Scripture and tradition

[John Vrablic]

I am new to the list..Hello

I have been reading much of teh church fathers and have a true yearning and desire to practice my faith in the doctrine of teh Lord and his apostles so that my fellowship is truly biblical, apostolic and catholic.

I have come to belive that the confessio of faith from the Lutheran book of Concord is that faith, bilical , apostolic and catholic.
And in doing so I am rather concerned about teh doctrine of Mary as co-redeemer and mediatrix of all graces.
My challenge to RC's has been to look at this doctrine through these three criteria and even compare it to justification by faith alone.

So whenever I get into a discussion about justification many say Luther invented that doctrine. So I say lete slook at this doctrine teh way perhaps the early chucrh would. From reading Irenaus, Tertullina, Origen and many others it seems as though teh test of orthodoxy woudl go something like this

1. Scripture/ Bible
They would use the scriptures as the doctrine of teh apostles as Ireneause says and also says that the scriptures are the pillar and foundation of truth.

2. Apostolic

A. Analogy of Faith as Interpreting guidline. They would use the creed to test what is orthodox or not

B. Apostlic Succession.
I believe at thsi time teh pressing point seemd to be yes that teh chucrh had successors form the apostles and only those churches who had actual successors are rightly teh possessors of these scriptures. BUt even more important becuase of teh scriptuers and the possession of them it was truly a succession of doctrine and interpretation handed on adn continued in the church.

3. Catholic

A. Tradition of interpretation.

When as issue came that they disagreed with how scripture was interpreted and the issue did not deal specifically with teh anology of faith or teh creed, they would say hwo has the church historically interpreted the disputed passages

So this is similar to Voncenet of Lerins who says that what is catholic is a dcotrine that has been taught always everwhere and by everyone

SO that brings me to Mary as Co-redeemer and justification by faith alone for exmaple. If you take these two doctrines through that grid, it seems that justification by faith alone (rightly understood) is more biblical, apostolic and catholic.

So I am interested in how the early church interprted the key passages that the popes of the last 150yrs have used for Mary as co-redeemer.
Now I am not questioning co-redeemer in the sense that Mary delivered salvation and that through her salvation was made possible by the birth of Jesus. NO teh question I haev is pertaining to Mary in union with her son merited salvation, atoned for all the sins of mankind together.

The verses that the popes use and modern RC apologists use are as follows

1. Gen 3:15
2. Solomons mother. They use this as Mray as mediatrix
3. The annunciation
4. Teh pirecing of her soul told to her by Simeon
5. Teh wedding fest at Cana
6. Mary at the cross
7. Jesus saying to John behold your mother

SO I have tried to find an apotolic and catholic tradition to these verses and have not found them. In other words today we have the popes and RC apologits all using these verses as proof texts for this doctrine. I cannot find ANY history of this current interpretaion in the church fathers. I am asking what is the history of the chucrh fathers when they commented on these excact passages.
To compare another theoligical paradigm. I than use the same grid for justification by faith alone (properly understood).

The verses that the Lutherans form the book of Concord uses to show this doctrine are

1. Apostle John who says he who belives HAS eternal life
2. Acts- when it says that through faith you aer justified by everything you could not be from teh law.
3. Acts where it says all teh prohets testifyu that through faith in his name forgiveness of sins is given
4. Romans 3-4
5. Galatians whe it says that Christ became a curse fo rus and we aer jutified not by teh law but by faith

Ther are many others BUT my point is when I look to how teh church fathers interprted particulary the Romans 3-4 section they all seem to interpret just like Lutheran do.
So I am led to believe that there is much more biblical, apostlic and catholic warrant for justification by faith alone.

Two questions to the group

1. What do you think of this thought process
2. Can anyone show me the history of interpretation of the specifiec scripture passasges form teh eralu hcurh that interpretd as Mary as co-redeemer?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear John,

Thank you for your recent post, and welcome to this discussion community. I'm sure that many people here will enjoy discussing the topic(s) you've brought up. I am especially interested in the discussion on the redemptoral role of the Mother of God, as it is a topic on which I spend a great deal of time. However, I'd like to comment for the moment on something else: your 'grid' or sequence for the 'test of orthodoxy'. As you presented it in your post, the sequence went like this:

Scripture / Bible - What Scripture has to say about the topic.
Apostolic teaching - i.e., what the teaching of the Apostles says of the topic, ascertained through:
Analogy of Faith, i.e. the Creed, as interpretive guide
Apostolic succession, i.e. the witness of the unbroken tradition of the Apostles
Catholic witness - i.e., the universal tradition of interpretation of the Church throughout the world.[/LIST]It is important to realise that, when examining the questions of the early Church's beliefs on this or other topics, the imposition of the above sequence is not coordinate to the sequence (as such) that the early Church itself will have followed. Generally speaking, the first centuries of Christianity 'tested' the orthodoxy of a given doctrine or teaching through a process that would more closely approximate the following:

Apostolic Teaching - the faith handed down by the Apostles. A specific doctrine's approximation of this faith could be ascertained through recourse to:
Apostolic Succession - Does the doctrine conform to those doctrines which were handed to the first Apostles, and ever since passed down through the succession of bishops in their original form?
Catholic Witness - Does the teaching of the doctrine conform to the teaching of the universal Church as scattered throughout the world?
The Creed - Once the first creedal formula of Nicea (AD 325) came about, it could also be used as a testing-bar for doctrinal orthodoxy.
Scriptures - the holy writings of the Church. The orthodoxy of a doctrine could be examined by comparing it with:

The Scriptures of the Old Covenant, the Old Testament - For the first centuries of Christianity, the Old Testament were the Scriptures of the Church. Does the doctrine conform to the teachings of these Scriptures, as they are clarified by the Apostolic teaching? (It is extremely important that step 1, the Apostolic Teaching, comes before step 2, the Scriptures, as the Church was quite insistent that only the Apostolic witness to the Scriptures was accurate -- attempting to ascertain orthodoxy by examining the Scriptures without the Apostolic witness could quickly lead to what the early Church considered the misinterpretations of the Gnostics, the Jews, individualists, and others.)
The Scriptures of the New Covenant, the New Testament - These did not exist as a codified, canonized collection of 'official' Scriptures, as such, in the first centuries of the Church. By the mid-late second century, the collection was becoming more established (see, for example, Irenaeus), and by the late third century was fairly concrete. As such, the emerging New Testament was an additional collection of the teaching of the Apostles, to which doctrines could be compared for Orthodoxy. However, it was never seen as a 'stand-alone' document: it is an example and part of the Apostolic witness, but it is not itself the whole of this witness. Even once the New Testament was codified and canonized, the pattern of interpretation remained: 1. Apostolic teaching; 2. Scripture (it was later to be understood that the Apostolic teaching and Scripture were greatly intertwined without being identical: the Scripture presents the Apostolic teaching, but the latter is not limited to the former).
You can see that this is quite different from the sequence you presented. In present day Orthodoxy, there is less of a 'sequence' to determining the orthodoxy of a given doctrine: the above has been refined and condensed into a single step:


Apostolic Teaching - The only question of importance is whether a doctrine is or is not in conformity with the faith 'Once for all given to the Apostles'. To ascertain whether or not it is, the Church has recourse to:

The Creeds, which present in clear form the 'condensed version' of the Apostolic witness.
The Scriptures, of both Covenants, which elaborate more fully the witness and its contexts.
The Tradition of the Church, including her hymns and services, guaranteed in its authenticity by the observed succession of its episcopacy (i.e., the manner in which one knows that a Church is teaching the Apostolic truth is through an examination of the lawful succession of its bishops), and through its consular inter-communion of individual churches.
The writings and teachings of the Fathers, which form a part of the Tradition of the Church. It is important to realise that the Church does not consider 'the Fathers' to refer only to a given set of men and women from the past: there are Fathers and Mothers alive today, and who will live tomorrow, who will continue to expound the Apostolic witness of the faith.
My main purpose in posting the above, is to show that attempts to understand given doctrines 'by Scripture alone' stands quite at odds with the manner in which such doctrines were originally formulated and then understood for centuries. Full belief of the role of the Virgin Mary, for example, is partially witnessed in Scripture (both Old and New Testaments), but the full witness of her role is further clarified elsewhere in the tradition. The notion of justification 'by faith alone', while itself lacking any Scriptural support whatsoever, finds its correction partially in Scripture -- but some of the most important (and most beautiful) teachings on the proper conception of justification lie outside the pages of Scripture, elsewhere in the Apostolic witness.

INXC, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

Matthew

Thank you for your response



1. Scripture / Bible - What Scripture has to say about the topic.
2. Apostolic teaching - i.e., what the teaching of the Apostles says of the topic, ascertained through:

a. Analogy of Faith, i.e. the Creed, as interpretive guide
b. Apostolic succession, i.e. the witness of the unbroken tradition of the Apostles

3. Catholic witness - i.e., the universal tradition of interpretation of the Church throughout the world.

It is important to realise that, when examining the questions of the early Church's beliefs on this or other topics, the imposition of the above sequence is not coordinate to the sequence (as such) that the early Church itself will have followed. Generally speaking, the first centuries of Christianity 'tested' the orthodoxy of a given doctrine or teaching through a process that would more closely approximate the following:


When reading Ireaneus' five books and Tertullian's refutation and Origen's treatise on doctrine:

Irenaeus

"Chapter I.-The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit. They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth.

"1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

2 things:

1. You place the scriptures AFTER apostolic tradition. It would seem it was and has to be the opposite. From divine to human. So the scriptures and the church are an example of the incarnation of Christ. It was not the human nature of Christ that gave his divinity form, but rather it was his divine nature that was hypostatically united to his human nature and FROM THAT union we have our salvation. So likewise with the scriptures and the church. The scripture (divine nature) are completely infallible and free from sin (error). The church is the extension of the scriptures so that the tradition of the church comes FROM the scriptures of the OT and NT???

2. Apsotolic Teaching

When you say the first grid is apostolic teaching isn't that nothing more than what scriptures teach. I have not found any apostolic teaching that is not clearly contained in the scriptures. So it would seem that yes there was an oral tradition of the apostles before the NT was written. This oral tradition is just as binding and infallible as the OT and NT writings.

BUT when you contrast apostolic teachings and the writings of the NT you bifurcate the two. As I have see the two are one. There is no difference between the NT and the apostles' teaching becuase what they orally taught is summarized by what they eventually wrote down. So ultimately the apostolic tradition is nothing more than scripture. The only way I can see that you can separate the two as being different forms of revealing doctrine is if the apostolic tradition brought with it diffrenet teachings that the scriptures. In THAT case you would have to say this. Does that make sense??



1. Apostolic Teaching - the faith handed down by the Apostles. A specific doctrine's approximation of this faith could be ascertained through recourse to:

a. Apostolic Succession - Does the doctrine conform to those doctrines which were handed to the first Apostles, and ever since passed down through the succession of bishops in their original form?
b. Catholic Witness - Does the teaching of the doctrine conform to the teaching of the universal Church as scattered throughout the world?
c. The Creed - Once the first creedal formula of Nicea (AD 325) came about, it could also be used as a testing-bar for doctrinal orthodoxy.

2. Scriptures - the holy writings of the Church. The orthodoxy of a doctrine could be examined by comparing it with:

a. The Scriptures of the Old Covenant, the Old Testament - For the first centuries of Christianity, the Old Testament were the Scriptures of the Church. Does the doctrine conform to the teachings of these Scriptures, as they are clarified by the Apostolic teaching? (It is extremely important that step 1, the Apostolic Teaching, comes before step 2, the Scriptures, as the Church was quite insistent that only the Apostolic witness to the Scriptures was accurate -- attempting to ascertain orthodoxy by examining the Scriptures without the Apostolic witness could quickly lead to what the early Church considered the misinterpretations of the Gnostics, the Jews, individualists, and others.)
b. The Scriptures of the New Covenant, the New Testament - These did not exist as a codified, canonized collection of 'official' Scriptures, as such, in the first centuries of the Church. By the mid-late second century, the collection was becoming more established (see, for example, Irenaeus), and by the late third century was fairly concrete. As such, the emerging New Testament was an additional collection of the teaching of the Apostles, to which doctrines could be compared for Orthodoxy. However, it was never seen as a 'stand-alone' document: it is an example and part of the Apostolic witness, but it is not itself the whole of this witness. Even once the New Testament was codified and canonized, the pattern of interpretation remained: 1. Apostolic teaching; 2. Scripture (it was later to be understood that the Apostolic teaching and Scripture were greatly intertwined without being identical: the Scripture presents the Apostolic teaching, but the latter is not limited to the former).


I agree that dealing ONLY with scripture w/o the context of apostolic tardition and than the historic interpretation is why there are so many Protestant denominations. BUT I don't think it was the apostolic tradition (if it was different than scripture) validates the scriptures so that you start with the witness and THEN go to the scriptures. It seems to go the other way around. When I read Athanasius' treatises against the arians he deals first with scripture and THEN to the history of interpretation. Or Augustine's Against Pelagians. He does not first look to the witness of interpretaion. He actually has to refute and explain much of the history since Pelagius was using the church fathers to show that his teaching WAS orthodox. NO Augustine FIRST deals with scripture and THEN verifies his meaning of scripture with anitiquity.



You can see that this is quite different from the sequence you presented. In present day Orthodoxy, there is less of a 'sequence' to determining the orthodoxy of a given doctrine: the above has been refined and condensed into a single step:

Apostolic Teaching - The only question of importance is whether a doctrine is or is not in conformity with the faith 'Once for all given to the Apostles'. To ascertain whether or not it is, the Church has recourse to:

1. The Creeds, which present in clear form the 'condensed version' of the Apostolic witness.
2. The Scriptures, of both Covenants, which elaborate more fully the witness and its contexts.
3. The Tradition of the Church, including her hymns and services, guaranteed in its authenticity by the observed succession of its episcopacy (i.e., the manner in which one knows that a Church is teaching the Apostolic truth is through an examination of the lawful succession of its bishops), and through its consular inter-communion of individual churches.


See this may be a good discussion as well. You say the way we know it is truth is by the lawful succession. By this you claim to have the apostolic witness by succesion from the apostles. I propose that the grid I outline will yield the true catholic faith. Just throwing it out. Becuase if your basis for apostolic authenticity is based upon the succesors then what about Rome? They claim to have that same succesion and arguably a much more structured one. So are they the truth? Or how about the Episcopalians? They have a succesion going back to the apostles as well. Are they the fulness of truth?

So it must have scripture first and THEN tradition and the fathers and the liturgy and so on. Becuase ultimately Paul's concern over succession was not the leaders of the churches but always the gospel, or doctrine.

So it seems the real issue is not who has the succesion of priests but who has the succession of doctrine? So what if there was a confession that was scriptural, and apostolic and THEN catholic along with it.


4. The writings and teachings of the Fathers, which form a part of the Tradition of the Church. It is important to realise that the Church does not consider 'the Fathers' to refer only to a given set of men and women from the past: there are Fathers and Mothers alive today, and who will live tomorrow, who will continue to expound the Apostolic witness of the faith.

So the developmenet of doctrine is NOT fixed but can change as "we understand thh deposit of faith more deeply."

See this is some of my contenetions with at least RCs. I have not dicussed with Orthodox yet so thanks for the opportunity. Based upon what you seem to belive the tradition of the church will eventually change the way we interpret scripture. It should be the other way around NO? Should we not let tradition come FROM scripture and not the other way around. So ultimately how do we know for instance about Maria as co-redemptrix.

The scriptures speak nothing explicit about her co-redemption and in fact are explicit that ONLY Christ redeemed mankind. The apostolic tradition as you say is silent so this quote from Tertullian is applicable:

"If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches-those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God."

SO if Mary as co-redeemer and Mediatrix is NOT a part of the apostoilic tradition then how can we have faith in it if faith is beliveing in things not seen and being certain of the hope we have (Heb 11)?


My main purpose in posting the above, is to show that attempts to understand given doctrines 'by Scripture alone' stands quite at odds with the manner in which such doctrines were originally formulated and then understood for centuries.

So how did Augustine deeal with the Pelagians. It seems correct me if I am wrong that he deals with scripture and then tradition. Again Pelagius actually seemed more catholic in his teaching about free will and grace based upon many of the church fathers' thoughts and quotes. Ultimately Augustine refuted them completely and solidly through teh scriptures.

I think it is wrong to just take scripture and interpret it the way you want w/o looking at how the church always interpreted certain passages.


Full belief of the role of the Virgin Mary, for example, is partially witnessed in Scripture (both Old and New Testaments)

Yes belief that her seed would crush the head and that she would bear the saviour as a virgin but NOT as co-redeemer. If the NT is the fulfillment of the OT foreshadowing and the OT sacrificial system was a foreshadowing of Christ's death. Where is Mary's role in that foreshadowing. Everything that happens as doctrine in the NT is witnessed and foreshadowed in the OT. So when you say scripture testifies to the role of the virgin Mary... yes as Mother of Our Lord as a virgin but not as co-redeemer.


but the full witness of her role is further clarified elsewhere in the tradition. The notion of justification 'by faith alone', while itself lacking any Scriptural support whatsoever, finds its correction partially in Scripture -- but some of the most important (and most beautiful) teachings on the proper conception of justification lie outside the pages of Scripture, elsewhere in the Apostolic witness.

Another discussion on faith alone. But my challenge to you then is to find the apostolic tradition and the witness of how the church interpreted the passages that I stated and compare that to Romans 3-4 in the early church and from what I have seen faith alone is supoorted when the fathers HAVE to deal with the clear texts of scripture.

Just for clarification when I speak of justification by faith alone I mean that the justified have many good works which they offer to God. These works are works of Eucharistic sacrifice and not atoning in nature. So ultimately we all die in sin and STILL need the forgiveness of our sins, so ultimately even though we had many good works it was only faith and the forgivenss of sins and mercy of God that justified us, or as Chrysotom interpreted Romans 4 :1:

"What advantage then hath the Jew?" (ib. iii. 1.) and, "What then have we more than they?"1 (ib. 9) and again, "where then is boasting? it is excluded" (Rom. iii. 27): and here, "what then shall we say that Abraham our father?" etc. Now since the Jews kept turning over and over the fact, that the Patriarch, and friend of God, was the first to receive circumcision, he wishes to show, that it was by faith that he too was justified. And this was quite a vantage ground to insist upon. For for a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light. "

This is exactly as Lutherans interpret faith alone. Not that the justified can live continually inmortal sin but that justification is a free gift of God given only through faith in baptism.

Blessings John

PS I am sorry about all the typos, but it would take me a long time to correct all of them.

