's mercy. And the Centirion, di he walk up to our saviour and say, "I am a bleiever, and I am saved, and Lord, I just want you to help my servant?" No, he said, I am not worethy that you should come under roof. And Jesus said that in all of Israel He had not see such faith. When the woman said she would takdethe scraps from the table like a dog, if He would but heal her daughter, our Saviour took compassion and granted her mercy, not happiness, no t warmth -yes that was there toop, but the scriptures do not mention it. When Jesus Christ healed the son of the man whow as thrown first into the water, then into the fire, the boys father, humbly said to our Lord, "O Lord, I believe, heal my unbelief!" He said this, asking for mercy because he was so weak in his faith, Thomas.

Protestan churches often have signs in front of their Churches which declare "We preach Christ!" Which Christ, Thomas? Is it Luther's idea of Christ, or the modern Catholic's who said that His resurrection is just an "image," or is it the Canon in England who refuses to believe in a Supreme God, or is God terrible and "Sovereign," His Son having us to sneak us past His wrath?Or perehaps "Oneness," wherein the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are but manifestations of One person?

Did Jesus really come to America and walk around with the Native Americans, Thomas? Maybe He lwas, ike the creed that I once read at a large church, "I believe that Jesus is a God-sent Man ( RC Catholic Cathedral in San Francisco, 1975). How often I hear televangelists say, "He was the only Son of Gawudd," but you notice, Thomas, that they never say that He is God, and that they really have no clear idea as to who the Holy Spirit might be? Did you ever consider that it is just a modern version of Arianism? Like the young Baptist minister I heard, who sang a song for Christmas, in which he says, "for our sakes, the Creator became the created one-Christ- created." We say that Jesus Christ "was begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father."Since you base all your truths on the Bible, you can choose from "Good News For the Modern Man," or the "Gospel According to St. Thomas," or any number of variants. And finally, you can pick up the Bible and read into it just about anything you might want to, because you have the gift of "free interpretation." Help yourself, Thomas, help yourself.

So, if you wish to reject us, and wish to feel good and say the Jeus Prayer, and feel that.as you put it so well, Jesus did all the work. Then please, go throuigh life feeling so good about youself and say to yourself "my soul, eat, drink and be merry!" And being a man of the Bible, Thomas you know what God said to him, and what happened befored he could build his better barns.

Forgive me, Thomas, I too am not a theologian, and I am not a Biblical scholar, but as St. Paul says, "Scio cui credidi," which means, "I know in whom I have believed," which by the way Thomas, is my family motto for four hundred years. Be happy and secure in already being saved, Thomas, and pray for us who know nothing of the Bible.

Fr. A. the ignorant

[Tom Just]

Dear Archbishop Constantin in regard to your remark:


In view of this, when a western minded person tells us that he/she has been saved, he is trying to coerse God in His decision making process, he/she is trying to outguess God's will, in short it is an attempt at bossing God around. The word to describe this attempt is called blasphemy...

I have been reading about blasphemy and I don't connect how reading God's word and accepting salvation based on his word is blasphemy.

Following are a couple of definitions of blasphemy I have found:

BLAS'PHEMY, n. An indignity offered to God by words or writing; reproachful, contemptuous or irreverent words uttered impiously against Jehovah.

Blasphemy is an injury offered to God, by denying that which is due and belonging to him, or attributing to him that which is not agreeable to his nature.

In the middle ages, blasphemy was used to denote simply the blaming or condemning of a person or thing. Among the Greeks, to blaspheme was to use words of ill omen, which they were careful to avoid.

I don't believe that people who believe in their salvation are trying to coerse or trick God. They are just taking him at his word acording to the Bible. I believe it is possible for other persons than the Orthodox to correctly interpret God's word under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I did not come up with this doctrine, but far more worthy people than I. Now you don't believe I have the correct doctrine or interpretation therefore I am a blasphemer. I don't like being called a blasphemer so please explain to me more why I am committing this serious sin. Tom

[Fr Averky]

Forgive my terrible typing! Far worse than usual-if you laugh, I will understand. I am just sooooooo tired. I will correct a word, look, and half the sentence is gone. Forgive me Lord!

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Archbishop Costantine,

With all respect to your good Christian soul, St. Seraphim of Sarov, in his directions to monastcs, tells us that when we have attempted to reason with another, and he refuses to listen, after the third time, it is better for our souls and his to no longer speak to him. It is becoming evident that any answer we might give is going to be twisted, and I tell you of a truth, this discussion is not Godly, and God's blessing is not upon it. It has become a demon's holiday. Something is very, very wrong here!

I wrote this person both publicly and privately, asking forgiveness on behalf of all of us, and lovingly chastized Justin and Daniel, who both were humble about it, but this person, brushing aside my sincere attempts to make peace, madly keeps on being offensive, We owe no further explanation to a person mocking us and our Faith to our faces. All we can do is pray for him; I have been, and I will continue to do so.

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Dear in the Lord Waldemar,

thank your for your words, I hope we will be seeing your name many times on Monachos. God bless you!

Fr. A.

P.S. In my youth, I had a lawyer friend whose older brother 's name was Waldemar, and I have never heard it again until now.

Fr. A.

[Effie Ganatsios]

I would like to say a few words. Tom, I too am no theologian and you have been answered by people much more knowledgeable than I. If you are sincere and not just fooling around I would like to say that God knows what is in each person's heart. No matter what we say or do when we are with other people we also know what is in our hearts. Keep reading the bible and study it and study the sayings of the desert fathers. Someone who seeks God doesn't have to be Orthodox, or Catholic, or a born-again Christian to be saved. Salvation does not mean just believing that Jesus Christ actually lived, was the Son of God and died for our sins. It means a continual striving for union with God. It means making yourself the person you were intended to be. This can be achieved in part by praying, fasting, and living according to God's rules. None of us are perfect and we each have our own road to travel, but wanting is the first step. "Seek and ye shall find". Humility is perhaps the most essential quality for all those who seek union with God. We are all arrogant, we all think that we are right and that the other person is wrong. When we can truly put our egos aside and see the other person as God sees him, then I believe that we are on the right road to salvation. Tom, look into your heart and there you will find the truth.

I respect the people on this forum because they are genuine seekers of the truth. I have learnt a lot by reading the thoughts of those that post here and,I am still learning. I thank God that I found this forum because I believe that the people on it are sincere and are not interested n in just putting forward their own views and having others agree with them but in helping others through their own experiences.

Effie

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Tom,

While you say that you're not a scholar, you apparently hjave ample time to do serious Bible study. I will therefore let you reference the references I make, using key words and phrases! ONE LAST TIME!

1. Take my yoke upon you and learn of Me, and ye shall find rest for your souls....!

2. What do the Orthodox mean when they speak of Holy Tradition, and refer to it more than quoting of Bible verses. Holy Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers, is Holy Tradition!!! The Scriptures themselves attest to the authority of the Apostles and those they taught, as it says that the Church is "...built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets....". We have believed and taught what the Fathers themselves received and agreed to pass on to the rest of the Church in Ecumenical Councils/Synods/meetings. It's unthinkable that the Church has taught for millineum error, and the Holy Spirit has not moved any Christian over those years, to test the 'spirit' of those teachings as to whether or not they were error/heresy!

3. Your salvation is basec upon faith. Faith is based upon what, it's based upon the Scriptures! When Jesus stood up in the Synagogue to read the scrool handed to him (an honor the head Rabbi extended to visitors recognized to be a teacher of the people), He read from the O.T. passage of Isaiah, things no one could deny are works. At the very least faith involves an outward action, a visible turning away from sin, and turning towards God, which we call repentence. James says in his epistle -the Scripture you base your salvation upon- FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD. If faith without works is dead, then how can anyone have salvation without works, and the Scriptures remain true?

4. You say that you are not a scholar, neither am I. I do not see however, how anyone can acclaim that God's word is the basis for what's believed, but turn around and say that what the Scriptures clearly teach, is not what it means. This sets that person up to be of greater intellect than the One who inspired the men to write the Scriptutres in the first place, which is the logical progression of what you're saying. If you're uncomfortable with the notion that you've ascended higher than Almighty God, please refer back to #1 in this post.

the unworthy servant
sub-deacon Moses

p.s. Your Grace; Fr. A. and others: please forgive me, for as I re-read my post I detected an angry tone, and I was angry. This is something which boggles my mind!

[Fr Averky]

My Dear Dear Moses,

I am coming to believe that there is something very Dark about this discussion, and that is why we are so frustrated. I hope that our good Saved Christian Tom has accomplished what he intended to do; sow seeds of frustraation and anger- good job Tom! Members, You are all wasting your breath, and I am praying that Matthew will intervene... As Christ said, "Get thee behind me, satan!"

Fr. A.

Effie, My Sister, my angel, this is a bight lioght in an uigly situation-Thank God .! am always so happy to see your name. Talk to Loretta, she is a good woman and I am sure your wisdom and good words would be helpful to her, and the new Marie as well!

Love,

Fr. A..

[Loretta]

Dear Father Averky, Archbishop Costantine, Waldemar, Moses, and other,

Though your frustrations with Tom are evident, I for one humbly thank God for having been enlightened with your beautiful teachings.

Thank you!

[Daniel Jeandet]

Well, I certainly learned something from this thread.

What it was, Im not sure, but if anyone is interested, I found this great article over here;

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/khomiakov_westernconfess.html

Its about Catholocism and Protestantism, the differences between them and Orthodoxy, written as a defense of the Faith. Anyway, it is really good, very good to read the whole thing, and I believe it was providential that i found it while reading through this thread over the last two days, here are some snippets:

"Clearly Protestantism, as a Church, does not have the power to check itself, and having rejected legitimate tradition, it has deprived itself of every right to condemn a man who, while acknowledging the divinity of the Holy Scriptures, might not find in them the refutation of the error of Arius or Nestorius — since such a man would be wrong in the eyes of learning, but not in the eyes of faith. However, I am not attacking the Reformers here; what is important is to make clear the necessity which compels them to stand on the ground they now occupy, to trace the logical process which has forced them to this, and to show that within the Church such a necessity and process are impossible."

"So many of the questions which have been argued for so many centuries in the religious polemic of Europe find a simple resolution within the Church; or, to speak more accurately, for her they do not even exist as questions. Thus, taking it as a first principle that the life of the spiritual world is nothing but love and communion in prayer, she prays for the dead, even though she rejects the fable of purgatory invented by rationalism; she asks for the intercession of the saints, not ascribing to them, however, the merits contrived by the utilitarian school, and not acknowledging the necessity for any intercession other than that of our Divine Mediator. Thus, aware of her living unity, she cannot even understand the question whether salvation lies in faith alone or in faith and works together. In her eyes life and truth are one, and works are nothing but the manifestation of a faith which, without this manifestation, would not be faith but logical knowledge. Thus also, feeling her inner union with the Holy Spirit, she offers thanks to the One Who is Good for every good thing, ascribing nothing to herself and to man except the evil which, in him, resists the work of God. Man must be helpless if the power of God is to be perfected in his soul."

This bit is great,

"A criticism that is serious but dry and imperfect; a learning that is broad but unsubstantial because of its lack of inner unity; an upright and sober morality worthy of the first centuries of the Church, combined with a narrowness of vision set within the limits of individualism; ardent outbursts of feeling in which we seem to hear a confession of their shortcomings and their lack of hope in ever attaining atonement; a constant lack of depth scarcely masked by a fog of arbitrary mysticism; a love of the truth combined with an inability to understand it in its living reality; in a word — rationalism within idealism: such is the fate of the Protestants. A breadth of view that is large enough, yet quite insufficient for true Christianity; an eloquence that is brilliant but too often marred by passion; a bearing that is majestic but always theatrical; a criticism that is almost always superficial, catching at words and not probing far into meaning; an illusory display of unity with an absence of real unity; a certain peculiar poverty of religious need, which never dares to raise its sights to higher levels and is always ready to settle for a cheap satisfaction; a certain uneven depth, hiding its shoals in clouds of sophisms; a hearty and sincere love for external order combined with a disregard for internal order, i.e., truth; in a word — rationalism within materialism: such is the fate of the Latinists."

