Is 'The River of Fire' Orthodox doctrine? [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Mary Christine Erikson

16-03-2007, 07:09 AM

Greetings,
I am now a moderator of another forum board, and I am a recent convert to EO. I am having trouble with someone posting there that the "River of Fire" is doctrine and stating that this is what Eastern Orthodox believe.

I do not believe some of the things she states, such as "There is no penalty for sin". She is clearly stating that if I believe that there is a penalty for sin, then I am not Eastern Orthodox.

This is not just causing me confusion, it is causing confusion with those who are interested in Eastern Orthodox and might be interested in converting but now are not sure because she appears to be stating that the Eastern Orthodox Church believes in universal salvation.

I have done a search here and found another area that discussed this topic, but some of the posts were extremely long and contained information that I simply can not understand.

I would appreciate some help understanding this issue, and some clear understanding about the status of "The River of Fire" as doctrine.

Greetings, Xenia,

the whole concept of the River of Fire seems to be drawn from an icon
I haven't been able to locate yet, and depicts a river of fire coming out
of the Throne of God at the Last Judgement. Actually, the only river I
been able to locate in The Bible in that context so far is a river of WATER.

Revelation 22:1

"And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear and crystal,
proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb."

In general the picture painted by the "River of Fire" line of talk just
doesn't exist in The Bible except as part of a judgement against
the evil.

Further, The Bible makes clear, that those insisting on remaining in
rebellion will be excluded from the presence of God.

"....Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared
for the devil and his angels" Matthew 25:41

referring to the Holy City, the New Jerusalem that comes down out of
heaven, adorned as a bride, "But there shall be no means enter it
anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only
those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life." Revelation 21:27

"Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have
the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the
city.

"But outside are dogs [NOTE: then current slang for buggery or
anal sex, perhaps even including when it is done heterosexually,
but definitely the practicing homosexuals] and sorcerers and sexually
immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices
a lie." Revelation 22:14, 15

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his catechetical lectures warns his students
to accept nothing he tells them qithout checking it against Scripture
and while some things may be difficult to understand, others are pretty
clear, like the difference between, well, fire and water.

This new teaching seems to derive from stuff from early desert fathers
taken out of context. Isaac the Syrian gets quoted a lot, for instance.
But if I recall correctly, Isaac was a Nestorian who finally took refuge
in Italy. Though his published teachings seem to have been Orthodox
enough, he may have labored under more internal conflict than is a
good thing to base a world view on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_of_Nineveh

I think that there is too great an effort to define Orthodoxy as not-
Roman Catholic, and Frs. Florovsky and Pomazansky do not totally
reject the standard juridical model of redemption, they merely deny
that it is all there is to it, and complain of Rome's narrow focus.

Pomazansky complains that some protestants in over reaction to
Rome's narrow focus move away from it altogether, something some
Protestants of the evangelical or in theory at least, Bible rather than
denominational oriented sort observe with alarm also.

Myself, reading evangelical literature in the past, noted that there
is more than mere technical imputation, and as one said, if Jesus
isn't your Lord, the One you obey, then He isn't your Savior because
the two go together. Or words to that effect.

In Christ,

Mary Christine Erikson - Orthodox in training, going to a catechetical
class but not sure how the priest categorizes me.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-03-2007, 03:55 PM

The reference to the river of fire I think comes from Daniel 7 which in turn is relied on heavily in some parts of Revelations.

Daniel 7: 9 "As I looked,
"thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.

10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.

11 "Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire.

There seem to be a number of ideas here which have gotten confused. The notoriety of the river of fire in recent times comes mostly from the Alexander Kalomiros writing by that name. It's been quite awhile since I read this. But from what I recall he isn't supporting the idea of universal salvation but rather that the fires of hell are actually the fire of Christ's grace for those who reject this. In other words in the final times all will stand before Christ. His grace will be light for those who accept Him but a fiery hell for those who reject Him.

This is a very simplistic presentation of what the Fathers say about this for in reality there are very sound theological reasons for not portraying hell as a separate place outside of Christ. Many Fathers speak of this. I think St Symeon the New Theologian even says it is blasphemy to think that there will be a separate place called hell outside the realm of Christ's light.

This however does not mean that there is no penalty for sin. Categorically there is a penalty for sin & to have this penalty be before the light of Christ rather than apart from it makes it even worse. What could possibly be a worse hell than standing within the light of Christ and hating it?

Another though perhaps connected idea however is that of universal salvation or apokatastasis. As far as I can understand the matter the idea of necessary (ie apart from the free will of those involved) universal salvation has been condemned as a form of origenism. But there are those who believe or at least discuss from the witness of several holy Fathers that there will be a kind of eventual universal salvation working in conjunction with the free will of humanity.

I have no idea which is more accurate since the expressions in support of either side seem so categorical at times. May the safest thing is to expect the first and hope for the last.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Herman Blaydoe

16-03-2007, 04:40 PM

The short answer is NO, The River of Fire by Alexander Kalomiros, is not Orthodox Doctrine. It is the pious opinion of one particular individual. That being said, I think the person who says that "there is no penalty for sin" is NOT drawing that conclusion from what Alexander Kalomiros wrote.

Kalomiros, I think, is examining the problem "why would a loving God punish people?". His conclusion, expressed in a simplistic manner (I admit I have a simple mind) is that a loving God does not punish evil people, evil people punish themselves and that we will ALL eventually stand in God's presence, "righteous" and "unrighteous" alike. Whether or not that experience will be pleasurable or painful depends on how we prepare for it in the here and now. This makes sense to me, but I do not believe the Church will anathemize or excommunicate anyone who chooses to not agree with Dr. Kalomiros.

Andrew

16-03-2007, 05:38 PM

The River of Fire was commended by Metropolitan Vitaly, and is sold in the monasteries of Elder Ephraim... I think the view of eschatology in it is a good reflection of the nature of Our Lord, agreeing with the experiences of Saint Silouan, Saint Isaac of Syria, and all those who have been transfigured by His Grace.

Matthew Panchisin

16-03-2007, 05:50 PM

Dear Father Raphael,

Is it reasonable and right to look at it in terms of the river of fire being the flowing of pure Truth? Are we not to be in the fire now? I mean embracing the Holy Spirit the Spirit of truth, in such ways there are convictions when we are willing to be confronted I suppose. Within ourselves God can search the heart if we are only but willing. That may not be a pleasant way of life all the time, but there is nothing like the joy of Pascha in the Orthodox Church anywhere, there can't be for mankind. In such ways we can go from glory to glory in Christ, not for ourselves but God, we are but men. If we could fully worship God in Spirit and Truth, my then what would we be? Burnished through fire by loving God and one another. Had God not been patient with Paul there would be no Saul, so we have hope. We pray thy kingdom come thy will be done, which seems like an eschatological prayer. So many Orthodox prayers plea for the Holy Spirit to come. If we are in the fire now we are in a "middle state" it does not seem to me to be some place reserved just for the future. We read in the Psalms; If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. The Holy Spirit is everywhere present and fillest all things, this must be so for the absolute fullness of the Truth. But the Truth is the comforter, when we are humble, that is to say in Christ for He is meek and lowly of heart. No matter where we are He is with us even to the end of time. When we hear things like "keep thy mind in Hell and despair not" a call or confirmation to not just knock once but rather keep knocking. In such ways our faith can be alive. It seems to me that only by setting our hearts to understand, not lying to ourselves or following falsehood than we too can climb the ladder. The doors are opened through repentance but without Christ and the Orthodox Church how can there be reconciliation? What does a person do? By giving the passions places to grow within us we water such seeds that grow even through they are dry and withered. Paying no attention or not struggling surely is not good. When time runs out here on earth what happens, we reap what we have sown. So hopefully when we die we will not be distracted anymore and our prayers will be pure and from the heart. They will be pleasing to God if our hearts are I think. Even when we fall short we can always turn to prayer, create a clean heart in me Oh God and renew a right spirit.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-03-2007, 06:05 PM

Dear Matthew,

I hadn't connected the two in my mind before this. But I think there is really something to what you have written.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Father Raphael,

Is it reasonable and right to look at it in terms of the river of fire being the flowing of pure Truth? Are we not to be in the fire now? I mean embracing the Holy Spirit the Spirit of truth, in such ways there are convictions when we are willing to be confronted I suppose. Within ourselves God can search the heart if we are only but willing. That may not be a pleasant way of life all the time, but there is nothing like the joy of Pascha in the Orthodox Church anywhere, there can't be for mankind. In such ways we can go from glory to glory not for ourselves but God, we are but men. If we could fully worship God in Spirit and Truth, my then what would we be? Burnished through fire by loving God and one another. Had God not been patient with Paul there would be no Saul, so we have hope. We pray thy kingdom come thy will be done, which seems like an eschatological prayer. So many Orthodox prayers plea for the Holy Spirit to come. If we are in the fire now we are in a "middle state" it does not seem to me to be some place reserved just for the future. We read in the Psalms; If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. The Holy Spirit is everywhere present and fillest all things, this must be so for the absolute fullness of the Truth. But the Truth is the comforter, when we are humble, that is to say in Christ for He is meek and lowly of heart. No matter where we are He is with us even to the end of time. When we hear things like "keep thy mind in Hell and despair not" a call or confirmation to not just knock once but rather keep knocking. In such ways our faith can be alive. It seems to me that only by setting our hearts to understand, not lying to ourselves or following falsehood that we too can climb the ladder. The doors are opened through repentance but without Christ and the Orthodox Church how can there be reconciliation? What does a person do? By giving the passions places to grow within us we water such seeds that grow even through they are dry and withered. Paying no attention or not struggling surely is not good. When time runs out here on earth what happens, we reap what we have sown. So hopefully when we die we will not be distracted anymore and our prayers will be pure and from the heart. They will be pleasing to God if our hearts are I think. Even when we fall short we can always turn to prayer, create a clean heart in me Oh God and renew a right spirit.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dusan Basta

21-03-2007, 06:29 AM

`She is clearly stating that if I believe that there is a penalty for sin, then I am not Eastern Orthodox. `

Sorry, but it makes no sense with EO theology. If you prove this is said in `Rivers of Fire` this would be remarkable achievement. You can prove it, of course, but if you think in the juridical way as RC or Protestants do. :))

But, as there is no way it is said in River of Fire, everything is OK.:))

How does the book begin? A.Calomiros poses the question `Why there is not enough love towards God among people, why this love is diminishing, why is it colder and colder? ` and gives very simple answer ~ `Because of the sin. The sin is that grey cloud that does not allow light to reach our eyes.

Vic Chiasson

28-03-2007, 02:20 PM

I think the meaning attached to the phrase: "penalty for sin" is important

It might be perfectly fine to say that God has not devised punishment for sin so it would be perfectly Orthodox to oppose the idea of "a penalty imposed by God to exact a price for sin".

It would also be perfectly Orthodox to say that a person's perverted exercise of their free will to constantly turn away from God and His love for them results in their becoming eternally unable to experience His love as anything but torment. If this torment is the result of their sin then it can be seen as a penalty for sin.

The difficulty is that the word penalty can imply someone who imposes it, like a referee or a judge or God.

In Christ,
Victor

Mary Christine Erikson

29-03-2007, 05:17 AM

the problem is not that "river of fire" says there is no penalty
for sin. The problem is that it is Origenistic in that it implies
that even after the Last Judgement there is a possible eventual
repair and removal of sin and making someone comfortable in
God's presence.

Further, it denies the Scriptures and Fathers who refer to the
Scriptures with the interpretation of them that there is a
condition of removal from the presence of God for the recalcitrant
sinner.

Certainly, God's presence is terrifying for such. But they are removed
from that presence to a place of torment. Perhaps one could argue
that the torment is a mercy as it keeps them distracted from the
presence of God, Who may be still looming visible or sensible to them
in some way. But God describes hell as having been "made for the
devil and his angels," and comes to include those who follow them.

Another problem with "river of fire" is that it is almost like New Age
and liberal protestantism that denies the atonement and God's
wrath and so forth.

OF COURSE GOD LOVES US AND IS NOT OUT TO GET US. But the
atonement - in addition to its other features of recapitulation etc. -
is a display of that love, and THERE IS NO DIVISION WITHIN THE
TRINITY because it is not The Father angry and The Son covering
for us, but ALL of them angry, ALL of them loving us, ALL of them
agreeing that The Son take our sins' punishment upon Himself.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His onlybegotten Son,
that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have
everlasting life." John 3:16

Finally, it seems to have originated as a speech given at an
essentially schismatic church, that originated with ROCOR and
went under the omophorion of a schismatic Greek sect.

For what that information is worth.

Mary Chrisitine Erikson

Father David Moser

30-03-2007, 06:17 PM

Finally, it seems to have originated as a speech given at an
essentially schismatic church, that originated with ROCOR and
went under the omophorion of a schismatic Greek sect.

You speak of things of which you know nothing.

Just in point of fact, this talk was presented in a ROCOR parish at an annual "Orthodox Conference" for clergy and laity. These conferences were held with the blessing of the Metropolitan (Philaret at that time) and very often there were hierarchs in attendance (the one that I was at, a year later, was attended by (then) Archbishop (later Metr) Vitaly of Toronto and by Bishop Gregory of Manhatten). This talk was not given at an "essentially schismatic church" but rather at a ROCOR parish Church in good standing and with episcopal blessing.

The parish where this conference was held that year as well as many people who were likely at that conference were in fact many years later involved in the "Boston schism" and are now in the group which calls itself H.O.C.N.A. But there are many years and many events separating this talk from the sad events which led to the schism.

Fr David Moser

Herman Blaydoe

30-03-2007, 06:49 PM

The problem is that it is Origenistic in that it implies that even after the Last Judgement there is a possible eventual repair and removal of sin and making someone comfortable in God's presence.
Where, exactly does it imply this?

Further, it denies the Scriptures and Fathers who refer to the Scriptures with the interpretation of them that there is a condition of removal from the presence of God for the recalcitrant sinner.
Methinks not. Besides there is room for interpretation here. Doesn't Holy Scripture (Psalm 139:7-12) say:

Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?

If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.

If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,

Even there Your hand shall lead me,
And Your right hand shall hold me.

If I say, “Surely the darkness shall fall on me,”
Even the night shall be light about me;

Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You,
But the night shines as the day;
The darkness and the light are both alike to You.

Another problem with "river of fire" is that it is almost like New Age and liberal protestantism that denies the atonement and God's wrath and so forth.
I am not so sure that Orthodoxy is in lock-step with ANY sort of Protestantism, particularly in their concepts of "atonement".

FWIW,
Herman
A struggling pilgrim on the Lenten road to Holy Pascha

Father David Moser

30-03-2007, 07:38 PM

The problem is that it is Origenistic in that it implies
that even after the Last Judgement there is a possible eventual
repair and removal of sin

How do you get that from Dr Kalomiros' text on "The River of Fire" (http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm)? He says:

Paradise or hell depends on how we will accept God's love. Will we return love for love, or will we respond to His love with hate? This is the critical difference. And this difference depends entirely on us, on our freedom, on our innermost free choice, on a perfectly free attitude which is not influenced by external conditions or internal factors of our material and psychological nature, because it is not an external act but an interior attitude coming from the bottom of our heart, conditioning not our sins, but the way we think about our sins, as it is clearly... This freedom, this choice, this inner attitude toward our Creator is the innermost core of our eternal personality, it is the most profound of our characteristics, it is what makes us that which we are, it is our eternal face — bright or dark, loving or hating.

No, my brothers, unhappily for us, paradise or hell does not depend on God. If it depended on God, we would have nothing to fear. We have nothing to fear from Love. But it does not depend on God. It depends entirely upon us, and this is the whole tragedy. God wants us to be in His image, eternally free. He respects us absolutely. This is love. Without respect, we cannot speak of love. We are men because we are free. If we were not free, we would be clever animals, not men. God will never take back this gift of freedom which renders us what we are. This means that we will always be what we want to be, friends or enemies of God, and there is no changing in this our deepest self. In this life, there are profound or superficial changes in our life, in our character, in our beliefs, but all these changes are only the expression in time of our deepest eternal self. This deep eternal self is eternal, with all the meaning of the word. This is why paradise and hell are also eternal. There is no changing in what we really are. Our temporal characteristics and our history in life depend on many superficial things 'which vanish with death, but our real personality is not superficial and does not depend on changing and vanishing things. It is our real self. It remains with us when we sleep in the grave, and will be our real face in the resurrection. It is eternal.

That sounds pretty permanent to me. He does refer or Origin in making his comment - but you know Origin did have some good insights, not everything he wrote was wrong.

Further, it denies the Scriptures and Fathers who refer to the
Scriptures with the interpretation of them that there is a
condition of removal from the presence of God for the recalcitrant
sinner.

Did you actually read Dr Kalomiros talk - he seems to make frequent and liberal reference to the Fathers. One which speaks directly to your concern is:

"I say," writes Saint Isaac the Syrian, "that those who are suffering in hell, are suffering in being scourged by love.... It is totally false to think that the sinners in hell are deprived of God's love. Love is a child of the knowledge of truth, and is unquestionably given commonly to all. But love's power acts in two ways: it torments sinners, while at the same time it delights those who have lived in accord with it" (Homily 84).

Another problem with "river of fire" is that it is almost like New Age and liberal protestantism that denies the atonement and God's wrath and so forth.

I will agree that this talk denies the mistaken western concept of atonement (which is about punishment and Christ being punished for us) but it is in complete harmony with the Orthodox teaching on the atonement (which is about Christ taking on our sin and suffering the consequence of sin - that is death - so that He might become the antidote to death and the vaccine for us against sin and death) Remember that God is not "wrath", God is love. In order to understand this you really need to develop within yourself an Orthodox mind.

You have spent many years and many hours amassing a wealth of information about religion, but the problem is that you have structured it all wrong. In coming to Orthodoxy, the very first thing you must do is to forget all that you think you know and start as a little child, presuming that you know nothing and learning the proper and Orthodox way of understanding all that information that you have amassed. Otherwise, if you insist on maintaining your own ideas and interpretations, you are no different from the Protestants.