[John Vrablic]

Matthew

A couple of things

1. I still want to see the patristic interpretation of the Marian passages in the bible

2. Canon for doctrine

I still want to haev your input on this. See the
last e-mail.
But to expound upon this some more..you say


>>>>>In present day Orthodoxy, there is less of a 'sequence' to determining the orthodoxy of a given doctrine: the above has been refined and condensed into a single step:

Apostolic Teaching - The only question of importance is whether a doctrine is or is not in conformity with the faith 'Once for all given to the Apostles'. To ascertain whether or not it is, the Church has recourse to:

1. The Creeds, which present in clear form the 'condensed version' of the Apostolic witness.
2. The Scriptures, of both Covenants, which elaborate more fully the witness and its contexts.
3. The Tradition of the Church, including her hymns and services, guaranteed in its authenticity by the observed succession of its episcopacy (i.e., the manner in which one knows that a Church is teaching the Apostolic truth is through an examination of the lawful succession of its bishops), and through its consular inter-communion of individual churches.
4. The writings and teachings of the Fathers, which form a part of the Tradition of the Church. It is important to realise that the Church does not consider 'the Fathers' to refer only to a given set of men and women from the past: there are Fathers and Mothers alive today, and who will live tomorrow, who will continue to expound the Apostolic witness of the faith.>>>>>

SO you say doctrine is put in a canon or rule from
recognizing whether it is apostolic or not by using creeds, scripture, tradition and chucrh fathers past presenmt adn future.
I still propose that this system will not yield catholic doctrine.
The reason is how do you invalidate soem dotcrines. For exmaple lets look at Purgatory. As I understand it you deny Purgatory. Sorry if I am incorrect.
So on waht basis do you reject Puragtory and retain teh sven sacraments. You may state that Puragatory does not ahev a clear witness in the fatrhers so IO would agree, BUT the seven sacraments do not haev a clear witness as well. Ambrose and Cyril on their lectures on the sacrammets do not talk about 7 sacraments.
So how does your "grid" work into that system.
And than based up[on your grid how do you deny justification by faith alone (rightly understood) if none of teh first seven councils anathemized this?
And on what basis do you deny teh primacy of teh pope. There are many chucrh fathers that comment that the bishop of Rome has supreme authority.

So my question is accroding to your grid how do these reconcile? Just wondering. I read an article on teh differences between teh orthodox and Rcsm.

My point of contention is that it SEEMS that you cannot have a true canon of doctrien based upon your "grid"???

Another question. Have you ever heard of Martin Chemnitz?

Sinecerly inquiring

John Vrablic

[John Vrablic]

Just to explain the reason for these questions

I ahev a yearning to be aprt of the holy catholic church. And I haev found in my expereinec the Lutheran faith as given in the Book of Concord to eb teh most biblical, apostolic, adn catholic exposition of the faith.

So I would like to ask the group what doctrine of teh Lutheran faith woudl not be considered orthodox as not apostlic,as being against the creeds, against scripture, and agaist the church fathers??

Here is a link to a summary of doctrines if anyone is interested

John

http://www.lcms.org/bookofconcord/fc-sd.asp

[Rev. Dn. Raphael Barberg]

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

John, I know Matthew and other more scholarly types can answer your questions better then I can. I just wanted to say welcome and may God continue to lead you and bless you efforts to journey towards Him.

I am a former Baptist and Charismatic. When I read the Fathers, I realized that being right "ontologically" was/is more important then being right doctrinally (propositionally). St. Ignatius for example stresses the point, "Where the bishop is, there is the Church." So for me, the answer to my dilemna lay in finding an orthodox bishop, and uniting myself to him. The doctrine and ethos were a result of that ontological relationship.

In Christ,
the unowrthy deacon, Raphael

[John Vrablic]

Hello Rev. and thank you for your greeting.

I cherish good dialogue so I look forward to comments. You state that


I am a former Baptist and Charismatic. When I read the Fathers, I realized that being right "ontologically" was/is more important then being right doctrinally (propositionally). St. Ignatius for example stresses the point, "Where the bishop is, there is the Church." So for me, the answer to my dilemna lay in finding an orthodox bishop, and uniting myself to him. The doctrine and ethos were a result of that ontological relationship.

This is going to be my point of contenetion. It is MORE important for true doctrine than having a bishop. A bishop can err but true apostolic doctrine will not err. That is not to say that everyone can be a bishop himself. No teh doctrine of teh ministry is God ordainmed. I agree that the scriptures must be read IN the church but just becuase someone is IN teh chucrh does not make his doctrine OF teh church so ultimately it is teh foundation of Christ and his doctrine that saves us.

So if you were a charismatic in teh days of the 200's and you wanted to be orthodox and you lived where Paul of Samosata (sp) was bishop, you woudl go and be where he is. BUT he was a heretic within teh church so if you believd his teachings and they were hereticla would that save you??
No it seems that doctrine must come first and than teh bishop who holds to the true doctrine.

What if you were under teh bishop Honoroius and he taugfht you the heresy of Monotheleism (sp), or what if you were being taught by Pelagius. All these were bishops but all held to false teachings.
So again my contention is that you must find a bishop that holds the true apostolic faith

Just some thoughts thanks

John

[Rev. Dn. Raphael Barberg]

John,

I of course disagree. Who is closer to God? He who can articulate orthodox doctrine to the letter, or he who maybe doesn't understand the subtler nuances of "theology," yet, loves God, and loves his neighbor? Your argument is the classic East/West point of divergence. A "theologian" in our understanding, is simply "one who prays," and to "theologize," is effectively to pray.

If I was a Christian under the authority of Paul of Samasota (or your other examples), yes I would be obligated to fight heresy, as much as I could understand the argument. But if I was a shepherd or fisherman, and loved God, loved my neighbor, and trusted my bishop, then where have I gone wrong?

Even if my bishop is a heretic, the answer is not to start a new church, but fight to get a new bishop, or more approproiately, get my bishop to repent from leaving the teaching of the Church. Heretics come and go, but the Church continues to be led by the Holy Spirit into all Truth.

Forgive me if my understanding is lacking.

the unworhty deacon,
Raphael

[John Vrablic]

Raphael


If I was a Christian under the authority of Paul of Samasota (or your other
examples), yes I would be obligated to fight heresy, as much as I could
understand the argument. But if I was a shepherd or fisherman, and loved
God, loved my neighbor, and trusted my bishop, then where have I gone wrong?


You would have not followed Christs and Pauls and Johns teaching to beware of false prophets and those who come in sheeps clothing. TO test the spirits to see if they are from God.



Even if my bishop is a heretic, the answer is not to start a new church, but
fight to get a new bishop, or more approproiately, get my bishop to repent
from leaving the teaching of the Church. Heretics come and go, but the
Church continues to be led by the Holy Spirit into all Truth.


Understood. I agree just becuase someone is a heretic you don't start a new church I agree. But the point is this. The external chucrh and bishop does not save you from your sins if he teaches you wrong doctrien about teh redemption of man. It is ONLY the gospel that is the salvation of God for those who belive.

So ultimately it is more important to haev true doctrine than it is to be under a bishop who may teach false doctrine The chucrh ever since Adam and Eve was born form the word of God. You say teh church is led into teh truth. Which church than? RC church, the eastern orthodox church. How do you define what is thr true church. Is teh RC chucrh teh true church as they claim?

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear John, et al - There is a great deal being discussed in these posts! It's quite enjoyable to have so many topics brought into play; but for the sake of focus, I'm just going to comment on one for the time being: the notion of Scripture and tradition (the role of the Mother of God can come later).

In a recent post, John wrote:


So it must have scripture first and THEN tradition and the fathers and the liturgy and so on. Because ultimately Paul's concern over succession was not the leaders of the churches but always the gospel, or doctrine. So it seems the real issue is not who has the succession of priests but who has the succession of doctrine? So what if there was a confession that was scriptural, and apostolic and THEN catholic along with it.

In regard to the relationship of 'Scripture' to 'Tradition' (which in themselves are somewhat forced categories in genuine, and especially early Orthodox thought), this is a very common view -- especially in the Protestant and post-Protestant West. And within a given context, it must hold: for example, in the doctrinal structure of churches which came into being long after the formation of the Canon and in a climate where the other aspects of the Christian tradition had been neglected, as was the case with the Protestant reformation of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others. Given that these churches were 'starting anew', i.e. that they were coming into being, in the mid-16th century, their doctrinal developments had to come 'from' somewhere, and that 'somewhere' was the canon of Scripture.

The Orthodox Church, however, is not an innovation of the 16th century, but dates (if we take the feast of Pentecost as the 'beginning' of the Church) from the mid-30's AD, having been founded during the life of Christ --- long before the New Testament Scriptures had come into existence. The Church existed and formulated doctrine for over two centuries before a codified Scripture of the New Covenant existed. The Apostolic Tradition does not come from Scripture because there was simply no Scripture from which it could come. Quite to the opposite end, Scripture came from the Apostolic Tradition.

There is a simple logic to this that is oftentimes overlooked. Scripture (this being New Testament Scripture, of course) was never the 'source' from which came the tradition of the Apostles: these men lived, taught and led the Churches for decades before writing the documents which have come down to us as the books of the New Testament, and during that time the Church was anything but stagnant. We find that by the time the New Testament books are finally written, Church life and thought has to a great extent already been formulated: these documents are not the 'sources' from which the doctrine and praxis of the Apostles would be drawn, but are expressions of the doctrine and praxis that already existed as they were written. The New Testament Scriptures are a product of the Apostolic Tradition.

The complete Canon of Scripture (full Old Testament plus the New Testament), which only came about after several centuries of the Church's existence, did, as you say, contain a bountiful expression of the Apostolic Tradition that had formed it (keeping in mind that it was the Tradition that decided which books would be included, in what forms, in what order, etc). As such, this canon was quickly elevated to a special position of prominence amongst the other writings of the Church. In an analogy that is now becoming rather wide spread, the position of the Scriptural Canon in the Church was somewhat akin to that of the Constitution of the United States: it contains the 'heart and soul' of the Tradition, it is a sure rule by which other texts may be examined -- but it does not itself contain the full scope of the Tradition in its every detail, any more than the US's Constitution contains every law necessary to govern that nation.

So from within the Orthodox framework, the relationship of 'Scripture' and 'Tradition' is one of mutual interdependence, but with an absolutely antecedent structure. Tradition comes 'before' Scripture because, without any fancy footwork, that's simply the way it happened. Scripture is a product of the Apostolic Tradition which is not separate from or in contrast to it, but which also is not the whole of it. The Tradition of the Church has produced the Scriptures, which show forth the Truth. It has also produced the Liturgy, the festal hymnography, the sacred writings of other Fathers and Mothers -- all of which also show forth the Truth. None of these conflict with the others, but nor do they always overlap. There is doctrinal truth that is not presented explicitly in Scripture, though it is not at odds with what is given there, and is often hinted at by those texts.

A very good explanation of why the Protestant teaching of 'Sola Scriptura' simply does not hold true, logically or theologically, is offered by Fr John Whiteford in his article, Sola Scriptura: In the Vanity of Their Minds (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.htm) (link opens in new window), which should be read as a preamble to this discussion.

INXC, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

Matthew

A few things

A. Foundation of the church in time

My chucrh was not founded in the 1600s or in the 30s but with Adam and Eve. The church is teh fruit of the gospel so the church founded through Adam is the chucrh to which I belong, or those whose names aer written in heaven

b. Scripture Tradition

The true historical view woudl seem to be


1. Oral tradition from ADam to moses
2. OT books of Moses
3. Continual revelations thropuigh the prophets
4. The Prophets as written in scripture
5. End of OT scriptures
6. Oral teaching of Christ and apostles
7. The NT scriptures

Another question..how many tiemms does Jesus or the apostles quote tradition as teh source of dogma vs how many times does Jesus or teh apostles quote the OT scriptures? I counted once and I think ther was 70-80 OT quotes in one of eth gospels vs how many traditions?

4. The teaching of the fathers

Again I ask you Matthew waht tradition of teh apostles was handed down that was not part of the NT scriptures?

The teaching of teh apostles orally or in writing are binding.
I have read much of teh chucrh fathers and it SEEMS that your view is not what I ahev seen

In Clement, Irenause, Justin Mathetes, Ignatius are wrought with scriptuer verses.
Please show me one apostolic tradition in these fathers regarding doctrine that was not clearly expressed in scripture.
Again I ask you what happend to Augustine? When he dealt with teh Pelagians the Pelagians under your "grid" should haev been deemed catholic and not Augustine. Theer was much tradition in the church for Pelagians views.
When you read Augustine how many times does he use an apostoic tradition outside of hwta is clearly found in teh OT or NT? He crushed teh Pelagians with teh all effective and pwoerful word of God..NO?

John

[Rev. Dn. Raphael Barberg]

John,


You would have not followed Christs and Pauls and Johns teaching to beware of false prophets and those who come in sheeps clothing. TO test the spirits to see if they are from God.

And what is the mechanism that we use to "test the Spirits?" The council of the bishops is how we do this. How do YOU do this?


The external chucrh and bishop does not save you from your sins if he teaches you wrong doctrien about teh redemption of man. It is ONLY the gospel that is the salvation of God for those who belive.

And what is the Gospel? How do I interpret it? Just what is, "the pillar and ground of the Truth?" As the father's say, "He who has himself as a spiritual guide, is led by a fool."


So ultimately it is more important to haev true doctrine than it is to be under a bishop who may teach false doctrine

According to a rationalisitic, Augustinian, Aquainian view of the world.


The chucrh ever since Adam and Eve was born form the word of God.

And WHO is the LOGOS, the WORD OF GOD? It is Christ. And the Church is his mystical body.


You say teh church is led into teh truth. Which church than? RC church, the eastern orthodox church. How do you define what is thr true church. Is teh RC chucrh teh true church as they claim?

Seeing as the Roman Church has left the faith of the Fathers, by rejecting Conciliar authority, and changing doctrine, (Does the Holy Sprit proceed from the Father, or "the Father and the Son?") you know what my answer is. I joined the Orthodox Church not the RC because it was clear to me who it was who was wrong in the schism. I will leave that to you and God to make that decision for yourself.

please pray for this sinner,
Dn. Raphael

[Alan Teague]

As a recent Convert to Orthodoxy I'm a little green in this issue. Being an ex Anglican and Charismatic. Although I have attended the Greek Church over the last 40 years at various times with my Greek wife.

Which is the true Church I think the Orthodox one is also do the many ex RCs in our congregation who have recently converted.

Just my small view. Bless you all anyway and may the Holy Spirit guide us all.

[Richard McBride]

Mary as Co-Redeemer?
Or Logomaxia?

The argument against Sola Scriiptura by Father John Whiteford was well done. But living in the Bible Belt of Texas, as I do, it is difficult to imagine that many local Protestants, Baptists and Fundamentalists would be swayed by its rationale. (I hope I may be wrong!)

And while I may understand Fr. John’s earnest attempt to reveal the nature of Protestantism to Orthodox, still, I remain unsure about the thrust of it. Early in his argument Fr John suggests one point for understanding Protestants (through his description of them) is to discover the “key to their defeat”, which might require some knowledge of the great variety of strains of Protestantism -- and even then, “one could not hope to keep up with the new groups that spring up almost daily.” But even if one is speaking of the Church Militant (of Orthodoxy), I cannot convince myself to think in terms of “defeating” Protestantism, much less of being all that concerned over its “stubborn resiliency”, “their differences and contradictions”, or even “to seek to understand and confront [their] heresies individually”.

As with every person’s conversion, it takes place due to the Grace of the Holy Spirit, perhaps combined with love of the Theotokos or some other saint. And in such an event, a variety of Orthodox may be called upon to give aid and sustenance. Other than that, I do not feel it is upon my back to bring Protestants kicking and screaming into Orthodoxy. That could change, of course, were I on the road to Fort Worth, struck blind by God, and told to go out and save the heretics. (I should be so Blessed!)

Other than the point of one’s individual responsibility toward the Protestants (and I am probably guilty of making overmuch about it), there is another attitude in Fr. John’s apology which is less innocent. It is that the thrust of his words are argumentative. They anticipate a disputative situation at least, or even a combative one. And I am utterly against all such arguments as he describes: “indeed if you ever have an opportunity to see a Baptist and a Jehovah’s Witness argue over the Bible, you will notice that in the final analysis they simply quote different Scriptures back and forth at each other.” I think I have never witnessed one of these Bible thumping disputes (and I have seen a great number of them) actually convince the opponent of one single issue. Not only are such efforts futile (without the direction of the Holy Spirit), they are disruptive. They are un Christian, in my view.

There are a great number of people floating around the perimeter of Orthodoxy who, being clever in their own ratiocination, seem driven to argue about it. I do NOT think such a drive is the work of the Holy Spirit. For, such people cannot be swayed by the words of others -- even if they listen to the other side. These argumentative types are caught up in the sound of their own rationale; or as my father used to say, They just talk to hear their head rattle. This disputative nature is unproductive, and indeed, disruptive. In its extreme example I have thought of it as being demonic.

That said, there is also a very productive point made by Fr. John in his analysis of Protestantism. It is the warning that zealous exegetes may be devoid of religious purpose. Included with these caveats is the interesting comment: “...the Orthodox
do not believe that Tradition grows or changes.” That caught me up! But what he meant was, “Certainly when the Church is faced with a heresy, it is forced to define more precisely the difference between truth and error, but the Truth does not change.”

That was well said. And with it was the important point which Matthew has made about Tradition: “It may be said that Tradition expands in the sense that as the Church moves through history it does not forget its experiences along the way, it remembers the saints that arise in it, and it preserves the writings of those who have accurately stated its faith; but the Faith itself was “once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3)” He completely reinforces the point Matthew made concerning tradition being established prior to scripture. I appreciated this issue quite a lot when I had read it earlier in the messages.

Other than this, I think Fr. John’s thesis speaks for itself. Well, with perhaps one more exception. I had expected that the line of his reasoning should introduce the very important concept of the Collegiality of Orthodoxy. This has been the Holy Spirit’s great safeguard against wilful changes struck into every nook and cranny of Church theology, as Westerners are wont to do -- even as Roman Catholicism has demonstrated so often. Of course, it was this safeguard which the Roman Patriarch shrugged off so devastating in 1054, and which promises to tear that church apart yet one more time, if American Catholicism has its New Age way.
richard

[John Vrablic]

I think this should be a new thread but I don't know how to start it. I think it should be scripture and tradition

Matthew has stated that teh eraly church formulated adn protected doctrine by

1. Apostolic Teaching/Tradition
2. Scripture

I had stated that I belive it was the other way around.
Well I read St Vincent of Lerins yesterday.

Firstly as a confessional Lutheran my view of the church scripture adn tradition is much differnt than protestants.
Secondly when I speak of sola scriptura I do NOT mean that teh ONLY thing we need is a bible and NOTHING else no church, no ministers and everyone can interpret teh way they want.
No I mean that teh final judge and canon of doctrine must conform to teh infallible word of God.
Now when Matthew sasy that teh apostolic tardition cane first, that is only after teh OT though. But anyways the oral tardition or written NT have teh same infallibility.
But when teh apostles died they left us with what that oral tardition was.
So as Irenasue and Tertullian so ofet n speak of, that IN the Lords apostles we have our authority adn Ireanaus that teh scriptures are the pillar of our faith.
So ultimnately tertullian can say

"In the Lord's apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine57 which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even "an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel" (than theirs), he would be called accursed58 by us. "

AND

"Now, what that was which they preached-in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them-can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles rounded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivG voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree214 manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches-those moulds215 and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged216 as false217 which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God."

So it woudl seem that whatever woudl agree with scripture and teh early church woudl be orthodox.

Adn ultimatley I ask teh question St Vincent of Lerins does..How do we know what is apostolic.

His answer

Chapter XXIX.

Recapitulation.

[76.] This being the case, it is now time that we should recapitulate, at the close of this second Commonitory, what was said in that and in the preceding.

We said above, that it has always been the custom of Catholics, and still is, to prove the true faith in these two ways; first by the authority of the Divine Canon, and next by the tradition of the Catholic Church. Not that the Canon alone does not of itself suffice for every question, but seeing that the more part, interpreting the divine words according to their own persuasion, take up various erroneous opinions, it is therefore necessary that the interpretation of divine Scripture should be ruled according to the one standard of the Church's belief, especially in those articles on which the foundations of all Catholic doctrine rest.

My point being that Matthew stated that the eraly church had teh apostolic tardition and that teh scriptures were not codified for "several" centuries so taht teh tardition must come first and than scripture.