[Waldemar]

Bless Father,

Dear Father A.,

Thank you for your welcome. I was named "Waldemar" after my then-undergraduate father's Chemistry professor, apparently in a fit of enthusiasm over having aced the midterm. I rather disliked the name until I became a catechumen about 6 years ago and learned of St. Vladimir. Rather than take a new name at my baptism, Father thought Waldemar to be a quite appropriate name to keep and then to make new.

Brethren, I ask that you show some patience with Tom. I am not so far removed from the days when I spoke just like him.

His manner of questioning and discourse is the very same tone used among his fellow co-religionists. It is characteristic of the "inductive Bible study" method, the attempt to pry out the true meaning of the passage from the Holy Scriptures through the filter of "What-this-verse-says-to-me." (Fellow converts from the Evangelical Protestant tradition(s), remember the depth from which you have been lifted up!)

This tyranny of private judgement is the bane of the Protestant confessions. Tom's combative tone is the natural speaking voice of the Evangelical Protestant not only towards those outside of their confessions but to those within.

Tom may be irritating to some, but I see it as a sign of hope that he is here. He's out of his depth of course (There are none so blind as those who refuse to see) and maybe his ultimate motive here is to challenge Orthodox "heretics" or to proselytize, but he might actually learn something to his salvation.

Six or seven years ago, I was Tom.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Tom Just wrote: "Do you belief that a firm and sincere belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he died on the Cross for our sins, was buried, and arose from the dead on the third day is sufficient for one's salvation? Tom"

NO! There is {NO} verse or passage in Scripture that states any such thing. The onerous is on you to substantiate the need for your question.

Our obedience is an enescapable condition of our Salvation.

St. Paul preaching in Areopagos declared, "Therefore God, having overlooked indeed the times of ignorance, now commandeth all men everywhere to repent." [Acts 17:30]

Every man is commanded to repent. I am certain, base upon your writing, that you are familiar with the word METANOIA, which simply means "a change of mind."
A change of mind has not transpired until there has been a change of behavior. I am certain that you are familiar with St. John the Forerunner's (Baptist) words in the Gospel of Luke,

"O offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce therefore fruits worthy of repentance and begin not to say within yourselves, 'We have Abraham for a father; for I say to yo that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.. Therefore every tree which produceth not good fruit is being cut out and cast into the fire. And the crowds were questioning him, saying, "What then shall we do?" And answering, he saith to them, "The one who hath two tunics, let him share with him who hath not; and the one who hath food, let him do likewise..." [Luke 3:7-14]

I will trust you are familiar, or shall familiarize yourself with the rest of the passage above. The Gospel requires "Fruit of repentance." Fruit is the evidence of the life within, these fruits (works) are the necessary evidence of our obedience to the command to "Repent."

St. John the Forerunner addresses your question about the sufficiency of a firm and sincere belief when he said, "...and begin not to say within yourselves, 'We have Abraham for a father;. Can a person who refuses to obey any part of the Gospel be said to have a {sincere} belief?" The word sincere is used to describe something that is pure and complete. Also, the man who hid his talent also possess a firm and sincere belief, and was confident that his actions would be sufficient for his salvation when the Master returned.

Furthermore, who of us has believed suffeciently?

john dunn

[Waldemar]

Dear Tom,

I think that you are trying to understand the scriptural undergirding of Orthodox Christian soteriology, but you don't understand the place of the Holy Scriptures within the Orthodox Church.

Here are some good places to start:

Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?
www.protomartyr.org/first.html (http://www.protomartyr.org/first.html)

All Scripture Is Inspired by God:
Thoughts on the Old Testament Canon
http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/otcanon.htm

Do not Add to His Words:
Thoughts on the New Testament Canon
http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/ntcanon.htm

Sola Scriptura. In the Vanity of Their Minds. An Orthodox examination.
of the Protestant teaching
www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm)

Read these and then get back to us, then we can start a dialogue and get beyond these parallel monologues!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Tom and others,


I must aplogize. I assumed that Orthodoxy's theological precepts and doctrines were Bible based. If I understand Archbishop Constantin and Richard Leigh correctly, Orthodoxy has based much of its doctrine on the writings of early Saints and church fathers. It also seems that this doctrine of early Saints and church fathers does not have to be based on or backed by scripture. Evidently Orthodoxy's concept of salvation is not so much Bible based as based on writings of early Saints and church fathers. Since I expected to find these doctrines in the Bible, I was confused by my inability to find them. I remember thinking it strange that hardly anyone quoted any Bible verses, but I also remember references to various Saints. This is a revelation to me, for I thought all Christian Churches based or at least confirmed their doctrine thru Bible scripture.

It will probably not surprise you, Tom, that this question has come up here before, as it is an issue of pronounced interest to non-Orthodox Christians. For more on the topic of Scripture and Tradition in the Orthodox faith, you may wish to read through the archives of an involved discussion had in this forum in 2002, called Scripture and Tradition (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1668).

You will find in the above thread a great deal of consideration of the question from the Orthodox perspective by the participants at that time, as well as several responses and interactions from Protestant members. I would point you in particular to an initial response that I wrote (which you can find here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1668#post18971)), in which I tried to set out the Orthodox view on things in reduced/simplified perspective.

If you (or others) are interested in renewing discussion on that particular question, let me ask that we do so by someone starting a new thread in the Doctrine area, rather than in the present thread. It would be nice to keep this thread focused on the question of what is 'required' for 'salvation'.

On the topic of what constitutes 'salvation', see also the archives of another discussion had here in 2002, called 'Question on Salvation'.

INXC, Matthew

[Waldemar]

I think of these words written by St. Ignatius Brianchaninov (<u>The Arena</u>, taken from chapters 1 and 2) in answer to the question, "What is required?"

The Lord said, He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me: and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him. (John 14:21)

From these words of the Lord it is evident that the commandments of the Gospel must be studied that they become the possession, the property of the mind; only then is the exact, constant fulfillment of them possible such as the Lord requires.

We shall be judged according to the commandments of the Gospel at that judgement which God has appointed for us Orthodox Christians and on which depends our eternal destiny.

The Lord said, He who rejects Me and does not accept my words has his judge: the word that I have spoken will be his judge at the last day. For I have not spoken on My own authority, but the Father Who sent Me has Himself given Me commandment what to say and what to tell. And I know that His commandment is eternal life. (John 12: 48-50)

From these words of the Lord it is evident that we shall be judged by the Gospel, and that negligence in carrying out the commands of the Gospel is actual rejection of the Lord Himself.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear everybody,

Protestantism cannot be discussed as if it were one thing. Thus, because we're biblically guided we Lutherans do partake of the very body and blood of Christ at Holy Communion for the forgiveness of our sins (since that's what the living Christ said (and says) they were (and are), and that's what His body and blood were "separated" for in sacrificial death for us on the cross. (But of course it is a living savior of whom we take part.)


Tom Just wrote: "Do you belief that a firm and sincere belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he died on the Cross for our sins, was buried, and arose from the dead on the third day is sufficient for one's salvation? Tom"

NO! There is NO verse or passage in Scripture that states any such thing. The onerous is on you to substantiate the need for your question.

John, first of all Tom does not have to substantiate the need for his question. Tom just has the question, that's all. Second, yes, once we have come to an agreement on what we mean by "salvation," we find that all of scripture comspires to teach that, (a) our salvation is in none other than God Himself (b) that it is accomplished in and by no other man than Jesus His son and (c) that the only way to participate in this is to participate in this Man's participation in God. Corolary to this is that of course Jesus is both Man and God, and ever other human being's participation is (i) through the Holy Spirit (who is necesarrily therefore also God) (ii) by faith, defined as Father Averky did so exquisitely as trust in Jesus, the Savior. Therefore, among other things, scripture also clearly teaches (to the faithful) the Holy Trinity of three persons in One Godhead (without using those terms,rather, the Persons are named and designated), and two natures of Christ, divine and human.

Richard

[Archbishop Constantin]

Mr. Steenberg, beloved brother in Christ Jesus, our God!

I am surprised at the fact that you had no knowledge of the Holy Tradition, which is the Christian Church&#39;s Guardian Angel and Teacher. For almost four hundred years, Christians believed and died for their faith, receiving it by word of mouth alone. It was not until the Second Ecumenical Council of 389 A.D. in Constantinople that the Books of the New Testament were chosen.

So, St. Athanasius, this giant of knowledge and wisdom in Alexandria, was not &#34;able&#34; to ever read the New Testament and he is not the only one. Saint Athanasius was the secretary of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea at 325 A.D. He wrote the minutes of the Council, he publically refuted Arius and he also wrote the first 9 articles of the Nicene Creed &#40;without the filioque&#41;, which was ratified by the Council, after minor changes. His original Creed still exists, but since it has not been ratified by an Ecumenical Council, it is not used by the Christian Church. His name, according to historians, must be a nickname, because it is unlikely that the man would receive a name &#34;He who preaches immortality&#34; &#40;Athanasius&#41;at baptism.

Orthodoxy has no Doctrines in the sense and definition of the west, just as Orthodoxy has no Sacraments in the same sense and definition of the west. Our belief has been transmitted to us from the Holy Apostles, by means of the Holy Tradition, of which the written part is the Holy Scriptures and we have Holy Mysteries, which are not Holy Acts, but things that are beyond our capacity of understanding them.

Your statement: &#34;Since I expected to find these doctrines in the Bible, I was confused by my inability to find them.&#34; Let me ask you, please, where in the Scriptures appears any mention of Christians inscribing the sign of the Cross on themselves? No place, of course, since this comes through the unwritten part of the Holy Tradition! How did you come up with the notion that everything has to be contained in the Scriptures? Before I read your writing, I thought that all Orthodox Christians knew that the Church&#39;s teachings are based on Holy Tradition, of which the written part are the Scriptures. We do not believe in &#34;SOLA SCRIPTURA&#34;! GLORY BE TO CHRIST, OUR GOD!

Matthew, my dear Brother in Christ, how can you be such a good moderator and not know that there is only ONE CHURCH OF CHRIST FOUNDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST! All other &#34;Christian Churches&#34; are unadequate facsimilies of the True Church of Christ. The Protestants merely replaced the Pope of Rome with the local Minister and if I had my &#34;d&#39;rathers&#34;, I would take the Pope, who seems to be a nice man and certainly far away, enough not to cause trouble. The Local Minister would be an unavoidable pain...

Well, may the Lord bless you and enlighten you! I have to go preach the word of Christ...

&#43; Arzobispo Constantino

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Tom,

You did misunderstand me if you took me to say that Orthodoxy &#40;I am not Orthodox, BTW&#41; was not guided by Scripture.


It is important to understand that the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to write scripture, to read it, and to live by it. And since experience always seems to belie what is so easily said in writing &#40;messy, this flesh and blood of ours, difficult, our real human relationships&#41;, the Spirit guides us all together, we have preachers to deliver the Word, we have Fathers to guide us prayerfully in the intimate details of following it in our own circumstances.

We want to have the Spirit in our interpretation of Scripture, since, as you know, Satan can quote Scripture himself. Thus, because we are all still flesh and blood, we do well to pay attention to what others have said about Scripture. It isn&#39;t that the Orthodox rely on &#34;man made traditions&#34; that is what the Protestant reformatation had against Catholicsm &#40;I suspect by now they&#39;re trying to amend that, but I don&#39;t know&#41;. Orthodox at first sound to us prots like Catholics. We need to start by disabusing ourselves of that idea and asking them to explain what they mean without interupting so they can say it all, that there&#39;s a lot!