Fr David Moser

Mary Christine Erikson

01-04-2007, 10:50 AM

The church's web page shows that the schism was 5 or 6 years later,
led by the priest and involving most of the member and taking the
property and church name with it. I don't know about their relationship
to HOCNA but some True Orthodox Greek Church.

Mary Christine Erikson

01-04-2007, 11:10 AM

Wrath and love are not inconsistent except in some limited human
simplemindedness powered by self centered demands that God
approve us no matter what.

St. Isaac the Syrian was a NESTORIAN who managed to keep most
of his published stuff ORthodox and took refuge in a Roman church
at the last, though this was pre schism. The idea that God does not
send us to hell, we do, may be accurate from the position of our
digging the pit we fall in, but it is clear that God makes a judgement
and sends people some in one direction some another.

If you look at St. James Liturgy you find clear reference to sacrifice
TO God the Father.

As to another post where I get some impermanence or universal
salvation implication, it is obvious that IF hell is strictly the
subjective experience of God's presence by those incompatible
with it, and is purgative like Isaac the Syrian indicates, then eventually
all would be purged, changed, and what was left of them saved. It is
an inherent part of such a concept, applied to The Last Judgement
as distinct from present post mortem conditions.

Over and over in prayers and in Psalms chosen for liturgical use in
Midnight Office, or Vespers, whatever, there is plea to forgive our
sins and that God not hide His face from us, etc. etc., which shows
that a rather opposite possibility exists.

As to being lockstep with any form of Protestantism, of course this
would not happen on purpose.

But Orthodoxy is in lockstep with Protestantism and RC in claiming
Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity and born of a virgin, died
and came back to life. So this is certainly not an inherent impossiblity.

My point was not that Orthodoxy was necessarily getting these
liberal Protestant ideas from Protestants or recognizing them as such,
but rather, that somehow the infection either came in by exposure to
philosophy on the part of men in the 1800s and they later taught
seminaries (in fact I think it is Khrapovitsky who complains that many
heretical notions started floating about not presented as religious idea
or they would have been attacked at once, but appearing in a philosophy
context, and - to use a modern phrase - slipped under the radar).

Whatever the origin, it is possible for two separate groups to independently
come to similar conclusions because of shared human flaws influencing
interpretation.

There are problems with the narrow focus of the West regarding the
atonement, but to rule it out altogether is not Orthodox no matter how
many people including bishops say it is Orthodox to do so, since it is
right there in a Liturgy that is older than the one Chrysostom wrote,
itself a shortened form of St. Basil's that I haven't read yet, and is
very, very explicit in Scripture.

St. Athanasius, whom St. Cyrial of Alexandria upholds as the standard
of Orthodoxy which he himself defends, wrote that God in order to be
true to Himself and His pronouncement, had to take the approach of
the Incarnation and redeeming death of Christ and resurrection.

I think a lot of evangelical writers, who are less mechanistic sounding
than the classic RC and Calvinist writers, are influenced by Athanasius.

Athanasius's writing on this matter are to be found in what he says
On The Incarnation, I think that is the title, or it is the chapter heading
of a larger writing. The issue being, why the Incarnation was necessary.

The River of Fire, I understand from a quote above, does exist in Scripture. But the quote given is one describing wrath and judgement against evil. It is nothing that the godly have to deal with.

Fire in general, because it is destructive, is an image of judgement in
Scripture, and only appears in a kindly form in the fire that lit up the
burning bush, but did not consume it, like The Holy Light during its first
33 minutes when it has flown outside The Holy Sepulchre itself and flies
around, lighting up lamps and candles on its own, after lighting the
Patriarch's candles in The Empty Tomb.

The one place I recall God being described as fire is Hebrews and the
issue seems to be intensity, just like His being "a jealous God," His own
words. Intensity of attachment is indicated in the Hebrew, some have
written, I don't read Hebrew, and indeed, when you don't care about
someone much you don't care what they do or who they do it with.

Also He warns Moses that "none can see My face and live," in His
uncloaked form He is intolerably bright and intense and he spares us this
in His love, and in The Incarnation, Jesus is The Father's express image
and likeness, which we can behold and not die.

Mary Christine Erikson

Father David Moser

02-04-2007, 12:14 AM

The church's web page shows that the schism was 5 or 6 years later,...

To you, this is just history - but some of us actually lived through it. What you have read about, I lived.

Fr David Moser

Herman Blaydoe

02-04-2007, 06:24 PM

There are problems with the narrow focus of the West regarding the
atonement, but to rule it out altogether is not Orthodox no matter how
many people including bishops say it is Orthodox to do so, since it is
right there in a Liturgy that is older than the one Chrysostom wrote,
itself a shortened form of St. Basil's that I haven't read yet, and is
very, very explicit in Scripture.

Yes there are very serious problems with ideas about atonement. But I do not see "ROF" ruling out the concept altogether, simply trying to counter these problems being introduced into Orthodox theology by exposure to "western" theology in Russia during the westernization campaigns of Tzar Peter as well as exposure to Protestant lines of thought in the US.

Quite frankly, having read ROF many times, I fail to see where Kalimiros makes any claim of universal salvation. As Fr. has pointed out, he says exactly the opposite. Unless you can point me to a quote that supports your claim, I simply cannot accept it.

The one place I recall God being described as fire is Hebrews and the
issue seems to be intensity, just like His being "a jealous God," His own
words. Intensity of attachment is indicated in the Hebrew, some have
written, I don't read Hebrew, and indeed, when you don't care about
someone much you don't care what they do or who they do it with.

Also He warns Moses that "none can see My face and live," in His
uncloaked form He is intolerably bright and intense and he spares us this
in His love, and in The Incarnation, Jesus is The Father's express image
and likeness, which we can behold and not die.

EXACTLY!!!!! This is what Kalimiros is trying to portray. Those who have prepared themselves for this bright light will find it a joy. Those who spent their earthly existance in ignorance or denial of what is to come, will find it less joyful, in fact, it will be quite "painful", like having lived one's whole life in a pitch-black room, only to have someone suddenly open the door to a blindingly bright light. For those who do not want to be in God's presence, that presence will be blinding and burning, but for those who are prepared, it will be illuminating and warming.

Mary Christine Erikson

03-04-2007, 01:56 AM

Greetings, I see no problems being introduced from the West other
than filioque (which seems resisted) and possibly a mechanistic
rather than a living fluid quality, and a narrow view of the atonement.

The Substitutionary Atonement is right there all along, before any
schism. the only introduction from the West would be to limit the
view to that alone, and to focus on God's wrath to the exclusion of
His love and mercy. It is the rejection of any notion of God's being
just or having wrath and the rejection of substitutionary atonement
and all sorts of strange ideas that these imply a division within The
Trinity, that is something new in the past millennia.

Kalomiros doesn't say explicitly that final damnation is not eternal.
It is just, as I said, IMPLICIT. Absent an explicit denial of this position,
it is the logical conclusion to be drawn from all of this.

I do not think that Kalomiros' point is like I was saying about God's
brightness being too great for us. A confusion here is between the
initial reaction on realizing God has come back in judgement, and
the final situation, and the whole burden is thrown on us, without
any action of God removing someone from His Presence to a place
of torment, one of several options (fire not quenched, or outer
darkness, or worms eating you alive forever).

I see no difference between Kalomiros, and those in the Protestant
scene who try to deny The Last Judgement and God's justice and
all that, other than the exotic, "Orthodox" physical style which is
merely form versus content.

While in theory there is a Last Judgement and all that, it is qualified
and caveated away. The overall picture is the sort of effort to avoid
things allegedly imported from Western contact, when in fact they
were not imported at all. Only a warp MAY have been imported, but
NOT the core concepts.

It all plays to the bigger picture of denying God's wrath and the
Substitutionary Atonement, on the basis that this makes for a division
in The Trinity. This is not the case. There is no conflict among Them,
ALL are agreed they are insulted ALL are agreed they love us and want
us back ALL are agreed that without some changes we must remain
in exile. ALL are agreed that like St. Athanasius points out, God cannot
just ignore all this without giving up His integrity and self consistency,
and going back on His word, and being self contradictiory.

The Divine Liturgy of St. James,
I "...I have sinned against Heaven, and before Thee, and am unworthy to come into the presence of this Thy holy and spiritual table, upon which Thy only-begotten Son, and our Lord Jesus Christ, is mystically set forth as a sacrifice for me,...."

"III. Prayer of the incense at the beginning:3 Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ, O Word of God, who didst freely offer Thyself a blameless sacrifice upon the cross to God even the Father, the coal of double nature, that didst touch the lips of the prophet with the tongs, and didst take away his sins, touch also the hearts of us sinners,..."
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/...#P8122_2593853

notice sacrifice upon the cross to God, and elsewhere in the Liturgy the term "Redeemer" is used, and a redeemer is one who buys back. buys us back not from the devil like some ancient and recent heresies said, but paying the ransom or redemption to God, then God takes the person or persons bought back out of the land of exclusion. (picture a person being called back out of exile in Siberia, for a comparison, after some fine was paid for him.)

The Liturgy of St. John chrysostom is less specific, the whole focus being
more on the resurrection than the crucifixion, but repeatedly there is
reference to the unbloody sacrifice for our sins, that Jesus gave Himself up
for the life of the world, and that His Body and Blood are for "remission"
of sins.

Referring back to The Holy Scriptures upon which The Fathers based their
writings, or tried to, and always refer back to, you will find that "without
the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins," and it is clear that
Christ shed His Blood for remission of sins. This was in The Epistle to the
Hebrews, which again is heavily contextualized into the sacrificial system
of Moses, and speaks of the high priest who every year entered the Holy
of Holies with blood to atone for his sins and those of the people, but now,
says Paul, Christ has entered the heavenly santuary with His own Blood,
and is eternally our high priest.

The west threw a heavier focus on the atonement and wrath angle, on
the death on the Cross, without denying the Resurrection while the East
developed a focus on the Resurrection that in the past few centuries
has drifted towards a dangerous almost denial of the atonement itself.

And I might add, that all this Resurrection focus, and denial of
substitutionary atonement, in no way solves the problem of alleged
internal conflict in the Trinity or God being subordinate to some higher
necessity, which modern (meaning past few hundred and especially
last century and now) writers accuse the West of teaching.

For whether it is divine justice being paid off, or vacination and
renewal etc., you are left with the problem of....why doesn't God
just ignore everything and go on as if nothing has happened, and do
all this without the Cross?

By ignoring St. Athanasius' point about God being true to His own
self and His word, you leave - albeit murkily enough it is easier for
you to ignore it - the same issues unchanged that you claim the
"forensic atonement" creates.

It is true, as Orthodoxy says, that you can't make an artificial
separation between justification or declaring just, and actual
becoming just or theosis (what the Protestants call regeneration),
indeed a person attempting this would be a hypocrite.

Kalomiros is just part of a bigger picture. The brightness of God's
uncloaked self is not the same thing as the river of fire, the wrath
flowing out. Not at all.

ALL will be resurrected with immortal bodies, some to be happy
forever some to be punished forever. Before that, Jesus destroys
the antichrist "with the brightness of His coming," but the general
picture painted in Revelation is not at all like Kalomiros. There
seems to be some extended period where the devil is bound for
a thousand years, then let loose to tempt us one more time, but
at NO time does Jesus' reign cease just because a rebellion occurs.
One could argue for a staggered period of judgements that are
like second chances, but at The Last Judgement, there is a
separation, you don't have people standing side by side before
God, experiencing the identical same thing, only reacting differently.

Mary Christine Erikson

Herman Blaydoe

03-04-2007, 02:54 PM

I am afraid that someone may be suffering from the ideas about "atonement" that evolved from the extrapolations of the Catholic "A-Team" (Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm) based on the mistaken concept of total depravity, which has never been an accepted part of Orthodox theology.

Kalomiros doesn't say explicitly that final damnation is not eternal.
It is just, as I said, IMPLICIT. Absent an explicit denial of this position,
it is the logical conclusion to be drawn from all of this.

And I would argue that it is NOT implicit at all, and that you are drawing an unsupported conclusion. I would go so far as to state that he explicitly states the OPPOSITE, as pointed out previously by Fr. Raphael. Since Dr. Kalomiros is no longer with us, it is going to be difficult for us to get an "explicit denial" from him. But several posters have specifically stated that they do NOT get the same "implication" that one person has. It might be helpful if that person could point to any Orthodox source of repute that supports the charge that Dr. Kalomiros is guilty of the heresy of Origen? Or is this simply an independent conclusion? We value conciliarity. Who else in the Church agrees with this idea?

M.C. Steenberg

03-04-2007, 03:46 PM

Dear Ms Erikson and others,

The Substitutionary Atonement is right there all along, before any schism. the only introduction from the West would be to limit the view to that alone, and to focus on God's wrath to the exclusion of His love and mercy. It is the rejection of any notion of God's being just or having wrath and the rejection of substitutionary atonement and all sorts of strange ideas that these imply a division within The Trinity, that is something new in the past millennia.

While I agree with the general notion that some readers are too keen to dismiss any and all thought of 'atonement' as 'a western idea' (which it is not; though the west certainly developed its own particular take on atonement theories), I'm not certain this can be extended to accept notions of substitutionary atonement in the early eastern tradition. I am not certain of any father of the Church in the early period who speaks in terms of substitutionary retribution -- so I would suggest you delve into the texts themselves somewhat to explore this matter further in your own reading.

It all plays to the bigger picture of denying God's wrath and the
Substitutionary Atonement, on the basis that this makes for a division
in The Trinity. This is not the case. There is no conflict among Them,
ALL are agreed they are insulted ALL are agreed they love us and want
us back ALL are agreed that without some changes we must remain
in exile. ALL are agreed that like St. Athanasius points out, God cannot
just ignore all this without giving up His integrity and self consistency,
and going back on His word, and being self contradictiory.

Once again, I fail to see how a concept of substitutionary atonement can be argued for from the early tradition. The early fathers speak of the atoning sacrifice, the offering of Christ out of love, which is the sacrifice of the Son and, since he is the Father's Son, a sacrificial act of love from the Father. Some speak also of this sacrifice as a 'ransom' -- that is, a ransom to death, releasing it of its power. But this is quite something else from penal substitution.

The few examples you have cited bear this out:

The Divine Liturgy of St. James, I "...I have sinned against Heaven, and before Thee, and am unworthy to come into the presence of this Thy holy and spiritual table, upon which Thy only-begotten Son, and our Lord Jesus Christ, is mystically set forth as a sacrifice for me,...."

This quotation makes no mention of or allusion to substitutionary action; it speaks of the sacrificial offering of the Son for humankind, which the fathers routinely speak of as a 'sacrifice of love' (to which the people, joined mystically to it, reply with a 'sacrifice of praise', as per the anaphora prayers of the Liturgies of both St Basil and St John). Mention of sacrifice does not itself imply substitutionary measure (else we would be suggesting the we are somehow 'substituting' in our own sacrifice). Indeed, this is part of the very message of Christ's sacrifice, that it transforms the perception and reality of sacrifice. A sacrifice of love and mercy, rather than a sacrifice of substitutionary measure, draws the sacrifice into the infinite reality of God's love -- it is made a sacrifice that abides forever, rather than a thing that needs to be repeated ("Unlike the other high priests, Christ does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself").

"III. Prayer of the incense at the beginning: Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ, O Word of God, who didst freely offer Thyself a blameless sacrifice upon the cross to God even the Father, the coal of double nature, that didst touch the lips of the prophet with the tongs, and didst take away his sins, touch also the hearts of us sinners,..."

Once again, this quotation demonstrates the sacrificial nature of Christ's offering, but speaks nothing of a substitutionary atonement. I think one needs to be careful not to conflate these things.

notice sacrifice upon the cross to God, and elsewhere in the Liturgy the term "Redeemer" is used, and a redeemer is one who buys back. buys us back not from the devil like some ancient and recent heresies said, but paying the ransom or redemption to God, then God takes the person or persons bought back out of the land of exclusion.

'Redeemer' is not translated 'one who buys back'. This kind of 'negotiatory soteriology' was soundly refuted as early as the second century, as simply another variation on the idea of Christ paying a ransom to the devil. God being just does not mean that God's justice is penal or substitutionary; and lest the famous 'an eye for an eye' concept be brought up here, let us remember that this old covenant injunction was intended to limit retribution and penal substitution, not extol it; and Christ himself fulfilled its intended measure in the transformation of humanity by insisting that a cheek slapped should be responded to with the other turned in offering, not the requirement of a slap in return.

The Liturgy of St. John chrysostom is less specific, the whole focus being more on the resurrection than the crucifixion, but repeatedly there is
reference to the unbloody sacrifice for our sins, that Jesus gave Himself up
for the life of the world, and that His Body and Blood are for "remission"
of sins.

The Liturgy of St John is actually quite specific, in that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, which in the Eucharist is mystically experienced in the unbloody sacrifice on the altar, the the sacrificial offering of his love, so that mankind might receive the immortality he thus offers."Nailed to the cross and pierced with a speak, thou hast poured immortality upon mankind, O Saviour." "Sacrificed is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, for the life and salvation of the world."

The fact that the anaphora of St John does not speak anywhere of substitutionary or ransom-based atonement is actually quite significant. The prayers preceding the calling down of the Holy Spirit survey the whole of Christ's earthly work, in its various aspects: "In the night in which he was given up, or rather gave himself up for the life of the world, he took bread... Remembering therefore, this saving commandment and all those things that have come to pass for us: the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious coming...". Nowhere are themes of substitution present, here or in any other part of the Liturgy.

St Basil's longer anaphora prayers (i.e. the Liturgy of St Basil) include a much lengthier survey of the economy, and are more explicit in this matter. It seems important to quote a rather lengthy portion of the central prayer:

[I]"But when man disobeyed thee, the true God who had created him, and was deceived by the guile of the serpent and put to death through his own transgressions, thou, O God, in thy righteous judgement, didst send him forth from paradise into this world, returning him to the earth from which he was taken, yet providing for him the salvation which comes through rebirth in thy Christ himself.