It seems that it may be the other way around, as I stated in an earlier post.
If it is tradition first than how can you cliam that teh seven sacraments are apostolic? Form what I haev read teh early churh had complete consensus on baptism and teh Eucharist?
Or if tradition is first than as Ireanes and Jutsin and many other commented on free will. Pelagius use the eraly church fathers as his "canon" to show that what he was teaching was taught by teh early church tradition.
But Augustine clearl refute dhim not by citing apotsolic tradition aprat rom scripture but from scripture and THAN he had to excuse some of teh chucrh fathers in how they had commented on thes things.

Thoughts??

John

[Jordan Henderson]

John asks:


...waht tradition of teh apostles was handed down that was not part of the NT scriptures?

Although I would hesitate to say that there are any Orthodox doctrines which cannot be supported by Scripture, there are certainly Apostolic traditions which were handed down that are no where found in the Scriptures. For example, there are sayings of Christ found in various writings of the Church Fathers which are not found in the New Testament.

You earlier offered this summary:



The true historical view woudl seem to be

1. Oral tradition from ADam to moses
2. OT books of Moses
3. Continual revelations thropuigh the prophets
4. The Prophets as written in scripture
5. End of OT scriptures
6. Oral teaching of Christ and apostles
7. The NT scriptures


As Fr. John Whiteford notes in his "Sola Scriptura" article,


[i]f Paul meant to exclude tradition as not also being profitable, then we should wonder why Paul uses non-biblical oral tradition in this very same chapter. The names Jannes and Jambres are not found in the Old Testament, yet in II Timothy 3:8 Paul refers to them as opposing Moses. Paul is drawing upon the oral tradition that the names of the two most prominent Egyptian Magicians in the Exodus account (Ch. 7-8) were "Jannes" and "Jambres."

Of course, this is not a doctrinal issue, but it does show that the apostles drew from oral tradition.

Jordan

[John Vrablic]

Hi Jordan

Thank you for your response. I am interested though in the last e-mail I wrote adn any comments other than yours as well

You state


Although I would hesitate to say that there are any Orthodox doctrines which cannot be supported by Scripture, there are certainly Apostolic traditions which were handed down that are no where found in the Scriptures. For example, there are sayings of Christ found in various writings of the Church Fathers which are not found in the New Testament.

As you say some of these traditions are NOT theological adn pertain to doctrine as I udnerstand it. Here again is the last e-mail that I woud like any comments on

I think this should be a new thread but I don't know how to start it. I think it should be scripture and tradition

Matthew has stated that teh eraly church formulated adn protected doctrine by

1. Apostolic Teaching/Tradition
2. Scripture

I had stated that I belive it was the other way around. Well I read St Vincent of Lerins yesterday.

Firstly as a confessional Lutheran my view of the church scripture adn tradition is much differnt than protestants. Secondly when I speak of sola scriptura I do NOT mean that teh ONLY thing we need is a bible and NOTHING else no church, no ministers and everyone can interpret teh way they want. No I mean that teh final judge and canon of doctrine must conform to teh infallible word of God. Now when Matthew sasy that teh apostolic tardition cane first, that is only after teh OT though. But anyways the oral tardition or written NT have teh same infallibility.

But when teh apostles died they left us with what that oral tardition was. So as Irenasue and Tertullian so ofet n speak of, that IN the Lords apostles we have our authority adn Ireanaus that teh scriptures are the pillar of our faith. So ultimnately tertullian can say


"In the Lord's apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine57 which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even "an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel" (than theirs), he would be called accursed58 by us. "

AND


"Now, what that was which they preached-in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them-can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles rounded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivG voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree214 manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches-those moulds215 and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged216 as false217 which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God."

So it woudl seem that whatever woudl agree with scripture and teh early church woudl be orthodox.

Adn ultimatley I ask teh question St Vincent of Lerins does..How do we know what is apostolic.

His answer Chapter XXIX. Recapitulation.

[76.] This being the case, it is now time that we should recapitulate, at the close of this second Commonitory, what was said in that and in the preceding.

We said above, that it has always been the custom of Catholics, and still is, to prove the true faith in these two ways; first by the authority of the Divine Canon, and next by the tradition of the Catholic Church. Not that the Canon alone does not of itself suffice for every question, but seeing that the more part, interpreting the divine words according to their own persuasion, take up various erroneous opinions, it is therefore necessary that the interpretation of divine Scripture should be ruled according to the one standard of the Church's belief, especially in those articles on which the foundations of all Catholic doctrine rest.

My point being that Matthew stated that the eraly church had teh apostolic tardition and that teh scriptures were not codified for "several" centuries so taht teh tardition must come first and than scripture.

It seems that it may be the other way around, as I stated in an earlier post.
If it is tradition first than how can you cliam that teh seven sacraments are apostolic? Form what I haev read teh early churh had complete consensus on baptism and teh Eucharist? Or if tradition is first than as Ireanes and Jutsin and many other commented on free will. Pelagius use the eraly church fathers as his "canon" to show that what he was teaching was taught by teh early church tradition. But Augustine clearl refute dhim not by citing apotsolic tradition aprat rom scripture but from scripture and THAN he had to excuse some of teh chucrh fathers in how they had commented on thes things.

Thoughts??

John

[John Vrablic]

Hello to all

As a confession Lutheran who considers his faith as catholic I am intereste din the relation of scripture and tradition. I assume this is a fromu to discuss theology of the catholic faith.
In my thirst for Christ I ahve been led to teh teachings of teh Lutheran faith. Now as soemone who feels that his faith confesses teh truth of God, I am interested in what things I may be believing that are not biblical, catholic or apostolic.
One of these is teh issue of scripture adn tradition.
I liken teh scripture adn tradition to faith and works. The faith is God given adn divine in nature for it recives teh word of teh living God. the works that we perform are an extension of teh reception of the word. Teh owrd is divine only while our works aer divine through participation in teh word but aer works that we perform through his grace so are divine and human in nature. A hypostatic union if you will. NOT teh perefct hypostatic union of nature like Chrits for we have sin still inhereing in us.
SO likewies scripture as teh word of Gdo is divine in nature and teh chucrh recives thsi word of God and confesses back to God what she belives.
So scripture like the word are divine in nature while teh confession back to god like our works aer a participation of the divine and human. So our confesioin like our works are divin adn human in nature.
SO the point is to say that we must first llok to tradition than to scripture woudl be like saying we must first do good works and that will unite us to the Christ. It is the opposite, we must first unite ourselves to Christ in his word and sacramnets and than do good works.
SO this issue of scripture and tradition is vital
Here is a thesis

1. Roman Catholic
Scripture is subverted by teh tradition of teh chucrh so ultimately tradition overtakes scripture

Collorary
This plays to hwo tehy view faitha dn works. Even though they tecah that works aer always doen in garce ultinmately there form of penance adn expiating tehir sins woith indulgenecss, the tresury of merits and workks of superorogatory,as well as "sacrifices for the souls who habe no one to sacrifice for them" (Fatima)
So ultiamtely ther works superced faith in teh owrd just like their tradition supercedes scripture

2. Orthodox. I don't know your religion enbopugh so PLEASE correct me. I ahev studied RCsm for 4 yrs but NOT Orthodox. But thsi is my summation so far

Apostolic tradition is teh standard of which scriptuer is a part of. The two aer perectly intertwined and they aer both exacltly equal.
There is no dictinction beteween teh apostolic tradition of teh first 7 centuries adn scripture

Collorary
So it SEEMS liek you teach that we aer save dby faitha dn works. You cannot separate oine form teh other and your works done in grace justify you. this is what RC say they tecah but ultimately they supreced faith. So likewise RC teach that scripture adn tradition are like yours when they really ar not.

3. Protestnats

teach scripture alone to teh effct that ther is no tradition of interpretation and that ther need not be a church and it is completely invisable

Collarary
Their teaching oin faith and works focuse entirely on the ACT of man to decied for Christ. In essnec they have a one time trip to the cross and the life of repenatenc as a continula dying and living with Christ is not emphamsized.
So they COMEPLETLY separate scripture adn tradition and completely separate faitha dn works. because the life of a Christian for protetsnast now foucuses on what good works must we do in order to be christian whil not foucsing in on that it is Christ that they carry in their body adn they are being crucified daily and rsisng dauily througfh repenatance and faith

4. Lutherans

tecah that tradition is imperative adn you cannot have tardition w/o scriptures. teh emphasis is though first oin scriptuer adn than as an outflow of taht teh proper inyterpretation of that. So they do not practically tecah that tardition suprecedes scripture as teh RC or they do not teach that teh tradition of teh first 700 yrs is teh same authority as scripture as teh Orthodox (please correct me if I am wrong) or that ther is NO tradition at all and just teh bare scriptures with no tradition

Collorary

So Lutherans teach that faith and works are necessary. They separete the faitha dn works in teh sense that the works are not gretaer thamn the faith or even equal to it when it ocmes to justification befoer God.
So Rcs have their works (tradition) suprecede faith (scripture), while Orthodox teach faitha dn works as equal in jsutification (scripture ad tradition equal) while Protestnast teach almsot that faith and works aer entirely separated (scripture adn tradition) while it seems that Lutherans teach that faitha dn works are necesssary but teh only things that saves is teh word of Gdo recived by faith (so scriptuer adn tradition are neccessary but it only true doctrine becuase it is from teh word of God)

Does this make sense????
I still would liek an answer to some of teh other questions I had in the last post.
I ams oory for the barrage of questions but am interested in catholic theology and find it helpful to see what others opinions are adn compare and contrast other theologies. I feel when we do that we can than truly gauge wjhat is biblical adn catholic

Sory about the typos


John Vrablic

[John Vrablic]

Is there any reason that there is no response to the last three e-mails concernig scripture adn tradition?

Just wondering, I hope I haev not thrown out too much or whatever, just wondering

John

[Jordan Henderson]

John,

Earlier, a link to Fr. John Whiteford's article, "Sola Scriptura" was posted. The following two links are responses of Fr. John to Protestant apologists regarding Scripture and Tradition:

A Dialogue with A Protestant Apologist on St. Cyprian of Carthage and His View of Scripture and Tradition. (http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/stcyprian_sola.htm)

A Dialogue with A Protestant Apologist on Sola Scriptura and the Early Church (http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/solascriptura_earlychurch.htm)

In addition, this article (http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/athans.htm) and this article (http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/athan_r.htm), both written by a Roman Catholic, discuss St. Athanasius' views on Scripture and Tradition.

In Christ,
Jordan

[John Vrablic]

Thanks Jordan

I read most of the articles and I thought it summed up what I ahd stated in the last post I talked about scripture adn tradition.
Lutherans view tradition differnet than Protestnats..see the last post on this.

The questions I have asking are a few

Mathew staste that the early chucrh used 1.Apostolic tradition first and than scripture of a part of that.
2. That the scripture were not codified for "several"centuries
3. That teh Orthodox chucrh needs to only knwo what is part of apostolic tardition for it to be catholic

1. To one I had commented that it seems to be teh other way around and cited Irenause who said that teh scriptures were the pillar and foundation and than St Vincent hwo said it has always been teh cutsome to refute from scripture first and than tradition.
Also I had stated that the apostolic tradition of teh eraly chucrh was nothing more adn nothing less than what teh scriptures speak of. What Basil discussses in his comments on tradition are aidophora, they do not pertain to salvation.

So I also than asked if Apostolic tradition was teh basis for orthodoxy than on what basis doe teh orthodox chucrh accept teh sevn sacraments which as far as I knwo was not part of eraly church tradition, whil refusing Purgatory teh primacy of teh pope that aer a part of tradition in some sense?

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear John, Jordan, Richard, Alan, et al,

We must be careful when we quote Fathers such as St Irenaeus in the context of the present discussion. Irenaeus quotes Old Testament Scripture extensively (it is, for him, 'the Scripture'), as well as the writings of the Apostles and the four evangelists (though there was not yet a 'New Testament' as such), and also other sources (e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas, the writings of Justin Martyr). Yet amidst all these quotations, and there are hundreds of them in his works, Irenaeus never says that the faith of the Church is the Scripture, but that the teaching of the Apostles is the same truth witnessed in Scripture (OT), the Gospels and works of the Apostles (roughly equal to our NT), and elsewhere.

Irenaeus saw these documents as revelatory of the truth because they represented, in part, the teaching of the Apostles. Hence, for example, the title of his smaller, catechetical work: 'The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching' -- a summary memorandum of what the Apostles taught as prophecied in Scripture (OT) and witnessed in the NT writings and elsewhere. If one reads Irenaeus' work carefully, one notes very poignantly a whole collection of theological doctrines which are not explicitly given in Scripture, yet which Irenaeus considers wholly Apostolic (e.g. the fact that Adam and Eve were children in Paradise; the idea that Christ was at least 50 years old when He was crucified, which Irenaeus believes was the teaching of St John the Evangelist, though it is clearly not in John's Gospel). The sacred writings of the Church (OT and NT) do contain the Apostolic tradition for Irenaeus, but they do not wholly contain it. The Tradition is bigger than that which is recorded in Scripture, though by very fact of the uniformity of truth, nothing in the Tradition conflicts with Scripture (i.e. stands at odds with it), even if it is not directly mentioned therein.

St Irenaeus makes emphatically clear his understanding of how one can be assured of doctrinal truth: the succession of bishops. Irenaeus gives us the most extensive early documentation of episcopal succession in the Roman See (which he uses as an example, since 'it would be very tedious, in a volume such as [the Against Heresies], to trace out the successions of all the Churches', AH 3.3.2), tracing the succession of every bishop from Peter to Eleutherius, who was the Roman bishop at the time Irenaeus was writing. 'In this order', writes Irenaeus, 'and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us. And this is the most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth' (AH 3.3.3).

Irenaeus loves the OT Scriptures and is one of the earliest authors to have drawn from most of what would later become the New Testament. But Irenaeus' presentation of Christian doctrine is not merely 'Scriptural': it is traditional. Scripture alone does not suffice to justify many of his teachings, nor does Irenaeus show the slightest concern that it should. The Scripture is an invaluable tool for ascertaining the Apostolic teaching, but Irenaeus understood that the teaching, which is paramount, was broader than the pages of Scripture.

His view is most clear by the very structure of his five volume work, Against Heresies. After spending the course of two books describing in detail the chief tenets of the major Gnostic heretical sects which existed in his area, he switches in book 3 to a proclamation of the Church's teaching. He begins book 3 with the declaration that the Gnostics are unfamiliar even with the Old Testament Scriptures they quote, since they misuse them so dramatically. And then he says:

'But again, we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles and which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches [...] Since, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the Apostles, like a rich man depositing his money in a bank, lodged in the Church's hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers' (AH 3.2.1-3.4.1).

The fulness of the Truth is found in the wholeness of the Church, which continues to proclaim the tradition of the Apostles. Irenaeus loved the Scriptures, he considered them a 'pillar and foundation' of the truth; but as for the whole of the truth, Irenaeus is unequivocably explicit:

'Suppose there arise a dispute among us relating to some important question [of the faith]. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the Apostles had constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For imagine if the Apostles had left us no writings at all -- in that case it would of course be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches' (AH 3.4.1).

The Apostles did leave writings, and these are venerated and used as clear images of their tradition. But St Irenaeus, like all of Orthodoxy, refuses to accept the modern idea that Scripture alone contains that tradition in its entirety. This is preserved unblemished in the tradition (i.e. the life) of the Church, of which Scripture is one part -- a primary part, but a part nonetheless. It is to be studied and venerated, but even its veneration comes from the larger tradition and not from itself.

INXC, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

Hello Matthew

Thank you for your comments


"We must be careful when we quote Fathers such as St Irenaeus in the context of the present discussion. Irenaeus quotes Old Testament Scripture extensively (it is, for him, 'the Scripture'), as well as the writings of the Apostles and the four evangelists (though there was not yet a 'New Testament' as such), and also other sources (e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas, the writings of Justin Martyr). Yet amidst all these quotations, and there are hundreds of them in his works, Irenaeus never says that the faith of the Church is the Scripture, but that the teaching of the Apostles is the same truth witnessed in Scripture (OT), the Gospels and works of the Apostles (roughly equal to our NT), and elsewhere."

He sasy that teh scriptuers aer teh pillar of their faith. In other words what Irenasue seems to mean is that teh oral apostolic tardition preached adn teh scripture of teh NT aer the same and since teh apostles aer now dead we haev what they passed onto us not only in the tradition of teh chucrh but they left us teh scriptures as a canon and rule for teh pillar of our faith. So teh real question is what tradition in teh eraly chucrh was different than what teh scriptures taught. He sees tehm as teh same


Irenaeus saw these documents as revelatory of the truth because they represented, in part, the teaching of the Apostles. Hence, for example, the title of his smaller, catechetical work: 'The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching' -- a summary memorandum of what the Apostles taught as prophecied in Scripture (OT) and witnessed in the NT writings and elsewhere. If one reads Irenaeus' work carefully, one notes very poignantly a whole collection of theological doctrines which are not explicitly given in Scripture, yet which Irenaeus considers wholly Apostolic (e.g. the fact that Adam and Eve were children in Paradise; the idea that Christ was at least 50 years old when He was crucified, which Irenaeus believes was the teaching of St John the Evangelist, though it is clearly not in John's Gospel)

Hold on her Matthew. Thsi is waht you seem to be saying. The tradition of the apsotles is not completely in teh scripture so that teh oral tradition is differnt in some ways to the scriptures. I ahve that writing in front of me and have read it at least thrre times. The ENTIRE book is all scripture.

So what doctrine does Ireanseu teach that is outside teh scope of teh scriptures?? You say he teaches that MArya dn Eve were children in paradise. Does not geneiss deal with that. And than you say about Christ being 50 yrs old. That is EXACTLY teh problem with tradition outside teh scope of teh scriptures. Teh scripture speak of Chrsity not yet being a certain age. It is a well know fact that Jesus was NOT 5o yrs old. If that is how faithful his tradition is I want no part of it. IF Irenause who was taugh by Polyucardp who was taught by John (?) coudl get THIS tradition wrong so soon after teh postels, than how much weight can we put on these typ eof radityions. Nonethgeless Irenauise does not teach doctrinally anything differnt than what teh OT or NT scripture speak of. I cannot find it in his 5 books and hsi Apostoolic preaching.


The sacred writings of the Church (OT and NT) do contain the Apostolic tradition for Irenaeus, but they do not wholly contain it. The Tradition is bigger than that which is recorded in Scripture, though by very fact of the uniformity of truth, nothing in the Tradition conflicts with Scripture (i.e. stands at odds with it), even if it is not directly mentioned therein.

For Ireansue they contain teh whole of it when it comes to doctrine. MAybe not aidiaphora (sp) but when it comes to faith, works, teh law, baptsim teh Eucharist, teh resurection teh fall of man, teh recapitulation in Christ. These aer all taken directly form scripture. Please show me where Ireansue actually looks at a DOCTRIEN of teh church outside of scripture


St Irenaeus makes emphatically clear his understanding of how one can be assured of doctrinal truth: the succession of bishops. Irenaeus gives us the most extensive early documentation of episcopal succession in the Roman See (which he uses as an example, since 'it would be very tedious, in a volume such as [the Against Heresies], to trace out the successions of all the Churches', AH 3.3.2), tracing the succession of every bishop from Peter to Eleutherius, who was the Roman bishop at the time Irenaeus was writing. 'In this order', writes Irenaeus, 'and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us. And this is the most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth' (AH 3.3.3).

In teh contxet of what Irenasue says thsi is absolutely true. It is true because at that time teh arely church did hand on teh tradition of the paotles which I say was EXACTLY teh same as teh scriptures pertaing to doctrine.