Richard

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Archbishop Constantin,

You have apparently misread Matthew Steenberg&#39;s post. The part that you quote from him is his quotation of Tom! Not to blush, we will all forgive you this oversight :-&#41;

You speak well of the continuance of Tradition. I&#39;d like to point out &#40;as a Lutheran protestant who is graciously allowed on this forum because I mean no harm, avoid polemicism, and try to listen carefully&#41; that in the correspondence between Lutheran scholars at Tuebingen University and the patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias II toward the end of the 16th Century, the patriarch presented Peter Lombard&#39;s list of seven sacraments in rebutal to the Lutherans&#39; two &#40;or three, if you count ordination with the proviso that it is to the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments&#41;. Everywhere else I&#39;ve looked in Orthodoxy the same list is given. I early appreceiated the teaching that the Church is the Mystery &#40;sacrament&#41; and every thing she does is inducing her children to salvation, and thus a mystery &#40;sacrament&#41;. I don&#39;t remember where I heard it but a deacon &#40;now priest&#41; told me it was Patristic. Is it the kind of thing you mean in your statement about &#34;the Orthodox church doesn&#39;t have Sacraments in the western sense of the term.&#34;?

Next I&#39;d like to point out the extreme illness the western church was in by the 16th century, encourage everyone to understand that it took a long and arduous time to get into the condition it had gotten into, and the Reformations &#40;one of which was Catholic, i.e., the &#34;counter&#34; reformation&#41; were attempts to heal that. It strikes me that she didn&#39;t know how seriously wrong some things were, yet the appeal to be scriptural was certainly patristic.

Also, I caution that it may be somewhat dangerous to throw about catch phrases without reference to their context. Sola Scriptura is easily misunderstood if it is taken to mean &#34;The Bible without reference to the right way to read
it.&#34; I will end this here is this is not the forum to wax defensive of the reformation, which defensiveness &#40;on my part&#41; is raised because Protestant Tom is assailing the Orthodox from a linear western frame of reference without finding the keyhole in which he wants his key to fit, much less turn.

Respectfully yours,

Richard

[Archbishop Constantin]

Mr. Richard Leigh;

Thank you for your comments, however, one has to grow into some convictions of his own. You should remember that none of us is here to argue, but to get enriched in Christ. The days that heads were chopped off because of differences in opinion, we hope fervently, that they are gone.

I cannot possibly answer any of your questions or complaints. I can only mention what I have learnt long time ago at the University of Athens, that Martin Luther asked that contact be made with Constantinople, to see if there can be a possibility to be received on a temporary basis, because Constantinople could not invade into the territory of Rome and, perhaps, intervene to resolve the problems. Martin Luther never wanted to start a &#34;Church&#34; of his own. As I understand it, there were three letters exchanged, but on the third one, which was supposed to be like a profession of Faith, Luther and his people have shown their western mentality. The problem of accepting the saints as heroes of the faith and to ask people who had passed on to intercede for us in their prayers. Remember what I said in one comment posted before: there is a parallelism between western thinking and Judaic thinking &#40;Sheol and the Roman &#34;doctrine&#34; of Limbo&#41;. Jeremias responded that Luther should go on his own and find what he was looking for. It is very difficult for someone with a western mentality to get past the Sheol/Limbo parallelism.

I, personally, have a great deal of respect for the Lutherans, probably more than you. They sit apart from the other &#34;Protestants&#34; and they do their own thing and pay no attention at what the others say.

Yet, this does not give any right to anyone, &#40;Orthodox included&#41;, to cause the break apart of the Church, Founded by the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and for which Christ paid with His own Blood.

Richard, remember what Christ said? &#34;If one is not with me, then he is against me!&#34; How old are you? Time passes very fast. St. Paul said: &#34;Watch and always be ready!&#34; What are you doing about preparing yourself? Are you married or are you avoiding responsibility?

You will be in my personal prayers from now on. May the Lord, our God, bless you, illumine you and give you the will to take a stand in life.

In Christ&#39;s Holy Name,

&#43; Arzobispo Constantino

[Moses Anthony]

Your Grace, Fr. A., Dear Matthew and All,

Sometime after my chrismation and reading facing East, by Khouria Matthews-Green, I purchased and read Fr. Arseny,.... I was extremely convicted by the example of love he showed, even in one of Stalin's gulags. I've read that book about 2 1/2 times.

Working where I do I 've rationalized my sinfulness, by thinking that the inmates would have me for lunch if I didn't present a tough fascade. That may be true; however, my impatience and lack of love for all those whom God came to redeem is still sin. The kind words of Loretta, and the admonition of Waldemar has brought this again to the fore in me.

Pray God would have mercy and cleanse me of slavery to this coldness of my heart.

the unworthy servant

[Fr Averky]

Archbishop Constantine,

I take offense at your words to matthew, because while they are meant well, you have no idea what you are talking about, and I feel you owe him an apology. Not because he is the moderator, but because he is in fact quite knowledgeable about Orthodoxy.

I also sharply disagree with your notion that in the West, a person tries to
&#34;coerce&#34; God into forgfiving Him. Please expound on how you came to make that satement ex cathedra. I rather suspect that you, like me, were raised Roman Catholic, and therefore you know that the idea of repentance and forgiveness was basically seen as a system of Justice. Thus, when the penitnet went to confess &#40; now rarely practised in contemporary Catholicism&#41;, he gave his list of sins, was given a short admonition by the confessor, who did not see him, nor did he see the priest, was given a penance, like &#34;Thee &#39;Our Fathers,&#39; and &#34;three &#39;Hail Marys,&#34; he would recite the &#34;Act of contrition,&#34; while the priest gave him absolution. restoring him enough grace to go to heaven after a few centuries in Purgatory should he die. suddenly. This always reminded me of going to traffic court, where one stood before the judge briefly and pleaded &#39;guilty,&#39; the judge said a few words, and you paid your fine.

As a Catholic, I never had a sense of struggle, I knew that I wanted to keep in a
state of &#34;Sanctifying Frace,&#34; which was not attained by struggle so much as by keeping the rules. Any person who went to parochial schools in the 50&#39;s and early 50&#39;s will remember the good sisters would tell us scare us our od our wits by telling us that we wold go strait to hell if we died after having willingly eaten a hamburger on a Fridsay, or missing Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation. In the 18th century, the Jesuits camke up with a very novel ub regards to consience which taught that when a person was about to committr a very terriblew sin, if he mentally conceded to the knowledge, and even but momentarily fought against it and fell, then he had not sinned mightily, because of his initial mental reservation, then he did not commit a mortal sin, but only a venial one!

When I was in 2nd year Catholic seminary, a Jesuit priest came and gave us our annual retreat. In one of hios discourdses, he acknowledge that young single men living in the daily physical stress and tension that the nearly 300 of us did, there would be that temptation to fall into self abuse. He then went on to publicly assure us, that if we knew we were about to sin, and did fight against it, and knew it was wrong, but then weakened and fell, we had not committed a serious sin because of the &#34;reservation.&#34; The legalism of such an attituide is one of the first major cracks in my faith as a Catholic- as I continued to study, I learned that while the Curial cardinals were busy making up new stringent rules, canon lawyers were busily looking for loopholes!

As Richard Leigh says, it is hard to pinpoint each individual Protestant group sees justifiction and salvation in relation to the Soverieigniy of God, but as Mr. Just explains, for him and many others, it is gained by Faith and adherence to the words of the Bible.

Archbishop Constantine, Richard Leigh is in fact well read, and well educated in regards to Christianity as a whole. It is obvious that he has made a study of many years of the Christian Churvh in a broad perspectivde. I further venture to say that he is, in many cases, far more knowledgeable of Holy Orthodoxy than many cradle Orthodox. I am nearly 60, and Richard is not much younger than I am, so he is not some young idealistic student. Of course, I too wish he would make that final step and embrace Orthodoxy, for it can be seen that his soul is inclined in the direction. Let us pray for Richard Leigh, for he does try to live a God-pleasing life in that he always approaches any response to him with utmost politenesss, concern, and Christian love.

Of all our members, I am the most guilty of being impatient and uncharitable, and Richard has always handled my silly and passionate outbursts with patience and intelligence. I am saying none of this to make Richard feel proud, but to allow for his virtues and the hope that one day he will in fact become Orthodox. At any rate, I always pray for his salvation.

As I said to you initially,Matthew is not some ill--informed neophyte, but is faithful and knowledgeable Orthodox Christian,a university professor, and this Web site and message board is as very good as it is because of his love for the faith, his wisdon and patience, and his sensitivity to the needs and limitations of its members. At the very least, we all owe him profound respect for the hard work he put into founding and maintaining one of the best, well-blanced, informative and God-loving groups to be found anywhere on the internet on such a sensitive area as matters regarding the Christian Church.

Archbishop Constantine, I lovingly adjure you not to fall into prideful and unkowledgable judgement of others as I sometimes have, but get to know all of us just little betterbefore you judge us to whether how much we might know or not.

In Christ,

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Archbishop Constantine,

A further question or two-when you say that no one, not even Orthodox, have the right to break apart the Church, I hope that you are speaking in light of the fact that that institution from which Martin Luther and other reformers broke from was already not part of the Universal Church, but had gone into schism and had begun long before its long spiral downward to come to where it is today and continues to do so. Luther did not fight against corruption in the Church, Archbishop Constantine, he saw the evils and corruption of the Chuirch of Rome and the abuse of papal power.

Please explain to me what you mean that the Orthodox Church does not have sacraments in the Western sense of the term. As far as I know, we do have the same seven sacraments although we commonly call them &#34;Mysteries.&#34; And I am aware that they are very different in the spiritual approaOrthodoxy recognizes many minor sacraments or mysteries, which the Catholics would term &#34;sacramentals,&#34; such as the monstatic tonsure, which is considered to be a &#34;second Baptismm.&#34; I would very much appreciate your elucidation on these two points. The last I heard, in the very fact that the Orthodx Church exists, the seamless garment of Christ&#39;s Church is not torn, but remains pure and whole. If your consider otherwise, then you and I are not in the same Church. Please enlighten us and give us the historical or patristic background of your words.

Archbishop Constantine, since I could not access your biography, could you please tell me who consecrated you, and with whom you are in communion? Someone who lives in Florida asked me that, but I had no answer.

Thank you,

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

A NOTE ABOUT MY TERRIBLE TYPING

As you can all clearly see, my posts have a multitude of typos. There are two reasons.

1. Typing is the subjest in my 18 years of education that I almost failed, getting a D- in that class when I was 14.

2. As I am getting older, I am getting increasingly dyslexic. For example, three days ago I was on a major highway *riding with a friend of mine, and I started to panic when I looked at the gas gauge, and thought it was on &#34;E.&#34; My friend who was driving quietly explained that it actually was on &#34;F.&#34;

If you think it takes a long time to read my posts, you cannot even imagine what an effort it is to type them! I go over and over the text, and too often when attempting to make a correction, I will wipe out an entire sentence, and will only notice it later. Some posts have taken me two hours just to get them passably readable.

At any rate, my inept and long messages are meant to be given in a pastoral manner &#40;except when I am pitching a fit&#41;, and they are sent with much thouht and much love.

Forgive me, and thank you all for your abiding love and patience with me. As to my fits, I remember many years ago a very good friend said to me that he had heard this saying, &#34;We like people in spite of their faults, but when we come to love them, it is because of their faults.&#34; I know many of you care for me despite my many faults and failings.

Much, much love In our Lord,

Fr. A.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Archbishop Constantin,

You have apparently neglected to note that I was quoting someone else in my earlier post. The words and comments for which you criticise me are not mine. No apologies are needed. These things happen.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Fr Averky,

You wrote:


As far as I know, we do have the same seven sacraments although we commonly call them "Mysteries."

You will forgive, I hope the interjection of a personal emotion here, but I rather avidly 'dislike' this numeration of 'seven sacraments' as regards the Orthodox Church. There is a certain degree to which this listing of the 'principal mysteries' of the faith, gleaned (as a listing) from the Roman Church in the middle ages, is helpful. But in the larger sense, such a categorisation suggests a vision of the mysteries as rather scientifically defined, rigidly determined. This is foreign to Orthodoxy. The holy mysteries are vivid and cardinal points of encounter with The Mystery: the self-revealing God in Trinity. Each of those listed in 'the seven' is surely unique and cardinal to the Christian life. Yet the great Mystery of the faith is encountered 'sacramentally' -- i.e., mysteriously, directly -- in so much else: blessing with holy water, anointing with oil at Matins; these are surely sacramental. So is each and every act of veneration of an icon, or a homily.