"For thou didst not turn thyself away forever from thy creature whom thou hadst made, O Good One, nor didst thou forget the work of thy hands. Thou didst visit him in various ways through the tender compassion of thy mercy: thou didst send prophets; thou didst perform mighty works by thy saints, who in every generation were well-pleasing to thee; thou didst speak to us by the mouth of thy servants the prophets, foretelling to us the salvation that was to come; thou didst give us the law as a help; thou didst appoint angels as guardians.

"And when the fullness of time had come, thou didst speak to us through thy Son himself, by whom thou didst also make the ages; who, being the Radiance of thy glory and the express Image of thy person, upholding all things by the word of his power, thought it not a thing to be grasped to be equal to thee, the God and Father. Though he was God before the ages, yet he appeared on earth and lived among men, becoming incarnate of a holy Virgin; he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, conforming himself to the body of our lowliness, that he might conform us to the image of his glory.

"For since by man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, so it pleased thine only-begotten Son, who was in the bosom of thee, the God and Father, born of a woman, the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, born under the law, to condemn sin in his flesh, that those who are dying in Adam might be made alive in thy Christ himself. He lived in this world and gave us commandments of salvation; releasing us from the delusions of idolatry, he brought us to knowledge of thee, the true God and Father. He obtained us for his own chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. Having cleansed us in water, and sanctified us with the Holy Spirit, he gave himself as a ransom to death, in which we were held captive, sold under sin. Descending through the Cross into Hades that he might fill all things with himself, he loosed the pangs of death. He arose on the third day, having made for all flesh a path to the resurrection from the dead, since it was not possible for the Author of life to be conquered by corruption. So he became the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep, the first-born from the dead, that he might be himself the first in all things. Ascending into heaven, he sat down at the right hand of thy majesty on high, and he will come to render to each according to his works. And as memorials of his saving passion, he has left us these things which we have set forth according to his command. For when he was about to go forth to his voluntary and ever-memorable and life-giving death, in the night in which he gave himself up for the life of the world, he took bread into his holy and pure hands..."

When this text is read carefully, the way St Basil speaks of the sacrifice of Christ is profound. His death is first and foremost 'life-giving', and is not chiefly the response to sin (he lists God's just act in response to sin as the expulsion from life in Paradise), but the venue for 'rebirth in thy Christ himself'. It is Christ's incarnate life that is the crushing of the power over man of sin ('so it pleased thine only-begotten Son ... to condemn sin in his flesh, that those who are dying in Adam might be made alive in thy Christ himself'). When St Basil comes to speak of Christ's ransom ('he gave himself as a ransom to death...'), he speaks explicitly of this ransom as an offering of life into death -- the giving of something (himself) into the void that nothing else could fill. Hence he 'descended through the cross into Hades, that he might fill all things with himself and loose the pangs of death'. There is not a single mention of a substitution, as if Christ were substituting himself for a punishment owed to mankind by the Father, or accomplishing by substitution a penal measure meant for mankind.

INXC, Matthew

Athanasius Abdullah

03-04-2007, 05:08 PM

Dear M.C. Steenberg,

How would you interpret the following Athanasian passages which seem to imply some sense of substitution?:

“Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection." (St. Athanasius the Great, On the Incarnation, 20)

"He it is that was crucified before the sun and all creation as witnesses, and before those who put Him to death: and by His death has salvation come to all, and all creation been ransomed. He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep yielded His body to death as a substitute, for the salvation of all, even though the Jews believe it not." (St. Athanasius the Great, On the Incarnation, 37.7)

"For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word which was come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that thenceforth corruption might be stayed from all by the Grace of the Resurrection. Whence, by offering unto death the body He Himself had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from any stain, straightway He put away death from all His peers by the offering of an equivalent. For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death." (St. Athanasius the Great, On the Incarnation, 9.1,2)

In XC
Athanasius

M.C. Steenberg

03-04-2007, 06:16 PM

Dear Athanasius,

Thank you for the helpful quotations from your namesake on this current point. My first response would be that one has to read these texts in context:

"For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word which was come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that thenceforth corruption might be stayed from all by the Grace of the Resurrection. Whence, by offering unto death the body He Himself had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from any stain, straightway He put away death from all His peers by the offering of an equivalent. For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death." (St. Athanasius the Great, On the Incarnation, 9.1,2)

This is an excellent text to demonstrate the point that the fathers of the east do indeed speak of atonement (as I mentioned before, there is a tendency among some Orthodox readers to claim that all atonement notions are purely western readings), and indeed also of the 'one in the place of all' concept that is central to true sacrifice (and resonates with the epistle to the Hebrews) in the defeat of human debt to death by the conquering of death, without succumbing to notions of penal substitution - which are the 'easy way out' of reading precisely such passages.

St Athanasius' point in this text is to speak of the mystical defeat of death in Christ's body which, since this body 'stood in the place of all', is the defeat of death for all humankind. This is explicit in a remark he makes only a few lines earlier:

"And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father-doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord's body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from the fire." (8.4)

This is in fact the text that introduces the remark quoted previously, in sets the tone for his later remarks. Note how he speaks of the 'corruption of death' 'in the body' being that which Christ defeats, by taking that very body to himself; so that the full power of death 'was fully spent in the Lord's body, and no longer had holding-ground against men, his peers.' It is clearly death that is the captivating power over man, not a claim by God for substitution on order to appease justice (which is what 'substitutionary atonement' theories espouse). The kind of 'standing in the stead of all' about which St Athanasius speaks is that of the mystical body of all humankind in Adam: Christ becomes the 'one for all', so that all of humankind becomes, in Athanasius' words, his 'peers', and thus the acts he accomplishes are acts for all, and the death he defeats in his own humanity is death defeated for all humankind.

You also mentioned a text from chapter twenty of the same text by Athanasius:

“Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection." (St. Athanasius the Great, On the Incarnation, 20)

Again, this is an excellent passage to demonstrate what 'standing in the place of all' means in Athanasius. In some sense he begins to explain this in the words just following those you placed in boldface: Christ stands in all humankind's stead 'to settle man's account with death'. St Athanasius expounds on this a bit later in the same chapter:

"The body, then, as sharing the same nature with all, for it was a human body, though by an unparalleled miracle it was formed of a virgin only, yet being mortal, was to die also, conformably to its peers. But by virtue of the union of the Word with it, it was no longer subject to corruption according to its own nature, but by reason of the Word that was come to dwell in it it was placed out of the reach of corruption. And so it was that two marvels came to pass at once, that the death of all was accomplished in the Lord's body, and that death and corruption were wholly done away by reason of the Word that was united with it. For there was need of death, and death must needs be suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing from all might be paid." (20.4-5)

It is by becoming human and thus making all mankind his 'peers', that Christ makes possible his acts as 'in the stead of all' or 'for all', since he now acts as human for the human - 'on behalf of all and for all', as the Liturgy presents it. This is why Athanasius can say, in the above text, that 'the death of all was accomplished in the Lord's body', since mystically, as man, Christ 'is all in all', the one and full Adam, the fulness of human nature. And only standing 'in the place of all' in this way, could the debt of death owed by all (since all have sinned) be defeated -- bearing in mind that this debt is not a legal debt to God, much less to the devil, but the practical cost and wages of sin. To the immortal Son took flesh and was made man, that as man he stands as the man, and in the bringing together of hus full humanity and full divinity defeats the death --the debt of sin -- that resides in all humankind. All this St Athanasius brings together in the final phrases of the chapter we've been discussing:

"Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Himself a body such as could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, and as suffering, through His union with it, on behalf of all, 'Bring to nought Him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and might deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage'." (20.6)

Finally, you quoted the following text:

"He it is that was crucified before the sun and all creation as witnesses, and before those who put Him to death: and by His death has salvation come to all, and all creation been ransomed. He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep yielded His body to death as a substitute, for the salvation of all, even though the Jews believe it not." (St. Athanasius the Great, On the Incarnation, 37.7)

This text comes at the end of a chapter, and in the midst of a larger section, in which St Athanasius speaks of the disblief of the Jews as to the fact that it truly was the eternal Son of the Father, and not just a mere man, who was incarnate and who suffered and died for all.

The comment itself fits into Athanasius' deeper understanding of what it means for Christ to be a 'substitute', which for him means a 'peer', and thus one who acts in himself as and for the whole. Note how he takes care to point out that all creation has been 'ransomed' through Christ's offering -- not just man who has sinned, but even 'the sun and all creation'; connected to St Athanasius' conviction that 'ransom' is not a legal transaction or punitive displacement for a wrong committed, but an offering for and on behalf of that which has no power to make such an offering for itself. And none could make the offering of immortality but God alone. It is not as if humanity was called to make such an offering, or ever could; this ransom is a ransom of love, not a ransom of merit.

The fact that it is rather easy (or better, it is rather too easy) to read comments like 'standing in the stead of all', 'paid the price', etc., and from them develop a vision of Christ stepping into a punitive position for the sake of someone else, offering himself what would rightly be demanded of the other, lies behind the popularity of 'substitutionary atonement' and penal atonement theories throughout history. But St Athanasius is an excellent case-in-point as to a deeper vision in the writings of many fathers.

INXC, Matthew

Fr Raphael Vereshack

03-04-2007, 11:58 PM

Although many years ago I did read through Anselm's Why Did God Become Man (Cur Deus Homo) for obvious reasons I don't have the time right now to go back through this book again. Actually, from the Wikipedia I've found a concise presentation of Anselm's atonement theory which pretty well matches what I recall. So here's a quote:

Anselm suggested that we owe God a debt of honor: "This is the debt which man and angel owe to God, and no one who pays this debt commits sin; but every one who does not pay it sins. This is justice, or uprightness of will, which makes a being just or upright in heart, that is, in will; and this is the sole and complete debt of honor which we owe to God, and which God requires of us" (I.xi). This debt creates essentially an imbalance in the moral universe; it could not be satisfied by God's simply ignoring it (I.xii), and in Anselm's view, the only possible way of repaying the debt was for a being of infinite greatness, acting as a man on behalf of men, to repay the debt of honor owed to God (II.vi). Therefore, when Jesus died, he did not pay a debt to Satan but to God, His Father.

Notice that the starting point for Anselm is that God's honour has been affronted & it is sin which affronts this honour. Reading further we see that sin is a disturbance of the moral equilibrium of the universe although it could be that in Anselm's mind the disturbance resulting from sin is more fundamental even than this. Basically sin is a rupture of the cosmic structure from beginning to end. Not surprisingly then, only Christ as God, can repair this damage since only Christ the Divine can restore the Divine honour. Man on his own could never accomplish this.

Now there is in this perspective something of the Patristic view that Matthew writes of in his post above. Atonement in itself is not unknown to the Fathers for they knew that to overcome sin & death was far, far too much for us to accomplish on our own without Christ. Many different ways were found of describing this basic need we have for Christ's help in a staggeringly unequal battle we have against what assails us. And one of these was that Christ does atone or step into our place, before the Father, through His death & resurrection.

Of course though this view of Christ's atonement was always held firmly within the context of the Patristic vision of the Incarnation. Without this the danger is that without formally denying it, the atonement theory in its later Latin versions, overlooks how the fundamental point of the Incarnation is that Christ has indeed adopted human weakness. And through His death & resurrection He has allowed us, not to overcome any supposed limitations of humanity, but rather those of death & sin.

Although dogmatically the later Latin view of the atonement does not mean to deny the power of Christ's Incarnation there is something in its viewpoint which suggests that the major affront to God's honour is actually that there is anything really distinct from God's nature. For Anselm sees the affront of sin as consisting in humanity's lack of 'uprightness of will' relative to God. But Who could ever be upright of will relative to God except God Himself? In a way Anselm neatly answers the question by pointing to Christ as God.

The fundamental problem we are left with is what is the place of sinful man now in this scheme? What indeed even is the place of created nature? If Christ stands in for us in this way then of what purpose is the ascetic life unless to 'lose ourselves in Christ'? Or perhaps looking at it from another angle we could think that since Christ already is He Who accomplishes all this for us then what need is there for us to do anything except 'believe and be saved' ?

Now if any of this sounds familiar I don't think it's an accident at all.

In Christ Who through His death and resurrection asks of and gives something extremely real to us-

Fr Raphael

Mary Christine Erikson

04-04-2007, 03:00 AM

Greetings. I will answer very briefly.

(1) it is irrelevant whether anyone read Origen as to whether one has managed to put together a notion that is already condemned under the
anathemas against Origen. It may be, that Kalomiros does not take all
this that far anyway. But even if he refuses to do so, someone else can.
There is however a SEVERE CONFUSION in Kalomiros' mind, between the
intial and rather contrary reactions of those who love God and those who
don't, to The Second Coming, and the Final Judgement and what happens
after that.

The river of fire (okay, it exists, but clearly the very same passage that
mentions this coming out of the throne addresses it as headed at the
evil doers) is strictly for the evil, it is not for the repentant believer. We
are offered concepts like paradise, a fragrant garden, the river of water
of life, flowing throughout the New Jerusalem, etc., not fire.

(1) I strongly recommend Vladimir Moss discussion of the problem of the
wholesale rejection of substitutionary or juridical or whatever atonement,
as it shows up in HOCNA. http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/The%20Mystery%20of%20Redemption.htm

I am not with HOCNA, and I don't intend to be, nor ROAC. But the issues
this thread that began with Kalomiros and have gone on to regarding the
atonement, are far better dealt with by Moss than by myself. It also will
save me work typing ;) if you-all go read it yourselves.

Regarding the inherent trend towards Calvinistic believe but not have it
affect your behavior, that is not very logical from a sola scriptura standpoint
at all, given all of Jesus' and The Apostles and some Prophets warnings
against backsliding and losing salvation. It requires a traditionalist mindset
where the tradition blindly followed is Calvin and Zwingli. Such think they are
beliveing The Bible, actually they are believing what Calvin says it says, and
what it says is a lot more than what Calvin says it says, and in some places
a lot different. More like what the Orthodox and Latins hold to.

any idea that the whole problem is seen as God is upset about anything
different from Himself existing, makes no sense whatsoever, outside of an
anti material pro gnostic mindsent, whether it recognizes itself as that or
not.

Someone here said that Redeemer is not translated as one who buys back.
you must remember that everything in Christianity is rooted in Judaism and
Mosaic and Hebrew thought and language. EVERYTHING.

the Passover Lamb rather than the sin offering is thus significant, as the
choice to refer to Jesus, because this would include more than the sin
offering, which indeed is a substitution (the sinner puts his hand on the
animal, thus identifying with it, and it goes away to die in his stead), and
the usual focus of modern Orthodox and even early writers, that this is
juridical atonement AND MORE is thus validated by the choice of identifier.

While various heretics who deny the atonement in the non-Orthodox and non-Latin scene, aka Protestant (but not really) raise the issue of the substitution
of the wild ram for Isaac as proof this is ungodly, tis also crops up in
Orthodox writers. It is wayyyy off the mark.

First, you recall that the initial promise of a savior implies a resurrection after a death. The snake is told in Eden that the woman's seed will crush his head, but he will bite his heel. A snake bite is fatal. But so is a head crush. The seed of the woman might have been anyone in a matrilineal system as may
have once existed, indeed, Abraham's freedom to marry his half sister Sarai
because "she is the daughter of my father but not of my mother" points to a
monolateral matrilineal kinship system. (something almost extinct now.)

But once you have a patrilineal system, the son of the woman has to be
either a bastard or a divine incarnation.

Abraham took Isaac to the hill, and told his servants to wait and that he
AND the boy would return. Probably he figured that this is THE promised one,
and he would come back to life after he was killed.

God was testing Abraham, and also probably wanted to make a point about
human sacrifice was not acceptable and it was time it end. (In martial arts there is a principle of maximum effect from minimum effort, and in other
contexts it is called killing two birds with one stone. Think God can't come
up with something that smart if we can?)

AND it was the time for the Messiah, Who WOULD die without an alternative
being provided for Him, yet. So Isaac was spared.

Vladimir Moss indicates Khrapovitsky as the originator of this anti atonement
line of thought, and interestingly enough, assuming Moss is correct, Khrapovitsky was the teacher of the very Sergius who would make so many
problems later on.

Yes there is a wrath angle, and a love angle, and these two are not in
conflict inherently. Indeed, if you really love, you HAVE to be angry when
something bad happens. When you don't care about someone or something,
you don't care much what they do, or who with, or what happens. God
sometimes shows His wrath in letting us go our own way to our own
destruction. See Romans chapters 1 and 2 and God's statement in Genesis
to Abraham that He was going "to let the evil of the Amorites become full."

There is no necessity or fate controlling God, it is a matter of His own integrity and self consistency. An anathema cited from a dubious Moscow
council supposedly against juridic atonement actually is against some variant
twisted conclulsions not the core issue.

finally, read St. Cyril of Jerusalem's catechetical lectures, XIII On the Words
Crucified and Buried http://www.trueorthodoxy.info/cat_index.shtml again,
I don't promote the group who posted this it is just a real good collection
of links, and St. Athanasius I think is the one On the Incarnation.

Now figure it like this. You god an offended Tsar or Kremlin or whatever.
And a major fine is needed to be paid or the slob they caught gets to
freeze in Siberia. The ransom being paid effects freedom not by being paid
to a slaver, but to the ruler who then allows the person to be brought
back from Siberia.

In other words, a sacrifice or ransom paid to death is just another way
of saying that God having excluded us until the penalty is paid, now will
take us back out of death.

There are various angles on all this, and this is one. But the ultimate
controller is God, Who having excluded the devil and his angels, also
excluded those who followed the devil among those of flesh and blood,
and sacrifice, ransom, debt, taking our sins and death into His body,
all of this is varying ways of expressing the same thing, and juridic is
the core.

Because such a transfer is also involved in a sin offering that is killed.
An innocent takes the place of a guilty, who is then to live more
worthily and take the whole matter a lot more seriously after that.

God is not out to get us He is out to save us. The idea that some
image of hatred and horribleness is involved sounds more like Calvinism.
"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" Paul says
in Hebrews, and the bulk of that letter focusses on matters of Christ's
priesthood and atonement, in a Mosaic context and as going beyond it.