Irenaeus loves the OT Scriptures and is one of the earliest authors to have drawn from most of what would later become the New Testament. But Irenaeus' presentation of Christian doctrine is not merely 'Scriptural': it is traditional. Scripture alone does not suffice to justify many of his teachings

Such as what? They all seem to be drawn directly from scriptures.


nor does Irenaeus show the slightest concern that it should. The Scripture is an invaluable tool for ascertaining the Apostolic teaching, but Irenaeus understood that the teaching, which is paramount, was broader than the pages of Scripture.

Not according to St Vicnet of Lerins. He states unequvacobly that it has AWLAYS been teh catholic custoime to first use scripture the history of interpreation of teh passages.



His view is most clear by the very structure of his five volume work, Against Heresies. After spending the course of two books describing in detail the chief tenets of the major Gnostic heretical sects which existed in his area, he switches in book 3 to a proclamation of the Church's teaching. He begins book 3 with the declaration that the Gnostics are unfamiliar even with the Old Testament Scriptures they quote, since they misuse them so dramatically. And then he says:

'But again, we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles and which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches [...] Since, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the Apostles, like a rich man depositing his money in a bank, lodged in the Church's hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers' (AH 3.2.1-3.4.1).

The fulness of the Truth is found in the wholeness of the Church, which continues to proclaim the tradition of the Apostles. Irenaeus loved the Scriptures, he considered them a 'pillar and foundation' of the truth; but as for the whole of the truth, Irenaeus is unequivocably explicit:

'Suppose there arise a dispute among us relating to some important question [of the faith]. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the Apostles had constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For imagine if the Apostles had left us no writings at all -- in that case it would of course be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches' (AH 3.4.1).


Exaclty. teh apostolic tradition of doctrien is nothing different than what scripture says. For he says WHAT IF THEY HAD NOT LEFT US THEIR WRITINGS. In other words he is suing thsi is as teh canon of what is taught. So EVEN if they didn't teh apostolic tradition woudl be sufficinet. WHY? because it was no different tahn scipture

So thsi is waht it seems yo aer saying. That you hold only to the apostolic tradition of whta they said or wrote down adn whatever is not from that apostolic faith is false??

Are teh invocation of saints a part ofteh apostolic tradition. Is praying to Mary as our hope adn refuge a part of that apostolic faith?

I happen to agree that I do not want to practice anything that was not originally taugfht or handed down by teh apostles,

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear John,

It is becoming relatively clear that we have reached a point of impass which it is probably best not to belabour. There are two views on the source of doctrine that exist in modern Christianity (there are actually far more, but we are talking here about the primary two):

1. Scripture >> Tradition
2. Tradition >> Scripture

Protestantism bases its doctrinal beliefs and formulations on view 1, while Orthodoxy on view 2. It bases this off of the manner in which its doctrinal discussions have been carried out from the beginning, and on it the Church is unwilling to bend.

In brief, the Church's position on the matter at hand is characterised by the following points:

(1) The Scriptures of the New Testament are the products of the Church's tradition, and not the source from which the latter came. Though there are modern-day attempts to interpret this historical development in the reverse order, there has never been any question on the matter in Orthodox theological or academic historical consideration. It is a matter of logical sequence. Scripture simply came second. Once it was canonized as an established and accepted whole, the two then developped hand-in-hand.

(2) The whole fulness of the doctrinal truth of Christianity is not found solely within the pages of Scripture.

(3) Scripture is not self-interpreting: the doctrinal truths it contains are not fully understandable from the texts alone, but require the teachings of the Church, embodied in her traditions, to be understood properly.

While these statements do not sit well in the ears of Protestant exegetes, they are simply not up for discussion when it comes to the Orthodox faith.

The writings of specific Fathers give all the support to these views that the Church has ever considered necessary; though their writings, like those of Holy Scripture, can be 'quoted' in support of almost any modern interpretation. Certainly, given the sheer vastness of the patristic witness, there is a variance of emphasis in their writings: some were incredible Scriptural exegetes (e.g. Irenaeus, whom we have discussed here) and centred much of their argument on what they found presented there; others were centred much more on other aspects of the Church's tradition (the Liturgy, the writings of other Fathers, etc). Some Fathers varied their emphasis from one work to the next, or even from section to section in a single work.

But the patristic tradition, the witness taken as a whole, does not support any notion of sola scriptura. One can successfully locate specific quotations in given Fathers that might seem to support the idea in a given context or discussion, but not as a foundational or sufficient theological norm. I am satisfied that St Irenaeus, with whom I am rather familiar is he is the subject of my doctoral work, though he is one of the most expansive biblical theologians of the early Church, presents in the end a view of doctrinal formulation that in no way supports or allows for the first view, above (Scripture >> Tradition).

In terms of the present day, it is clear that the Orthodox view on this matter (which in some degree is shared by the Roman Catholic and high Anglican churches) does not 'fit' with the Protestant view, and this is one of the unfortunate results of the divisions in Christianity today. Yet it is a view which is not up for ecumenical 'review'.

INXC, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

If that is an impasse that is unfortunate. All I hav triue dto do is to follow somewhat of what lerins speaks of. To test each doctrine with scripture and THAN tradition. That is what he speaks of as catholic. That teh ecclessial and catholic interpretaion of scripture is imperative.

All I ahv tried to do is to search for a confession of faith taht is biblical, catholic, adn apostolic

When I look at teh Lutheran confession they are all. Thereis not one teaching form Irenaeus , Clement, Justin, Mathetes, barnabas that is not a part of teh Lutheran faith

So when you say tradition is first and tahn scripture but teh two are oen. Than I must ask if teh intercession ofteh sainst was whaet the apotles were teaching. Was teh truts and intercession of Mary taught as Apostolic doctrine in teh eraly church and was the seven sacramenst an apostolic tradition that was handed on?

Respectfully
John

[Razhden Guriadze]

Greetings in Christ,

I may only add to the confusion but, here goes.

I read in one of the books of the Apocrypha, I forget which one, that there were 95 boooks of the Bible. This, of course was at the time of that book being written. If we take the Bible as we know it and add the Apocrypha we still don't have 95 books. There is a book out there called " The Lost Books of the Bible, The Forgotten Books of Eden"( I hope I have the name right). In this book you will find a lot of the "Oral Tradition " of the Orthodox Church. Are these books valid? I really don't know. We know that there were several (possibly hundreds) of books which were contemporary with the Bible.

I, personally, find no place in Orthodox Theology where it even intimates that Mary could even remotely be considered as "Co-Redemptrix". I think this is strictly a Roman invention. I am sorry folks, but the bumper sticker on my car says "The Pope is a Protestant".

God bless,
ICXC,
Razhden

[Chad Duskin]

As a former Lutheran (and later Baptist) I have stuggled with the same questions that John has posted above. The one question that kept coming back to me over and over was "If scripture defines what the Church is and does, then how did the Reformers decide which books belonged in their canon of scripture? Most Orthodox would agree with the Reformers that Rome was abusing her authority and was creating tradition to back it up, but would not agree with the solution to the problem. The Reformers, in their zeal to distance themselves from Rome, chose to create their own "Tradition" whether they want to see it as such or not. By picking and choosing the books of their canon they call everything NOT found in their canon of scripture "the traditions of man" and ignore the Holy Traditions found in other places (such as prayer for the dead in Maccabees). Luther did not want to include the epistle of St James in his canon of scripture because of its emphasis on works WITH faith (synergy) which is what John referred to earlier as the Orthodox view of scripture and tradition (faith and works). He is correct in saying that Roman Catholics place tradition above scripture and the Protestants place scripture above tradition and that Orthodox see the two as intertwined. If Protestants want to place scripture above tradition it begs the questions Whose canon of scripture? How can any canon of scripture be compiled without tradition playing a part? If scripture is self-evident and self-authenticating, with which scripture should we start to compare with the rest? Should Luther have started with St James' epistle or St Paul's epistle to the Romans to interpret the rest of scripture? History tells us that Luther's struggle with the epistle of St James was caused by his Sola Fide doctrine based on his over emphasis on the epistle to the Romans to interpret the rest of scripture. He was creating his own tradition to create his own canon of scripture. Tradition must always define the canon of scripture. The real question is WHOSE tradition. The tradition of the fathers or of the reformers?

[Martin Nell]

Is there any version of the Bible out there that includes the books of the apocrypha intermingled with the other books of the old testament, instead of off in their own section between the two testaments?? I know that these books are supposed to be in with all the others, but I've never seen a bible that had them like this.

Thanks... Martin

[Justin]

Razhden


There is a book out there called ' The Lost Books of the Bible, The Forgotten Books of Eden'( I hope I have the name right). In this book you will find a lot of the "Oral Tradition " of the Orthodox Church. Are these books valid? I really don't know.

I'd suggest not reading the "Lost Books of the Bible" type of texts. If there is commentary in addition to the original texts, I'd doubly suggest avoiding these types of works. They are almost always slanted towards the belief (and/or sales pitch) that "The Church tried to hide these books, but now we can show you want they didn't want you to see." Many of the Church Fathers can be read for free online (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/), and the ones that can't can many times be bought through Orthodox Book Stores (http://www.geocities.com/stainlesskings888/Orthodoxproducts.html). Even the "good" or "valid" Apocryphal sources should perhaps be avoided (at least until one is well-aged in the faith):


It should be understood that all that is good and edifying in the Apocrypha has already been absorbed by the Church. These true accounts have been presented to the faithful through the hymns, iconography and writings of the holy Fathers, and there is no need for the Orthodox Christian to search these writings - The Life of the Virgin Mary, The Theotokos; (Holy Apostles Convent, 1989), p. ix

I'm not exactly sure what the term "Co-Redemptrix" is suppose to mean (though I can guess from what I've heard). Some people might attempt to find some evidence for things like this in the Church's language (for example)...


Rejoice, only gate through which the Word alone has passed. Lady, by your childbearing, you have broken the bars and gates of hell. (cf. Rev. 1:18; the Icon of the Harrowing of Hell, etc.) - Source (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/prayers/triodion/lent5sat)

...but this has to be taken with the rest of the Church's Tradition (in this possible "evidence," for example, similar language is used about Saint Peter by Ambrose, and Athanasius uses similar language about Christian saints in General). (Or perhaps I just don't understand the Co-redemptrix doctrine and am far off in what type of evidences they would use?)

Justin

[M.C. Steenberg]

One clarification on the above talk of 'apocryphal' books and various doctrines of the Church:

One must be aware of the distinction between the so-called 'Apocrypha' (or more properly the so-called 'Old Testament Apocrypha') and the 'Apocryphal Books of the New Testament' or 'New Testament Apocrypha'. These are two entirely different entities with different histories and different realms of influence within the doctrinal history of the Church.

The so-called Old Testament Apocrypha is actually a collection of Old Testament books (e.g. the Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach) that were always included among the canon of the Old Testament (with a few regional variations) until the middle ages. During the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, these books were removed from the Protestant canon and relegated to a secondary collection of works which was thereafter to be known as the 'Apocrypha' (as a side-note, Luther believed that all should read the apocryphal books, though he felt they should not be used for the 'formation' of doctrine). However, the Orthodox Church has never recognised the sixteenth-century division of the canon, and retains all the books of the 'apocrypha' as integral books of the Old Testament: the are wholly Scriptural, every bit as canonical and authoritative as all the other books of the OT.

The New Testament Apocrypha, on the other hand, is a collection of works composed during the general timeframe of the canonical NT books, covering a range of topics in a range of styles. There are many epistles, several additional gospels, more books of revelation, additional books of acts, etc. In addition to the wide range of literary types within this collection of texts, there is also a large range of truth: some of the works are by all means inspired and bear direct witness to the Truth; others are the works of forgers and are essentially works of the imagination. At times, a single work will range from one extreme to the other, and back again.

The Church has learned much from the true knowledge presented in these books, but has never taken them blankly at face value, as she has with the canonical NT books. They are books that must be read with care and wisdom, so as to learn what is good and true therein, and not be led astray by what is not. These books can be dangerous for precisely this reason, and in general they are not the best reading for someone wishing to grow in the faith. Let the Church be teacher: she will pass along what is good from these books, without the hearer running the risk of being led astray.

This is not to say that these books are not rewarding for study in the appropriate context, but they should be approached with due caution and care, preferably with guidance.

INXC, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

Hello there

I had posted a couple of months ago. I do not knwo how to post a NEW message so I am adding this into this discussion..my apologies.

I am a confessional Lutheran. My thirst is to particpate in the union of Christ and his church in its fullness and truth.

I have some questions pertaining to orthodox doctrine.

I haev tried to see doctrine as

1. Scriptural
2. CAtholic
3. Apostolic

I THINK you woudl say those three are really one. But nonetheless that ahs been my "grid" for teh truth. It is ver similar to St Vincent of Lerins who calims that we must judge doctrine from scripture first that teh tardition of interpretation next as well as councils.

SO I wanted to get clarification on soem major doctrinal issues from the Orthodox persepctive


1. Original Sin

As I understand it you tecah that man inherits death from Adama dn is born in sin but that teh guilt of sin is not trasmitted to us??? Can you please calrify

2. The atonement
From what I gather you follow teh Christus Victor concept taht Christ battled Satan and that battle continues in our lives. That teh atonement was not a judicial event that God demanded payment for our sin but taht eh defeated death.

Is that correct. I am soory if I am saying that wrong

3. Justification

That we are justified by our faith and works performed in grace. That justification adn salvation seem to be different themes. Justification is not recieved only by faith but we aer justified by our faith and works???

4. The means of grace

That God gives us his grace initially in baptism

A. Baptism. Washes and cleanses us from original sin NOT teh guilt of original sin

B. The Eucahrist. Transubstatntian. Do you teach that teh Eucahrist is where we offer up to God teh father teh same sacrifice for the propitiation of our sins in union with Christ as teh RC chucr does?

C. Penance
I do not know what yopur teaching is here. DO you tecah that after we commit sin after baptism that we must make satisfaction for that sin in penanec for teh justice of God?
What part of penanec do you have and when are you forgiven your sin/ IN penance, at absolution without an obstocle, only when reciving teh absolution by faith OR it is only complte after yo have performed satisfcation

D. You hold to teh other 4 sacraments as teh RC does???


5. Sanctification

That we use the sacramenst for grace but also call upon teh sainst in heaven to pray for us.
I assume you do not teach teh treasury of merits as teh RC does.
That Mary is our intercessor adn prays to God for us. Do you teach that we "put all our hope adn refuge" with Mary?
You teach that she is not immaculately concived but taht she lived a life sinless.


That has been what I ahev been able to gather. Please calrify what I have left out.

I thank you for thsi opportunity to understand more of your traditrion of faith.

Ultimately I want to follow teh Lord in garec and truth

John Vrablic

[Owen Jones]

You're putting the cart before the horse, John. While it's typical of people investigating Orthodoxy to ask all of the dogmatic questions, from my experience the motive is to acquire reassurance and certitude that one believes in all the right things.

Prior to that, however, comes in ingrained habit of mind and attitude toward the world that we must change. Simply being correct can be an obstacle, and being super correct is more often the goal of the convert. We wish to be correct and certain in our beliefs so badly that we lose sight of our humanity (and, as we would say in Orthodoxy, our divinity). Instead, we become Orthodox in order, frankly, to be better than others.

What distinguishes Orthodoxy, or the Eastern Catholic faith, or however you wish to refer to it, is a very different attitude toward self and toward the world and especially toward suffering. There is no neat distinction between Orthodoxy and Western forms of Christianity because we are now talking about aesthetic differences, but the differences are dramatic. One monk described the differences in terms of a suffering Church, a Church that makes his witness as Christ made HIs witness - by suffering for no good reason. That vs. a triumphalistic concept of the Church, which we see in Western Catholicism and in Protestantism. The fruit of our suffering is that we can now begin to take a dispassionate perspective toward this world, which is passing away, and focus our attention on God's world.

Theology is typically misused until we cast off our attachment to the world and willingly embrace suffering as a gift. This is not an absolute, more of a slowly developing habit of mind, but initially it may take quite a jolt.

In the West, suffering is evil. In Orthodoxy, it is the best thing that can ever happen to you.

Owen Jones

[John Vrablic]

Hi Owen

Thank you for your reply.

1. From what I gather I must suffer first adn live a life of a Christian before can eb concerned over theology? Please clarify

2. Suffering

Suffering is NOT evil particularily in Lutehran theology. Lutehran tehology si a theology of the cross. Much liek Bernard of Claivaux who I am now reading God shows us his "back" side and teh perfect revelation of God is God on the cross.

And it is ONLY in suferuing that we can participate adn experinec teh cross and its effcets...teh killing of sin in teh Old Adam and teh raising of teh new through teh hope of the resurection.

So suffering is a gift. Like Paul says..it has not only been GRANTED to you to be saved but to suffer..(paraphrase)

Here are some quotes from Luther on teh cross adn suffering FYI

Luther on the Cross


"If, here upon earth, the body is unwilling, not capable of grace and Christ's leading, it must bear the Spirit, upon which Christ rides, who trains it and leads it along by the power of grace, received through Christ. The colt, ridden by Christ, upon which no one ever rode, is the willing spirit, whom no one before could make willing, tame or ready, save Christ by His grace. However, the sack carrier, the burden-bearer, the old Adam, is the flesh, which goes riderless without Christ; it must for this reason bear the cross and remain a beast of burden."

Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, I, p. 53. First Sunday in Advent Matthew 21:1-9.



"But when our good work is followed by persecution, let us rejoice and firmly believe that it is pleasing to God; indeed, then let us be assured that it comes from God, for whatever is of God is bound to be crucified by the world. As long as it does not bring the cross, that is, as long as it does not bring shame and contempt as we patiently continue in it, it cannot be esteemed as a divine work since even the Son of God was not free from it--(suffering for the sake of the good He did) --but left us an example in this. He Himself tells us in Matthew 5:10, 12: 'Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake.. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven.'"

Commentary on Romans, trans. J. Theodore Mueller, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976, p. 55. Matthew 5: 10, 12.; Romans 2:6-10



"On the other hand, we are outwardly oppressed with the cross and sufferings, and with the persecution and torments of the world and the devil, as with the weight of heavy stone upon us, subduing our old sinful nature and checking us against antagonizing the Spirit and committing other sins."

Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VIII, p. 145. Sixth Sunday after Trinity, Romans 6:6 John 16:20 –



"Such people, however, do not understand divine things, they think they will suddenly enter death with Christ, whom they have never learned to know except in words. Thus was Peter also disposed, but he stood before Christ like a rabbit before one beating a drum. Notice, how the old Adam lacks courage when under the cross! The new man, however, can indeed persevere through grace."

Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed. John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, III, p. 85. Third Sunday after Easter John 16:16-23



"But wine is sharp and signifies the holy cross that immediately follows. A Christian need not look for his cross, it is always on his back. For he thinks as St. Paul says, 2 Timothy 3:12: 'All that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.' This is the court-color in this kingdom. Whoever is ashamed of the color, does not belong to this king."

Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, V, p. 30. Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity, Luke 10:23-37; 2 Timothy 3:12



"Observe, God and men proceed in contrary ways. Men set on first that which is best, afterward that which is worse. God first gives the cross and affliction, then honor and blessedness. This is because men seek to preserve the old man; on which account they instruct us to keep the Law by works, and offer promises great and sweet...But God first of all terrifies the conscience, sets on miserable wine, in fact nothing but water; then, however, He consoles us with the promises of the Gospel which endure forever."

Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, II, p. 69. Second Sunday after Epiphany, John 2:1-11.