We are the Church of 'infinite mysteries', or perhaps better, of only one Mystery that makes all of life into mmoments of mystery.

INXC, Matthew

[Rebecca]

I&#39;m reminded of a recent post that pointed out that at every moment of our lives, God is giving us exactly what we need for our salvation, if we only see and cooperate. I&#39;d add that He does this despite ourselves; He offers it as a free gift in His own way and in His own time, even for those like me who are thick sculled and think we know what&#39;s what and therefore need to learn things the hard way; I think He thwarts personal ambitions of the stupid &#40;speaking of myself here&#41;, so that we may not be utterly lost.

It&#39;s sometimes humorous to see this happening in one&#39;s own life...for even in this, as with all other things, He reveals His loving kindness &#40;eleison&#41; toward His creations as He shows us the meaning of words like &#39;lowliness of heart&#39; and &#39;being as little children&#39;.

We construct intricate things to worry about, but He points us to the sparrow and the lily of the field...We think we know, but He reveals What Is, and in seeing we realize we are not seeing and mourn our blindness...He shows Love and we realize that such Love would fulfill the depths of our own hearts, yet we would still not have begun to know even a little about the depth of that Love, and see that our hearts are tragically too crowded with other things that are temporary...yet even though we are in this pitiful state, He bountifully bestows His love and actively cares for each and every one of us at every moment of our lives, giving us exactly what we need for our salvation, asking us to be like our role-model, the Theotokos, the lowly Hebrew girl who cooperated with God&#39;s will.

[Archbishop Constantin]

Dear Mr. Steenberg;

Let me give you my personal and most humble congratulations and my prayers that the Lord, our God, will reward you with His many and rich blessings! Your comments on the Sacrament/Mystery question could not be any better. Indeed the Orthodox Church has no officially declared holy mysteries &#40;or doctrines or dogmas&#41;. Everything is a Mystery, starting with the Holy Trinity and going on and on, we are confronted with so many things that are beyond the capability of our measly human brains.

GLORY BE TO JESUS CHRIST, OUR LORD, OUR GOD AND OUR SAVIOR!

&#43; Arzobispo Constantino

[Loretta]

Dear Rebecca, Thank you so very much for your post. I&#39;ve read it a few times and have printed it out to read again and again and again later.

[Waldemar]

Rebecca wrote so nicely:


He bountifully bestows His love and actively cares for each and every one of us at every moment of our lives, giving us exactly what we need for our salvation, asking us to be like our role-model, the Theotokos, the lowly Hebrew girl who cooperated with God's will.

A student came to a rabbi and said, "In the olden days there were men who saw the face of God. Why don't they anymore?" The rabbi replied, "Because no one can stoop so low." (Chinese Boxing: Masters and Methods, by Robert W. Smith, North Atlantic Books, 1990, p. 111)

[Richard McBride]

monochos: Salvation

In going through old notes &#40;in this case, notes with an anti-aesthetic cast to them&#41;, I noticed that this particular admonition from Saint Maximos is much more in line with the timbre of Waldemar&#39;s wise and heartfelt advice on the fundamentalist problem:

&#34;73. So long as we only see the Logos of God as embodied multifariously in symbols in the letter of Holy Scripture, we have not yet achieved spiritual insight into the incorporeal, simple, single and unique Father as He exists in the incorporeal, simple, and unique Son, according to the saying, &#39;He who as seen me has seen the Father ... &#40;John 14:9-10&#41;... Hence a person who seeks God with true devotion should not be dominated by the literal text, lest he unwittingly receives not God but things appertaining to God; that is, lest he feel a dangerous affection for the words of Scripture instead of for the Logos. For the Logos eludes the intellect which supposes that it has grasped the incorporeal Logos by means of His outer garments... [re: Joseph and the Egyptian woman; Gen.39:7-13], or like the ancients who were content merely with the beauty of visible things and mistakenly worshipped the creation instead of the Creator &#40;cf. Rom. 1:25&#41;.&#34; [Phil.; vol.II; p.155]

I should point out that I send this reference to flesh-out the insight Waldemar has offered us on normal fundamentalist&#39;s procedure, but NOT at all do I intend it to engage in anymore fundamentalist diatribe. As I have often said, when these little chats drop down to the level which Waldemar described to us as the intensity for normal fundamentalist combat &#40;my words, not Waldemar&#39;s&#41;, then nothing is to be gained. And as Father Averky suggests, much is to be lost by encouraging such things.

Yet, for believers, Saint Maximos&#39; words eloquently remind what we are about, and for catechumens they should serve notice where certain boundaries lie. For catechumens, I suggest they spend much time contemplating these words of the Saint.

richard mcb

[Moses Anthony]

Forgive me for taking so long to m,ake this post, as I'd intended to do so when the thought first occured to me.

Each of the epistles, in the same manner as the Gospels, were written for a specific audience. The Epistles of Paul however, are different in one respect. In several of them, Paul specifically directs that it be sent to another church to be read, and for them to read the one on its way to theire location. It's apparent that the Fathers of the Church, thought enough of the Spirit of God rested upon the Epistles and personal letters, so as to make them beneficial to the entire body of Christ.

The Gospels: When the Israelites camped, and broke camp from around the Tabernacle, they did so under the banner of one specific tribe. Each of those banners had a specific emblem on fields of various colors. The images are exactly the same as the heads of the beasts, in the visions of Isaiah and Ezekiel. The lion was strength at its greatest; the ox, service at its lowest; the man, intelligence at its highest; and the eagle, spirituality at its highest! I think, as someone has already said, the heads of these beasts have been applied to each Gospel. I doubt if any of this has any bearing on 'sa;vation', but I thought I'd toss it out FYI. What the Orthodox take is on this idea, well; I have no idea.

Fr. A. you'd laugh if you knew how many times i previewed a post, finding errors each time before the messsage is actually posted. Take heart, you're not alone!

the unworthy servant

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Tom,

Since you&#39;ve asked about the Orthodox understanding and approach to the question&#40;s&#41; at hand, perhaps it would do some good to inform you of the general Orthodox approach towards what is called &#39;proof-texting&#39; from Scripture.

In your last message &#40;Tom Just #11, 6 Oct.&#41;, you provided reference and partial quotation of seven verses from the book of the Apostle Paul to the Galations &#40;cf. Gal 5.1-7&#41;, with no additional comment, context or explanation. This is, it should be said, a perfectly acceptable approach, from a Protestant perspective, to any given theological discussion: simply quote biblical passages that seem to relate to, and perhaps &#39;answer&#39; the question at hand.

However, you will find -- if you continue in your curiosity as to the Orthodox Faith -- that this approach is foreign to Orthodox Christianity. It is the Protestant view that &#39;the Scripture can speak for itself&#39;, while the fundamental Orthodox position is that Scripture does not and never has &#39;spoken for itself&#39; on any issue, since it was never meant to be read in this way. Scripture&#39;s revelatory value is in bearing witness to the mystery of God given to the Church. It is neither a self-sufficient document nor the extent, breadth and width of God&#39;s revelation to the world. It is only in the context of the fulness of God&#39;s ongoing revelation that it can be understood properly, and that its message has purposeful value in addressing specific questions of thought and practice.

Thus, for example, you quoted Gal 5.6 &#40;&#39;For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love&#39;&#41;. But this quotation, of itself, is meaningless. Rather, it can have almost any meaning a person wants it to have, which makes those meanings relative and personal, and therefore irrelevent to the notion of divine truth. What is &#39;faith which worketh by love&#39;? There is little doubt that your response to this question is quite different from my own; and as such, the statement therefore has two different meanings based on those personal contexts of interpretation.

This is where Orthodox points out that such an approach to the texts is inherently flawed. Not only does Orthodoxy not encourage &#39;personal interpretation&#39; of Scripture, it does not allow it. We must all find personal relevance, and will each discover personal awareness and understanding of its message, but personal interpretation of Scripture is almost always deeply flawed. Thus when Orthodox quote passages from the Scriptures, these must be set in the context of how those passages are understood by the Church which produced them in the first place. Only in this light do they have meaning.

INXC, Matthew

[Waldemar]

On adding words to Matthew:

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I participate or have participated in quite a number of Orthodox fora over the years. I fear what I see occuring here is a repeat pattern that I have seen frequently in other places.

A young Protestant individual joins the group asking &#34;innocent questions&#34; then goes on to attack every attempt to explain the Orthodox position. By and large I have seen two major motivations here, neither of them related to honest inquiry.

Motiviation 1 is pure and simple proselytism. They come to bring the REAL &#40;Protestant&#41; Gospel to the ignorant Orthodox.

Motivation 2 is a little more complex, it is a sort of &#34;can I stump the experts&#34; and is often a test or honing of their own &#34;witnessing&#34; or &#34;debating&#34; skills, probing for weaknesses or misconceptions in our doctrines that he can use when he comes across Orthodox in other places

What Mr. Must must realize, is that many of us who are Orthodox sounded just like him once upon a time. If he is serious in finding out what Orthodoxy teaches there are some excellent resources on the web to satisfy his curiousity, some of the best have been done by PROTESTANTS. I don&#39;t endorse some of their conclusions, but, after we disavow Mr. Must of his misconceptions, they would be indeed an excellent starting point for further meaningful discussion.

Otherwise, all we have here is a textbook example of Matthew 7:15. I apologize in advance if I offend, but I have been there and done that too many times to remain silent.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Tom,

It is good to know who your enemy is. Your selection from Galatians works fine against the works righteousness of Roman Catholicsm, but what Orthodoxy proposes is not that. Therefore, I suggest you hold fire until you see the whites of their eyes.

Richard

P.s., you can trust me, I&#39;ma a protestant whose been at this for a long time. --RL

[Brian Shanahan]

Greetings Everyone in the Love of the Holy Trinity!

As a catechumen, I find it very beneficial to read the posts here. To sort out questions or misunderstandings that I may have. I only know this that the Trinity is love and that we are created specifically for communion with the Trinity and with our fellow human beings. Salvation is from God. I a lowly catechumen seeking out God&#39;s forgiveness all the time. I ask your prayers during my time of struggles. I have come to embrace the Truths of the Orthodox Church. As Orthodox we must stand firm in the truths handed down by the Apostles in the context of the Church. They are not a matter of our own interpretation. For it is in the Church that we receive God&#39;s blessings and salvation.
With much humility I submit this post, and welcome your comments. Thank you. Brian

[Daniel Jeandet]

Thankyou Brian, good comments.

That is Orthodoxy. Simplicity itself.

As for salvation and what it requires, I remember a desert Father, But i dont remember which one, said:

&#34;if you have a heart, you can be saved&#34;.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Herman simply wrote:


"By and large I have seen two major motivations here, neither of them related to honest inquiry."

The above is why I wrote: "The onerous is on you to substantiate the need for your
question."

john dunn

[Fr Averky]

Dear Members,

All we can do for Mr. Just is to pray for him, for as Herman succinctly pointed out, his intentions are not honorable. Richard Leigh is not Orthodox, but I have learned a great deal from him because, as various questions have come up on Monachos, when he felt it would be of value, has put forth the Lutheran view on the question, or what is generally taught in Protestantism.

This is most acceptable, because it shows Richard&#39;s openness, a desire to share, and gives us who are not, or never have been Protestants, an opportunity to learn
It does us no good when a visitor takes on such an adversarial stance, and is not willing to ponder a statement made by any of us and perhaps concede a little on a particular point. At this point, I cannot really understand why he persists. He is not going to convert us to his errors, nor is he looking at this community with prayerful Christian eyes or even a sincere desire to at least add to his knowledge of the teachings of other Churches, whether he wishes to acept them or not. And he has taken much of what we have said and has twisted and distorted it.

Twice I adjured people not to pursue this discussion, because this is a perfect example of how a person might initially try to start out to be sincere and of good will, but then, the demon of Pride, and the all demons who hate the Truth blind the person&#39;s mind, and it is no longer possible to reason with such a person, for through him, whether he is conscience of it or not, and whether deep down he is willing or not, the Evil One is using him to lash out at the Orthodox Church, allowing us to catch a glimpse of his intense hatred for Christ and those who cling to Him. I am most certainly not talking about &#34;posession&#34; here, I am saying that the Devil is powerful and he attempts to darken the intellects of those whom he might lose to Orthodoxy. I believe that Mr. Just might have started out with a desire to know, but to me at least, it became evident, that we are not just struggling with Mr. Just and his opinions and antipathy, but something Dark and much more powerful. You might think, &#34;Poor Fr. A., his illness is getting to him.&#34; Not so, not so.