Mary Christine Erikson

Dusan Basta

04-04-2007, 05:58 AM

This is what I have found on Anselm's - i.e. western theory of atonement.
There is more on Wikipedia but this was enough for one night.

`Satisfaction is necessary on account of God's honor and justice; All the actions of men are due to the furtherance of God's glory; if, then, there be sin, i.e. if God's honour be wounded, man of himself can give no satisfaction. But the justice of God demands satisfaction; and as an insult to infinite honour is in itself infinite, the satisfaction must be infinite, i.e. it must outweigh all that is not God. Such a penalty can only be paid by God himself, and, as a penalty for man, must be paid under the form of man. Satisfaction is only possible through the God-man. Now this God-man, as sinless, is exempt from the punishment of sin; His passion is therefore voluntary, not given as due. The merit of it is therefore infinite; God's justice is thus appeased, and His mercy may extend to man. `

If today somebody would offer this article to St. Athanasius or any other patristic father for the review :)) they would have been astonished and speechless.

Athanasius Abdullah

04-04-2007, 09:15 AM

Dear M.C. Steenberg,

Thank you for your thorough response.

Note how he speaks of the 'corruption of death' 'in the body' being that which Christ defeats, by taking that very body to himself; so that the full power of death 'was fully spent in the Lord's body, and no longer had holding-ground against men, his peers.' It is clearly death that is the captivating power over man, not a claim by God for substitution on order to appease justice (which is what 'substitutionary atonement' theories espouse).

It must be stressed that St. Athanasius in fact speaks of the ‘penalty of the corruption of death’. The central question is whether this penalty of the corruption of death is one we are necessarily victim to, by virtue of, amongst other reasons, God acting in accordance with His Divine Justice, or not. You seem to have presumed that it is not, but St. Athanasius does not seem to be concerned with, and hence does not answer this question. St. Athanasius has instead, as you have noted, stressed the very idea that death itself is conquered, and that its dominion and power over mankind stripped (i.e. St. Athanasius is more focused with the ultimate result--the abolishment of death), but that does not mean he denies the idea that our very initial slavery to death was itself related in someway to the manner in which God operates according to His Divine Justice. St. Athanasius seems to be silent on the matter (probably because his writings were more concerned anti-Arian polemics and hence establishing the Divinity of Christ by stressing the idea that the Lord Christ had to be Immortal, and thereby God, in order for His Sacrifice to have successfully defeated death), but other Fathers are more explicit. Take for example, St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

"For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness." (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XIII)

Another thing to consider, is the consistent stress of St. Athanasius of the idea that the sacrifice was offered to the Father. If the divine plan was merely to offer immortality to death in order to thereby destroy death, then what place has the Father in this “beef” between the Son of God and death itself? If our redemption is merely concerned with the abolishment of a death which corrupts us abstractly (i.e. as opposed to in the context of its corrupting us by virtue of the manner of God's exercise of His Divine attributes), then would not death alone be the recipient of the sacrifice, in order that it may, upon receiving it, be consumed by it? What change is brought about in the work of redemption upon the Father’s receiving the Sacrifice, if not for the fact that the Father receives it to "revoke" the sentence of the corruption of death which, as St. Cyril states, is one the Father “in Truth” had to uphold?

St. Gregory Palamas speaks of Christ's sacrifice as being made to the Father in order to reconcile Him to us:

“A sacrifice was needed to reconcile the Father on high with us and to sanctify us, since we had been soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice which both cleansed and was clean, and a purified, sinless priest…. God overturned the devil through suffering and His Flesh which He offered as a sacrifice to God the Father, as a pure and altogether holy victim – how great is His gift! – and reconciled God to the human race…” (St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 16, 21, 24, 31)

Was not the renewal of our nature by The Word's Incarnation, and the abolishment of death through the voluntary death of the Immortal One in our own flesh, on our behalf, enough to reconcile us to the Father? Apparently not, for there was another barrier that had to be broken down, one that inhibited the Father's acceptance of us (and not the other way around, for St. Gregory speaks of reconciling God to us, as opposed to us to God--so we should really reject any kind of imagery of God reaching His Hand out from above and waiting for us to be reconciled unto Him). If not the satisfaction of His Divine Justice, then what?

In XC
Athanasius

John Charmley

04-04-2007, 09:31 AM

Dear Matthew, Dear Fr. Raphael,

We are much in your debt for your posts on this subject.

One of the issues which always made me uneasy with Anglicanism, and indeed, the western tradition, was the dominant theology of the Atonement. It seemed as though one was being presented with an image of a psychopathic God, one whose demands for punishment were so extreme that He had to torture and kill part of Himself upon the Cross in order that we should not die; this was a God who behaved in a manner which, in a human, would have merited the adjective just used. Yet, in the New Testament we have the Incarnate Word behaving in a way which guides us towards the very highest standards a human could possibly achieve; and these two were consubstantial? A mystery not only beyond understanding (as so many of our mysteries are, of course) but also beyond bearing.

But as I came to Orthodoxy I found, as always, the fullness of the Faith. The words of St. Athanasius which Matthew quotes breathe the forgiveness of the loving God. Matthew's own exposition is, if I may be so bold, beautifully expressed, and I cannot forbear to quote it:

It is clearly death that is the captivating power over man, not a claim by God for substitution in order to appease justice (which is what 'substitutionary atonement' theories espouse). The kind of 'standing in the stead of all' about which St Athanasius speaks is that of the mystical body of all humankind in Adam: Christ becomes the 'one for all', so that all of humankind becomes, in Athanasius' words, his 'peers', and thus the acts he accomplishes are acts for all, and the death he defeats in his own humanity is death defeated for all humankind.

In his Commentary on St. John 19:16-18, St. Cyril touches upon this in a way which seems to me to merit quotation here:

They lead away, then, to death the Author of Life; and for our sakes was this done, for by the power and incomprehensible Providence of God, Christ's death resulted in an unexpected reversal of things. For His suffering was prepared as a snare for the power of death, and the death of the Lord was the source of the renewal of mankind in incorruption and newness of life. Bearing the Cross upon His shoulders, on which He was about to be crucified, He went forth; His doom was already fixed, and He had undergone, for our sakes, though innocent, the sentence of death. For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law. For He became a curse for us, according to the Scripture: For cursed is everyone, it is said, that hangeth on a tree. And accursed are we all, for we are not able to fulfil the Law of God: For in many things we all stumble; and very prone to sin is the nature of man. And since, too, the Law of God says: Cursed is he which continueth not in all things that are written in the book of this Law, to do them, the curse, then, belongeth unto us, and not to others. For those against whom the transgression of the Law may be charged, and who are very prone to err from its commandments, surely deserve chastisement. Therefore, He That knew no sin was accursed for our sakes, that He might deliver us from the old curse. For all-sufficient was the God Who is above all, so dying for all; and by the death of His own Body, purchasing the redemption of all mankind.

As Matthew says, it would be a mistake to think that the Fathers have no concept of the Atonement; their conception, however, is lacking in the penal and substitutionary overtones that came to dominate the western tradition. God is the only Just Judge, and His mercy towards us is shown in the whole economy of the Incarnation and our salvation.

As we move towards Friday, we can ponder these things in our hearts - and thank God for His goodness to us; He deals with us not according to our merits, but according to His love; we have the free will to respond with the astonishing ill-grace of ingratitude. But if we align our wills with the perfect freedom that is obedience to His will, we follow in the footsteps of the Incarnate Lord - and take up our cross with Him.

Again, Matthew, Fr. Raphael, my deep thanks for your words here.

In Christ,

John

M.C. Steenberg

04-04-2007, 09:35 AM

Thank you for some interesting further food for thought, Athanasius.

On reading your post through for the first time, I would initially say that one must be careful to be truly objective in reading the terms and phrases involved. To 'offer sacrifice to the Father', to 'cancel a sentence', to 'reconcile the Father with us' -- these are concepts that do not necessarily warrant, in patristic perception, the immediate reading of them that we often give. If Christ taught anything in his own earthly ministry, it was that reconciliation is not an act or reality grounded in reparation, but that reparation -- or signs of the same -- are part of the offering of sacrifice that waters the ground for reconciliation. His example was also consistently that genuine sacrifice is a sacrifice of love, of the heart, and not of meeting a demand held out by another. And his insight on the nature of the sentences that weigh over man is that they are brought about chiefly by man's own hard heart, and not by God's imposition of punitive measures. The parable of the two sons is chief example of this: the prodigal son's exile is self-imposed, yet overcome not by reparation of the inheritance squandered, but by repentance and a sacrifice of humility and love; while the second son's torment is occasioned by a hardness of heart in the face of God's just mercy. This is Christ's own example of the Father's justice in relation to offence, forgiveness, condemnation, sentence, reconciliation.

When we read the words of St Cyril of Jerusalem, much less St Gregory Palamas, we must attempt to keep in mind the engagement with such concepts that infuses the background of their own heritage, and not 'translate' such terms and ideas into our own modern conceptions of the same. This might be most clear with reference to your quotation of St Gregory:

“A sacrifice was needed to reconcile the Father on high with us and to sanctify us, since we had been soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice which both cleansed and was clean, and a purified, sinless priest…. God overturned the devil through suffering and His Flesh which He offered as a sacrifice to God the Father, as a pure and altogether holy victim – how great is His gift! – and reconciled God to the human race…” (St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 16, 21, 24, 31)

Rick Henry

04-04-2007, 02:07 PM

Andrew

04-04-2007, 03:17 PM

Ideas of God as a righteous punisher have mainly been used historically for pastoral reasons, directed at simple minded people with hard hearts. Like St. John Chrysostom said, if one cannot enter the Kingdom through desire for eternal riches or love of God, then maybe fear of punishment will do the trick. But, this is probably the worst thing for sensitive souls who desire to know God... because frankly, it is untrue. God is all loving; he is loving (he is love itself), wholly kenotic in his love for man that light of his love descends to us in whatever state we are, offering us deification and eternal life. If we cower from and hate the light, then so be it, he is humble and will not force us to do anything. We live our own Hell. If we accept the light, then all of existence rejoices.

Vladmir Moss is not a reputable Orthodox theologian. I find most of his material to be extremely narrow minded and damaging. Some of his work is pure slander. The works of Kalomiros, although he was in schism from the Church, seem to breath much more life and grace, and reflect traditional Orthodoxy.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

04-04-2007, 03:23 PM

Dear Friends,

At the risk of being accused myself of "popping in and popping off and popping out," I would like to say how enlightening this conversation is for me; however, I am wondering where (in 'an Orthodox understanding'), is there any discussion of the Hebraic aspects of sacrifice and atonement?

I must say that I am repeatedly astonished, by the utter lack of an Hebraic expression found in certain doctrinal discussions, within Orthodoxy, which I think is a very short sighted method to say the least.

And, anyone, who knows me knows that I thrive in the minutia of a topic, so I am not being critical here at all, and do in fact appreciate this conversation very much, for different reasons, as it relates to Orthodox hermeneutics and epistemology. In many ways, this conversation like the previous "Body and Blood" discussion allows me to 'learn' about my Tradition at the speed of light.

Whereby, I am simply asking now, what do the Church Fathers write about atonement as it relates to the God of Abraham and Isaac?--is there any consideration/interaction to be found from a place of patristic theology about what is being said through the Hebrew sacrificial system as it relates to the justice and holiness of God--or are the Fathers mute about this?"

May you and yours have a blessed Pascha.

In Christ,
Rick

During the litany immediately before the Creed at the Liturgy of St Basil the priest reads the following words from a longer prayer:

Look upon us O God, and behold this our service, and accept it as Thou didst the gifts of Abel, the sacrifices of Noah, the burnt offerings of Abraham, the priestly offices of Moses and Aaron, the peace offerings of Samuel.

then the prayer moves seamlessly into the following words:

Even as Thou didst accept at the hands of the Holy Apostles this true ministry, so also do Thou in Thy beneficence, O Lord, accept from the hands of us sinners these gifts; that having been accounted worthy blamelessly to minister at Thy Holy Altar, we may receive the recompense of wise and faithful servants, in the terrible day of Thy just judgment.

Our offering of ourselves at the Liturgy then is the fulfillment of the patriarch's various kinds of physical offerings to God.

The point of this offering however is what Matthew refers to above:

It is clearly death that is the captivating power over man, not a claim by God for substitution in order to appease justice (which is what 'substitutionary atonement' theories espouse).

Christian offering is the offering of thanks for the mercy that God bestows upon us. This mercy includes the triumph of His Life over death. So part of our giving thanks in the Liturgy necessarily involves giving of ourselves in sacrifice so as to share in this Life which He bestows upon us.

Apart from this any offering we participate is a reversion to paganism or the simply the doorway to secularism.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Rick Henry

04-04-2007, 03:53 PM

Dear Father Raphael,

Thanks very much for the above post which included the following conclusion:

Christian offering is the offering of thanks for the mercy that God bestows upon us. This mercy includes the triumph of His Life over death. So part of our giving thanks in the Liturgy necessarily involves giving of ourselves in sacrifice so as to share in this Life which He bestows upon us.

however, possibly I need to go back a few more posts here (or get that coffee pot fired up :) because I thought the topic/question was about models of the atonement of Christ? Please correct me if I am wrong here. I have my head wrapped around the above posts in terms of such models as:

-Ransom
-Recapitulation
-Moral Influence
-Moral Example
-Moral Government
-Mystical
-Christus Victor
-Liberation
-Satisfaction
-Penal Substitution

Is the turn that has been taken on this thread relating to a discussion of the atoning work of Christ?

In Christ,
Rick

M.C. Steenberg

04-04-2007, 05:49 PM

When pondering the nature of sacrifice, and the work of Christ on the cross with respect to judgement, etc., I am always reminded of the following saying of St Isaac the Syrian:

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

This text cannot be read in exclusion; it is not simply 'making aware' in a superficial sense that is indicated, but -- as in so many of the fathers -- an awareness that comes from a renewal of life in the defeat of death. A mystical 'awareness' of a new transfiguration.

It is St Isaac's emphasis on the passion as an act of love, and not simply some ritualistic means of forgiving sins, that is so powerful. As he says, if God simply wanted to forgive sins, he simply would have. He does not require to go through some formulaic procedure to accomplish a forgiveness he wishes to make real.

The passion, the sacrifice, the resurrection, are for something far deeper.

INXC, Matthew

Rick Henry

04-04-2007, 06:26 PM

A Subterraneous Exploration

It is St Isaac's emphasis on the passion as an act of love, and not simply some ritualistic means of forgiving sins, that is so powerful. As he says, if God simply wanted to forgive sins, he simply would have. He does not require to go through some formulaic procedure to accomplish a forgiveness he wishes to make real.

The passion, the sacrifice, the resurrection, are for something far deeper.

INXC, Matthew

Matthew--Just perfect! Now I'm glad that I popped in today, and we are spared some boring systematics, thanks very much. Could there be a mystical theologian lurking behind that bow tie?

Yes, 'an act of love' yeilding a mystical awareness, . . . "something far deeper." In the End, Love . . . anything more than this assumes an intimate knowledge of the Divine Design.

In Christ,
Rick

Owen Jones

04-04-2007, 07:16 PM

Along the lines of this thread, anyone familiar with the writings of Rene Girard? Something in my mind is just not quite right about his theories, but can't harness it.

Celinda Grace

04-04-2007, 08:10 PM

It is St Isaac's emphasis on the passion as an act of love, and not simply some ritualistic means of forgiving sins, that is so powerful. As he says, if God simply wanted to forgive sins, he simply would have. He does not require to go through some formulaic procedure to accomplish a forgiveness he wishes to make real.

The passion, the sacrifice, the resurrection, are for something far deeper.

INXC, Matthew

You seem to be implying that God can forgive sins as a simple arbitrary act of His will. How can this be? Certainly external ritual is not needed but the testimoney of the book of Hebrews is that external ritual is the making visible of the deeper Law of our existence. Although I entirely agree that to limit our understanding of Christ's atonement to something soley substitutionary is wrong, yet I am not quite sure that the propitiatory aspect of Christ's atonement can be left out.

If Christ taught anything in his own earthly ministry, it was that reconciliation is not an act or reality grounded in reparation, but that reparation -- or signs of the same -- are part of the offering of sacrifice that waters the ground for reconciliation. His example was also consistently that genuine sacrifice is a sacrifice of love, of the heart, and not of meeting a demand held out by another. And his insight on the nature of the sentences that weigh over man is that they are brought about chiefly by man's own hard heart, and not by God's imposition of punitive measures.
Matthew

I do not believe that substitutionary atonement itself is the problem. The problem with the substitutionary view of atonement is that it is often interpreted in terms of human law where the punishment is arbitrary and enforced externally rather then our punishment being something that grows out of the very nature of who we are and who God is.

Creation is created under a Law. I am not here talking of the physical laws of nature but of the spiritual Law of our existance which is a reflection of God's character and nature.

If you leave out the substitutionary view entirely, how do you explain the fact that God's justice must be satisfied? It is not that we break some arbitrary law, but that we have transgressed against the very Law of Creation, the Law of our own existence, and in doing this we transgress against the One from whom this Law flows. The Law itself flows from and is the perfect reflection of the character of God. Christ's sacrifice was indeed a sacrifice of love, but it was also the meeting of the demands of the Law.

Herman Blaydoe

04-04-2007, 09:22 PM

I do not believe that substitutionary atonement itself is the problem.

Orthodoxy does believe it is a problem. We do not accept the Anselmian reasoning behind it.

Orthodoxy does not see sin as a crime to be punished. Rather it is a sickness which must be healed. We certainly suffer its consequences, we are sick unto death. But Christ, the Heavenly physician has already paid the price for treatment. Is a person who has cancer being "punished" for being sick? It certainly can seem like it I suppose.

"The Law" was created by God to make us aware that we are sick: For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law (Romans 5:13). So also was the cure: But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many (Romans 5:15). And finally, we are no longer "under" the law because: For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace (Romans 6:14).

When we SIN, we "miss the target". Is missing the target a crime? It certainly can have consequences I suppose, but can we not see the subtle differences in views here?