"Not only is Christ hidden from the world, but a still harder thing is it that in such trials Christ conceals himself even from His church, and acts as if he had forgotten, aye, had entirely forsaken and rejected it,since He permits it to be oppressed under the cross and subjected to all the cruelty of the world, while its enemies boast, glory and rejoice over it, as we shall hear in the next Gospel."

Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, III, p. 67. Second Sunday after Easter John 10:11-16.



"Not only is Christ hidden from the world, but a still harder thing is it that in such trials Christ conceals himself even from His church, and acts as if He had forgotten, aye, had entirely forsaken and rejected it,since He permits it to be oppressed under the cross and subjected to all the cruelty of the world, while its enemies boast, glory and rejoice over it, as we shall hear in the next Gospel."

Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, III, p. 67. Second Sunday after Easter John 10:11-16.



"If we would be Christians, we must surely expect and count on having the devil, together with all his angels and the world, as our enemies. They all will bring misfortune and sorrow on us For where the Word of God is preached, accepted, or believed, and where it produces fruit, the dear, holy cross cannot be wanting."

What Luther Says, An Anthology, 3 vols., ed., Ewald Plass, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, I, p. 357. Large Catechism





"But now, since the prince of this world and the Holy Spirit, the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of the devil, are directly opposed to one another, and the Holy Spirit is not willing that anyone should parade his own deeds and praise himself on account of them, the holy cross must soon follow. The world will not consent to be reprimanded for its blindness. Therefore one must willingly submit and suffer persecution. If we have the right kind of faith in our hearts, we must also open our mouths and confess righteousness and make known sin. Likewise we must condemn and punish the doings of this world and make it known that everything it undertakes, is damned."

Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, III, p. 120. Fourth Sunday after Easter John 16:5-15.



"The deeper a person is sunk in sadness and emotional upheavals, the better he serves as an instrument of Satan. For our emotions are instruments through which he gets into us and works in us if we do not watch our step. It is easy to water where it is wet. Where the fence is dilapidated, it is easy to get across. So Satan has easy access where there is sadness. Therefore one must pray and associate with godly people."

What Luther Says, An Anthology, 3 vols., ed., Ewald Plass, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, III, p. 1243. 1532




"Human works and doctrines at all times yield much revenue and carnal gain, while the doctrines of God and the work of Christ bring the cross, poverty, ignominy, and all kinds of calamity, which the holiness of Herod cannot endure. Thus it happens always, that they who have ensnared and oppressed the poor with an erring conscience and with human doctrines, do not like to hear that poor, miserable consciences receive instruction, attain a right understanding, and seek the simple pure Word of God and faith."

Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, I, p. 376. Epiphany Matthew 2:1-12.



"The apostle says 'our,' 'our sins;' not his own sin, not the sins of unbelievers. Purification is not for, and cannot profit, him who does not believe. Nor did Christ effect the cleansing by our free-will, our reason or power, our works, our contrition or repentance, these all being worthless in the sight of God; he effects it by himself. And how? By taking our sins upon himself on the holy cross, as Isaiah 53:6 tells us."

Sermons of Martin Luther, ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VI, p. 180. Hebrews 1:1-12; Hebrews 1:3;



"This, mark you, is the peace of the cross, the peace of God, peace of conscience, Christian peace, which gives us even external calm, which makes us satisfied with all men and unwilling to disturb any. Reason cannot understand how there can be pleasure in crosses, and peace in disquietude; it cannot find these. Such peace is the work of God, and none can understand it until it has been experienced."

Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VI, p. 111. Fourth Sunday in Advent, Philippians 4:7

[M.C. Steenberg]

In John's post he wrote concerning original sin:


1. Original Sin - As I understand it you teach that man inherits death from Adam and is born in sin, but that the guilt of sin is not trasmitted to us??? Can you please clarify?

You are indeed correct, John, in asserting that the Orthodox Church does not, by and large, teach the doctrine of 'original sin' in the same manner as does most of Western Christianity. The Western conception of this teaching, which might be termed in some sense 'Augustinian' (though we should perhaps not push this too far), proclaims that through the sin of Adam and Eve in Paradise, the guilt of sin was embedded in human nature, such that this nature itself became imbued with guilt at the level of its essence. In other words, while human nature was, before the fall, 'innocent and pure', that nature became, after the fall, congenitally 'guilty and sinful'. Thus the very essence of what it means to be human was altered by the actions in Eden, such that the very notion of 'being human' thereafter became synonymous with 'being guilty of sin'.

Orthodox belief does not espouse this notion of original sin. More particularly, it does not espouse the idea that Adam's sin imbued human nature with guilt -- or, for that matter, imbued human nature, at the level of its essence, with anything whatsoever. Adam, in sinning, did not change what it means to be human. To be human meant, after Adam, precisely the same thing as it had before him: to be the image and likeness of God, to be the object of divine in-dwelling, to be the tabernacle of God, to be pure and holy as God is pure and holy.

What Adam did introduce through his sin is the whole host of consequences of sinfulness, which the world had not before known. Where there was no death, now there is death. Where there was no suffering, now there is suffering. And these consequences of sin are pervasive and infectuous: whether or not an individual may share in their source (that is, whether a given individual may have sinned in a specific way), that individual is nonetheless effected by the consequences of that sin, and in fact all sin, by virtue of the fact of living in a communal world. Thus we can say that we 'inherited death from Adam', because the consequence of sin is death, and that consequence is something to which we are all bound. But we did not inherit guilt from Adam, for guilt has to do with an act of will, an act of knowing consent to doing what is unholy and wrong, and in this sense it is impossible that we can share in Adam's guilt. We all are guilty, mind you, but it is guilt of our own devising, not Adam's.

In the end, the Eastern and Western conceptions of the first sin result in similar realities: humanity is bound up in a world of sin which results in its death. But the underlying cause of this sinfulness and death is radically different, and that difference is at the source of many of the differences between Eastern and Western Christian thought.

XB, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

Matthew

You said


"Orthodox belief does not espouse this notion of original sin. More particularly, it does not espouse the idea that Adam's sin imbued human nature with guilt -- or, for that matter, imbued human nature, at the level of its essence, with anything whatsoever. Adam, in sinning, did not change what it means to be human. To be human meant, after Adam, precisely the same thing as it had before him: to be the image and likeness of God, to be the object of divine in-dwelling, to be the tabernacle of God, to be pure and holy as God is pure and holy. "

Are you saying taht after Adam sinned teh image of God was not lost? That all that are born even wiothout being born again are born in teh same image of Gdo as Adam and Eve were?

You say that we inhereit death but not teh guilt of sin adn that sin ONLY occurs through our will.

So when a baby is born it is born with or without sin?

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

In his recent post, John wrote:


Are you saying that after Adam sinned the image of God was not lost? That all that are born even without being born again are born in the same image of God as Adam and Eve were? (Edited)

Yes, this is the teaching of the Christian Church, which was largely carried over from earlier Hebrew traditions of the same, and proclaimed with great force as early as the second century, when it was used as a principal defense against various Gnostic groups.

The essential note to be heard in this discussion is that the image of God, the actual essence of what it means to be human, is God's creation and handiwork, and not a thing that can be thwarted, even by sin. Human likeness to God, on the other hand, is that which reflects our own appropriation to the divine life, i.e. that which includes our will, our intellect, and our choices. In this sense, image and likeness are distinct and separate, and while humanity will always retain its created image, the likeness is not so stable. The likeness to God is in fact very marred in most of us, 'hiding' and burying the true image in which we are made and in which we exist, but not altering it. We are God's image, yet we live unlike Him.

The distinction between unalterable image and variable likeness is one that has been made since the earliest days of the Christian tradition, present in the Scriptures as well as in many of the earliest Fathers -- perhaps most notably Irenaeus, who dwells on it extensively, but also in many other writers of the same era.

Later, John wrote:

You say that we inherit death but not the guilt of sin and that sin ONLY occurs through our will.


So when a baby is born it is born with or without sin? (Edited)

It would be more proper to say that a newborn infant is born into sin, not that he or she is born 'with' sin (as such, Psalm 50.7 (LXX): 'Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin has my mother born me'). In no case is the newborn 'guilty' of Adam's sin, for reasons expounded above. One cannot be guilty of someone else's sin. The newborn has not sinned of its own; it is not yet guilty of its own sin. Yet it is born into a world corrupted by and marred with sin in all its strength: the child is bound by those consequences, and destined to their influence.

XB, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

Matthew

How can we be born in the same image as Adama dn Eve when Adam adn Eve were created with no sin.

Also When God created Adam and Eve he said he created them in his image and likeness, but when Adam and Eve conceived this is what scripture tells us

Genesis 5:3
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

So somewhere in beteween there man was now made in the likeness of Adam NOT God

Colossians 3:10 And have put on the new [man], which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

When we are born again are we not renewed BACK into teh image that we had lost


It would be more proper to say that a newborn infant is born into sin, not that he or she is born 'with' sin (as such, Psalm 50.7 (LXX): 'Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin has my mother born me'). In no case is the newborn 'guilty' of Adam's sin, for reasons expounded above. One cannot be guilty of someone else's sin. The newborn has not sinned of its own; it is not yet guilty of its own sin. Yet it is born into a world corrupted by and marred with sin in all its strength: the child is bound by those consequences, and destined to their influence.

Given that line of thought how is it than fair that the baby is born into sin in which it did not commit. And if teh baby dies befoer the age of reason or is not born again how can the baby or person be condmened to hell for a sin it did not commit.

So if a baby is born into sin is the baby by nature under the curse of the law and will the baby go to hell if it is not eventually born again in baptism.

If we are born into the same image of God what about free will. Was our free will impacted by "original sin".

Would this comment be a fair assessment of teh Orthodox position

That our whole man, both body and soul was not changed for the worse and that our freedom of the soul remains unimpaired, but that only the body is now subject to corruption or death passed on from Adam and Eve

Is that fair?

Thanks

[M.C. Steenberg]

John writes:


How can we be born in the same image as Adam and Eve when Adam and Eve were created with no sin?

Because we also are created with no sin. We are created pure, and can remain pure (cf. Ps 119.9, Ps 18.26, Mat 5.8, etc). Every human person is born without sin, though they are born from sinful parents in a sinful context, into a sin-filled world. Yet it is God who forms man, and does so in purity (cf. Ps 22.9-10, Ps 139.13-16). Each human person comes into the world in the same purity as did Adam and Eve. No human sin or activity can change this. God creates what is God. He does not begin to create evil simply because his creation has gone about sinning.


Also When God created Adam and Eve he said he created them in his image and likeness, but when Adam and Eve conceived this is what scripture tells us: And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth (Gen 5.3).

So somewhere in beteween there man was now made in the likeness of Adam NOT God. (Edited)

This comment fails to take into account the distinction that the Scripture verse itself hints upon. Yes, Adam begat Seth 'in his own likeness, after his image'. There are two realities expressed here. The likeness was being altered. The image of Adam was still the image of God.

Certain strands of Western Christianity believe that the image of God was lost or destroyed in man as a result of Adam's sin. This the Orthodox Church, by the great majority of its voices in the Fathers, by its tradition and by its continuous interpretation of Scripture, explicitly denies. 'Original sin' does not alter the image of God in man. It had dramatic ramifications for humanity's likeness to God, but the image is always God's handiwork, is always God's creation, new in every person, and always intrinsically good.


Given that line of thought, how is it then fair that the baby is born into sin in which it did not commit. And if the baby dies before the age of reason, or is not born again, how can the baby or person be condmened to hell for a sin it did not commit? (Edited)

The baby cannot be. Newborns are not 'condemned to hell'. Again, this is an intrinsic difference between many Western views, and that of the Orthodox Church. There simply is no such thing as 'original sin' in the sense of imputed, essentially inherent guilt in human nature. Newborn children are born into sin, but have not committed any sin of their own. The burial service for infants does not include the prayers for the remission of their sins in the same manner as does the burial service for adults.


If we are born into the same image of God, what about free will? Was our free will impacted by "original sin"? (Edited)

This is something I have always found to be an odd argument. The only real way to deny free will, which is one of the great gifts of God, is to insist that original sin imputes guilt into the nature of humankind. If a human person is guilty by virtue of birth, by virtue of his or her very existence as human, then there is no real freedom of will. That will is bound to sin, it is not free, and the greatest gift of God, the one great blessing which councils, fathers and Scripture have all alike affirmed as an essential element of humanity and the great protectorate of God as creator, was in fact destroyed (by mere man!) within only a few days of its first imparting.

There is no way to retain any semblance of genuine freedom of will within a doctrine of original sin as it has been expounded by various Western thinkers. Most of them have been wise enough to know this. Augustine realised that predestination was the only 'way out' of the situation, even though he loathed the idea; and Martin Luther knew the same to be true, and though he struggled passionately to steer clear of the concept (some wonderful internal struggles on this theme are preserved in his writings), he was nonetheless a direct inspiration for the thought that Calvin would embrace.

This is flatly rejected in Orthodox thought. God's work is God's work, and God's work is good. Man is God's image, and man's freedom is centred in this image. The freedom is not lost because the image is not lost. Freedom may be 'trapped' in accustomisation to sin (thus St Paul, 'I do not do what I want to do, but the thing which I do not wish to do, that thing I do'), and the image may be blurred behind a life lived as an antithesis to a true likeness to God. But these are sins and the consequences of sin. They are not a flaw in human nature.

XB, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Dear John,

I can't comment on Luther, only to suggest that perhaps the emphasis is in a different direction. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've always gotten the sense from my Protestant friends that God saves through His mercy. Therefore, a consciousness of sin (and a proper theological view of suffering as the consequences of sin) is necessary in order for us to confess our unworthiness and to submit ourselves to God's mercy. That's fine as far as it goes, but in Orthodox tradition, mercy is like an introduction to salvation. We are actually saved by His beauty. We are deified, by suffering persecution or other sufferings that are for no good reason. That is, our sufferings are not a quid pro quo, but we suffer just as Christ suffered. Now, Christ did not need mercy. Nor did Christ need to be deified. Yet he suffered. Yes, as a ransom for sin, as it says biblically, but also in order to impart his nature to us -- to deify us.

It's something that cannot be quantified, but I think the tone is different in the Orthodox perspective toward suffering. A term used by monastics is voluntary martyrdom.

Just as an aside, regarding Augustine, his teachings on sin are only one half of the equation. Augustine stuck to the traditional Orthodox teaching on deification, something that is entirely lost in Protestantism. The doctrine of deification has therefore been secularized in Protestant nations, via ideology, which is the major competing force to Christianity for the past five hundred years, and not heretical teachings. And I view ideology largely as an inability, a pathological inability, to accept suffering. And as a practical matter, while we all have a struggle with suffering, that particular problem seems to be endemic with contemporary protestantism. It's why psychotherapy was developed out of protestantism.

Finally, Orthodox theology is primarily pastoral in nature. The purpose of the Church is to cure our soul sickness. You might say that Orthodoxy not only has a forensic understanding of sin and atonement, it has a medical understanding of sin. It is something that has to be cured, and can substantially be cured with the right therapy. Right theology is not a cure, but a kind of secondary textual analysis of this process of cure, designed to maintain the insights gained for future generations. Bad theology, or heretical theology, is bad because it leads to the wrong diagnosis and wrong cure. Right theology is less than useless, if it does not get us on track to the right diagnosis and cure.

Finally, I see nowhere in Orthodoxy where the cure is ever complete or guaranteed. It's like a cancer being in remission. One of the FAthers goes so far as to say that it is possible to relapse into a state of non-existence (Maximos I think). So therefore there cannot be a guarantee of salvation, just because one is baptized Orthodox (in the same fashion that say, some protestants claim that one is guaranteed salvation by confessing Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior). As you can see, one theological issue always leads to another. There is no one thing, like Jack Palance claimed. It's everything together.

[John Vrablic]

Matthew

I just want to make sure I completly understand what you are saying so please bear with me.


Every human person is born without sin, though they are born from sinful parents in a sinful context, into a sin-filled world. Yet it is God who forms man, and does so in purity (cf. Ps 22.9-10, Ps 139.13-16). Each human person comes into the world in the same purity as did Adam and Eve.

So I'll try to ask this question again. It sounds liek you are saying

That our body and soul were not changed by Adams sin. We are still created just like Adam and Eve. That our freedom of will was not impaired but that came into the world through Adam and Eve.

Is that correct?

When you state the church fathers teach this. Am I to understand that the Orthodox doctrine is based upon teh Tradition of the unified churhc. So that up until teh last ecemeincal council teh consenus of the united faith in the fathers and councils is the basis for your doctrine?

If as you say we are not born sinful than exactly what is the purpose for baptizing infants? What do baptized infants need to be saved from, if anything?

Thanks for your patience in these questions

John

[John Vrablic]

Sorry the question was supposed to read

That our body and soul were not changed by Adams sin. We are still created just like Adam and Eve. That our freedom of will was not impaired but that DEATH came into the world through Adam and Eve.


Sorry

John

[Nektarios USA]

When you state the church fathers teach this. Am I to understand that the Orthodox doctrine is based upon teh Tradition of the unified churhc. So that up until teh last ecemeincal council teh consenus of the united faith in the fathers and councils is the basis for your doctrine?

The church discerns its truth by the guidance of the Holy Spirit in her decrees in the councils. This doesn't mean that every single father has taught exactly the same thing on very single issue (since no person is infallible), but that the church always proclaims the truth in councils. It's possible to find fathers who'll disagree with what Matthew said, but this doesn't make them any less "Fathers." People err. The church, on the other hand, always teaches the truth. The majority of fathers teach the above.

[John Vrablic]

Nektarios USA et all

Thanks

When you say the chucrh always provlaims the truth in councils..does that mean ONLY the seven eceumenical councils or other councils held by the church as well

John

[John Vrablic]

I must tell you that I have never come across this type of thinking of original sin other than Pelagianism.

You all have stated that our natuer was not affected by teh fall of Adama dn that we are born by nature liek ADam was.

1. "You were by nature objects of wrath"
When Paul says that what does that mean that we are by nature objcets of wrath.

2. "We are a new creation"..We are regenerated through teh washing and rebirth...We aer renewed in teh image of God

WHy must we be born again if we aer born w/o original sin. Why must we be regenerated adn be a NEW creation if our creation by natural propogation is as Adam was.

3. INCARNATION

Why did Christ HAVE to be born of a virgin
If our nature born by natural desent is not corrupted than Why the incarnation of flesh from a virgin?

4. ATONEMENT

WHat Did Christ than accomplish on teh cross. I think you may say that he destroyed death. BUt death is teh result of sin. You ahev said it is not fair that a child inherots sin form Adam since he did not commit that si. How fair is it that the child inherits death form Adam?

It must be aknowledegd that sin causes death. SO when a baby dies befoer commiting an actual sin that why did he die if not for sin?

And if we inherot death. WHat death is it? Temperol death or eternal death in hell.
If a baby dies before teh age of reason and is NOT born again is teh baby in heaven?


"The sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law

5. If Paul as a regenearte can say that nothing good lives in him that is in his sinful flesh how much more those who are born of natural desnet

Gen says AFTER Noah gets out ofthe ark.."That mans imagination and heart are evil form teh beginning

Solomon sasy in ECC that even a baby who lives but a day is sinful

Paul says in Romans that through one man sin eneterd teh world. Sin, deatha dn the law are collararies.

He also says that death still reigned even thouigh they did NOT commit the isn of similitude of Adame AND YET all sinned.

In Romans 5 still Pual continues to say that ..by one mand many were made sinners, and that by ONE sins condmentaion came to all.

So when we are bron we aer under condemnation for a sin we did not commit.