Let us all pray for Mr. Just and hope that he will be at peace and that in time, a few of our poor words will have made it to his heart. I would not want to see Mr. Just lost, but I know that nothing that I and others might say to him on Monachos will soften his heart and open it to Orthodoxy at this time.

I would suggest to Mr. Just tht rather pursuing a situation which has no spiritual benfit for anyone, but has only served to upset him and us, it is better for him to work on his salvation as he knows it, and if he feels that he is absolutely sure that he is saved, and will never ever falter before his end, let us hope that he will show us mercy and pray for us. I am sure that there must be hundreds of other sites wherin he could find people with whom he can agree, and with whom he is saved.

Mr. Just, please know this, you have exposed yourself to Orthodoxy-maybe not in the positive way we all would have wished. I am only sorry that you could not bring yourself to approach us and the Orthodox Church with love and patience, but we too are at fault. At any rate, on the Day of Judgement, you will be asked why you did not at least cconsider the teachings of Orthodoxy without blind prejudice. When I was Baptized Orthodox, ancd the moment came when I had to renounce the erroneous teachings of the Church of Rome, and had to recite the Nicene Creed without the &#34;filioque,&#34; for the first time in my life, there was a momentary pang of sorrow, for in putting aside the Church of my childhood and of tens of generations of family ancestors, and of my parents and immediate family I knew that part of my life was gone forever. Then, rose up out of the waters of Baptism, and was anointed with the oil of Gladness, my heart was filled with unimaginable joy as consciuosly, and by my own intense desite, I had Seen the Light, I had Found the True Faith, worshipping the Holy Trinity, Which Is Saving Me!

I am praying for you, Mr. Just; I bear no ill will, I just am deeply concerned for your soul

With love in Christ,

Fr. A.

[Tom Just]

I have learned a lot more about Orthodoxy than you think. As you wish I leave you in Peace. May God bless you all. Love Tom

[Fr Averky]

It is my sincere desire and my firm prayer, that having stepped back from the uncomfortable situation of the &#34;battle&#34; of the last several days, Tom is going to start thinking, praying, considering, and will open his heart enough to some of what he knows that he has gained and will in time come back.

I was sorry that once again, he reacted to a response in the extreme, to the end wanting to leave at least me feeling very guilty. On the other hand my respect for Leonard soared when he informed us that even though he felt embattled, he had no intention of leaving.

My words to Tom came only after I had prayed all night. I did not sleep at all last night, but prayed and thought about him and asked God&#39;s help and mercy.

In my entire priestly life, I have never felt that a poor soul was so clearly being manipulated by Dark forces, and never before have even expressed such a thought. . If you go back and look at this thread&#39;s beginning, you will see how a mild and calm enquiry suddenly took a very ugly turn, and I cannot be convinced that this was &#34;usual.&#34;

Sometimes it might appear that we priests are being harsh and unloving, and intolerant, but in fact, we are not. Anyone who is parent knows what I am talking about

Fr. A.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Reply to Rebecca&#39;s post no. 12

Rebecca, thank you for a beautiful post. I second Loretta in this.

Gentle thoughts from a gentle mind.

We often lose sight of the basics of our religion when trying to untangle complicated theoretical questions.



Thank you again.

effie

[Rebecca]

Effie, your post is very kind &#40;Loretta&#39;s too&#41;...but really it was Richard McBride&#39;s quote from St. Maximos that got to me..as he said, it serves to remind us what we are about. Loving God, not things about God...And Matthew&#39;s comment about God&#39;s ongoing Self-Revelation...God is doing that directly and &#42;all the time&#42; 24/7 but we&#39;re &#40;at least I am&#41; looking elsewhere. But God still takes care of us and doesn&#39;t abandon any single one of His creatures.

The part that gets me to laugh sometimes is God&#39;s &#34;subtle hints&#34;...for example, I was once preparing for a long trip in my car, and went to gas station to check tire pressure. Guy in front of me in line started yelling at me and waving his arms at me, acting like crazy/scary guy. I decided to go to another gas station &#40;one where they knew me&#41;. no line. when I got to front tire, I saw there was big nail in tire &#40;tire had come to rest so nail was right there on top, right under my nose&#41;. My friends there at second gas station helped me out, patched tire, told me how lucky I was to have found it before long trip. Crazy/scary acting guy actually helped me out &#40;whether he intended to or not&#41; because otherwise I might not have seen nail and might not have found folks friendly to help patch tire at first place...

subtle hint but we&#39;re none of us alone, and each and every one of us being looked after by Good Shepherd that Loves us.

[Waldemar]

Father A. wrote:

“In my entire priestly life, I have never felt that a poor soul was so clearly being manipulated by Dark forces, and never before have even expressed such a thought. . If you go back and look at this thread&#39;s beginning, you will see how a mild and calm enquiry suddenly took a very ugly turn, and I cannot be convinced that this was &#34;usual.&#34;

Bless, Father.

Dear Father A.,

I’m sorry to have to disagree with you but the “mild and calm enquiry” was a by-the-book evangelical Protestant “witnessing” technique:

“Get them to talk about their religion. Look for openings to share the Gospel.”

I remember one evangelical how-to guide called it the “Judo Technique”: “Get them to argue, use the weight of their arguments against them.”

If an Orthodox Christian were to succumb to such e-P techniques, charms or bait, this is how, in their own words, an &#34;Orthodox&#34; might progress in the knowledge of their “gospel”:


In dealing with the nominal Orthodox, many of whom do not know the major doctrines of the Scriptures, there is the danger of compromising our beliefs in our zeal to identify ourselves with them for the purpose of winning them to Jesus Christ.

In order to communicate the gospel to the Orthodox mind, we must emphasise the exclusiveness of Christ&#39;s person and the finality and substitutionary aspects of his unique work. This is the essence of the gospel. If these truths are excluded or minimised, the end result is &#34;another gospel&#34; which is, in reality, not the gospel at all. It takes much preaching to make clear to an Orthodox that repentance and faith bring salvation.

In general, there are several stages that the Orthodox mind goes through in the process of accepting Christ. They are:

&#40;a&#41; The stage of ignorance: The Orthodox mind has not been preconditioned to understand the concept of salvation by faith. Either he does not know how to be saved, or he believes he will be saved by works and by participating in the sacraments. Even if an Orthodox reads the Scriptures, he still is not sure about his salvation.

&#40;b&#41; The stage of confusion: After hearing much preaching and reading of the Word of God, the average Orthodox confuses salvation by faith with salvation by works. You can hear him saying, &#34;Certainly salvation is by faith! But we must do good works in order to go to Paradise.&#34;

&#40;c&#41; The stage of clarification: After much exposure to the teaching of the Word of God, eventually comes the understanding that salvation is indeed by faith.

&#40;d&#41; The stage of trusting Christ: This stage usually comes very soon in time after the third stage, or else it may never come at all. Generally speaking, much time is needed to make clear the gospel to an Orthodox person.

&#40;e&#41; The crisis of identity: Many nominal Orthodox are not converted through the liturgy or the efforts of the priest, but from reading literature given to them by a non-Orthodox, or through Bible study or evangelistic preaching. For a time, there is a devout loyalty to Orthodoxy, accompanied however, by a frustration that he is not being fed spiritually through his church.

&#40;f&#41; Estrangement from Orthodoxy: As the person grows in spiritual understanding, there is often a disillusionment with the church and resentment of the institution which, for so many years, claimed to be the only source of spiritual truth yet failed to make it clear to him. Many Christians from an Orthodox upbringing, having trusted Christ, become hostile toward the church. This makes it hard for them to relate to the priests and properly appreciate the tradition of the church, which now seems meaningless to them. Often, during this stage, ties are cut with nominal Orthodox acquaintances, limiting the future possibility of evangelizing them.

Taken from:

Christian Witness to Nominal Christians Among the Orthodox
Report of the
Consultation on World Evangelization
Mini-Consultation on
Reaching Nominal Christians Among Orthodox
held at Pattaya, Thailand
from 16-27 June 1980
Sponsored by the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization
http://www.gospelcom.net/lcwe/LOP/lop19.htm

Please note the Lausanne Committee is not a fringe element within the Evangelical Protestant sects. It is more like the United Nations of Evangelical Protestantism.

Here&#39;s a related How-To guide from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary &#40;Southern Baptist Convention&#41;:

Witnessing to People of Eastern Orthodox Background: Turning Barriers of Belief Into Bridges to Personal Faith
www.namb.net/evangelism/iev/PDF/BB_E_Orthodox_Manual.pdf (http://www.namb.net/evangelism/iev/PDF/BB_E_Orthodox_Manual.pdf)

Father A., I do not argue against your observation of “Dark forces” but only that such enquiry-attack techniques are unusual.

[Xenia]

It takes much preaching to make clear to an Orthodox that repentance and faith bring salvation.

My goodness, how little they understand Orthodoxy, which is nothing more than a life of faith and repentance.

-Xenia

[Waldemar]

Please note that the title of the document:

Christian Witness to Nominal Christians Among the Orthodox

is a bow to their version of political correctness and is meant to placate the authorities in Orthodox lands. In other words, &#34;We do not want to proselytize Orthdox Christians, but we want to reach the &#39;nominal Christians&#39; among the Orthodox or those with no church background at all.&#34;

However even a cursory reading of these handbooks reveals that to these evangelical Protestants, ALL &#34;Orthodox&#34; are nominal Christians.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father A,

I apologize for taking so long to do this, it has for some reason been difficult for me to access this thread of late, don&#39;t know why, but I have been able to read what&#39;s been being said and so I want to thank you, finally, for the nice things you said about me to Archbishop Constantin &#40;whose words I did not take very badly, maybe puzzled a bit, but no real problem&#41;.

About Tom, I would first like to say that given your experience in the real monastery, I am inclined to trust your discernment over my own in a case like this, then, secondly, I&#39;d like to give a few words on the topic of &#34;color&#34; and the development of words for colors in language [follow me here, the point will dawn].

The first two words for any colors that any language seems ever to have is &#34;black and white&#34; or &#34;light and dark&#34; there is, interestingly &#40;and again only apparently at our modern examination into the topic&#41; a specific order in which the other colors get words. &#34;Red&#34; is next, and it may be some where down the list that &#34;green&#34; ever arrives.

Next: Children will almost invariably give one of the priimary colors as their &#34;favorite&#34; shying away from the more complex hues and shades like brown, mauve, and so on.

Why do I say all this? Well, I&#39;m just trying to point out that we all start categorizing simply, and in doing so we lump great amounts of the ambiguity in life into dustbins and refuse heaps because we have no other place to put them at the time. I find this usually the case for the beginner in any endeavor, most especially something so comples as religion.

BTW, it was once thought among anthropologists that peoples that had no words for a particular color, such as &#34;green&#34; were unable to &#34;see&#34; that color, were in fact color blind. That has since been disproved. Arent&#39; we glad for them that they didn&#39;t stop with their first erroneous assesment?

This, BTW is why I trust your discernment over mine -- you&#39;ve had vastly more experience making the distinctions &#40;also, I am ever more aware of my own blind spots and biases --- and pet fascinations -- I suppose that is part of the learning process for me!&#41;

Richard

[Richard Leigh]

To all and Sundry, and Walemar in particular and also Fr. A:

What you say regarding the official status of Lauzane in Protestantism, Waldemar, is generally true &#40;we more Conservative Lutherans [as opposed to most of those more &#34;liberal ones&#34; that belong to the Lutheran World Fedaration&#41; cringe a bit at incipient &#34;unionism&#34; with the more Calvinistic and/or Radical reform among them, and would like to shy away.