Owen Jones

04-04-2007, 10:26 PM

Celinda Grace

04-04-2007, 10:58 PM

Rick Henry

04-04-2007, 11:01 PM

I don't have any objection to Christ dying on the Cross in payment for our sin. Substituting His life for our ours in payment. What I object to, and I think this is the core of Orthodoxy, is for this to be equated with salvation. Atonement is what makes salvation possible. Salvation is God's beauty applied to us. His mercy in the form of Atonement is what makes this re-union/communion with God possible. I am troubled by the labors to which contemporary Orthodox people try to gloss over the Biblical doctrine of Atonement which is in line with Jewish law as if the words were not even there. It's as if we are doing our version of the floppy Bible routine -- we believe all of the stuff that is underlined, and if we haven't underlined it, it must not be there!

Owen--as I have said elsewhere, what a great post! and your stock just continues to rise.

The "floppy Bible" even in Orthodoxy??? No, say it isn't so brother ;) And, yes, the Biblical doctrine of Atonement is kind of in line with Jewish law isn't it :)

I think we can ultimately find a Common Ground as concluded earlier today, and there is either a 'glossing over' as you say, or an ignorance at play; however, I am not sure if I have the energy on this one to see if I can take a few along to that place described earlier via the subterraneous exploration.

But, thanks again. You are a true blessing to Monachos.net (and me).

In Christ,
Rick

Celinda Grace

04-04-2007, 11:16 PM

Owen,

Salvation is God's beauty applied to us.

This is wonderful. If you don't mind I think I will put it in my quote file.

Father David Moser

05-04-2007, 12:56 AM

Herman,

I have always heard that sin is rebellion against God. The consequence of this rebellion is our sickness unto death. If there were no rebellion, why then did there have to be a price paid for our treatment? It is not like God lacks the resources to heal us. The price as I have learned it is a consequence of our debt, not due to God needing something from us.

What then in your doctrine is sin? How do you define it? Why the price?

Celinda,

Your definition of sin - rebellion against God - seems at best a little general. Can you provide some clarification, perhaps some scriptural or pastristic commentary which will bring it into better focus.

When I consider the concept of "sin" in general, I am more apt to look to the words of the Apostle "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." To me, this quote defines what sin is - to fall short of the glory of God. Any time that I do not measure up to the glory of God, then I am in sin. Any time that I do not clearly and without any darkening reflect God, then I am in sin. This does not necessarily demand that I am in rebellion, but simply that I am flawed, inadequate and limited.

Also I consider to sin to be a failure to live according to the commandments of our Lord. The reason that I fail may not be active rebellion, but it may simpy be my own weakness, my own ignorance, my own fallen and flawed state of being. (Now I do not rule out that I may indeed fail to live according to Christ's commandments out of rebellion - that too is not only possible, but a frequent occurance) Our Lord said - "if you love me, keep my commandments" Now these commandments are not just arbitrary rules, but rather prescriptions for our spiritual recovery. If we love Jesus Christ above all else, then we will do all that is within our power and ability to keep those prescriptions so that we might be able to draw ever nearer to Him. Sometimes our love fails and we "rebel" but sometimes we fail simply because we are unable. When we rebel, then repentance is in order - but when we are weak,then we need only confess our weakness and appeal to God Himself for strength.

In our prayers we ask forgiveness of sins "known and unknown" and "of knowledge and of ignorance" and "voluntary and involuntary". If sin were only rebellion, then how could we sin "unknowingly" or how could we sin "in ignorance" or "involuntarily". Sin is much more than merely transgressing a legal code - it is when we fail to live according to the calling of God.

You seem to have invested a great deal of dependence on the idea of some kind of universal "law" or legal code against which we "rebel" or "transgress" but Orthodoxy sees much deeper than that - Orthodoxy sees that we are weak, we are flawed, we are limited - and our salvation is the healing of and recovery from that situation. Thus to speak of atonement as merely a "justification" before God - as some kind of legal repositioning - is greatly inadequate. Certainly we rebel, certainly we need to be reconciled to our God (as the prodigal is reconciled to his loving father) - however, our reconciliation is our spiritual healing so that we may be made whole and our salvation is our vital, living, ontological union with God.

Fr David Moser

Dusan Basta

05-04-2007, 03:43 AM

What is interesting is that RC and Protestants throw on us the statement that we orthodox diminish the importance of eliminating the sin in our lives. Et après, we orthodox start to explain zealously to them that this is not really the case.:))
This is somewhat hypocrisy as RC and Protestant do not fast at all, do not really care about ascetic life. In their rational hearts they truly believe that this is all-ridiculous as it is not`useful`. But still scold us for our negligence towards the sin.
And how western Christians fight the sin?
With scholastics teaching like Anselms` and carefully classified indulgencies. :))
Father Alexander Schmemann in his book `Great Lent` says that for us orthodox it is incomprehensible that western Christians gave away fasting.

Celinda Grace

05-04-2007, 05:11 AM

Fr. Moser,

Yes I was a bit general. I think of our root problem as rebellion, whether it be active and conscious or passive and unconscious. It may be that consciously I am trying my best to break some sinful habit or disposition but am too broken and weak to do it. I would still consider the root problem to be the fact that some part of myself is in rebellion against God.

Is 57:17"Because of the iniquity of his unjust gain I was angry and struck him;
I hid My face and was angry,
And he went on turning away, in the way of his heart.
18"I have seen his ways, but I will heal him;
I will lead him and restore comfort to him and to his mourners,

I agree with you that we are broken and need to be healed. Because of what Christ has done God is no longer hiding His face, but as long as we are still turning away in our heart our union with God cannot come to fruition. It is this turning away in our heart that I mean when I say rebellion. It is not a conscious turning most of the time but uncounscious and beyond our control.

I guess if I asked the question, why am I weak, why can my will not obey God? I would answer -because some part of me is in rebellion both against my conscious decisions and God. In my heart I am turned away from God and toward myself -loving myself, obeying only my own self-indulgent impulses, stuck in my own self-relfection and desire for some 'good' opinion of myself etc.

It is the defeat of this self-will that Christ has done for humanity in general but that I have to walk out in my own salvation through cooperation with His grace in the power of the Spirit.

Really I disagree with nothing in your post.

You said,
"Thus to speak of atonement as merely a "justification" before God - as some kind of legal repositioning - is greatly inadequate."

I would totally agree with you.
I was not speaking of atonement as --merely-- a justification before God. I was trying to say that justification is a legitmate part of what went on in Christ's atonement. The atonement is a multifaceted mystery. It did not merely accomplish one thing. But this One Thing accomplished all things necessary for our salvation.

It seemed to me that some were trying to say that justification before God was not any part of what the atonement was about. That there were no legal implications whatsoever. I was merely replying to what I saw as inadequate in that view.

I John 3:4 "everyone who disobeys the law sins, for sin is lawlessness"

Gal 6:2 and I Cor 9:21 talk about fullfilling the Law of Christ

James 1:25
But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.

In Psalm 119 I think it is clear that the author has moved beyond merely meditating on the OT written code and is contemplating the Word, the Law, the Logos of God, ie. Christ Himself. See vs 18-20, 97-102 for examples.

You yourself said, "Also I consider to sin to be a failure to live according to the commandments of our Lord."

If I fail to live according to God's commands I have broken God's law.

If I am driving down the road and my mind has inadvertantly wandered and I fail to pay attention to the speed limit and get pulled over. (Which has happened to me.) I have broken the law and deserve a ticket just as surely as if I had been deliberately speeding. It is not the intention but the deed that is punishable.

Luke 12:48 "But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows."

Matthew Panchisin

05-04-2007, 04:43 PM

Dear Celinda Grace,

Orthodoxy can't agree with your ideas of an "ecclesiology".

Dear all,

If we give expecting something back, it seems to me that would be an injustice to giving. In the same way if something is given to simply satisfy a debt owed, a gift would not be a gift but rather an obligation. Hence in the Papal West things "obigations" are advanced, one is obligated to attend mass, one is obligated to follow the teachings of the magisterium, etc.

It has been written that it is better to give than receive. By giving we end up receiving from God. God gave His only begotten Son so that many can be redeemed. Christ, God is glorified in such ways. So when we say glory to God there is a meaning therein, we could not say it with the same depth if God simply choose to forgive us by the power of His word without the revelation of the word becoming flesh and dwelling among us, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the power of His word manifested in Christ. Actually I don't think that God simply could have choosen to forgive us in any other way, for in Christ we have heard heaven and earth will pass away but not one of His words. He is the Way, the Truth, the Life and the resurrection, we could not come to the Father without him.

It seems to me that love doesn't demand sacrifice but rather it is a natural characteristic of those that love. When Abraham was about to sacrifice his son it was not to appease God, He lacks nothing. It was for Abraham to come to the knowledge that he loved God in a profound way, so much so that he was willing to do something that nature itself and even God's commandments would say he should not do. There must have been some question in Abraham's heart. The revelation of God's love in Christ is rendering unto God that which is God's, His only begotten Son. Most earthly fathers would rather suffer themselves than to see a son suffer. For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son.

To me those Anselmite atonement theories do something to the text of rendering unto God that which is Gods' and to Caesar that which is Caesar's, demands being met, payment's etc. It seems to me that it is a result of a mis-orientation. We are made in God's image and likeness but we are mere men a worshipping people “homo adorans" . As such Orthodox Christian worship is much different than those that subscribe to penal atonement theories which is not there. Sadly those misunderstood things can really effect people.

Since this thread is about the river of fire I was thinking about some other rivers and how these things happen. Some of the Fathers see fire in the chalice and the Church as springing forth living water. It is the cross that Christ was lifted up upon that is transformed into the tree life through love that can change us.

Dear Owen,

The rigid Jewish law was there because of the hearts of the people. The words Christ gives say much as the Sermon on the Mount is supposed to be interpreted in the light of the Gospel, not the law, lest violence should be embraced, the throwing of stones and such things. The heart of the law in mercy and compassion. "Atoning" words are there but it is how they are understood that seperates peoples understandings.

On a personal note, I'm sometimes rather concerned as people see in the Orthodox Church often times converts, over-reactions against things in the west. Do they not ever think well the places we have come from have made a mess, maybe those within the Orthodox Church for a longer time then us have kept the true faith for a reason?

Dear Mary Christine,

Your quote:

"the whole concept of the River of Fire seems to be drawn from an icon
I haven't been able to locate yet, and depicts a river of fire coming out
of the Throne of God at the Last Judgment. Actually, the only river I
been able to locate in The Bible in that context so far is a river of WATER."

Actually it is drawn from a very deep well. Firstly, it is usually easier to locate icons than to paint them.

Ezekiel 47
The Healing Waters and Trees

1 Then he brought me back to the door of the temple; and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the temple toward the east, for the front of the temple faced east; the water was flowing from under the right side of the temple, south of the altar. 2 He brought me out by way of the north gate, and led me around on the outside to the outer gateway that faces east; and there was water, running out on the right side.

3 And when the man went out to the east with the line in his hand, he measured one thousand cubits, and he brought me through the waters; the water came up to my ankles. 4 Again he measured one thousand and brought me through the waters; the water came up to my knees. Again he measured one thousand and brought me through; the water came up to my waist. 5 Again he measured one thousand, and it was a river that I could not cross; for the water was too deep, water in which one must swim, a river that could not be crossed. 6 He said to me, “Son of man, have you seen this?” Then he brought me and returned me to the bank of the river.

7 When I returned, there, along the bank of the river, were very many trees on one side and the other. 8 Then he said to me: “This water flows toward the eastern region, goes down into the valley, and enters the sea. When it reaches the sea, its waters are healed. 9 And it shall be that every living thing that moves, wherever the rivers go, will live. There will be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters go there; for they will be healed, and everything will live wherever the river goes. 10 It shall be that fishermen will stand by it from En Gedi to En Eglaim; they will be places for spreading their nets. Their fish will be of the same kinds as the fish of the Great Sea, exceedingly many.

11 But its swamps and marshes will not be healed; they will be given over to salt. 12 Along the bank of the river, on this side and that, will grow all kinds of trees used for food; their leaves will not wither, and their fruit will not fail. They will bear fruit every month, because their water flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for medicine.”

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

John Charmley

05-04-2007, 06:07 PM

Dear Nina,

Celinda Grace makes an excellent point when she writes:

Let's try to avoid spreading prejudice even if we have been the victim of it.

Few of us know enough about the practices of others to do much more than generalise from particular examples. At every time, but especially at this time of the year, I would commend to us all three thoughts from St. Isaac of Nineveh:

The day you open your mouth to denigrate somebody, consider yourself dead to God and emptied of your labours.

Be someone persecuted rather than become a persecutor.

Even if you are not a peace-maker, at least do not be a trouble-maker. [Brock, Wisdom p. 18]

We have had, several times lately the wonderful lines from St. Isaac: 'In love did He bring the world into existence', but we usually stop at the lines 'in love will the whole course of the governance of creation be finally comprised'; I would like to remind us of how that paragraph continues:

And since in the New World the Creator's love rules over all rational nature, the wonder at His mysteries that will be revealed (then) will captivate to itself the intellect of (all) rational beings whom He has created so that they might have delight in Him, whether they be evil or whether they be just. With this design did He bring them into existence ... He has a single equal love which covers the whole extent of rational creation, all things whether visible or invisible: there is not first or last place with Him in (this) love for any single one of them ... [Brock, Isaac of Nineveh, Second part 38/2

How beautifully St. Isaac reminds us of the words Our Lord spoke in John 13:34-35:

13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
13:35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.

At this time, can we not try to remember that - and leave off the criticism of other Christians - is the beam in our own eye not enough for us?

Indeed He is 'broken' for us - can we not at least love each other and be one in aweful contemplation of what He has done for us?

In Christ,

John

Herman Blaydoe

05-04-2007, 08:33 PM

both the Orthodox and Protestant traditions have a tendency to let arguments over doctrine take precedence over our command to love one another

Rather, I would say that, at least for the Orthodox, it is primarily BECAUSE of the command to love one another that we stress TRUE DOCTRINE (Ortho Doxa). If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? (Luke 11:11).

Celinda Grace

05-04-2007, 09:35 PM

Herman,

Stressing true doctrine is one thing. The attitude and disposition when we stress it is another. Love puts the other before oneself. Love knows how to listen. Love is more interested in vindicating the other if possible then defending itself. Both Christ and Paul knew how to reach people where they were at. They reached across the gap of understanding to make the truth that they knew accessible to their audience. Paul when he was in Athens did not start by condemning Greek paganism. He started by finding something commendable in it and attempting to lead the Greeks from a lesser to a greater Way and Truth.

All to often, as I stated above we speak before we have listened. We put forth our argument before we have striven to find out where the other person is coming from - we prejudge and we judge. The author of the River of Fire is a good example of this.

He says:

"The "God" of the West is an offended and angry God, full of wrath for the disobedience of men, who desires in His destructive passion to torment all humanity unto eternity for their sins, unless He receives an infinite satisfaction for His offended pride. "

". It was impossible for Him to pardon; a superior Necessity demanded vengeance."

Where in the world does he get that we believe God's pride is offended? (or that we even think that God is proud -this is absurd) Or that justice and vegeance are understood as synonyms?

He blames Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas but I think that he reads these authors and interprets them according to his own way of thinking, out of his own cultural lens, rather then interpreting them how a Catholic or Protestant would interpret them.

It is a shame really because the rest of his address is wonderful, but no one outside of the Orthodox tradition will be likely to listen to it. If the Orthodox Church wants people to take their bread, they first have to prove their credentials as a loving father. No child is likely to ask for bread from a hostile stranger.

Herman Blaydoe

05-04-2007, 10:10 PM

I don't think one needs to be a googlexpert to find a wide host of Protestant websites that indeed preach an offended and angry God, the same one preached to me when I was younger and Protestant. I remember telling myself that if this is who God really is, then I simply want nothing to do with Him! Several references about Anselm have already been posted by others here from non-Orthodox sources, so it is not simply an "Orthodox" or "Kalomiros" issue. In addition, we are not posting in Protestant fora telling them they are wrong, we are not directly addressing Protestants or Greek pagans here. This particular forum is specifically an Orthodox forum and does not necessarily exist to vindicate Protestant doctrines. In as much as any Protestant Church proclaims Orthodoxy (true doctrine), this certainly should be celebrated. But in the same way, when non-Orthodox teachings are put forward, I do not think it harsh to at least point out that we believe differently.

I also don't believe that Dr. Kalomiros was specifically trying to convert Protestants and Catholics in his article, so your reasoning seems a little off-base IMNSHO. It was a talk given as the keynote address delivered at the Orthodox Youth Conference sponsored by the parish of St. Nectarios American Orthodox Church at Seattle, Washington.

At any rate, I do not think any case has been made that Dr. Kalomiros seriously steps outside Orthodoxy in this article, even if not every Orthodox agrees with him 100%. He is NOT guilty of Origenism (preaching universal salvation), nor has he said in any way shape or form that "there is no penalty for sin", even if one mistaken individual seems to think so. I think he makes a very reasonable case for his premise, even if some find it less than diplomatic or flattering to their particular system of beliefs. It may, indeed, overgeneralize to some extent, but that too can be a valid rhetorical tool. Sometimes sensibilities need to be shocked, just to see if they are still sensible...

At any rate, the usual disclaimer applies:
DISCLAIMER The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. The drinking of beverages while reading these posts is strongly discouraged; not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers." Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of satire, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.

Rick Henry

05-04-2007, 10:32 PM

Herman--NO!!! . . . watch out Celinda! He's going for his disclaimer http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d201a5/01.

Herman, I just came in off the road and was in a state where I could use a good laugh, thanks. I never cease to be amazed at the fact that I have seen your world famous disclaimer many times now, but when you use it from time to time, I still laugh like it is the first time I have read it.

Good conversation here you two.

Thanks again,
Rick

Celinda Grace

06-04-2007, 03:42 PM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

06-04-2007, 04:10 PM

Herman,

Great disclaimer. :)

and you are right to rebuke me. I was in a nasty mood yesterday being defensive myself. I ought to look to the log in my own eye before worrying about what someone else is doing.

This is another River of Fire that I think Matthew Panchisin mentioned in a post awhile back.