Pual says in 1 Cor that "in Adam all die". WHat does in ADam mean but that of our natural birth. " you must be born again" says Jesus to Nicodemus..WHY? SO as Pual says "Inchrist all shall be made alive.
What does that mean but that by nature we aer objcets of wrath

John says that those who do not believe in Christ teh wrath of God REMAINS on them.
How can teh wrtah of Gdo remian on someone who is born w/o sin?

Paul in Collossians says that we were benemise ogf Gdo in our minds...


PAul also say in Romans 7 that when he does not do good it is sin LIVING in him that does it

David says in teh psmals that he was CONCIVED in sin.

Gen sasy that God created man in his own image adn likeness but taht Adam later on made a man after HIS image and likeness NOT Gods.

6. Council of Orange/Pelagians

Thsi teaching that you aer espiusing seems to be condemend by teh council of orange

The Canons of the Council of Orange
(529 AD)
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

So I am at a loss at how this can be taught?

Am I making sense. I think this seems to be a huge issue

For if you have a view of original sin that will automatically ahev a ripple effect on all other doctrines.
But ultimately I am concerned that minimizing orginnal sin minimizes what Christ has done adn continues to do in our lives

Any thoughts

Just been thinking about thsi alot

John

[Owen Jones]

John, I think you are confusing two or more issues -- human nature before the Fall, human nature after the Fall, human nature after Christ's atonement for sin, his harrowing of Hell, His resurrection. Clearly, logically, compellingly, something has changed, or what is the point? It is not simply that Christ came to demonstrate to us the reality of resurrection and immortality of the soul. Something must have changed. And I think this is what my last post tried to deal with. According to Orthodox theology, there was a real change in the cosmos, by Christ, by infusing the cosmos with His nature. What is the nature of that change in us, or potential change in us? How did Christ affect our free will? These are the kinds of things that the Church FAthers struggled with, and I think that the philosophical anthropology of Orthodoxy is the key distinction.

[John Vrablic]

Owen

John, I think you are confusing two or more issues -- human nature before the Fall,

1. Before the fall

Adam walked with God..No one can see God and live
So Adam was sinless and created in perfect confromity with Gods will.
God said what he made was good
Adam was made in teh imaeg of God

2. After teh fall
Adam no longer saw GOd and was expelled from teh garden. The pomise of GDo that he woudl die woudl now come
Adam NOW begat a man aftre HIS own image and likeness
Sin entered teh world Roman 5
ALL sinned IN ADAM
We aer now by nature objcets of wrath
We MUST be regenerated and become a NEW creation. Regeneration is tken from teh word Genesis adn means to be reborn as a new creation
Those who aer in ADam die adn must be born agin into Christ
All those who die in Adam aer condmened to hell adn teh wrtah of Gdo remians on them

3. After the atonement

God is reconciled and while "we were still sinners Christ died for the UNGODLY"

The reconciliation of all of nature was wrought in teh cross and resuerction of Christ

BUT we by nature do not aprtake of that reconcilaition

In BAPTISM we are now longer IN ADAN but aer now IN CHRIST. W ear dead to sin and justified from sin...our body is dead becuase of sin and our spitit is alive to righteousness

Our corruptibel bodies of sin will die..Teh flesh fighst against teh spirit

Who will save us from thsi body of death..
There is now no condemnation for thsoe who aer iN cHrist

Our body that is sown in dishoneor will be rasied in honor
At the reseurection our bodies will be united with our souls and spirit
ALL of creation will be renewed

I don't mean to be flippant about this OWne but it seems that scripture is very simpel and clear about nature befoer the fall after th fall and after Christs atonement

John

[Owen Jones]

I'm not sure of your point, John. Or your motive. Are you examining Orthodoxy? Or trying to prove it wrong so that you don't have to make a decision? What motivated you to begin to examine Orthodoxy in the first place. Go back to that starting point and get honest about it. Ask an Orthodox person who has some credence as a spiritual guide to help you with the source of your trouble. All this theological pushing and shoving is pointless. It has a bad smell about it.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear John,

Your conception of the phases of human existence, and the various states of human nature throughout those phases, is simply of an entirely different theological 'worldview' than that of the Orthodox Church. It makes use of Scriptural snippets in a manner in which the Church has never read them.

If you are interested, here is a very brief outline of the phases of human existence as they have been understood throughout the 2,000 years of Orthodox history:

(a) Creation in Paradise. Humans are innocent, formed in the image of God, destined for the sanctification of the divine vision and union with God that is the ultimate perfection of His likeness.

(b) After the First Sin. After Adam's sin, the consequences of sinfulness enter into the economy of human existence. Humanity becomes subject to death; the world abounds in sin. The image of God in man is unchanged, but the grasp of the likeness is tragically marred. Humanity becomes captive to the power of sin. Self-salvation from this state is an impossibility, as life-creating power lies only in the hands of God.

(c) After the coming of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ joins the materiality of the created order to the divine energy of God: what is fallen through subjection to sin is united to what is absolute and perfect. The self-offering of Christ's sacrifice upon the Cross defeats the burden of death and the unjust sway of the Devil over humanity's attainment to divine likeness. Sanctification into the divine likeness, from the possibility of which humanity had so long been estranged through its captivity to sin, is again made possible. The perfect image of God, present in human nature, is given the ability to be made wholly manifest despite the burden of sin.

XB, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

Owen

I am sorry if you feel offended. My questions are not meant to offend. I had spent at least 4 e-mails yesterday trying to calrify what teh Orthodox position on original sin was.

I am intersted in following teh truth wherever that may be.
So I was interested in Eastern Orthodoxy adn in particular teh groups interest in patristics.

I ache that there is divison on the chucrh. I happen to belive taht confessional Lutheran theology is biblical, catholic and apostolic.

I want all of us to shaer in one the one same truth whevere that may be

I did not knwo what you taught so taht is why I looked into it.

I am not trying to shove and push Owen. I am just sharing with you what God has adi regarding our nature before the fall, after teh fall and after teh atonement.
If I interpret this wrong I will repent of this and ask God for his mercy adn guidnace in my life.



How do you thing there will be advanmcement of unity in faith, Owen

What Athanasisu was one of four bishops in the Arain controversy, what did he do. If I come across as shoving and pushing I shudder at what you think AThanasisu adn Cyril did in their controversies.

SO I have tried to be honest in all my posts and only objcetively look at what your theology teaches.

I am sorry that you find thsi to haev a bad smell.


John

[John Vrablic]

Matthew

Thank you for your e-mail.
You said


"Your conception of the phases of human existence, and the various states of human nature throughout those phases, is simply of an entirely different theological 'worldview' than that of the Orthodox Church. "

No disresepct to you Matthew you seem liek a fine gentlement, but I am not concerend about anyones "worldview" "The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God" I only care about Gods view.

God tells us that we are by nature objcets of his wrath.

God cannot contradict himslef so this verse and all the others must either be reinterpreted into a scriptural, catholci and apostoilic analogy of faith or God is lying.

Since fear is teh beginiing of wisdom I fear that I would not believe such a clear testimony from God.

John

[Owen Jones]

Dear John,

I am not in the least offended. And it's not "my" theology. It's the Church's theology, however imprudently I represent it individually. No, my comment was meant to serve you in your spiritual search, since I have a lot of experience with converts or seekers, and it's very typical of converts or seekers to put Orthodoxy to the test to determine if it fits into their preconceived theological dictums. That, it seems to me, is the wrong approach to take, both lgically, and for the sake of our souls.

It seems to me that the real issue is this: what is the Church? It's not a question of validity, or historicity, but of fullness, of competeness, as well as the spiritual linkage to the Apostles. Show me an alternative to Orthodoxy in that sense?

If you or I have a problem with the Church's theology, whose problem is that? Who or what should bend? I have a lot of problems with Orthodoxy today on a practical level. But when I entered the true faith, I publicly denounced my former heresies and submitted myself to an exorcism of my heretical past. That can only come with a certain amount of humility. The theological stuff can come later.

[M.C. Steenberg]

In a recent post, John wrote:


No disrespect to you Matthew you seem like a fine gentleman, but I am not concerned about anyone's "worldview". "The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God." I only care about God's view.


No disrespect taken, of course... though you may have made an error with the gentleman bit.

But, without wishing to sound stand-offish, your claim to lack interest in any worldview is in fact not borne out through your discussions. You are in fact steadfastly in support (thus far evident, at least) of the very specific theological worldview of the confessional Lutheran Church.

I will say the following rather bluntly, as you have an interest in knowing the Orthodox Church's view on things. Please don't interpret the bluntness as attack, but merely as a straightforward presentation of some rather great differences in thought. With regard to the theological outlook of the confessional Lutheran Church, Orthodoxy views it very much as a theological worldview. It is not the Faith in the sense that Orthodox Christianity understands or believes in the Faith. It is a method of understanding God and the world that is, from the Orthodox perspective, not Catholic, as it has never, at any time, been the universal understanding of the Church. It is not Apostolic, as it does not reflect the teaching of the Apostles, nor adhere to the unbroken tradition of their teaching. And it is not fully Biblical, inasmuch as it interprets the Scriptural texts in such a manner as has never been appropriated by the universal Church, and in such a manner is lies at harsh odds with the vast body of the faith in its ecclesiastical tradition.

If you wish truly to understand how Orthodoxy views certain points of doctrine (e.g. the First Sin and its consequences, Redemption), you must first understand (whether or not you agree) that such conversation as has been evidenced here and there in the earlier posts to this thread, simply do not 'work' within Orthodox theological discussion. Scripture can only be understood through the witness of the universal Church. The Fathers can only be understood through the witness of the Church. The Councils can only be understood through the witness of the Church. Any point of doctrine, no matter how great or small, can only be understood by this witness. It is to no avail simply to find a verse in Scripture and say 'It says this', unless one knows how that verse has been interpreted by the apostolic faith of the Church. Such reasoning may work in some religious bodies, but not in Orthodoxy. Within this Church, no point of doctrine is ever up for debate and no quotation of Scripture is ever up for personal, doctrinal interpretation. One is of course free to quote Scripture; but unless one does so within the interpretive tradition of the Faith as it is preserved in the Church, one does so irrelevantly.

If you genuinely wish to understand how Orthodox understand certain doctrinal points, you must first understand how Orthodox people address the very issue of asking questions about doctrines and the Faith. Otherwise it's all just a tossing back and forth of quotes, which is always a useless pastime and the one sure way to devalue Scripture and the Fathers.

XB, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

Hi Owen

Thanks

From my perspective, if we haev original sin wrong everything else will be wrong.

You ask the question about the church. That is my yearning is the fullness of teh faith.
The alternative to Orthodoxy is confessional Lutheransism as outlined in the Book of Concord

This confessional statement is truly biblical, catholic and apostolic.

ANd I think it does haev a spirirtual linkage to teh apostles.

So my discussion about orginal sin is only to see what confession of faith has teh fullness of truth and is scriptural, catholic adn apostolic.

From what I haev seen teh Eastern Orthodox teaching on original sin is none of these and was condemend in teh Council Of Orange.

So what am I to do?
Scripture says we are by nature objcets of wrath
and we do inherit original sin
The unified church SEEMS to haev condmened the current orthodox teaching

I have I am sure many more problems with teh lutheran church today as well. But our extrenals and the sin of man mess all this up.
What can never be wrong is Gods word. And so whatever confession of faith is biblical, catholic adn apostolic is what I will confess.

From my perspective theology must come first. All theology is is teh study of God.

IF original sin is being taught incorrectly and I follow that teaching it will lead me to belive the "conclusions" from that starting point.

Paul and teh apostles did not teach to follow any teaching, they said to hold fast to teh traditions that were passed on by letter or orally.

IF they did not pass on this teaching of original sin or did not pass on lets say Mary's intercession, than who am I to follow something w/o the promise and command of God?

John

[Johannes]

The Greek of Ephesians 2:3 says that we are by nature children of wrath, which the Orthodox church doesn't have any problem with. It is the same thought as psalm 50:7. Our divine image is never changed. What it means for humans to live in a sinful world, becoming sinful be being born into this world, is naturally bad. We become bad in our nature, but not by, or because of, our nature.

[John Vrablic]

Matthew

Your demeanor is praiseworthy


Do you feel looking at theology from

1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Apostolic Ana;logy of faith

Is a worldview?


>>>With regard to the theological outlook of the confessional Lutheran Church, Orthodoxy views it very much as a theological worldview. It is not the Faith in the sense that Orthodox Christianity understands or believes in the Faith. It is a method of understanding God and the world that is, from the Orthodox perspective, not Catholic, as it has never, at any time, been the universal understanding of the Church. It is not Apostolic, as it does not reflect the teaching of the Apostles, nor adhere to the unbroken tradition of their teaching. And it is not fully Biblical, inasmuch as it interprets the Scriptural texts in such a manner as has never been appropriated by the universal Church, and in such a manner is lies at harsh odds with the vast body of the faith in its ecclesiastical tradition. >>>>

If that was teh case I would not follow teh Book of Concords teaching. But all I am saying is that their teaching IS biblical, cvatholic and apostolic

So lets go through original sin.
Whenever I have looked at a doctrine that ahs always been the grid.

You say that the Lutheran teaching is not biblical catholic or apostolic and i Say it is.
SO where do we go?

As St Vincet says

1. SCripture
Lets look at all teh verses that I cited that are teh sedes doctrine of original sin.


2. Tradition of interpretation
Lets see what the catholci interpretation of these same verse are

3. Councils

Lets look at teh council of orange to see why it seems that teh Eastern Orthodox psoition on original sin is condmened by this council

After that we should haev a good idea what is teh scriptural, catholci and apostolic doctrine of orginal sin.



>>>>Scripture can only be understood through the witness of the universal Church. The Fathers can only be understood through the witness of the Church. >>>>

So let us look at how teh fathers interpretd Eph where it says by nature we aer objcet of wrath or Romans 5 and so on to see if teher is a consensus.

Of course from my perspective scripture is very clear in this respect. And as I ahve said eithere the verse that i cited need to be reinterpretd in a biblical, catholic and apostolic manner or God is lying.


>>> It is to no avail simply to find a verse in Scripture and say 'It says this', unless one knows how that verse has been interpreted by the apostolic faith of the Church. >>>>
I agree with you. So Lets look at hwo teh fathers interpretd the sedes doctrine of original sin.

But it seems evidnet why scripoture must be placed first and THAN teh witness of teh fathers. Otherwise you may neither agree with scriptuer or the fathers.

Have you ever read Aberlard "Sic and NO". I ahev not but from what i have rad about it he takes 150 positions and show taht you cannot find unananimity in teh fathers.

So on what basis than do you rejcet Augustines view on original sin and that of teh council of orange.

And how than you do you accept the view of MArya dn the sainst since it has no apostolic witness in teh early church?

Ireanese on his apostolic preaching, Against Heresies where he lays down teh apostolic teaching nevre mentions teh intercession of saints.

>>>>Such reasoning may work in some religious bodies, but not in Orthodoxy. Within this Church, no point of doctrine is ever up for debate and no quotation of Scripture is ever up for personal, doctrinal interpretation. One is of course free to quote Scripture; but unless one does so within the interpretive tradition of the Faith as it is preserved in the Church, one does so irrelevantly. >>>

Please show me how teh interpretation of "we are by nature objcets of wrath" as we are actually by nature objcets of wrath is not orthodox.
I woudl like to see teh catholicity of this verse.

That is why 4 yrs ago I thought I was going to be fundamentalist but when I stared reading teh church fathers I realized i coudl not

So

1. Original Sin
2. Atonement
3. Justification
4. Means of Grace
5. Repentance

These main doctrines as confessed by teh Book of Concord fromw aht i ahev seen are teh most biblical catholic and apostolic. So I have stated in 10-15 clear scripture passages that one woudl assume aer not ambiguos what scriptuer says about original sin.

How did Athanasius discuss with Arian. Fromw hat I ahev read they looked ate all teh disputed verse adn than to teh catholci tradition. So can we not do teh same for original sin?

>>>>If you genuinely wish to understand how Orthodox understand certain doctrinal points, you must first understand how Orthodox people address the very issue of asking questions about doctrines and the Faith. Otherwise it's all just a tossing back and forth of quotes, which is always a useless pastime and the one sure way to devalue Scripture and the Fathers. >>>

I am shaped by what I haev read. and tyhat is primarily scripture, teh chucrh fathers, teh polemical treatises of RCsm adn Lutheranism and the faithful Lutehran fathers such as gerhard, and Chemnitz

From all those it seems that teh catholic way to view a doctrine is like this. Tell me if you see it differently. But based uponb reading teh Pelagian treatise, Cyril adn Athansisu, adn Ireneause, Justin and all those when dealing with doctrien it seemd to go like this

1. Scripture veres that deal directly with the doctrine
2. Other scripture verse that are consistent with the seats of doctrine
3. Typology
4. The catholci interpretation of the passages
5. Council decrees if available

So IF that is the case than can we not do that with teh doctrine of original sin?

Thank you for your time

John

[John Vrablic]

Johannes


Help me understand this. From what has been stated here we are born by natural desenct in teh same image adn likeness of Adam. IF that is the case were Adam and Eve children of wrath when God created them?

And no one has answered taht if that is teh case why teh need to be regenerated if our nature is the same as Adam adn Eves

John

[Owen Jones]

John,

The Lutheran doctrine says that we are at the mercy of God, period. As such, it denies the central thrust of Orthodox theology -- the deification of man. Sanctification in Protestant theology completely rejects this view. Calvin, a pseudo-expert in the Fathers, completely misinterprets the Orthodox doctrine of perfection and deification, and imposed this doctrine by force in Geneva, to the point of having religious police force themselves into people's homes to interrogate them on their personal lives. To be sure, Orthodoxy rulers have often oppressed others, but there is nothing oppressive about the theology. It's purpose is to liberate man from sin and permit him to live a sinless life in this world. Christ said, "go and sin no more." This possibility is held out to every Orthodox believer who is willing to be truly obedient.

This is far different than anything in Protestantism, wherein salvation is reduced to mercy, without any hope of a real change in our nature, either individually or as a society. How Christ accomplishes this in His atonement is such a mystery that no Council has even tried to define or codify it in doctrinal language. What we do know is empirical. We undergo a real change in our nature when we are obedient and follow the Church's teachings and we are transported into another realm that is in between this world and the next. Protestants completely reject this with a blanket put down of what they call "mysticism." But that is the whole point of the Church. To begin our Exodus from this world into the next -- Now!

Most conservative protestants falsely interpret the Orthodox doctrine of salvation as Pelagianism because they cannot get beyond their own misconceptions about the nature of sin as a kind of perpetual mortgage on all mankind that cannot be cured. Protestant theology is reduced to arguing that God treats us as if we are sinless, even though we are not, because Christ has ransomed us from captivity by Satan through the shedding of His blood and nothing more. Some Orthodox err by rejecting the ransom aspect of blood atonement altogether -- as an overreaction to Protestantism, but the Protestants err entirely by reducing redemption and salvation to justification. There is no hope of real change in a Protestant's life. His only hope is the certitude he claims for himself of resurrection because he has proferred a faith statement. This is in affect the worst kind of works righteousness, to say that we are guaranteed salvation by virtue of repeating a slogan. This is anathema to Orthodox ears.

The Orthodox have never used the term Original Sin, you will not find it in the Fathers in the East, it was developed by Augustine and is probably an over-reaction to Pelagius.

That Christ was born of a Virgin is not an argument in support of Augustine's doctrine of original sin in any case. It is an argument in favor of chastity to the Lord as the highest virtue. The sex act does not transfer sin. It is a diversion from the true object of Eros -- God. In Orthodoxy we are not condemned to sin, because we were not born of a Virgin. That would be an absurdity.