Secondly, Orthodoxy is seen by protestantism in general as just another Catholicism. Works righteousness is the Catholic idea that God will only judge me rightous if I obey the law rightly.
AS I have understoood it, the Orthodox motivation for obedience to the law is not to earn points, but to wear away the flesh. Lutherans are for the most part suspicious of the seemingly introverted stance of Orthodoxy since we define what you call &#34;The Ancestral Sin&#34; or better, the sinful tendency to be sinful as wrapped up in self-centeredness. Thus, we seek to teach our people to be &#34;outward&#34; &#40;and that way &#34;God ward&#34;&#41; in our orientation. But repentance is the order of the day, which only comes by Faith. Apparently our view of what &#34;Faith&#34; is, includes what Catholics and Orthodox consider &#34;Faith, hope and charity or love&#34;.

But beyond all that, Waldemar, don&#39;t you think that your relationship to Christ is &#34;Faith&#34; by definition? I mean, you are painfully aware of your sinfulness and you seek the mercy of Christ for forgiveness? This He promises, and this you &#34;cling to&#34; without taking advantage of the offer, since is is possible to blaspheme the Giver by taking Him for granted.

Yours,

Richard

[Richard McBride]

Blessed of the Lord Waldemar

I respectfully ask, Why do you think that, &#34;by-the-book evangelical Protestant “witnessing” technique&#34; is not &#34;clearly being manipulated by Dark forces&#34; ?

By the way, I appreciate being exposed to the curious ways of zealot evangelicals. My question is not directed at these good lessons you offer us, but at your conclusion.
You seem to assume that zealots cannot be &#34;manipulated&#34;.

richard mcb

[Owen Jones]

Is there anything at all, anywhere in Patristic thought, that talks about a &#34;relationship&#34; with God, or a &#34;relationship&#34; with Jesus Christ? If not, when and how and why did this enter the religious lexicon?

[Richard Leigh]

Ahhh, so perhaps, Owen, you would prefer a religious word like &#34;participation,&#34; which describes one way a &#34;relationship&#34; goes, or vice versa.

A rose by any other name...

Richard

[Owen Jones]

It&#39;s not what I would prefer or not prefer, Richard. I just would like to know, if anyone knows.

[Waldemar]

Dear Richard Leigh,

I will try to answer your questions as best as I can. I&#39;m a few years old in the Church so my answers will be that of a beginner. I will speak for myself to your personal questions. As to the deeper questions, I’ll give them a try, trusting to my elders to correct my mistakes &#40;non-Orthodoxy&#41;.


Orthodoxy is seen by protestantism in general as just another Catholicism. Works righteousness is the Catholic idea that God will only judge me rightous if I obey the law rightly. AS I have understoood it, the Orthodox motivation for obedience to the law is not to earn points, but to wear away the flesh.

As an Orthodox Christian, I’ve been taught that the “law” can be summed up as:

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “wear away the flesh” but that can’t possibly be the “Orthodox motivation for obedience.”

Love is the motivation:

“Jesus answered and said unto him, if a man love me, he will keep my Words: And My father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”

I afraid that we’re off on the wrong foot here from the start, because you seem to have a strange understanding of the Orthodox Christian motivation for obedience.

Lutherans are for the most part suspicious of the seemingly introverted stance of Orthodoxy since we define what you call &#34;The Ancestral Sin&#34; or better, the sinful tendency to be sinful as wrapped up in self-centeredness.

Now, I suspect that these Lutherans that you are citing are trying to tie Orthodox asceticism to self- centeredness. That’s silly.

Re: Sin and Self-Centeredness, we are in agreement.

From one of my earlier posts: “...man is truly free only when he is in communion with God; otherwise he is only a slave to his body or to &#34;the world... the concept of sin implies separation from God and the reduction of man to a separate and autonomous existence.... and this is what leads him to struggle for existence, to self-affirmation at the expense of others...”

Self-centeredness is the very Orthodox definition of Hell. Bishop Kallistos Ware &#40;referencing an episode in the life of St. Macarius the Great&#41; wrote in the <u>Orthodox Church</u> that those in hell cannot see each others faces.

Thus, we seek to teach our people to be &#34;outward&#34; &#40;and that way &#34;God ward&#34;&#41; in our orientation.

One of the local Orthodox priests in my area defined Orthodox praxis &#40;right living&#41; as: “Prayer. Fasting. Almsgiving.” Being a former evangelical Protestant &#40;then Roman Catholic, then Orthodox, then Orthodox priest&#41; he threw in, “...and that’s Biblical Christianity.”

Prayer: outward and Godward in orientation.

Almsgiving: Love thy neighbor. Meet thy neighbor’s needs. One of the Desert Fathers wrote that God sells righteousness for a very low price: A bit of bread. A cup of cold water. A useless cloak. Outward in orientation.

Fasting: Is this what you mean by “wearing away the flesh?” Surely you don’t mean just getting skinny? If by wearing away the flesh, you mean that fasting is a weapon against appetites that are out of control, a path to humility and freedom rather than mere deprivation, then you are right on. If you are trying to pretzel this discipline into self-centeredness then I think you need to crack open a Bible at least:

“But I so run, not as uncertainty; I fight, not as One beating the air; but I make my body livid, and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when preaching to others, I may myself be rendered a castaway.”


But repentance is the order of the day, which only comes by Faith. Apparently our view of what &#34;Faith&#34; is, includes what Catholics and Orthodox consider &#34;Faith, hope and charity or love&#34;.

One of the Fathers wrote that the “whole of Christian life is repentance.”

As the Holy Scriptures say&#40;eth&#41;: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

But beyond all that, Waldemar, don&#39;t you think that your relationship to Christ is &#34;Faith&#34; by definition?

I think that my relationship to Christ is Communion by definition.

I mean, you are painfully aware of your sinfulness and you seek the mercy of Christ for forgiveness?

Yes.

This He promises, and this you &#34;cling to&#34; without taking advantage of the offer

Now THAT is presumptuous and rude! “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner!”

... since is is possible to blaspheme the Giver by taking Him for granted.

Blaspheme: 1: to speak of or address with irreverence 2 : REVILE, ABUSE

“Taking Him for granted” is something that I left behind when I left evangelical Protestantism.

By the way have you ever read: Luther Had His Chance ?
http://holytrinity.ok.goarch.org/Interesting%20Stuff/Luther%20Had%20His%20Chance.htm

Here’s a line that I’d like to share from you from Patriarch Jeremias:

“Go your own way and do not send us further letters on doctrine but only letters written for the sake of friendship.&#34;

Not much has changed in 400 years has it?

[Waldemar]

Dear Father A. and Richard McB,

I meant to type:

Father A., I do not argue against your observation of “Dark forces” (in other words, I am in agreement with this observation) but I disagree that such protestant enquiry-attack techniques are unusual.

[Fr Averky]

My Dear Waldemar,


I did not wish to imply that Tom&#39;s enquiry-attack technique was unusual, but wanted to indicate that such as it was, it had become a fruitless waste of time and was in no way spiritually beneficial, but to the contrary. I noticed that when implying that he was being forced out - yet another extreme reaction - Tom went on to say that he had learned more about Orthodoxy than we might have imagined,yet there was not even a hint that that satement had even a positive element to it, for in his earlier diatribes, he had taken everything we had said to him most sincerely, and threw it in our faces. I myself will continue to pray that in time he will look into his heart. At any rate, Waldemar, this is all that I intend to speak this matter again.

With love in Christ,

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Walder,

Sorry, I only had clicked on to your addition from my e-mail-message list. I understand what you are talking about, since I always wear a cassock and a priest&#39;s cross when I go out, I have been verbally asualted by zealous &#34;missionaries&#34; over the years and have had similar discussions as you outline in your very good explanation.

However &#40;see post above&#41; although I really did not want to talk about this again, I felt that we could never possibly have even got to that stage with Tom, for there was much more going on there than just religious differences. With apologies to Richard, while I feel I should know enough to deal with non-Orthodox, to be honest, Protestantism has never interested me. I went from the old traditional RC church to Orthodoxy, and the transition for me was not difficult. I can in no way even surmise what a Protestant has to go through to embrace Orthodoxy, especially with all of Protestantism&#39;s particular variances, for I would think each convert would have different issues. I would now consider contemporary Roman Catholics to be Protestants who happen to have a Pope, but don&#39;t let me get started...!

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Richard Leigh,

Thank you for your interesting message about color.As we all know, color has always been used symbolically in various religions. As to my &#34;discernment,&#34; well my friend, as I said, in a case like this, my words were thought of and carefully selected after a lot of prayer and consideration, and it was the first time I have ever made such a statement publicly. As you can see the color was not applied to a person, but to One whose powers are of darkness. I really do not want to talk about this anymore!

Apologies, Waldemar, I accidently posted my message before I read it thoroughly and I left out some letters of your name. I need to save for a voice-recognition program!

Fr.
A.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Waldemar,

I think you misunderstood my objective. I was not polemicizing against Orthodoxy in the least.

I certainly did not mean to be rude to you and if you can explain what exactly was rude about what I said &#40;or did you mean rude to the Lord?&#41; I would appreciate learning what it is so as to apologize.

As to &#34;Communion&#34;, good word. That you have by faith since, &#34;Whatever is not done in faith is sin.&#34;

I will refrain from any more unasked for &#34;Lutheran explanations&#34; here as I see they are potentially problematic when only intended to be informative.

Dear Owen,

Sorry about my knee jerk reaction, I remembered you objecting to my use of the term &#34;relationship&#34; in the past. Yours is a good question. I wonder what Greek word &#34;relationship&#34; would translate!

Dear Fr. A.,

Yes, as I said, I trusted your discernment in this case over my own.

Peace to all,

Richard

[Waldemar]

Bless, Father.

Dear Father A.,

No need for apologies. &#34;Waldemar&#34; has much too many letters to type. Walder, Waldo, Wally - all are fine with me.

[Waldemar]

Richard Leigh,


Perhaps I misunderstood you.

This He promises, and this you &#34;cling to&#34; without taking advantage of the offer...

Now what is this offer that I am clinging to without taking advantage of?

[Waldemar]

Bless, Father.

Dear Father Averky,

My turn to apologize. I just learned your name on another board. Now here all the time I thought your were the mysterious Father A for Anonymous!

Kissing your right hand,

Wally

[Waldemar]

Richard Leigh wrote: As to &#34;Communion&#34;, good word. That you have by faith since, &#34;Whatever is not done in faith is sin.&#34;

I&#39;m sorry Richard, but that&#39;s too pat.

Rather, I am taught that I have Holy Communion with the Lord Jesus Christ &#34;In the fear of God, with faith and love&#34;.

[Richard Leigh]

Waldemar,

Good question! By &#34;taking advantage&#34; I meant, in a negative way, such as people who wrongly take advantage of others. I was trying to explain with stumbling tongue, the difference between a living communion with the Savior &#40;and the Savior is God&#39;s own promise to save us&#41; as opposed to presumptious expectation -- the &#34;faith without works,&#34; that St. James tells us is &#34;dead&#34;. None of which I would ever expect from an Orthodox Christian.

Richard

[Rebecca]

Dear Owen...&#34;relationship with God&#34;/Patristic thought...On Marriage and Family Life by St. John Chrysostom...Beautiful, fairly short, not the common, mundane connotations of the word &#34;relationship&#34;

[Waldemar]

Richard Leigh,

This He promises, and this you &#34;cling to&#34; without taking advantage of the offer...

It was the &#34;you&#34; part that got me confused.

So &#34;you&#34; is not an Orthodox Christian, yet you was directed at &#34;Waldemar&#34; who is an Orthodox Christian?

I&#39;m still confused, but let&#39;s just let it end with this post, okay?

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Waldemar,

Too pat? Oh well, ok. Pat as it may be, our Lord teaches through St. Paul that &#34;whatever is not done in faith is sin,&#34; nonetheless. I appreciate your derision for superficiality, but I wouldn&#39;t consider ever brevity superficial. I wouldn&#39;t be so worried about pat as I would about true, though the purpose isto communicate, so I will take correction on how best that is done.