Due to many reasons it's hard for us to keep on an even level at times. All the more so since there are many pressures we face amidst our human weakness.

In our parish invariably we face a temptation during the Matins of Holy Saturday. One person or another usually blows a gasket, usually in the choir or among the readers.

Of course there's the accumulated fatigue of all the services of Holy Week. But there's also something else. You can actually hear it if you listen- a sound like screeching train wheels in your head or white noise. So the journey to Pascha isn't all cake and ice cream (soy cake and ice cream of course). There are other forces at work especially at this time.

The thought then comes that we've messed up a good thing again. There's a temptation in this thought though as if we can reach the Resurrection without the purifying fire to try us.

So these trials also have their purpose: mainly to see our weakness & reach out to Christ.

The striking thing is that accompanied by repentance and humility this is a more sure fire way to Pascha than many others.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

06-04-2007, 05:36 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

We are in your debt for a post that reminds us how far we have travelled - and how far there is yet to go before we rest; you call us to where we need to be at this time; thank you.

As I read your words they struck an echo, and I went away and checked, to find what it was they brought to mind. It was these words from St. Gregory of Nanzianus (from his Oration 41):

And He came in the form of Tongues because of His close relation to the Word. And they were of Fire, perhaps because of His purifying Power (for our Scripture knows of a purifying fire, as any one who wishes can find out), or else because of His Substance. For our God is a consuming Fire, and a Fire burning up the ungodly

May we be purified by His fire. May we also remember what the Saint says at the very beginning of his orations:

Let us then keep the Festival with splendor, and let us embrace one another. Let us say Brethren, even to those who hate us; much more to those who have done or suffered aught out of love for us. Let us forgive all offenses for the Resurrection’s sake: let us give one another pardon

There is, I am sure, no hate here, but for the rest, let us do as St. Gregory bids - even if it is a cyber-embrace.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

06-04-2007, 07:16 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

We are in your debt for a post that reminds us how far we have travelled - and how far there is yet to go before we rest; you call us to where we need to be at this time; thank you.

As I read your words they struck an echo, and I went away and checked, to find what it was they brought to mind. It was these words from St. Gregory of Nanzianus (from his Oration 41):

May we be purified by His fire. May we also remember what the Saint says at the very beginning of his orations:

There is, I am sure, no hate here, but for the rest, let us do as St. Gregory bids - even if it is a cyber-embrace.

In Christ,

John

Dear John,

Thank you for your kind words.

To sum up from this thread then:

Is 'The River of Fire Orthodox' doctrine? As we proclaim tomorrow night that Christ is Risen the only answer to this question can be a resounding 'Yes'.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Celinda Grace

06-04-2007, 08:40 PM

Fr. Raphael,

Thank you. It is funny just before coming and reading the updated posts I was rereading "River of Fire" and the following is what caught my eye.

"For our God is a consuming fire", (Heb. 12:29). The very fire which purifies gold, also consumes wood. Precious metals shine in it like the sun, rubbish burns with black smoke. All are in the same fire of Love. Some shine and others become black and dark. In the same furnace steel shines like the sun, whereas clay turns dark and is hardened like stone. The difference is in man, not in God."

In my experience, in Christ, God's wrath and love are one and the same. His justice and mercy are often contained in the same action. It is the very place where we fail and suffer the consequence of that failure, that teaches us the lesson that we need to take the next step foward.

It is the difference between a Father's discipline and an impartial judgement.

In my own life I have often asked the question what is God's wrath directed toward? What exactly is he angry at? The answer I try to keep in mind is that His wrath is directed toward anything that is keeping us from Him. He is judging and His fire is consuming, not us but death and sin and all the offshoots thereof.

Zach 8:2"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I am exceedingly jealous for Zion, yes, with great wrath I am jealous for her.' "

Is 26:9 "For when the earth experiences your judgements The inhabitants of the earth learn righteousness"

11 "Oh LORD your hand is lifted up yet they do not see it. They see your zeal for the people and are put to shame; indeed fire will devour your enemies."

If we are supposed to be a burning bush that is not consumned then any resistance to God that resides within us provides a place where we feel the burn of that consuming fire rather then merely the warmth of God Living Flame of Love.

Herman Blaydoe

06-04-2007, 08:55 PM

If we are supposed to be a burning bush that is not consumned then any resistance to God that resides within us provides a place where we feel the burn of that consuming fire rather then merely the warmth of God Living Flame of Love.

'Zakly!

For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15

Mary Christine Erikson

07-04-2007, 01:17 AM

tongues of fire - this is the kind of fire that does not consume, like the
fire of the burning bush and the fire that comes out of The Holy
Sepulchre on holy Saturday. For the first 33 minutes, it will not burn
anything except a wick.

This is not the consuming destroying fire of judgement.

Purifying fire analogies usually have to do with sufferings in this life
that also direct us towards God to help us and save us from them
and if we are going to go beyond this life, we are squarely on the
ground of RC PURGATORY.

Now, there may be some legitimacy to the idea of pre and post mortem
expiation of some sins in a temporary place of hell an escapable part.
And prayers for the dead are often about getting people out of this,
or sparing them from it.

But anything like this at the Last Judgement is a permanent torment,
probably of varying degrees but none of it tolerable or purifying.

And if we are going to talk about the fire of the Last Judgement as
in any of these categories, purifying or nonconsuming, then we are
talking in terms that allow for an Origenistic development even if
Kalomiros himself won't go that far.

The fire at the Last Judgement is NOT some purifying thing to be
sought after.

John Charmley

07-04-2007, 10:55 AM

Dear Mary Christine,

A challenging and interesting post, which raises one of the most difficult topics of all for us as Christians.

St. Isaac of Nineveh wrote:

That we should say or think that the matter of Gehenna is not in reality full of love and mingled with compassion would be an opinion full of blasphemy and an insult to Our Lord God. By saying that He will even hand us over to burning for the sake of sufferings, torment and all sorts of ills, we are attributing to Divine Nature an enmity towards the very rational beings which He created through grace, the same is true if we say He acts or thinks with spite and with a vengeful purpose, as though He was avenging Himself. Among all His actions there is none that is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and end of His dealings with us.
He later writes:

As for me I say that those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the invasion of love. What is there more bitter and violent than the pains of love? Those who feel they have sinned against love bear in themselves a damnation much heavier than the most dreaded punishments. The suffering with which sinning against love afflicts the heart is more keenly felt than any other torment. It is absurd to assume that the sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love. Love is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by the presence of a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful. That is what the torment of hell is in my opinion: remorse.

This directs us towards the heart of one of the great mysteries of our faith. God's love is, indeed, universal, but our salvation comes only through His truth; so, although He loves us, we are free to reject that love.

One of our problems as Orthodox Christians is how we practice our belief in one faith once revealed without sounding like those Pharisees Our Lord upbraided for thinking they could circumscribe God's love.

In like fashion, we cannot know who He will save. St. Isaac's vision is, it seems, rather unlike the Protestant idea of Gehenna as being a place of torment where an angry God sends you in punishment for eternity; it is also, I think, more in line with what is written in The River of Fire.

A 'consuming, destroying fire of judgement', or an infinite 'love, mercy and compassion'? Some things we cannot, and ought not to pronounce on for fear of saying what man cannot know; but I cannot help hoping St. Isaac was right. Would a merciful and loving God treat us as the Jews and the Romans treated Christ on Good Friday? Or does our suffering come, as St. Isaac thinks, from our rejection of His love?

Appropriate thoughts, perhaps, for Holy Saturday?

In Christ,

John

Celinda Grace

09-04-2007, 05:19 PM

Now, there may be some legitimacy to the idea of pre and post mortem
expiation of some sins in a temporary place of hell an escapable part.
And prayers for the dead are often about getting people out of this,
or sparing them from it.

But anything like this at the Last Judgement is a permanent torment,
probably of varying degrees but none of it tolerable or purifying.

Mary,

I think you are misconstruing what is being judged.

Dr. Kalomiros said "This freedom, this choice, this inner attitude toward our Creator is the innermost core of our eternal personality, it is the most profound of our characteristics, it is what makes us that which we are, it is our eternal face — bright or dark, loving or hating."

The expiation for our sins is done already for us by Christ. It is complete and nothing can be added to it. The fire of judgement has nothing to do with expiation. It has everything to do with revealing "the innermost core of our eternal personality"

I am not sure exactly what the Orthodox perception of this is, someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the way I have come to understand things is that Christ has saved us - completely - it is a done deal. Paul says in Eph 2:5-6 Even when we were dead in our trespasses and sins He made us alive together with Christ and raised us up with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

In other words in eternity our salvation is complete. What we live out in this life, and what is revealed by fire is the extent to which we have chosen to consciously participate in the work that Christ has already done. The gold and silver Paul speaks of is the reward of knowing the extent of our participation. We rejoice in knowing what we have done with and through Him. This is our glory- to serve Him. The wood, hay and stubble are those things that orginated in ourselves that we have refused to let go of in this life. Any of our plans, hopes and dreams that are not centered in God we will suffer as a loss when we die.

Have you ever really wanted to do something but couldn't because circumstances prevented you? It causes an internal struggle and pain that is not ended until either you get to live your desire or you let go of your dream. This is the type of thing God's love causes except at a greatly magnified level. The greater the desire the more painful the struggle tends to be and God has created the human heart to desire Himself infinitely and completely with its whole self.

I am going to get speculative here, and maybe this is where you see Origenistic tendencies, but it seems to me that within every man is a seed of potential that cannot be consumned or lost. In that sense this part of every man is 'saved' for a man cannot let go of his own essential being. It does not orginate from himself and therefore cannot be lost.

It seems to me that those who have never responded to God's love, never taken a single step of faith and refused in anyway to identify themselves with Christ will live forever divided against themselves -in one part desiring God because that is the nature of our humanity, and yet hating him as a result of their conscious decision to reject Him. This will be lived out, not at the level of the divided loves we experience in this life, but will be a love/hate realtionship with themselves and God that will consume their whole being.

M.C. Steenberg

09-04-2007, 05:53 PM

Dear all,

The posts recently made here on St Isaac, vis-a-vis his place in the Church, have been moved from this thread to the St Isaac, a Nestorian? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3103) thread.

For those interested, many other threads have touched on this issue, including Universalism and the Orthodox Church (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1619); Syriac Christology and St Isaac of Ninevah (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1577); Isaac of Syria (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1968); St Isaac of Syria, vol. II (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2031) (among others).

We can continue to keep the present thread on its topic of The River of Fire and related themes.

INXC, Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

09-04-2007, 06:25 PM

In a post made some days ago, Ms Grace wrote:

You seem to be implying that God can forgive sins as a simple arbitrary act of His will. How can this be? Certainly external ritual is not needed but the testimoney of the book of Hebrews is that external ritual is the making visible of the deeper Law of our existence. Although I entirely agree that to limit our understanding of Christ's atonement to something soley substitutionary is wrong, yet I am not quite sure that the propitiatory aspect of Christ's atonement can be left out.

The testimony of the scriptures is that God always is the forgiver of sin. To break away from our customary ways of thinking in societal terms, where forgiveness is a decision, a deliberation that we ponder and may or -- disastrously -- may not effect, it is helpful to think of God as he who is forgiver, for whom forgiveness is not a deliberative act, but an integral aspect of the love that he is, for 'God is love'. It is wrong, therefore, to think that God's forgiveness is 'enabled' by anything, whether that be a request, a ritual, a sacrificial act, etc. God does not begin to love when he is petitioned to do so.

The presence of rite, of act, of obligation, which are integral and necessary to the living-out of such reality, is as the ascetical means of entering into God's love and forgiveness, of making it that which is not only his, but that which is mine - the love that transfigures me, the forgiveness that lifts me up into union with God.

Rest assured, God forgave the sins of humankind long before the crucifixion; and the incarnate offering of Christ was foreknown long before the advent of Sin. St Gregory, echoing the scriptures, calls Christ the 'Lamb slain before the foundation of the world'; and St Irenaeus talks of the Word 'walking and talking with Adam in the garden, foretelling the things that would come to pass' in the incarnation.

What Christ offers in his sacrifice on the cross is not forgiveness alone, but the power of forgiveness to defeat that which separates man from the God who redeems him. Forgiveness becomes transformative, powerful, undefeatable, in the incarnation, cross and resurrection. Christ's offering is not an offering of appeasement, but of power effected in humility. Standing in the stead of all humankind, he offers what humankind itself cannot: a life that is more powerful than death -- a life that death cannot defeat. So the one who stands with and for all, bears the sin of all humankind, not to vitiate them before the Father or merit his forgiveness of them, but to bear them to the place where all sin leads, namely death, and and there 'raise up the fallen with himself'.

Ultimately, salvation is not simply about forgiveness of sin, as Owen has pointed out. Forgiveness is part of the framework of salvation. Salvation itself is the healing of the broken, which is a transformative process in which forgiveness is made to transform and transfigure the one who has sinned. At its deepest, forgiveness is not aimed at God, i.e. it is not something the satisfies God; rather, it is that which God uses to transform his creatures.

Herman's remark seemed to sum this up very well:

Orthodoxy does not see sin as a crime to be punished. Rather it is a sickness which must be healed. We certainly suffer its consequences, we are sick unto death. But Christ, the Heavenly physician has already paid the price for treatment.

Later, you wrote:

If you leave out the substitutionary view entirely, how do you explain the fact that God's justice must be satisfied?

We must learn how to think of God's justice in terms of God's being, rather than a list of regulations, however spiritual and profound, that creation and God himself must follow. God's justice is God's being as redeemer, as Saviour. Affronts to God's justice are ultimately not infractions of a code, but a fracture of union with 'the One who Is', and thus the doorway to death.

XB, Matthew

Nina

09-04-2007, 06:30 PM

XB, Matthew

Excuse me, but what does XB stand for?

Father David Moser

09-04-2007, 07:22 PM

The expiation for our sins is done already for us by Christ. It is complete and nothing can be added to it. The fire of judgement has nothing to do with expiation. It has everything to do with revealing "the innermost core of our eternal personality"

I am not sure exactly what the Orthodox perception of this is, someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the way I have come to understand things is that Christ has saved us - completely - it is a done deal. Paul says in Eph 2:5-6 Even when we were dead in our trespasses and sins He made us alive together with Christ and raised us up with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

In other words in eternity our salvation is complete. What we live out in this life, and what is revealed by fire is the extent to which we have chosen to consciously participate in the work that Christ has already done.

I think that this is really a good explanation. If we were to apply psychobabble to our salvation, we might say that God has done His part and He has ontologically established the reality of our salvation. We, however, have to actualize the reality of salvation in our lives. This is what is meant when we speak of "working out our salvation". The final judgement, the refiner's fire, the sifting of the wheat from the chaff, the division of the lambs from the goats, etc - is simply the determination of how much of our lives have been touched and transformed by the ontological reality of our salvation. And that is what it means to be "saved" - to be transformed by the application of the grace of God into His own image and likeness. This then leads back to the image of the River of Fire and of our God as the the refining fire. That in us which is transformed to be like God joins with the fire and is strengthened and enlightened, and that in us which remains untransformed is consumed.

As always, it is important to remember that the "the River of Fire" is a metaphor- a "verbal icon" of a reality that we cannot really grasp with our limited minds and thus it is not to be take literally, but only figuratively.

Fr David Moser

M.C. Steenberg

11-04-2007, 01:45 PM

Excuse me, but what does XB stand for?

It is short for Христос воскресе! (Christ is risen!)

INXC, Matthew

Nina

11-04-2007, 04:00 PM

It is short for Христос воскресе! (Christ is risen!)

INXC, Matthew

Воистину воскресе!

I had no idea that XB is an acronym of that expression! Thank you for the millionth thing I have learned on Monachos.net!

Celinda Grace

17-04-2007, 01:21 PM

Mr. Steenberg,

Earlier in this thread you mentioned that redemption does not mean to buy back. I was wondering what a proper definition of redemption would be. Do you define it closer to what we mean when we say that we need to redeem our time? In other words to hmmm... make worthwhile, not lose, I am groping for words a bit.

Herman Blaydoe

17-04-2007, 03:42 PM

"Redeem" has several meanings, one of which is: to pay a ransom or to pay out of indenture.

We sold ourselves into sin, like the Prodigal Son. Christ wiped out the debt or ransom that we were unable to pay. I suspect that if we take it much farther than that, as have some Latins and Protestants, we fall into error, and we need the Church to pull us back from the brink. St. John Chrysostom's Pascha sermon really puts it into perspective for this simple mind. Christ actually "paid" much more than was "necessary". This is where I think the western theology of atonement sells God short. He didn't just "pay" the debt, He annihilated the gates of hell and freed us from slavery, the first and true "Great Emancipator". He died, not because God hated our sin, but because God LOVED us. His Death made the liberation of hell possible, "wrapped in flesh like bait on a hook" says one canon of Matins. "Atonement" is certainly a PART of it, but not the whole story. Or so it seems to this simple mind.

Celinda Grace

17-04-2007, 08:35 PM

Herman,

I would agree that the idea of God paying our debt sells short what Christ did at the cross. But I still wanted to find for myself in what sense the Scripture uses the word 'hilasterion' (the Greek word for atonement) So I did some research. I found some interesting things. This word which Paul uses in Rom 3:24-25 is the same word used in the Spetuagint for the mercy seat, the covering on the Ark of the Covenant where the blood was sprinkled. It is another one of those words that needs to be rescued from a Greek religious understanding and placed back in its proper Hebrew context.

"Scriptural "atonement" (kaphar) is, truly, always related in some way to the physical condition arising from the general constitution of sin that has come upon the world through Adam. This is the unifying idea behind all its uses. But "atonement" (Kaphar) being required does not necessarily imply personal guilt or estrangement - just a relationship to that sin- constitution." (borrowed from Antipas.org)

The Hebrew word kaphar can mean reconcile, cleanse, purge or cover. It is always done with blood. No doubt it is closely connected with Passover in the Hebrew understanding. It is not seen as an appeasement but is a ritual reminder of God's mercy on His covenant people.