This discussion reminds me of Protestants who ask me: what Bible do you use? The answer: the one we gave you.



Owen Jones

[M.C. Steenberg]

Regarding my comments above, and the claims of Orthodoxy to be the only 'one catholic and Apostolic Church', made specifically in reference to other traditions (e.g. Confessional Lutheranism), John wrote:



If that was the case I would not follow the Book of Concord's teaching. But all I am saying is that their teaching IS biblical, catholic and apostolic.

(...)

You say that the Lutheran teaching is not biblical, catholic or apostolic, and I say it is.
SO where do we go?


Nowhere, I'm afraid. This is not a productive avenue of discussion. It has quite clearly become, not an effort at discerning how Orthodox view given doctrinal teachings, but rather an effort to contend the doctrinal teachings of another religious group against them. This is simply not the purpose of these boards.

'You say x and I say y' is a discussion that goes nowhere in the Church. 'x is true, now struggle to believe it' is the only way. These boards are for discussing that 'x' and the struggle that accompanies it. Debates about 'a' and 'b' are better suited to the discussion communities on the internet catered to such discussions.

XB, Matthew

[Moses Anthony]

Hopefully this will be very brief!

If for whatever reason I say that I'm a Christian, everyone around would expect me to live in a certain manner. That manner or conduct, woulld be in accord with my previous confession of Christianity, which in the vein of this thread would be my "worldview".

Whatever form of religion I confess, that form, if I practice it truthfully, can in no way be divorced from how the world is perceived. The reason is that the spirit world governs the physical, one of the lessons gleaned from Job. A recent example of this type of schizophrenia is the reported faith and practice of a recent Persident of the United Ststes.

An unworthy servant
Moses

[A. Marinis]

Jesus said, "Love one another as I have loved you"

Daily, I read the message boards - and out of all the discussions...this one seems so political...

John, Love God. Love all as u love yourself. This is the base of our religon, of all religons.

I could fill the page with quotations and quotations.... Perhaps, not being an acedemic of theology I cannot appreciate or understand what exactly you are trying to say...

This discussion has made me feel quite sad...

May God have mercy on us all.

[John Vrablic]

Owen

Thanks for your e-mail.

When we discuss traditions of theology we must always understand what the other generally teaches.
What you ahev described as Protestant sanctification is just that.
Lutheran theology is NOT protestant.
Lutheran theology teaches that our life si a life with in adn under teh cross

Teh cross saves us in baptism when we are actually buried woith Chrits and justified from sin.
Teh remainder of our life is a complet reliving of baptism ecah and every day. We are continually drwoning our old Adam through teh law and mortification and putting on teh new Adam thropugh the power of the gospel.
So you are not correct in saying taht Lutherans do not teach sanctification as a growth of our inherent righteousness.

In our theology we call it a theology of the cross.
So our life IS changed adn daily we are crucified and risen through Gods grace in Christ.

On Original sin, your teaching SEEMS to be condmened by teh council of Orange.
The catholic church ahs always belived in original sin, that is hwy they have always baptized babies.

Have you not read teh Pelagina treatises? Each argument I have seen from thsi board has already been argued and settled by teh catholic church.

Answer me thsi please so I can understand.

Babies are not born with original sin form Adam.

babeis ONLY inhereit death as a consequence of Adam sin.

A. So how can a baby inherit death w/o inheriting sin, since teh "sting of death is sin"

B. Does teh baby inherit just a physical death but by nature they are already saved before baptism?

C. If a baby dies before baptism what is its state?


Thanks

JOhn

[John Vrablic]

Matthew

I will depart from thsi discussion than. I appreciate you taking time with me.

Let me just share with you what I have seen.
You seem to automatically assume your teaching is biblical catholic and apostolic.

When someone tries to dicuss like I did original sin and to see its biblical catholic and apostolic roots than the discussion fades away.

You say that your teaching is correcte adn that "the chucrh has always taught this" and that Lutheran theoogy is not biblicla, catholci and apostolic, but you do not tell me why.

The catholic tradition of aplogetics is to look at a and b and look at teh scripure than tradition.

I do not understadnm the hesitancy to engange in this. Unless as you alluede to that thsi board is not emant for this.

And if so than I will sign off and thank all of you for your input


John

[Owen Jones]

I try not to get myself involved in personal challenges.

Owen Jones

[Vlad Benea]

John, why do you write with so many spelling (typing) mistakes?

I am not seeking to start another "fight". I just want to give my oppinion on this.
I very much hate I don't have a translation of the Bible, so I can give the accurate quotes, but bear with me.

So we have at Ephesians 4,5 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" - There is one true faith only. Either Lutheran (or any other for that matter), either Orthodox. But it's strange for me that the true faith would bear the name of Luther, a XVIth century man. I'd say rather the true faith would bear this name exactly: The True Faith. That is, Orthodoxy. And it actually does.

Now that I've cleared that out, it is very simple why we would not engage in doctrinal talks. The same word of God that you say you keep that much to your heart says this: "Warn a heretic person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him." (Again I say excuse the translation... warn is not at all the right word... it should be more punitive).

Unfortunately, I cannot engage into any doctrinal talk also because I lack the English terminology for it. But regarding that Orange (actually Arausio) Council you claim in each of your message. It was held in the beginning of the VIth century. It's decisions were meant to condemn semipelagianism, which it did. The Orthodox Church approved (and approves) that condemnation. If to you it seems that the doctrine presented above is semipelagianism, it may be of two reasons. Either you don't understand what is presented above rightly (and I think that's the case, be it words or ideas), either some of the people who presented it made some mistakes. Fortunately, that is only too natural, as we are humans. Also fortunately, we as Orthodoxs, do not rely on our oppinions. We rely on the oppinions of our Holy Fathers. And if you want to see their oppinions on the subject, and of the Church also, read the Fathers, but with an open and true heart. Unfortunately, I think you are very very far away of that true heart. But may Lord have you under His mercy.

One more thing. I don't know if you read Tertulian. Amongst his works of when he was Orthodox, he has one (De prescriptione haereticorum), which says this basic truth: All heresies come from misunderstanding the Bible, as all heretics give their sui-generis interpretation of the Holy Book. But Tertulian denies the right of the heretics, not only of interpreting the Bible, but also of using it. The truth, he says, comes from Jesus Christ, transmited to His Apsotles, who were with him. The truth has always been strengthened and verified by the study of the Holy Book. But only the Church, not the heretics, own the truth and the Holy Book. The truth and the Bible belong to (or "are owned by") the churches established by the Holy Apostles and their direct disciples, who because of this long and uninterrupted possesion, have the exclusive right of using them. I have always liked this judicial way of seeing the heresy problem.

You, as a Lutheran, do not have the right of using the Holy Scripture against the Orthodox Faith. The Orthodox Church owns it.

In Christ,
Vlad.

I am not saying this to you John, but to my fellow Orthodoxs: if I was wrong, do correct me, please. I want to ask you also, could anyone give me a good site on the web for an Orthodox Bible?

[John Vrablic]

Hi Vlad

I understand what you are saying. I have read Tertullian.

So if your position is that the Orthodox chucrh is the church and as a "lutheran" I ahev no rights...Than do the Anglicans haev rights? How about the RC church?
Can the Eastern church develop a list of bsihops from Anecletus to Pope John Pual II.
Are the RC allowed to dispute with you about doctrine?

The argument of apostlic succesion fails becuase apostolc episcopal succesion does not gaurantee doctrine, becuase than hwo do you explain RC chucrh Anglican Church and even some Lutehran church es that claim apostolic succession

That is why succesion of doctrien is foremost. WHoever has posession of teh gospel as transmitted by the apostles is the "church".

That is why Tertullina also says


In the Lord's apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine57 which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even "an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel" (than theirs), he would be called accursed58 by us.

And

For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof338 by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine

So teh rule of faith is not if your church has apostolic episcopal succession.

How can you guarantee that teh church yo attend goes all teh way back in succesion to teh apostles.
Haev you looked at teh lineage?

That is why it seems that apostolic succession must be doctrine

ANy thoughts
?

John

[Moses Anthony]

John,

Although it would take me some time to find it, I could provide you with a list of names of Patriarchs(of the Antiochian jurisdiction) that does go all the way back to the Apostles. Would that be the proof of 'apostalic succession' you desire. The list would be of course, quite long, 166 I believe. My regional Bishop was consecrated by my Metropolitan, who was consecrated by our current Patriarch. The list can be found in the archives of Again Magazine, Vol. 10 #1

The rule of faith, if I am correct, has always been "the Creed" as delivered by the 2nd Council of Nicea. The Creed itself was developed by the bishops of the Church to guard the truth of the faith from various heresies. The Rule of Faith recited by the faithful centuries ago, is the same one I recite in my prayers today as an Orthodox. Apostolic succession is a guard to the "Rule of Faith" which we hold to be self evident.

The holy Apostle Paul was convinced that as a Pharisee he had the right doctrine, that is until he was knocked from his high horse by the truth. Would that we all were so pliable in the hands of the Almighty.

[Justin]

John

Some of what you say is true, but you are missing the bigger picture, friend. You said that apostolic succession does not guarantee [correct] doctrine, and that is true. I don't think that any Orthodox Christian would (or should) dispute that. After all, we Orthodox applaud and revere Saint Maximos the Confessor for-- what? standing up to hundreds of bishops who, if you asked them, would claim to have valid "apostolic succession". Only a Roman Catholic, I think, (speaking of the successor of Peter) would disagree with you.

The Orthodox can produce lists of their successors (http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/orthodox.html), if you were genuinely interested. Apostolic succession, as the Orthodox would agree, is not the guarantee of orthodoxy: yet it does have its purpose. Even before the close of the first century, we find words like this in Clement of Rome:


"The Apostles have preached to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ from God. Christ therefore was sent by God, the Apostles by Christ; so both were orderly sent, according to the will of God. For having received their command, and being thoroughly assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ; and convinced by the word of God, with the fulness of the Holy Spirit, they went abroad, publishing, That the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits of their conversion to be bishops and ministers over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved them by the spirit [...] So likewise our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there should be contentions arise, upon account of the ministry. And therefore having a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed persons, as we have before said, and then gave direction, how, when they should die, other chosen and approved men should succeed in their ministry. Wherefore we cannot think that those may justly be thrown out of their ministry, who were either appointed by them, or afterwards chosen by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church; and who have with all lowliness and innocency ministered to the flock of Christ, in peace, and without self-interest, and were for a long time commended by all. For it would be no small sin in us, should we cast off those from their Bishoprick who holily and without blame fulfil the duties of it." Clement of Rome (c. 96CE), 1 Clement 19:1-4,16-19 (Wake Translation)

And in Cyprian:


"Our Lord, whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and to the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter, I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19). Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates" - Cyprian, A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1842), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1

And so forth (it's hard to read the genuine epistles of Saint Ignatius and still claim that the Orthodox view of bishops was a later development ;-) ). You say that the rule of faith is not that your church has apostolic succession, but this is an invalid conclusion. You state that apostolic succession does not necessarily lead to doctrinal purity, which the Orthodox affirm also. However, you go on from there in the wrong direction, and say, in essence, "well, if that is true, then we'll throw the baby out with the bathwater!"

Apostolic succession does not, in itself, give us doctrinal purity. Yet it is the system God has chosen to work within to guide the Church through time and space. You ask how we can guarantee that our Church goes all the way back to the apostles, and to be honest, I can't. I can't guarantee (if by that you mean some type of irrefutable proof) that the Orthodox Church is the true Church. I can't prove God exists. It's a matter of (assurance through) faith and evidence, not of provable assurance as we might find in the scientific realm.

Perhaps the most important part to consider is that the prophecy in Matt. 16:18 is fulfilled (by God's grace) exactly through apostolic succession, through the Church Militant. This is what the Fathers teach, and I would not argue with them. One last note (and I realise that this post has been all over the place and incoherent), please be careful with that Pauline verse you quoted. Please! If we were to follow the advice of Saint Paul (at least as interpreted by some saints throughout the ages; e.g., Saint Vincent of Lerins (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/lerins9.html) in his Commonitory) all of the Protestants and the Catholics of the world would be anathematized ("accursed"). I am personally greatful that we follow the more moderate views regarding anathematization (for example, that of Saint John Chrysostom (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/anathema_chrysostom.htm)). As I said... please be careful where you point that thing, k?

[John Vrablic]

Hello Justin

Thank you for your response


Some of what you say is true, but you are missing the bigger picture, friend. You said that apostolic succession does not guarantee [correct] doctrine, and that is true. I don't think that any Orthodox Christian would (or should) dispute that. After all, we Orthodox applaud and revere Saint Maximos the Confessor for-- what? standing up to hundreds of bishops who, if you asked them, would claim to have valid "apostolic succession". Only a Roman Catholic, I think, (speaking of the successor of Peter) would disagree with you.

My point was someone had argued that "as a Lutheran I have no right to dispute scripture with the Eastern Orthodox" becuase the bible is a bible of the church and you have apostolic succession.

My response was, can Rcs dispute with you or Anglicans or some Lutheran churches in Europe who all claim to haev a dircet lineage to the apostles?

HE cited Tertullian saying that heretics don't have a right to dispute scriptures.

I agree with that. But who is the church and and who is a heretic. I than quotes from the same document that Tertullian said that even if the churchese were not apostolic in origin (episcopy) by their unity of dotcrine with the apostolic (episcopy) there are deeemd just as apostolic as those founded by the apostles themselves. Tertullina than says that the fule of judging apostolicity is the apostles doctrine..becuase "in The Lords apostles we posess our authority" and that the churches teach nothing different than the apostles and whatever church woudl teach differnt from what teh apostles handed down by voice or letter is ipso facto false.


You say that the rule of faith is not that your church has apostolic succession, but this is an invalid conclusion. You state that apostolic succession does not necessarily lead to doctrinal purity, which the Orthodox affirm also. However, you go on from there in the wrong direction, and say, in essence, "well, if that is true, then we'll throw the baby out with the bathwater!"

I did not say that or imply that at all. There is no problem with apostolic succession of bishops. My only point was that is no guarantee of dotcrinal purity. The only guaranteee of doctrinal purity is to conform to the apostles teaching .."in whom we possess our authority"


please be careful with that Pauline verse you quoted. Please! If we were to follow the advice of Saint Paul (at least as interpreted by some saints throughout the ages; e.g., Saint Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitory) all of the Protestants and the Catholics of the world would be anathematized ("accursed").

WHat verse are you referring to?

So my original post was to discuss the Eastern Orthodox view on some doctrines

Original sin was touched upon and teh orthodox position was presented.

This position was foregin to me and since my lens is scripture, teh tradition of interpretation of scripture, and apostolic rule of faith, I thought the view that was being espoiused failed all three.

I wanted to be "catholic" in discussing this. From what I have read from Irenaues, Justin, Augustin, Cyril, and Athanasius this seemed appropriate.

It seemed that they all

1. Dealt with the sedes doctrine passages of teh doctrine in dispute. They would cite scripture verses that dealt directly with the doctrine

2. They showed how these clear seats of doctrien passages coudl not be interpretd as the heretics. They showed by the unity of teh clear passages that their interpretation was incorrect

3. They than dealt with other passages, adn interpretd these within the anlogy of faith as guided by teh seats of doctrine passages.

4. They than showed how the catholic church always interpreted these passages in consensus.

SO that was what I was trying to do with original sin.

[M. Rallis]

john:
i have found the book by St. John Climacus, "The Ladder of Divine Ascent", to be a valuable guide or preparation for understanding scripute, traditon, and the Orhtodox fathers. Here is a quote from step 7 titled " on mourning which causes joy":

"...The abyss of mourning has seen comfort, and purity of heart has received illumination. Illumination is an ineffible activty which is unknowingly perceived and invisibly seen. Comfort is the solace of a sorrowing soul which, like a child, at once both whimpers to itself and shouts happily. Divine intervention is the renewal of a soul depressed by grief which in a wonderful way transforms painful tears into painless ones.

Tears over our departure produce fear; and when fear begets fearlessness, joy dawns. And when joy is unfailingly obtained, holy love bursts into flower.

Drive away with the hand of humility every transitory joy, as being unworthy of it, lest by readily admitting it you receive a wolf instead of a shepherd.

Do not hasten to contemplation when it is not time for contemplation, that it may pursue and embrace the beauty of your humility, and unite with you for ever in immaculate marriage. "

John, i have found neither reason, logic, intellect, dialectic, nor any of the wisdom of this world to be the narrow path to knowledge about our Creator, but i know our Holy Orthodox Church to be His conduit to mankind for spiritual healing.

Anyway, try reading the whole book and see where it leads you.

[John Vrablic]

Michael

Thank you for your suggestion on the book from St John Climacus

[Jonathan Tallon]

As someone who is not Orthodox, perhaps I am best suited to respond to John's request…

There was a difference in approach between the Western (Rome, Africa etc) and Eastern churches regarding 'original sin' since very early times. In the West, Tertullian provided the foundation with his concept of traducianism (every soul results from the division of Adam's soul). Cyprian believes that infants should be baptised in part because of inherited sin. Ambrose later does the same, and original sin is taught clearly by Augustine.

In the Eastern churches (Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople etc) this belief never took hold. If you like, a more medical than legal metaphor was followed. Humankind have inherited a corruptible nature. However, this is not the same as inheriting sin. Therefore Chrysostom can refer to infants as having 'no sins', and states that the souls of unbaptised infants are in the hands of God. Gregory of Nazianzen distinguishes between adult baptism as a seal and remedy for sin, and infant baptism which is a seal (the remedy is not needed). Further examples could be cited.

To summarise: the Western churches developed a doctrine of orginal sin. This became, naturally, the Catholic and Protestant view. But the Eastern churches never developed such a doctrine.

The doctrine cannot be considered as necessary as it has never been accepted always, everywhere, by all, in the early Church.

I hope this is helpful.

Jonathan

[John Vrablic]

Jonathon

Good answer.

Although the Eastern fathers seem to claim that we inherited death. So if we inherited death, that must mean taht we inherit sin, since "the sting of death is sin and the power of sin is in the law.

Athanasius On the Incarnation

§7. On the Other Hand There Was the Consistency of God’s Nature, Not to Be Sacrificed for Our Profit. Were Men, Then, to Be Called Upon to Repent? But Repentance Cannot Avert the Execution of a Law; Still Less Can It Remedy a Fallen Nature. We Have Incurred Corruption and Need to Be Restored to the Grace of God’s Image. None Could Renew But He Who Had Created. He Alone Could (1) Recreate All, (2) Suffer for All, (3) Respect All to the Father.

But just as this consequence must needs hold, so, too, on the other side the just claims24 of God lie against it: that God should appear true to the law He had laid down concerning death. For it were monstrous for God, the Father of truth, to appear a liar for our profit and preservation. 2. So here, once more, what possible course was God to take? To demand repentance of men for their transgression? For this one might pronounce worthy of God; as though, just as from transgression men have become set towards corruption, so from repentance they may once more be set in the way of incorruption. 3. But repentance would, firstly, fail to guard the just claim25 of God. For He would still be none the more true, if men did not remain in the grasp of death; nor, secondly, does repentance call men back from what is their nature—it merely stays them from acts of sin. 4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?


>>>The doctrine cannot be considered as necessary as it has never been accepted always, everywhere, by all, in the early Church. >>>

Two things

1. Augustine and the catholic faith condmened Pelagius for teaching that original sin was not inherited

He states teh following

All the rest, however, of the passage in which these doubtful words occur, if its statements are carefully examined and treated, as I have tried my best to do in the first book of this treatise, will not (in spite of the obscurity of style necessarily engendered by the subject itself) fail to show the incompatibility of any other meaning than that which has secured the adhesion of the universal Church from the earliest times--that believing infants have obtained through the baptism of Christ the remission of original sin.