Richard

P.s., as I said in another post, Lutheran &#34;Faith&#34; seems to take up &#34;hope and love&#34;, but again, I don&#39;t mean any harm and will stop here with this line, sorry I brought it up. --RL

[Waldemar]

Dear Matthew,

It seems that Richard Leigh's Lutheran "Faith" may provide a much needed segue back to "What is Required for Salvation?"

From:

Luther Had His Chance

The Confession of Augsburg contains twenty-one articles. Jeremias replied to each in turn, stating wherein he agreed or disagreed with the doctrines contained in them. His comments are valuable, as they add up to a compendium of Orthodox theology at this date...

In his fourth chapter, on justification by faith alone, the Patriarch points out, quoting Basil, that grace will not be given to those who do not live virtuous lives. He amplifies his views in his fifth and sixth chapters. In the Confession, the fifth article says that faith must be fed with the help of the Holy Scriptures and the Sacraments, and the sixth that faith must bear fruit in good works, though it repeats that good works alone will not bring salvation. Jeremias takes for granted the doctrine given in the fifth article, and uses the chapter to continue his previous argument. The Sermon on the Mount lists virtues that will bring salvation without any reference to faith. Faith without works is not true faith. In the sixth article he warns the Germans not to presume on grace nor despair of it.

I just started Nil Sorsky: The Complete Writings and came across the following in the Introduction:

"If any man has any love for me, he will be true to my word, and then he will win my Father's love and we will both come to him and make our continual abode in him; wheras the man who has no love for me, lets my sayings pass him by" (John 14:23-24). Some of these divine commandments look only on exterior actions, such as corporeal works of mercy. Others are more interior, spiritual. These are more comprehensive, containing in themselves many exterior commands of God. Thus the fulfillment of the interior commands of God ensures the fulfillment of the exterior ones. Christ came to give us a new decalogue, the eight Beatitudes, which are the commands of God to all Christians. They center around two interior spiritual commands: to be pure of heart and to be humble of heart. All virtues are contained in these two, which further narrow down the all-embracing command: "Love God with your whole soul, your whole heart, and all your strength."

(Nil Sorsky: The Complete Writings, Paulist Press, 2003, pp. 26-27)

As of this writing I haven't gotten to the St. Nil's texts on the "new Decalogue" but what I have read so far is very new and exciting to and represents another milestone break for me from Protestants and their use of the "F" word.

[Fr Averky]

My Dear Richard Leigh,

I think that we have been disturbed more than we might think by the enqury-attack ordeal, so I beg you not to take offense at Waldemar&#39;s words-I do not think either of you intended to be rude or offensive.

For my part, I would be happy to learn more of the Lutheran perpsective on Christainity, for I know that it is intended only to inform and in some cases, to compare.


Waldemar, please understand that while our good friend Richard is well-educated in his study of Christianity, as a recent convert, you know that despite all of his outside knowledge of Orthodoxy, his reference cannot be of that who is part of our Church, just as I cannot know how the Lutheran view of the Church and salvation works.

Richard, obedience does not mean wearing down the flesh- Hindu holy men live many years and eat very little, religious zealots are many times fond of strictly fasting, and so on., Speaking as a monk and as an Orthodox Christian, obedience to the will of God is giving up my own will and desires and turning it over to God. Our Saviour many times says in the Goly Gospel that what He does is not by His will by the will of His father who sent Him. In the &#34;Our Father,&#34; it is said, &#34;Thy will be done,&#34; When praying in the garden on the night beore His passion, for a moment Our Saviour wished that the bitter cup of His Passion might be taken from Him, but in the end, He siad,&#34;Not my will but thine.&#34;

As Orthodox Christians, we are bound to obey the Ten Commandments, the pure teachings of the Holy Gospel as interpreted by the Divinely inspired Holy Fathers of the Church, the Decisions of the Holy Seven Councils, the Apostolic Canons, and those who have been given the grace to rule over us spiritually. If we ask someone to be our spiritual Father, we must be willing to obey him in all good things. Our Church is hierarchical, so all of us clergy, monastics and laypersons are in obedience to our local bishops. None of this is done in a legalistic manner, but with the fear and love of God, desiring to do His will.

Owen earlier asked about having a &#34;relationship&#34; with God, and in one way, I have always asked that question. In this sense; I always found it interesting that my friend in Oklahoma, who is the classic Evngelical, would say, &#34;I was pondring and praying what I do about such and such, so I read my Bible, and took it to the Lord in prayer. Well, the Lord spoke to me last night, and told me...&#34; I never knew how to respond to such a statement, because to be honest, I just thought it rather novel. When the same man was going to get married, his mother and sister were against it, but then the Lord told his mother it would be fine, so he married the girl. Both of his parents are ministers, and in the 15 years I have known him they have changed churches many times. Interestingly, I have met his wife only when they came to visitm and I was so much more impressed by her quiet steady faith.

Maybe Waldemar you can explain this to me-my firiend who was a Baptist, but now is an avowed Calvinist, who fully believes he is saved and that he is among God&#39;s chosen elect, for some reason has to be constantly assuring himself of it. He studies constantly-once he went to Las Vegas for 3 weeks to drum up customers for his business, and ended up leaving his wife at home alone, bringing in all the moeny , while sat in a park in his truck and filled seven notebooks with every single page filled with notes confirming his faith in the Lord! I spent but a few hours with his wife, and she spoke so calmly, and with such surety abour her love for God and all His blessings to her. Her husband had a fit when I told him that he might try to assure hiomself and others that he is saved, while his wife simply tries to love God.

As from an Orthodox point of view, several years ago I spoke to a bishop of our Church, the bishop of London. He told me that when he was a boy in Russia, there lived in his town a Holy Fool for Christ&#39;s sake. He said in the coldest Winter, in ice and snow and terribly cold winds, he would only wear something that looked like a nightshirt. He slept in the porch of a small church, where the pastor would feed him and tried to give him warm food and something hot to drink, but he ate usually only a crust of bread and a cup of cold tea. He was always seen praying, and lixe St Xenia of Petersburg, he told things to startled which would come thrue. Not understanding his holiness and fearing and despising him, there were those lacking in love who would beat and torment him. Once when the future bishop was riding with his family in a horse-drawn sleigh, some unkind person hurled a hot coal at the Holy Fool. The Holy One caught the coal hand, held it in his palm and shouted, &#34;You can&#39;t hurt me!&#34; with this, he laughed and ran away, still holding the glowing coal in his hand. later, the young teenager bundled up and sought out the man of God and found him quietly praying on his porch. He approached,, and meekly and respectfully begged the old man to tell him how it was that he could catch such a hot coal and not be burned.


The man, looked at him with clear and beautiiful eyes, which sparkled like those of a joyful innocent child. &#34;Well, chada &#40;child&#41;, I will tell you. When a person turns all his longing, all the love he has in his poor being, all of his desire and wants, and meekly offers them to our Saviour, it feels as if a tiny flame has sprung up in his heart, and as he grows in that love for God and for his fellow man, and all that He has created with His hand, that flame begins to gow, filling that person with a warmth that cannot be felt in any way on this earth. The flame continues to grow, and the coldest winds feel like a warm summer&#39;s breeze, hardships and sorrows are understood in the light of that warmth, and there is nothng else to life but waiting to be with the Creator of that Holy Light and that Warmth foreverr...!

As he finished the story, the bishop could barely speak, as tears rolled down his face, and he said, ever since that cold day so long ago, he had begged God that he might experience even a little of that warmth, but because of his prideful sins and failings, it had not been granted to him. This was in 1976, and after many sorrows and humiliation the bishop had a blessed repose about eight years ago, and it was marvelled that afer he had lain in his coffin in intense heat, his body was soft and there was a lovely fragrance coming from him, like roses.

Forgive, I have talked long again.

Fr. A.

[Waldemar]

Bless, Father.

Dear Father Averky,

Alas, I must go back to my younger and sadder days, but here goes:

This is the teaching of the Calvinists on the Perseverance of the Saints:

You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ.

The reason your Baptist friend needs to reassure himself probably has to do with the passages from the Holy Scriptures that deal with those who &#34;seemingly&#34; lose their salvation especially

Matthew 7

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Now how does a Calvinist who holds to &#34;eternal security&#34; reconcile this belief with the Gospel?

Simple. &#34;The weren&#39;t real Christians to begin with!&#34;

In a nutshell: Real Christians are eternally secure. False Christians that are revealed at the Last Judgement are/were not real Christians.

&#34;How do you know if you or any of your fellow co-religionists are a real eternally secure Christians who will not get unpleasant surprises at the Last Judgement?&#34;

&#34;God knows but we don&#39;t.&#34;

Near as I can figure out, the doctrine Eternal Security works well for tent revivals and such gatherings, but when it comes to specifics, it promises more than it can deliver, hence the constant anxiety or insecurity of your Baptist friend.

[M. Rallis]

Dear Owen:

In asking about patristic commentary on &#34;relationship&#34;, if you are referring to the protestant seeking for a &#34;personal relationship&#34; with Jesus, then I doubt that there is any patristic basis. However, sometime ago I posted a patristic quote that does describe our relationship to our Creator, Lord and God:

St.Macarius the Great &#40; 300-390 A.D.&#41; writes in Homily X of his Fifty Spiritual Homilies:

“ 4. The soul that really loves God and Christ, though it may do ten thousand
righteousnesses, esteems itself as having wrought nothing, by reason of its
insatiable aspiration after God. Though it should exhaust the body with fastings,
with watchings, its attitude towards the virtues is as if it had not yet even begun to
labour for them. Though divers gifts of the Spirit, or revelations and heavenly
mysteries be vouchsafed to it, it feels in itself to have acquired nothing at all, by
reason of its unlimited and insatiable love to the Lord. All day long, hungering and
thirsting through faith and love, in persevering prayer, it continues to be insatiable
for the mysteries of grace, and for the accomplishment of every virtue. It is
smitten with passionate love of the heavenly Spirit, continually stirring up within
itself through grace an ardent aspiration for the heavenly Bridegroom, desiring to
be perfectly admitted to the mystical, ineffable fellowship with Him in
sanctification of the Spirit. The face of the soul is unveiled, and it gazes upon the
heavenly Bridegroom face to face in a spiritual light that cannot be described,
mingling with Him in all fullness of assurance, being conformed to His death, ever
looking with great assurance to receive by the Spirit a perfect deliverance from sin
and from the darkness of the passions; in order that having been cleansed by the
Spirit, sanctified in soul and body, it may be permitted to become a clean vessel to
receive the heavenly unction and to entertain the true King, even Christ; and then it
is made meet for eternal life, being henceforward a clean dwelling-place of the
Holy Ghost. “

[Charles Tanner]

I have been watching the drama unfold in this discussion on salvation. It is as of David and Goliath. One rather simple minded individual up against the intellect of a group of monks and theologians. I kept wondering what are they so afraid of? Why has Tom Just got them on the defense so? Then it came to me this morning in prayer. Tom has stumbled onto something which they are trying desperately to keep him from revealing. I don&#39;t think Tom realizes what he has stumbled onto. Perhaps they are not even aware of exactly what it is, but they are instinctively lashing out at Tom trying to prevent him from tying it all together.

Since Tom Just seems to have tucked tail and headed for the trenches before he could put it all together, I will reveal what he has stumbled onto for him. But first why all the fear and anger? If you are firmly anchored in your faith and beliefs then you should only have compassion and sympathy for poor lost Tom. If on the other hand your faith isn&#39;t so firm or anchored, then maybe there are some fundamental reasons for this. If the church is on a solid foundation and is right with God, then if what I am going to say is in error it should be easily rebuffed; but if what I say rings true then I suggest some serious thought on your part. So to me the potential damage of not saying this is much greater than that of saying it. I don&#39;t believe in coincidence. This is happening for a reason. Either to strengthen your views or to change them.

Now as members of your community volunteered, Orthodoxy rejects Paul&#39;s Gospel of Jesus Christ because it conflicts with the Church&#39;s doctrine of good works. That one earns his salvation thru good works. What you aren&#39;t getting is that no one is saying not to do good works. What Paul is saying is don&#39;t try to earn your salvation thru good works. Get saved by your faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Then if your faith is such that you are born again and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and become a new creature in Christ, you will do your good works out of Love with no expectation of reward.