Notice the context in Rom 3:24-26 where this word is used. Paul here is talking about our justification by faith --before we have been regenerated by the Spirit, BEFORE we have taken hold of the promises of our redemption --

Paul in Romans is tracing the outgrowth of God's plan of salvation from the fall (Chapt 2) to justification by faith (chapt 3-5), but still dead in our sins (see how he uses Abraham as an example in Rom 4:17-21)

He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah's womb was also dead. 20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness."

But Paul goes way beyond this simply concept of reconciliation and peace with God that comes from our sins being covered.

Rom 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

THEN in Chapter 6-8 Paul starts talking about Baptism and the Regenerating power of the Spirit in our struggle against sin.

M.C. Steenberg

18-04-2007, 10:30 AM

Dear Ms Stickles and others,

Earlier in this thread you mentioned that redemption does not mean to buy back. I was wondering what a proper definition of redemption would be. Do you define it closer to what we mean when we say that we need to redeem our time? In other words to hmmm... make worthwhile, not lose, I am groping for words a bit.

Redemption is ultimately tied to salvation in the fathers of the Church. If salvation is best defined as a healing growth of transfiguration -- of being drawn up into transfigurative union with God (the 'becoming God' of St Athanasius, the 'vision of God' of St Symeon, etc.) -- then redemption is the reclaiming into that life of healing and growth from all that prevents it.

INXC, Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

18-04-2007, 06:06 PM

Ms Grace wrote:

I would agree that the idea of God paying our debt sells short what Christ did at the cross. But I still wanted to find for myself in what sense the Scripture uses the word 'hilasterion' (the Greek word for atonement) So I did some research. I found some interesting things. This word which Paul uses in Rom 3:24-25 is the same word used in the Spetuagint for the mercy seat, the covering on the Ark of the Covenant where the blood was sprinkled. It is another one of those words that needs to be rescued from a Greek religious understanding and placed back in its proper Hebrew context.

While I appreciate the essence of what you're saying here (and Hebrew / Israelite perceptions have long formed part of my own work on the early Church), I am not certain that I agree whole-heartedly with outlining approach along the framework that issues need 'to be rescued from a Greek religious understanding and placed back in [their] proper Hebrew context'. There ought, yes, to be far wider and deeper understanding of the Hebraic heritage of much early patristic language; yet attempting fully to understand Christian reflection by looking back to the Hebrew context will never result in an authentic patristic theology. Hebraic perceptions formed the initial (and in many ways lasting) context through which Christian reflection began its articulation; but that articulation was also a transformation of Hebrew contexts and cultures of approach. To take the present examples, 'sacrifice' as expounded by the fathers was not meant to be a whole-sale embrace of ancient Israelite or Hebrew conceptions of sacrifice, even amongst those fathers who most directly hark back to those ancient sources.

INXC, Matthew

Father David Moser

18-04-2007, 06:17 PM

I would like offer a somewhat different perspective on the purpose and place of the OT sacrificial system within the economy of our salvation. This is only my perception and opinion and is not necessarily "backed up" by a force of patristic references so take it fwiw.

...man sinned and through his sin contracted a deadly
illness which began to corrupt him. This illness was nested in the very
nexus of body and soul and as its chief symptom brought about the tragic
separation of the body and the soul. God saw the illness that had
infested his beloved creature and was sad. And so, God set about to cure
man of his deadly illness. But, being the Great Physician, our Lord saw
that the cure for the illness could not immediately be applied for the
patient was still too weak. Time would have to pass for man to be ready
to accept the cure.

Seeing that He could not immediately cure His beloved creature from this
illness of sin and death, God set out to ease the suffering of man,
until the time came to cure him. God did not abandon us to our
suffering, but rather He offered to us the means by which that suffering
could be eased while we waited for the time to come when we could be
healed. We see this same thing happen in the medical care of the body –
there are times when a patient requires surgery or other drastic
treatment in order to do away with some illness, but the cure itself is
so rigorous that the patient requires some time to build up his
strength. The doctor may then maintain his patient on medication
designed to address the symptoms of the illness so that the patient can
continue to function and grow strong until he is ready for the cure. By
waiting to cure his patient, the doctor is not being negligent or cruel,
but rather increasing the chance that the patient will survive and will
be healed. So also the Great Physician, seeing us infected with the
illness of sin and death set out to bring to us the cure, but needed to
wait until all was prepared so that the cure might be most effective for
us.

The cure for our spiritual illness is of course the death and
Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. By taking on death itself, he
conquered death and so provided the means by which we too could conquer
death. When we are united with Him, the One who destroyed death by
death, His life flows into us and destroys sin and death in us. However,
while He waited for mankind to be ready for this cure, He gave to us
other spiritual medications designed to ease the suffering brought about
by sin and death. The Epistle today reminds us of these spiritual
medications for we are told that “the blood of bulls and of goats, and
the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the
purifying of the flesh” The whole sacrificial system of the Old
Testament was instituted by God so that man might have some relief from
the suffering of sin until He Himself would come and cure that illness.
Those sacrifices of bulls and goats were not meant to appease an angry
and offended God, rather their true effect was that they were given by
our compassionate and loving God for the purifying of the flesh from the
effects of sin. The illness of sin still infected mankind, but its
effect was moderated by the sacrifices that were offered by the
sufferers. How does all this work – we can’t say, since God has not
revealed to us all the hows and whys of our spiritual life (no more than
an earthly doctor explains to his patient all the hows and whys of his
treatment, but only explains that which is sufficient for the patient’s
well being). We do know, however, that it works to ease the effects of
sin. The cure itself, however, was not the “blood of bulls and goats”
but rather it is “the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit
offered himself without spot to God”

These remarks are from a homily given on the 5th Sunday of Lent and can be read in their full context here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/propoved/message/242)

Fr David Moser

M.C. Steenberg

18-04-2007, 06:29 PM

Dear father, I found your homily very interesting - thank you for the snippet and the link.

The Epistle today reminds us of these spiritual medications for we are told that “the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh” The whole sacrificial system of the Old Testament was instituted by God so that man might have some relief from the suffering of sin until He Himself would come and cure that illness. Those sacrifices of bulls and goats were not meant to appease an angry and offended God, rather their true effect was that they were given by our compassionate and loving God for the purifying of the flesh from the effects of sin. The illness of sin still infected mankind, but its effect was moderated by the sacrifices that were offered by the sufferers.

If I could offer an expansion on this, the fathers seem also to suggest that the reason, the 'how?', of such sacrificial purification and sanctification was the centrality of Christ, the one 'sacrificed before the foundation of the world', as types of the true sacrifice experienced in Christ. So in some sense, the patristic approach is not to say 'there was once a sacrificial system, but Christ perfected it and granted it new heights', but that there is first and foremost Christ's sacrifice, which is not the fulfilment of something other, but the reality that gave meaning to the sacrificial life summed up in him.

Christ does not give new meaning to the ancient sacrificial system, he discloses its ancient meaning, its full meaning, and manifests in his incarnation the fullness of that which was previously type.

INXC, Matthew

Celinda Grace

19-04-2007, 04:52 AM

Hebraic perceptions formed the initial (and in many ways lasting) context through which Christian reflection began its articulation; but that articulation was also a transformation of Hebrew contexts and cultures of approach. To take the present examples, 'sacrifice' as expounded by the fathers was not meant to be a whole-sale embrace of ancient Israelite or Hebrew conceptions of sacrifice, even amongst those fathers who most directly hark back to those ancient sources.

INXC, Matthew

I wouldn't disagree with this. And in fact Paul himself takes the whole understanding beyond the Hebraic perceptions. In talking about rescuing things from a Greek relgious view I was more reflecting back on the whole corruption that started with the influx of Greek thought into the Western church during the Enlightenment. Luther and the others tried stripping out much of the religious corruption of the time by going back to strictly reading only the Bible rather then Catholic doctrine, but they did not escape their own cultural prejudice in how they interpreted the Bible. I was thinking that maybe Dr. Kalomiros is more right then I was at first willing to admit.

I am not sure what you are trying to say about sacrifice.

Duane

20-07-2007, 10:51 PM

I have been reading and re-reading “The River of Fire”, and must admit that has been very stirring to my soul. Having not been raised Orthodox, I find that I am having difficulty with Section 10, particularly this [I include bold text to help identify areas of confusion]: “In this life, there are profound or superficial changes in our life, in our character, in our beliefs, but all these changes are only the expression in time of our deepest eternal self. This deep eternal self is eternal, with all the meaning of the word. This is why paradise and hell are also eternal. There is no changing in what we really are. Our temporal characteristics and our history in life depend on many superficial things 'which vanish with death, but our real personality is not superficial and does not depend on changing and vanishing things. It is our real self. It remains with us when we sleep in the grave, and will be our real face in the resurrection. It is eternal.” What is the nature of this “true self” that the author speaks of? To my still Western-influenced way of thinking, it sounds like the author us saying that our salvation is wholly dependent on whether in our inmost being, where we are inherently a friend or enemy of God ~ that our inmost being or 'real self' does not change. It seems like a weird version of pre-destination. The Reformed version says that God chooses whom he will save and whom he will damn. The Orthodox version says that God does not choose, but instead gives us freedom to be who we really are. The caveat is that we cannot change who we really are, so again it comes down to something you are born into. Reformed = you are born into sin and salvation depends on whether God calls you or not. Orthodox = you are born either a friend or enemy of God but cannot change who you really are, so your path is determined anyway.

If someone has a time to respond, I’d be most grateful. Duane.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

21-07-2007, 03:35 PM

Dear Duane,

I'm not sure either of the exact meaning of the Kalomiros quotes you have written below. As it has been so long since I read The River of Fire I don't recall the context anymore.

In any case the question I think comes down to what does Kalomiros mean by
"our deepest eternal self"? At one point he says that this 'eternal self' corresponds to "our real personality" so it could be that he means the person as this is created by God. We do believe that each person is created as relatively eternal. (ie not eternal in the sense that God is as uncreated; but rather that once created out of nothing, he then is eternal).

But I think you are right to question what Kalomiros is really saying. On the one hand towards the end of the quoted paragraph he refers in understandable terms to the eternity of each person. But before this his words give the impression as you say that the 'eternal self' is deterministic in some way.

Again without having looked at The River of Fire in a long time I'm not sure of the context into which the quote fits. But read as is Kalomiros seems to have too much of a dichotomy within the person.

Indeed it is the Patristic understanding that although he has distinct aspects to him, man is one unified whole. He doesn't have created aspects which are somehow more real and others which are less.

Still though the question of the relationship between the created person who has inherent and unique characteristics & free will is interesting and one I hadn't thought of much before.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I have been reading and re-reading “The River of Fire”, and must admit that has been very stirring to my soul.

Having not been raised Orthodox, I find that I am having difficulty with Section 10, particularly this [I include bold text to help identify areas of confusion]:

“In this life, there are profound or superficial changes in our life, in our character, in our beliefs, but all these changes are only the expression in time of our deepest eternal self. This deep eternal self is eternal, with all the meaning of the word. This is why paradise and hell are also eternal. There is no changing in what we really are. Our temporal characteristics and our history in life depend on many superficial things 'which vanish with death, but our real personality is not superficial and does not depend on changing and vanishing things. It is our real self. It remains with us when we sleep in the grave, and will be our real face in the resurrection. It is eternal.”

What is the nature of this “true self” that the author speaks of? To my still Western-influenced way of thinking, it sounds like the author us saying that our salvation is wholly dependent on whether in our inmost being, where we are inherently a friend or enemy of God ~ that our inmost being or 'real self' does not change.

It seems like a weird version of pre-destination. The Reformed version says that God chooses whom he will save and whom he will damn. The Orthodox version says that God does not choose, but instead gives us freedom to be who we really are. The caveat is that we cannot change who we really are, so again it comes down to something you are born into.

Reformed = you are born into sin and salvation depends on whether God calls you or not.

Orthodox = you are born either a friend or enemy of God but cannot change who you really are, so your path is determined anyway.

If someone has a time to respond, I’d be most grateful.

Duane.

M.C. Steenberg

22-07-2007, 10:27 PM

Dear Duane (if I may), you wrote of certain passages in The River of Fire. It's been so long since I've read the text, that I cannot claim to speak specifically from the author's station; but more generally, the passage you referred to raises some interesting points. You quoted, from that text:

“In this life, there are profound or superficial changes in our life, in our character, in our beliefs, but all these changes are only the expression in time of our deepest eternal self. This deep eternal self is eternal, with all the meaning of the word. This is why paradise and hell are also eternal. There is no changing in what we really are. Our temporal characteristics and our history in life depend on many superficial things 'which vanish with death, but our real personality is not superficial and does not depend on changing and vanishing things. It is our real self. It remains with us when we sleep in the grave, and will be our real face in the resurrection. It is eternal.” (emphasis yours)

You then asked:

What is the nature of this “true self” that the author speaks of? To my still Western-influenced way of thinking, it sounds like the author us saying that our salvation is wholly dependent on whether in our inmost being, where we are inherently a friend or enemy of God ~ that our inmost being or 'real self' does not change.
It seems like a weird version of pre-destination.

On reading the quotation from The River of Fire that you provided, it seems to me that the author is referring not to the idea of identity and beliefs as the 'true self'; but in speaking of 'our real personality', he is talking about the very core of human personhood - i.e., the nature of human existence as creature in personal relation to God and the cosmos. It is the perversion of this authentic 'personality' (i.e. being-as-person) that yields the transient waywardness of what so often seems our 'true nature', but in fact such things are illusory of our real being.

This does not strike me as linking to a notion of predestination, as what is being discussed is not the core of individual value or worth that is judged worthy of heaven or hell -- for if this were interior, eternal and unchanging, it would be utterly God's responsibility that some are damned, some are saved. Rather, the things by which we 'adorn' our true personhood, which are, in fact, only detriments to the holiness of God's own eternity, which man images and in which he has his own being, are superficial to our true nature. That latter is grounded in God, and for this God loves it through the mire of sin in which it is so often buried.

INXC, Matthew

Eugenia Lydia

23-07-2007, 12:22 AM

Dear Duane, Fr Raphael, and Matthew,

The passage quoted from Kalomiros bothers me as much as it bothers Duane, but for, I think, different reasons.

The idea that we each have an eternal, true self by which we are judged, that is reflective of our free choice is not, by definition, a limitation of our freedom. It is probably viewed as such because we associate the will with something temporal. Thus whatever is eternal is God's doing and whatever is temporal is mine. This seems to me ultimately to undermine the love and goodwill of God's relationship to mankind, which allows man to be self-determing. It is possible, I suppose, that this self-determining be eternal (by which he must mean perpetual, since this self clearly has a beginning). Duane described Kalomiros' position thus:

"Orthodox = you are born either a friend or enemy of God but cannot change who you really are, so your path is determined anyway. "

The problem with this assesment is that it forgets about the "you" that cannot change "who you really are." This "you" who chooses must in some sense persist throughout the choices it makes, otherwise it would not be a real subject, and certainly not a free one. Kalomiros is refering to that "you" as the eternal self that chooses either heaven or hell, and persists beneath (is the subsistent reality of?) all of the other choices that we make. So "you who cannot change who you really are" actually equals "who you really are." The fact that this subject does not change would not make it less free, but more free, since it would be less susceptible to external bonds.... Maybe we should talk more about what freedom is, specifically in relation to the person and his "nature", etc.

Perhaps, Duane, your problem with determination wasn't the one I addressed, in which case it might be helpful if you were more specific.

I am confused, however, by Dr. Steenberg's post, which (and forgive me if I have misread) seems to suggest that we are judged by "the things with which we adorn our true personhood" and that our true nature, which I have assumed is synonymous with true personhood (despite the fact that they are technically two very different things) is always in line with God. Could you explain what you meant here? As I understand it seems to say that we are "judged" by something that is fleeting, while our true nature is always good. While this may be true it is not what Kalomiros is saying:

"Paradise or hell depends on how we will accept God's love. Will we return love for love, or will we respond to His love with hate? This is the critical difference. And this difference depends entirely on us, on our freedom, on our innermost free choice, on a perfectly free attitude which is not influenced by external conditions or internal factors of our material and psychological nature, because it is not an external act but an interior attitude coming from the bottom of our heart, conditioning not our sins, but the way we think about our sins, as it is clearly seen in the case of the publican and the Pharisee and in the case of the two robbers crucified with Christ. This freedom, this choice, this inner attitude toward our Creator is the innermost core of our eternal personality, it is the most profound of our characteristics, it is what makes us that which we are, it is our eternal face — bright or dark, loving or hating."

Maybe, I went wrong in conflating 'true personhood' with 'true nature.'

Oh, and yes, my problems with this section of Kalomiros: if our eternal self has already chosen either to love or to hate God, why do we need Christ? He says rightly in the beginning that it is sin that separates us from God, but how does a person whose eternal self loves God choose to sin? Is he not also conflating nature with person? The problem seems to be: either he means what we would call nature, in which case, Duane would be right in calling him a predestinarian. Or he means what we would call person (the free agent) in which case sin can only be an illusion since it is not the real free choice of the person.

Hope this is helpful.

In Christ,
Eugenia

P.S. Matthew and Fr Raphael mentioned not having read "The River of Fire" in a long time. Here is a link to the full text (sorry if this has already been given):

http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

And also, I promise to learn how to quote properly for my next post, but I am scared to try anything lest the whole thing be lost.

Charles Johnson

05-08-2007, 10:44 PM

I think there's some confusion in this discussion about how exactlyour ability to choose is related to our nature, our deepest selves. On this issue I was greatly enlightened by David B. Hart's (an Orthodox theologian) article "Freedom and Decency" in First Things. He points out how deeply infected all of us here in the West have become with the modern notion of freedom. I didn't want to paste too much in this forum post, and so I included only a couple of paragraphs. But the last 10 or so paragraphs in his piece should be read to fully grasp how profoundly different the true Christian view of freedom is from the modern one. This bears directly on Kalomiros' point about our deepest nature/self and how we freely respond to God's love.