CHAP. 10 [V.]--HE SHOWS THAT CYPRIAN HAD NOT DOUBTED THE ORIGINAL SIN OF INFANTS.

Accordingly, it is not without reason that the blessed Cyprian a carefully shows how from the very first the Church has held this as a well understood article of faith. When he was asserting the fitness of infants only just born to receive Christ's baptism, on a certain occasion when he was consulted whether this ought to be administered before the eighth day, he endeavoured, as far as he could, to prove that they were perfect, (4) lest any one should suppose, from the number of the days (because it was on the eighth day that infants were before circumcised), that they so far lacked perfection. However, after bestowing upon them the full support of his argument, he still confessed that they were not free from original sin; because if he had denied this, he would have removed all reason for the very baptism which he was maintaining their fitness to receive. You can, if you wish, read for yourself the epistle of the illustrious martyr On the Baptism of Little Children; for it cannot fail to be within reach at Carthage. But I have deemed it right to transcribe some few statements of it into this letter of mine, so far as applies to the question before us; and I pray you to mark them carefully. "Now with respect," says he, "to the case of infants, whom you declared it would be improper to baptize if presented within the second and third day after their birth, since that due regard ought to be paid to the law of circumcision of old, so that you thought that the infant should not be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day after its birth,--a far different view has been formed of the question in our council. Not a man there assented to what you thought ought to be done; but the whole of us rather determined that to no one born of men ought God's mercy and grace to be denied. For since the Lord in His gospel says, "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them,' (5) so far as in us lies, not a soul ought, if possible, to be lost." You observe how in these words he supposes that it is fraught with ruin and death, not only to the flesh, but also to the soul, for one to depart this life without that saving sacrament. Wherefore, if he said nothing else, it was competent to us to conclude from his words that without sin the soul could not perish. See, however, what (when he shortly afterwards maintains the innocence of infants) he at the same time allows concerning them in the plainest terms: "But if," says he, "anything could hinder men from the attainment of grace, then their heavier sins might rather hinder those who have reached the stages of adults, and advanced life, and old age. Since, however, remission of sins is given even to the greatest sinners after they have believed, however much they have previously sinned against God, and since nobody is forbidden baptism and grace, how much more ought an infant not to be forbidden who newborn has done no sin, except that from having been born cam ally after Adam he has contracted from his very birth the contagion of the primeval death! How, too, does this fact contribute in itself the more easily to their reception of the forgiveness of sins, that the remission which they have is not of their own sins, but of those of another!"

CHAP. 11.--THE ANCIENTS ASSUMED ORIGINAL SIN.

You see with what confidence this great man expresses himself after the ancient and undoubted rule of faith. In advancing such very certain statements, his object was by help of these firm conclusions to prove the uncertain point which had been submitted to him by his correspondent, and concerning which he informs him that a decree of a council had been passed, to the effect that, if an infant were brought even before the eighth day after his birth, no one should hesitate to baptize him. Now it was not then determined or confirmed by the council that infants were held bound by original sin as if it were new, or as if it were attacked by the opposition of some one; but when another controversy was being conducted, and the question was discussed, in reference to the law of the circumcision of the flesh, whether they ought to be baptized before the eighth day. None agreed with the person who denied this; because it was not an open question admitting of discussion, but was fixed and unassailable, that the soul would forfeit eternal salvation if it ended this life without obtaining the sacrament of baptism: but at the same time infants fresh from the womb were held to be affected only by the guilt of original sin. On this account, although remission of sins was easier in their case, because the sins were derived from another, it was nevertheless indispensable. It was on sure grounds like these that the uncertain question of the eighth day was solved, and the council decided that after a man was born, not a day ought to be lost in rendering him that succour which should prevent his perishing for ever. When also a reason was given for the circumcision of the flesh as being itself a shadow of what was to be, its purport was not that we should understand that baptism ought to be administered on the eighth day after birth, but rather that we are spiritually circumcised in the resurrection of Christ, who rose from the dead on the third day, indeed, after His passion, but among the days of the week, by which time is counted, on the eighth, that is, on the first day after the Sabbath.

CHAP. 12 [VI.]--THE UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS RESPECTING ORIGINAL SIN.

And now, again, with a strange boldness in new controversy, certain persons are endeavouring to make us uncertain on a point which our forefathers used to bring forward as most certainly fixed, whenever they would solve such questions as seemed uncertain to some. When this controversy, indeed, first began, I am unable to say; but one thing I know, that even the holy Jerome, who is in our own day renowned for great industry and learning in ecclesiastical literature, for the solution of sundry questions treated in his writings, makes use of the same most certain assumption without exhibition of proofs. For instance, in his commentary on the prophet Jonah, when he comes to the passage where the infants were mentioned as chastened by the fast, he sayshttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/sad.gif1) "The greatest age comes first, and then all the rest is pervaded down to the least.(2) For there is no man without sin, whether the span of his age be but that of a single day, or he reckon many years to his life. For if the very stars are unclean in the sight of God,(3) how much more is a worm and corruption, such as are they who are held subject to the sin of the offending Adam?" If, indeed, we could readily interrogate this most learned man, how many authors who have treated of the divine Scriptures. in both languages,(4) and have written on Christian controversies, would he mention to us, who have never held any other opinion since the Church of Christ was rounded,-- who neither received any other from their forefathers, nor handed down any other to their posterity? My own reading, indeed, has been far more limited, but yet I do not recollect ever having heard of any other doctrine on this point from Christians, who accept the two Testaments, whether established in the Catholic Church, or in any heretical or schismatic body whatever. I do not remember, I say, that I have at any time found any other doctrine in such writers as have contributed anything to literature of this kind, whether they have followed the canonical Scriptures, or have supposed that they have followed them, or had wished to be so supposed. From what quarter this question has suddenly come upon us I know not. A short time ago,(5) in a passing conversation with certain persons while we were at Carthage, my ears were suddenly offended with such a proposition as this: "That infants are not baptized for the purpose of receiving remission of sin, but that they may be sanctified in Christ." Although I was much disturbed by so novel an opinion, still, as there was no opportunity afforded me for gainsaying it, and as its propounders were not persons whose influence gave me anxiety, I readily let the subject slip into neglect and oblivion. And lo! it is now maintained with burn-ins zeal against the Church; lo! it is committed to our permanent notice by writing; nay, the matter is brought to such a pitch of distracting influence, that we are even consulted on it by our brethren; and we are actually obliged to oppose its progress both by disputation and by writing.

2. So IF this teaching ahs not been taught always everywhere and by all how about Mary's intercessory role. HAs that been taught always everywhere and by all?
The seven sacraments...has that been taught everywhere always and by all.

And than on what basis do you as as Eastern Orthodox condemn faith alone w/o an eceumenical council treating this?

Thanks

John

[Jonathan Tallon]

Thank you for responding to my post, John.

First, on Athanasius.

In the passage you cite, Athanasius is not referring to Original Sin. Athanasius taught that there is a fundamental difference between God and creation. God alone is immortal, and not subject to change or decay. All creation is subject to change and decay - also called corruption. In this sense, humankind by its very nature is corrupt, ie subject to change and decay. Only through God's grace (and not by nature) was Adam exempt from this. His sin led to the loss of that grace, thus condemning humankind to their natural, corrupt state. This is why Athanasius argues that repentance alone is not enough - it would not affect our nature. We require something (someone!) to change our corruptible natures to incorrupt ones. Therefore, talk about 'corruption' in Athanasisus is NOT referring to Original Sin.

Secondly, you cite Augustine. As I indicated, Augustine did teach the doctrine of Original Sin. But note that the authorities he cites are all from the Western Church: Cyprian, Jerome, the Council of Carthage. Augustine, as he admits himself in the passage, was not widely read. In particular he did not read Greek, and so missed out on reading directly large parts of the Eastern churches output.

I repeat - in the Eastern churches, original sin was generally not taught.

I hope this is helpful.

Jonathan

[Owen Jones]

I thought the distinction between death being a natural consequence of sin vs. a punishment for sin to be very helpful. I forget which thread it's running on or who posted it. But thanks anyway.

I also think someone on this topic made the point that in the Orthodox tradition (which I really prefer to call the classical Christian tradition, at least as it pertains to ideas), sin is seen as a kind of disease - like a cancer that infects the body. The logical extension of that is that the Church is a hospital for sick souls, not so much a courtroom. Theology must always stand in service of the cure of souls. There must always be some curative power that comes from the Church and if we don't see that, then we know something is amiss. Of course, there are some theories, somewhat gnostic, that says that as we get further in time from the Apostles this curative power is diminished. I prefer to think that we live in an age that is typified by demonic influences like no other, which operates very effectively by diverting our attention.

One other comment about recent comments, for what it's worth: to argue theological points out of context is really fruitless. There are no theological truths in an absolute sense, abstracted from the struggle for obedience and virtue. Truth, in the Orthodox tradition, is not propositional. It is a realm. This realm, called the metaxy in the Greek, and typically translated from the FAthers as the intermediate, must be entered into for theologizing to take place. Otherwise, it can actually be an obstacle to wisdom and understanding and virtue. It becomes a substitute for the really hard stuff we are supposed to be doing.

[M.C. Steenberg]

In a recent post, Jonathan Tallon wrote:


In the passage you cite, Athanasius is not referring to Original Sin. Athanasius taught that there is a fundamental difference between God and creation. God alone is immortal, and not subject to change or decay. All creation is subject to change and decay - also called corruption. In this sense, humankind by its very nature is corrupt, ie subject to change and decay. Only through God's grace (and not by nature) was Adam exempt from this. His sin led to the loss of that grace, thus condemning humankind to their natural, corrupt state. This is why Athanasius argues that repentance alone is not enough - it would not affect our nature. We require something (someone!) to change our corruptible natures to incorrupt ones. Therefore, talk about 'corruption' in Athanasisus is NOT referring to Original Sin.

Thank you for this observation, Jonathan. The conception of humankind being naturally mortal is shared by many of the early Fathers (Irenaeus, with whom I spend the most time, comes immediately to mind). Human nature as a material nature means that this nature is by definition 'corruptible' (mortal). Sin, for all its real and dramatic consequences, is not the root cause of the finitude of man: his material nature serves this purpose. Sin serves, rather, as that which prevents man from attaining to the incorruption offered him by God.

INXC, Matthew

[John Vrablic]

Matthew


"The conception of humankind being naturally mortal is shared by many of the early Fathers"

Scripture says "the day you eat of it you will die." Or conversely if you don't eat of it you will not die. Scripture also says death came into the world through Adam.

Both these must mean that death was not a part of man from creation, because he was made in the image and likeness of God. Was mortality an image and likeness of God?

One of the likeness's is that of immortality.

Just some thoughts

John

[Richard Domina]

A lot of this discussion is the classic protestant-catholic/orthodox debate. To me it seems (as always), a misunderstanding of how far we have fallen (confused,disordered). When St. Paul speaks of 'faith alone' he is speaking from a much deeper and clear place. In order to get to that sublime faith we first need to shake off this heavy drunken torpor we are in. I believe this is what the church and the sacraments and the obedience is about (at least partly). To get to the place where we see and know it's all God's will then we live by faith alone- knowing it was and is and will be only Father,Son and Holy Spirit. I don't think the human race has ever been farther from this than now. St Paul is speaking from high up the mountain. We are far below and the church is the fellow climbers. Tradition is the rope that comes down from the top of the mountain and scripture is the map. Protestant theology doesn't recognise or want the rope. I know this is a bit simplistic but unfortunately so am I. Peace. Rick

[John Vrablic]

Richard

I like simple too. Regarding faith alone. How is this for simple.

We are all sinners and will die in sin for there is "no one living who is righteous before you" and "if you enetered into judgement who could stand"

Becuase we are sinners we must have a saviour who saves us from sins and "takes away the sins of the world".

It is as simple as that sin and grace death and life, justice and mercy.

The reason teh church is in the predicament it is is always about its lack of recognition of sin and consequently lack of trust or need for Jesus.

Or as Jerome says .."we are righteous when we confess we are sinners"

I have read many of the fathers but nothing can compare with scripture. Reading Lamentations, Hosea, Job and all of scripture shows us only two things

1. Our sin and disobedience
2. Gods mercy to forgive us through Christ

All of religion is about this and wahtever tradition would lead us away from our sin and disobedinec and consequently our saviuor who" came to save the sinners not the righteous", circumvents scripture

John

[Chad Duskin]

Scripture says "the day you eat of it you will die."

Or conversely if you don't eat of it you will not die.

Scripture also says death came into the world through Adam.

Both these must mean that death was not a part of man from creation, because he was made in the image and likeness of God.
Was mortality an image and likeness of God?

One of the likeness's is that of immortality.


John,

I have always understood that the Orthodox church has seen the IMAGE of God and the LIKENESS of God as two different things. The image of God referred to man's immortality and physical being while the likeness of God referred to man's moral or spiritual being. Death destroys the image of God while sin destroys the likeness of God. Adam's sin or destruction of God's likeness brought as a result the destruction of the image of God or physical death. That physical death and distorted image is passed on to all humanity and as a consequence a likeness that leads to sin. Christ's death on the cross will restore God's image to humanity. All will be resurrected to immortality -- but not all will be resurrected to His likeness. That depends on how one responds to His grace during this life. Heaven is where those who strive to achieve His likeness find ultimate fulfilment in His presence and Hell is where those who spend their lives resisting His Spirit in this life are brought into His presence. It has been said that the love and light of God is the fire of Hell. God doesn't send anyone to Hell. A person chooses Hell by rejecting God and for the one who hates God being in His presence is the very definition of Hell. The lake of fire is reserved for them out of mercy -- not anger and hatred. This is why salvation is seen as both universal (for God so loved the world) and personal (whosoever believeth in Him). All are saved from death because of the cross (resurrection) but some will choose to reject the gift of the Spirit that is offered to help us obtain to His likeness. The Protestant concept of Heaven and Hell cannot fit into this belief system. It will either lead to a unbalanced focus on humanity's universal salvation from death (the resurrection) leading to Universalism like Unitarians or to an unbalanced focus on Christians' ultimate sanctification leading to Calvinism and limited atonement. Protestant theology does not separate the two aspects of our nature and therefore a concept like Original Sin must be created to help interpret scripture that apparently is contradictory.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Earlier, John Vrablic wrote:


Both these must mean that death was not a part of man from creation, because he was made in the image and likeness of God. Was mortality an image and likeness of God? One of the likeness's is that of immortality.

Orthodox theology teaches that humanity's creation in the image and likeness of God was similar (by analogy) to a newborn baby's creation into human nature: the baby is, of course, wholly human; but the same baby is not yet wholly human-like -- time is needed for the baby to grow and develop an active will, which allows for choices to be made and activities to be engaged upon that join one into the 'likeness' of humankind. So it was with the first humans: they bore the image and were commencing in the likeness. The perfection of the likeness is immortality, which God intended for Adam to attain: but this likeness requires the unity with Christ, which was part of the future dispensation. Adam would naturally have attained to this dispensation, were it not for his transgression.

So you are right, in as much as death was not meant to be part of human life at created, even though corruptibility was a natural part of materiality: God will transcend this corruptibility and make the perishable imperishable as human life is perfected in the likeness. But when the attainment to the full likeness is abandoned, the natural corruptibility of the flesh takes over.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Domina]

Mr. Vrablic, I am in total agreement with your last post on this thread. I don't see what that has to do with tradition though. Tradition is being immersed in the culture of Christ Jesus. Mr.Tallon, Your description of the difference between eastern and western belief on original sin is interesting. It's another example of language and cultural misunderstanding. The RC churhes belief in original sin is exactly the same as the east only since it is worded original'sin' you take that to mean personal error or mistake (when I say you I mean an Eastern Orthodox). No- It means humanity is in a fallen state. It is because of our disordered nature that we have inherited through generation from Adam. Baptism washes it away when we are given the Holy Spirit. But,since we are surrounded by sin and error and wrong ideas we quickly start to defile that sacramental grace. Our nature is inherantly good being made in His Image but we are not where we should be because of the sin of Adam. We come into this world full of Christian potential but we have two strikes on us at birth. We are born with a tendancy toward sin and death. This is inherent.

[Jonathan Tallon]

It is rather strange to read myself described as an Eastern Orthodox, and so suffering from language and cultural misunderstanding. For the record, my background is from an extremely low evangelical Church of England setting; since then I have experienced (and worshipped within) a wide variety of traditions within Christianity. Incidentally, from this perspective, may I say that some parts of the Protestant churches do care about tradition.

My understanding is that Augustine taught that 'original sin' means not only that humanity is in a 'fallen' state, but is also guilty. Being human means partaking in Adam's guilt. We are not only born with a tendency to sin; we are guilty of Adam's sin.

I do not believe this is identical with how the eastern churches have traditionally viewed our status at birth.

The issue is therefore not only about sin, but also about guilt.

I hope that this helps to clarify matters.

Jonathan

[M.C. Steenberg]

Earlier, it was said in this thread:


The RC church's belief in original sin is exactly the same as the east, only since it is worded original 'sin' you take that to mean personal error or mistake (when I say you I mean an Eastern Orthodox). No - It means humanity is in a fallen state. It is because of our disordered nature that we have inherited through generation from Adam. [Text slightly edited by moderator]

While the sentiment of this post is certainly well intentioned, the actual reality of the relationship between East and West on this issue is a bit different. The difference in understanding of 'original sin' is one of the main points of division between the Orthodox Church and the larger body of Western Christendom, especially as encapsulated in the Roman Catholic Church and its Protestant off-shoots. Since it is from an understanding of the original condition of humanity, and the change in that condition after the first sin, that so much else in a Christian theology stems, it is likewise from the very different views on 'original sin' that many of the doctrinal differences between East and West take their beginning.

Jonathan Tallon, in a recent post, pointed toward one of the central differences between the 'Eastern' and 'Western' views of the first sin. He wrote:


My understanding is that Augustine taught that 'original sin' means not only that humanity is in a 'fallen' state, but is also guilty. Being human means partaking in Adam's guilt. We are not only born with a tendency to sin; we are guilty of Adam's sin.

I do not believe this is identical with how the eastern churches have traditionally viewed our status at birth.

The issue is therefore not only about sin, but also about guilt.

This is indeed the case; and despite the many elements of common understanding between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox in issues relating to creation and sin, this issue of guilt and consequences is a point of major theological divergence.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Domina]

Dear Matthew and Jonathon, I always understood this 'guilt' word in connection to original sin to mean that we are no different from Adam. We are naturally guilty from the start. To me it means that if we were in Paradise and we were in Adam's shoes (actually it would be before we had shoes),we would also have eaten the forbidden fruit and disobeyed. I always took the Garden story to be more than just historical but archtypal in that we're all Adam. We are all 'guilty' of Adam's sin like children are 'guilty' of naivete. I took it as a story of humanities immaturity and mistake in the way we use the intellect. I'm not sure but I think St.Paul refers to our situation in terms of guilt and on a broad scale. I am ignorant of these things but it always strikes me as hypocritical that a quibble over semantics could cause the Body of Christ to fracture. Please forgive me for what I've offencevly oversimplified. Rick

[Chad Duskin]

When St. Paul speaks of 'faith alone' he is speaking from a much deeper and clear place.

I have never read where Paul uses the phrase faith alone. I believe the only place the words faith alone are found is in the epistle of James where interestingly enough the word not is included.

Chad