But what God put on my heart this morning is that Tom has stumbled onto the fact that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have rejected Apostle Paul&#39;s Epistles to the churches back then, because what Paul is writing to those churches back then applies to the Catholic and Orthodox churches of today. The overall thrust of his Epistles might as well be written to the Orthodox and Catholic church of today.

By embracing the doctrine of good works the Church is keeping the people in bondage. By rejecting Apostle Paul and the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Church is keeping the people under the Law. This didn&#39;t turn out very well for the Jews. Under the Law where the people have to approach God thru the Church. The Church refuses to acknowledge that when Jesus died on the cross the veil to the Holy of Holies was torn asunder. That now the people have direct access to the Throne Room by the gift of the Holy spirit and the word of God. This would take away the Church&#39;s power. The Church wants to be the mediator between the people and God. The Church wants power and control. It wants control over what the people read - even what they think. The Church doesn&#39;t want the people reading the Bible and discovering that much of their doctrine goes against God&#39;s word.

The Church is exactly what Paul is preaching against. You are the Pharisees and Sadducees of today. And if all of this is true, you are leading the people to destruction.

So I suggest a little humility and self introspection as to whether this message is for you. Could it be that all that anger you generated against Tom was from fear. Fear that you sense errors in the church&#39;s doctrine. Fear that all the years you have put into this doctrine are wasted? Fear of losing your position in the church? Fear for your salvation?

If you don&#39;t believe me read the NT especially Apostle Paul. Go to a Bible study which is Bible based and not denomination based such as www.lesfeldick.org (http://www.lesfeldick.org). No he did not write this. He has no idea who I am or that I am writing this.

Father, I pray that this message will be received by those to whom it is intended. I pray you will open their hearts to receive this message. I pray you will open the eyes of those who are blinded to your word, that you will open their ears to hear your word. I pray that they will begin to read your word and see whether what I have said is true. I pray as they read your word you will reveal its true meaning to them. I only want to lead them to you Lord. To you belongs the Glory. We worship you Jesus. We love You, Jesus. We thank you for your shed blood, for that which you did on the Cross we give you Praise. In that name above all names I pray. Amen

[Waldemar]

&#34;Enlighten with the light of Thy knowledge those who have left the Orthodox Faith and have been blinded by devasting heresies, reuniting them Thy Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.&#34;

[Herman Blaydoe]

Mr. Tanner demonstrates a total lack of knowledge as to the Orthodox teaching of "works" confusing it with what he believes the Roman Catholics teach. He also tells us to "read the NT" but I would suggest that he do the very same, particularly Matthew 25 (the whole chapter).

Mr. Tanner is now quilty of false witness. He might do well to review his OT also, particularly that part about those 10 commandments...when he says:


Now as members of your community volunteered, Orthodoxy rejects Paul's Gospel of Jesus Christ because it conflicts with the Church's doctrine of good works

Nobody in this forum "volunteered" any such thing. HOWEVER, Mr. Tanner needs to explain why HE rejects the teaching of Christ Himself as written by Saint Matthew in Chapter 25 of his Gospel.

[Waldemar]

Mr. Tanner&#39;s curious phrasing: &#34;Paul&#39;s Gospel of Jesus Christ...&#34; says it all.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Averky,

Thank you for your quick response to Waldemar. Also, thank you for your clarification on &#34;wearing away of the flesh.&#34; I repent of my attempt at pointing to harmony in disharmonious words that set everyone&#39;s teeth on edge. I had been refering to asceticsm and engagement in it as following the prescription for the healing of the diagnosed illness as opposed to the desire to amass points of favor from God in payment of &#34;fine&#34; for breaking a law. It is the latter that all reformational invective is aimed against, not the former, which is largely unknown to it.

So much trouble I caused in inappropriate brevity! Mia culpa!

Waldemar,

Your purpose in bringing this up? There is a response to what you&#39;ve posted, but I&#39;m not yet sure this is the venue to pursue it.

Father Averky,

You would appreciate Lutheran perspective on this?
I want to studiously avoid polemiical invective and I don&#39;t want to endanger anyone&#39;s soul.

I might point out that, except for the &#34;Free Will &#40;= &#34;Arminian&#34;&#41; Baptists,&#34; all Baptists are Calvinist, at least with regard to &#34;Eternal Security.&#34; This doctrine derives from Augustine, and is an issue of &#34;The Sovereignty of God.&#34; Calvinism, &#40;AKA The Reform,&#41; differs from us in The Conservative Evangelical [AKA &#34;Lutheran&#34;] Reform&#41; in this very aspect. Our focus is not to begin from God&#39;s Sovereigny but His Grace which we see as a relational term. Relationship is personal, and if as the Fathers assert the life of the Church is that of the Trinity, we of the Church relate to one another in and as we relate to the Persons of the Trinity and as they relate to one another.

Next let me say with regard to the title of the work you posted Waldemar, that Luther was reposed &#40;if you don&#39;t mind my using the very scriptural term in use among the Orthodox&#41; when the Tuebingen scholars sent Melancthon&#39;s Greek translation of his Augsburg Confession to Jeremias.

Then, I hope to make everyone aware of the fact that Lutheranism in general understands the command of God to obey the commandment. Luthers meaning to each of the ten commandments begins &#34;We should fear and love God so that we...&#34;
and his catechism begins with the Ten Commandments! What we note, and anyone who has tried it will agree, is that it is not possible to perform any of His commandments perfectly, satisfactorily. We see &#40;and say&#41; that God has a solution to this problem.

The best part of Jeremias&#39; response to us Lutherans for my money was his explanation of how the &#40;Unaltered&#41; Nicene Creed expresses how salvation comes to us. I will give it in a subsequjent post. IMO the Tuebingeners could not relate to the patriarch for several historically philosophical reasons preventing them from understanding, much less responding in the patriarch&#39;s &#34;cultural&#34; language. It is one of my hopes that we overcome these impediments to our communication.

Next, let me just say that I believe Melanchthon did try, in the way he made his translation of the confession, but it did not succeed.

Finally let me say that more needs to be examined in the patriarch&#39;s response: he did, after all support the Lutheran doctrine of Original Sin. This I believe is at varience with what I hear from Orthodox teaching today. Of course, I do not know how Melanchthon translated that particulare article of the Creed, but I also would like to alert every Orthodox to the 141 Canons of the regional Councilo of Carthage in The Rudder,
particularly Canons 120-127. Also, the fairly hard and fast lines he laid regarding which activities of the church were sacraments should, I think, be re-examined.

The bottom line, though is that Jesus is what is required for salvation, and I would warrant that Lutherans and Orthodox are in agreement on this &#40;ii.e., that Lutheranism is orthodox here&#41;.

Respectfully yours,

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Mr.Tanner,

I simply deny what you are saying.

You have no idea what you are talking about. In your profile, you say that you are a &#34;Christian.&#34; To me, it is like someone saying &#34;I have a car.&#34; So? What kind of car, does it run, are you trying to sell it to me? Because you are a Christian, you feel that you have teaching authority-well, that is the crux of the entire discussion, Mr. Tanner. I refuse to listen to the opinions of a &#34;Bible-based&#34; person in the sense that you. As I have said numerous times, to me what Protestants, especially Evangelicals-Pentecostals &#34;teach&#34; are just the errors of men, each with his own Idea what the Bible teaches. Their teaching spring from a deadly self-love and pride, which blinds them to their own sinfulness, as they boldy and foolishly exclaim, &#34;I am saved.&#34; Just as with Tom, I will not take another minute to respond to you. I tried very hard to be kind to Tom, making as many allowances for his aggressive and uncharitable attitude. All my life I have distanced myself from people who believe and act like you, and after trying to listen to Tom, it confirms to me how God has protected me from the enemies of Christ and His True Church. I am not angry, Mr. Tanner, nor do your ideas frighten me-I did not pick up a Bible and become Orthodox; I carefully studied it. I am only sad for you and your co-religionists. I brush aside your idea of &#34;Christianity,&#34; I will not answer one word you might further write, biut I will pray for your change of heart and your salvation.


Fr. A.

[Xenia]

Ah, Mr. Tanner, you have missed the boat.

As a former and recent Evangelical, I can tell you that unburdening myself from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was such a blessed relief! To no longer have to be my own little pope, determining for myself what the Bible means. The Orthodox are not at all afraid of your doctrines because your doctrines cause much fear and uncertainty.

How do you know that you are interpreting a passage in the Bible correctly? If you are like I was, you asked the Holy Spirit for guidance. I was taught as an Evangelical that the H.S. would guide us into the truth. Yet, why does He seem to give everyone a difference answer? We know God is not the author of confusion, so God must have another way of understanding the Bible than the method commonly believed by Protestants. I was happy to learn that the Bible can be best explained by the very people who wrote it- The Church. It was such a relief for me to learn this, far from the idea of fear that you supose we have. No, quite the opposite turns out to be true.

-Xenia

[Johanna]

As a newborn baby Orthodox Christian, it seems I am being slowly fed truths as I can handle them. Sometimes all of the intellectualizing and philosophizing on this forum exhausts and discourages my heart. I am sure it is beneficial to most, but I am neither spiritually mature enough nor intellectually bright enough to grasp the majority of discussions that take place here. So maybe this is not the place for me at this point in my journey; that I am unsure of at this time. I do think we must remember that we are all at different places on our journey towards loving God with all our hearts, minds, souls and strength. I think the recent posts made by Mr. Just and Mr. Tanner are revelatory of where they are on their journey. I believe that if they truly continue to seek God with all their hearts they will eventually be drawn to Orthodoxy and until then, I believe they must continue on their journeys. My question for all would be, what is your motivation? Are your posts motivated by a desire and longing for God and to learn more about Him and to encourage others in the Faith or do you want to impress others by all your knowledge, or do you just like to debate and want to prove you are right? I really think it’s a heart issue and not one of head knowledge or who’s right and who’s wrong. Being one who has been drawn out of Protestantism into the True Faith, I know that until I got to that place where I wanted truth more than I wanted anything else and was open minded and open hearted enough to receive it, all the teaching and debating in the world was of no benefit. I had to trudge through all sorts of false teachings on my journey to Orthodoxy and for the rest of my earthly life will probably continue to have my mind and heart purged of heresies I’ve been taught over the years in various Protestant churches. Please forgive me if I have been out of line in what I have said and please, please, please pray for me an immature baby Orthodox Christian who continues in my struggle to love God with my entire being.

Yours in Christ,

Johanna

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I am afraid that I must do what I do not like to do, and call an end to this thread. Those who have been here for some time will know that I do not do this for reasons of &#39;censorship&#39; of ideas or discussions, but because I think we&#39;ve simply walked too far from the course and path of these message boards. Our purpose here is to discuss issues of and from a patristic, monastic, ecclesiastical and liturgical perspective. It is a specific part of the purvue that we are not here for the discussion of &#39;East vs. West&#39; or &#39;Protestant vs. Orthodoxy&#39;, unless these discussions are framed from within a patristic, monastic, ecclesiastical or liturgical context. The present thread has fallen a bit too far off this course.

Charles, Tom: Please understand that I am quite happy for you to share your thoughts, concerns, comments and perspectives, and constructively to challenge those of others here. I do not mean at all to lay aside the real questions and criticisms you&#39;ve raised here. It is rather the case that the internet has a whole host of fora dedicated to Protestant/Orthodox and Protestant/Catholic exchange and dialogue. The mission here is deliberately to offer something distinct and different. So please, do raise these points in light of patristic, monastic, liturgical and/or ecclesiastical considerations, and we shall continue to discuss and advance them. But I feel that continued discussion of Evangelical vs. Orthodox &#39;views on things&#39; would be better suited to another online community. I do of course realise that this might come across as &#39;defensive&#39; or &#39;evasive&#39; of specific topics, but it is not intended to be so. It is merely an attempt to preserve a specific focus of discussion in this community, as it is all too easy for fora to become &#39;uniform&#39; in surfacing back to common themes.

I shall thus close the present thread. To all: please feel free to start new threads in order to continue discussion on some of the more relevant and interesting topics brought up here.

INXC, Matthew