"This understanding of freedom, however, requires not only the belief that we possess an actual nature, which must flourish to be free, but a belief in the transcendent Good towards which that nature is oriented. This Christians, Jews, and virtuous pagans have always understood: that which can endure in us is sustained by that which lies beyond us, in the eternity of its own plenitude. To be fully free is to be joined to that end for which our natures were originally framed, and for which—in the deepest reaches of our souls—we ceaselessly yearn. And whatever separates us from that end—even if it be our own power of choice within us—is a form of bondage. We are free not because we can choose, but only when we have chosen well. And to choose well we must ever more clearly see the “sun of the Good” (to employ the lovely Platonic metaphor), and yet to see more clearly we must choose well; and the more we are emancipated from illusion and caprice, and the more our will is informed by and responds to the Good, the more perfect our vision becomes, and the less there is really to choose. The consummation for which we should long, if we are wise, is that ultimately we shall, in St. Augustine’s language, achieve not only the liberty enjoyed by Adam and Eve—who were merely “able not to sin” (posse non peccare)—but the truest freedom of all, that of being entirely “unable to sin” (non posse peccare), because God’s will works perfectly in ours."

and also:

"And if we insist on being moderns, or Americans, or democrats, or consumers first, rather than Christians, Jews, and virtuous pagans above all, whose spiritual loyalties transcend all other associations, and if we allow ourselves to believe that true freedom is anything other than the liberation and perfection of a definite nature in conformity with the highest Good—with God Himself, that is—then we will always be divided against ourselves, and will be to some degree accomplices of those very forces whose defeat we think we desire. Indeed, we cannot really affect the course of the nation at all, or even properly imagine what kind of political or social future we should want, so long as we fail to remember (and to fashion our lives according to the knowledge) that we exist only because there is One who has called us from nothingness to be what He desires us to be, not simply what we would like to make ourselves, and that we shall truly be free—and know what freedom is—only when we have no choices left."

His entire essay is here.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=355

I hope this post is indeed relevant to the current state of the discussion.

Charles

Chris Masterjohn

27-08-2007, 08:05 PM

Where, exactly does it imply this?

Methinks not. Besides there is room for interpretation here. Doesn't Holy Scripture (Psalm 139:7-12) say:

Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?

If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.

Doesn't this probably say "Sheol"? "Hell" isn't in the Bible. There's Sheol/Hades and Gahenna. I would use "Hell" to refer to the latter, not the former. But I think this is probably the former being expressed here.

Chris

Chris Masterjohn

27-08-2007, 08:52 PM

It is St Isaac's emphasis on the passion as an act of love, and not simply some ritualistic means of forgiving sins, that is so powerful.

Dear Matthew,

This is also the emphasis of Jesus Christ himself:

"Greater love has no man that this: that a man lie down his life for his friends." John 15:13

Chris

Paul Cowan

28-08-2007, 02:39 AM

Doesn't this probably say "Sheol"? "Hell" isn't in the Bible. There's Sheol/Hades and Gahenna. I would use "Hell" to refer to the latter, not the former. But I think this is probably the former being expressed here.

Chris

Nope, it says Hell. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20139&version=50) in the King James and New King James. Since the KJV is what I am told we mostly use due to access and earliest? translations it is the more accurate. I can't wait until the Orthodox Septugiant comes out next Spring.

This from someone that reads more than he understands...I read that some interpreters during the Reformation thought the word Hell was too strong so substituted others for it. Such as Sheol, Gehanna, depths.

Chris Masterjohn

29-08-2007, 04:22 AM

Nope, it says Hell. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20139&version=50) in the King James and New King James. Since the KJV is what I am told we mostly use due to access and earliest? translations it is the more accurate. I can't wait until the Orthodox Septugiant comes out next Spring.

This from someone that reads more than he understands...I read that some interpreters during the Reformation thought the word Hell was too strong so substituted others for it. Such as Sheol, Gehanna, depths.

It is absolutely impossible for it to say "Hell" because the Hebrew word is Sheol, which in Greek is Hades, and the New Testament uses Gahenna to mean the eternal fire, which is different from Hades/Sheol. "Hell" is an English word that is used to mistranslate the other three. The King James may be more accurate for some things, but it isn't accurate for this, because it uses "hell" for all these words and therefore doesn't make a critical distinction between these two *different* concepts -- Hades/Sheol and Gahenna.

In the Oxford Annotated, which uses the Revised Standard Edition, it says "If I ascend to heaven, thou art there! If I make my bed in Sheol, thou art there!"

Therefore I feel confident in assuming that the Septuagint uses "Hades." And I do not think that one can justify the assertion that the presence of the Lord is felt in Hell on the basis of this, as "Hell" corresponds to Gahenna, and not to Hades (except in the abundant mistranslations where it is used to refer to both of these distinct concepts).

Chris

Chris Masterjohn

29-08-2007, 04:28 AM

I'm sorry as I still have not read through all of the posts in this thread, so I hope this hasn't already been addressed and forgive me if it has, but:

Can not the two ideas of God's presence being felt in Hell (the love that tortures those who hate) and being cast away from God in Hell both be reconciled to each other by consider that we are separated from God's nature, but not his love?

In other words, we cannot partake of the immortality or the love that is part of his nature, and thus die the death of sin, and are void of the divine love with respect to our nature. But, the presence of God may still extend into the depths of hell and torture those who do not love.

But, for those who become like God, they partake in his immortal nature as well as the nature of the divine fire of love. When fire meets with fire, it does not consume the fire because fire and fire are of the same nature. Instead, the flame becomes bigger and the fire intensifies. But when fire combines with paper, it consumes the paper, because the paper and the fire are not of the same nature.

So being cast away from God is our separation from his nature, but the ever presence of God does not cease to operate, and those who are punished in hell are punished by this presence, whose nature they cannot and do not partake of.

Chris

Herman Blaydoe

29-08-2007, 05:02 PM

So being cast away from God is our separation from his nature, but the ever presence of God does not cease to operate, and those who are punished in hell are punished by this presence, whose nature they cannot and do not partake of.

Sounds reasonable to this simple mind. This would certainly account for the impassable chasm between the rich man and Lazarus in the parable as well as resolving the problem of how could God "not" be.

Jonathan Michael

17-06-2008, 08:08 AM

Can not the two ideas of God's presence being felt in Hell (the love that tortures those who hate) and being cast away from God in Hell both be reconciled to each other by consider that we are separated from God's nature, but not his love?

Yes, this seems sensible, I think - and if we think in this way then the separation of the never-repentant from God's direct presence could be seen as an act of great mercy. Even though it would still feel as a punishment for the unrepentant, it would be better than to behold God in His full glory, which would surely destroy the person utterly.

Anyway, I'm bumping this thread because I happened to read The River of Fire yesterday and got to this thread through Google. What I was actually doing was searching for the Icon of the Last Judgement that Dr Kalomiros refers to in chapter XVII:

In the icon of the Last Judgment we see Our Lord Jesus Christ seated on a throne. On His right we see His friends, the blessed men and women who lived by His love. On His left we see His enemies, all those who passed their life hating Him, even if they appeared to be pious and reverent. And there, in the midst of the two, springing from Christ's throne, we see a river of fire coming toward us. What is this river of fire? Is it an instrument of torture? Is it an energy of vengeance coming out from God in order to vanquish His enemies?

No, nothing of the sort. This river of fire is the river which "came out from Eden to water the paradise" of old (Gen. 2:10). It is the river of the grace of God which irrigated God's saints from the beginning. In a word, it is the out-pouring of God's love for His creatures. Love is fire. Anyone who loves knows this. God is Love, so God is Fire. And fire consumes all those who are not fire themselves, and renders bright and shining all those who are fire themselves (Heb. 12:29).

Now, I have read the idea of God being both light and fire - depending on whether we are righteous or unrepentant respectively - before and it has appealed to me. This is because the explanaition is "nice" (in the original sense of the word, i.e. neat, rather than the modified usage of the word: pleasant), whereas other explainations of the presence of Hell seem to negate either God's love or His power.

Here I want to address some earlier points in this thread (all of three years ago!) about Dr Kalomiros teaching universal salvation. This he categorically does not do; in fact he uses the universal salvation as a rhetorical point to prove that a certain view of God and Hell is wrong. Basically, if we believe that God created Hell, then we must believe that it is for a good and loving purpose, therefore we must believe that it will eventually disappear - otherwise it has no good purpose. Thus we get the belief in universal salvation, which Kalomiros makes plain is a heresy. The rebuttal, and the main thrust of his book, is that God does not create Hell at all, it is not a place He sends us to, and it is not temporary. Rather, Hell is the experience of the unrepentant before God; the Father does not create Hell, we create Hell by hating God. As Kalimiros puts it:

No, my brothers, unhappily for us, paradise or hell does not depend on God. If it depended on God, we would have nothing to fear. We have nothing to fear from Love. But it does not depend on God. It depends entirely upon us, and this is the whole tragedy. God wants us to be in His image, eternally free. He respects us absolutely. This is love. Without respect, we cannot speak of love. We are men because we are free. If we were not free, we would be clever animals, not men. God will never take back this gift of freedom which renders us what we are.

So to those who are never-repentant, this Hell is eternal. And indeed Dr Kalomiros does suggest that after the Final Judgement and the General Ressurection, there will be nothing left to change us or correct us - that must all be done before "the end of days". Therefore the Last Judgement is eternal.

Anyway, much as I liked Dr Kalomiros' work, the problem I have is the first quote I gave in this thread. Kalomiros talks of the River of Fire in the Icon of the Last Judgement, yet, I cannot find an icon of the Last Judgement online that has this river of fire! Any help would be appreciated.

Max

20-06-2008, 07:31 PM

Christ is the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world.

Whatever your view, your conscience must be cleansed in order to approach God the Father, the Source of Life. A conscience that fears God's judgment cannot turn to God, but is wholly imprisoned to sin and hatred for God and His children.

Those with an imprisoned conscience can only find relief and liberty for their conscience through the knowledge that their sins are forgiven - that God is not at war with them.

The declaration that God is not at war with us anymore, but has buried our sin forever, comes through the Message of the Cross where the Lamb of God shed His blood to atone for the sins of the entire world. Nobody is excluded from His atonement. He loved the whole world and bought the whole world with His blood.

However, some will not allow the light of the Gospel of Peace to touch their conscience, but choose to live imprisoned to their sin. In pride, they will not admit that God has completely forgiven their sin in Christ because they know it means they would owe Him love and submission. The end result is that these souls will forever suffer in their conscience for their sins - as they choose.

M.C. Steenberg

20-06-2008, 08:55 PM

Dear Max,

Thank you for your interesting post. There is certainly very much that is laudable in what you say, and it was thought-provoking to read.

I would be wary of drawing too strong a dichotomy between one who has found the light of peace, who knows and lives in the knowledge of 'the declaration that God is not at war with us', and one who 'fears God's judgement'. The fathers seem fairly consistent in noting that the fear of God, be it holy fear and not irrational, passionate fear, is part of the strength of true love of God. This is indeed why the final Sunday preparatory to Great Lent -- which is itself the season of preparation for the joy of the Resurrection, Holy Pascha -- is called 'the Sunday of the Last Judgement', in which the principal theme in the hymns is holy fear.

The mystery of holy fear is bound up in the intertwining of the two scriptural proclamations: 'the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom', and 'perfect love casts out fear'. Fear without love is a sign of ignorance. Love without fear is a sign of arrogance.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Max

21-06-2008, 01:54 AM

Good points.

My post had more to do with unregenerate humanity's inner fearfulness of God because of His righteous judgment - that fear of death (the penalty of sin) which causes a life of vanity.

It's this fearfulness that the Gospel removes from the conscience, being replaced with a "Spirit of power and love and a sound mind."

Since Christ has taken death (the penalty of sin) upon Himself, we are released from that threat (death) which caused fearfulness in our conscience.

So, whatever your view, the important thing here is to maintain the Gospel of Peace and Reconciliation which turns the soul from enmity toward God to peace with God. This is the Message of the Cross, Christ's sacrifice, which produces this peace. Nothing else can relieve a tormented soul and set it on the path of liberty.

Christophoros

29-01-2009, 08:44 PM

Father David Moser

29-01-2009, 09:11 PM

'The River of Fire' Revisited, by Vladimir Moss:

Is there a point that you wish to make from this article? I find that just posting other opinions (and questionable ones at that) without comment to be not useful to the discussion.

I would like to reiterate my own comments from post 69 in this discussion:

As always, it is important to remember that the "the River of Fire" is a metaphor- a "verbal icon" of a reality that we cannot really grasp with our limited minds and thus it is not to be take literally, but only figuratively.

It is difficult to analytically critique an icon as though it were the actual reality

Fr David Moser

Christophoros

29-01-2009, 09:22 PM

Is there a point that you wish to make from this article? I find that just posting other opinions (and questionable ones at that) without comment to be not useful to the discussion.

I personally find diverse opinions useful, even without adding my own personal two cents worth.

This thread was started by some asking for "some help understanding this issue, and some clear understanding about the status of 'The River of Fire' as doctrine." The link provides an Orthodox article which precisely deals with his question, whether or not you or I or anyone else agree with the author's conclusions.

Daniel M. Head

06-02-2009, 05:39 AM

'The River of Fire' Revisited, by Vladimir Moss:

http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/207/%E2%80%9C-river-fire%E2%80%9D-revisited/
Thank you for posting this! I found it to be a very useful counter-balance.

Herman Blaydoe

06-02-2009, 01:56 PM

Thank you for posting this! I found it to be a very useful counter-balance.

I think it worth pointing out that neither Vladimir Moss nor Dr. Kalomiros represent "mainline" Orthodox theologians. Both are often quoted but neither are considered sources of Orthodox theology as far as I have been able to determine. Both individuals are problematic and very controversial which puts them somewhat at odds with the Orthodox spirit of conciliarity.

Both opinions are worth considering, but I would not recommend accepting either as "doctrine" without consulting someone you consider competent spiritual authority.

Herman

Jonathan Michael

22-02-2009, 05:01 AM

I seem to remember someone on this thread asking where an icon of the Last Judgement can be found that shows the "river of fire" as described in this particular essay. I had also found difficulties in locating such an icon, but here is one:

http://www.edmontoneparchy.com/images/icons/St.%20George%20Parish/W%201.JPG

BTW, does any one know who the naked bloke chained(?) to the pillar at the bottom of the icon is/represents? Also, the circle to the right has people coming up from the graves after hearing the trumpet call of the angels; but why is it surrounded with water and drowning people? Is this in relation to the flood?

Well, there's a lot going on in this icon; perhaps I should have posted these questions in a more relevant thread.

Matthew Panchisin

22-02-2009, 08:52 PM

Dear Johnathan,

The Orthodox Church teaches that God is forgiving always, the time for us to forgive is today, everyday, every moment no matter what. It is the central reality to Orthodox Christianity. We all know that when we forgive, there is peace in our souls. Keeping in mind that Gods' mercy is like an ocean and endureth forever, to cry out; Lord forgive me for being unforgiving at the final judgment might place a man in a tight spot with his spiritual powers bound. God forgives the man, Gods' creature man made in Gods' image and likeness has the grace to forgive.

The Orthodox Church calls the last Sunday before Great Lent Forgiveness Sunday. There is much that could be said about this and has been said by many in very good ways.

Here is a bit by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann.

"Why is it that the Church wants us to begin Lenten season with forgiveness and reconciliation? These questions are in order because for too many people Lent means primarily, and almost exclusively, a change of diet, the compliance with ecclesiastical regulations concerning fasting. They understand fasting as an end in itself, as a "good deed" required by God and carrying in itself its merit and its reward. But, the Church spares no effort in revealing to us that fasting is but a means, one among many, towards a higher goal: the spiritual renewal of man, his return to God, true repentance and, therefore, true reconciliation. The Church spares no effort in warning us against a hypocritical and pharisaic fasting, against the reduction of religion to mere external obligations. As a Lenten hymn says:

In vain do you rejoice in no eating, O soul!

For you abstain from food,

But from passions you are not purified.

If you persevere in sin, you will perform a useless fast.

Now, forgiveness stands at the very center of Christian faith and of Christian life because Christianity itself is, above all, the religion of forgiveness. God forgives us, and His forgiveness is in Christ, His Son, Whom He sends to us, so that by sharing in His humanity we may share in His love and be truly reconciled with God. Indeed, Christianity has no other content but love. And it is primarily the renewal of that love, a return to it, a growth in it, that we seek in Great Lent, in fasting and prayer, in the entire spirit and the entire effort of that season. Thus, truly forgiveness is both the beginning of, and the proper condition for the Lenten season."

I think this is a good short read in context here:

http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/forgivenesssunday.html

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Albion

01-05-2009, 04:10 PM

I would like to ask a much simpler, more direct question: Does Eastern Orthodoxy have a doctrine of Heaven and Hell and, if so, what is it?

I am a catechumen, and just this week my parish priest and catechist introduced to me a concept remarkably like what is discussed in The River of Fire.

This was the first completely novel idea that I have encountered in Orthodoxy, as everything else I have learned has for the most part been an elaboration on concepts I already embraced as an Anglo-Catholic.

I asked for suggestions on reading material, but he didn't have anything to hand, so I did some searching on the net and came up with Kalomiros.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

01-05-2009, 06:34 PM

Albion wrote:

I would like to ask a much simpler, more direct question: Does Eastern Orthodoxy have a doctrine of Heaven and Hell and, if so, what is it?

Yes- absolutely. It is within this framework after all that choice has any reality at all to it.

In other words to say it at its most simple- heaven is a turning towards God while hell is a turning away from Him.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

Albion

01-05-2009, 07:07 PM

Albion wrote:

In other words to say it at its most simple- heaven is a turning towards God while hell is a turning away from Him.

Thank you, Fr Raphael. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that, but I'm afraid your answer was rather short of the substance necessary to satisfy my curious mind. :>)

If I understood my priest correctly, heaven and hell lie on something like a continuum running, say, from minus 10 to plus 10. Anything in negative territory would be described as hell, and anything in positive territory as heaven.

At death, each of us ends up with a number, based on the extent to which, if at all, we have striven during our lives toward theosis, with +10 being some sort of perfect union with Christ and, say, +3 a very poor second. The same, in negative terms, would apply to hell. A -1 would be pretty miserable, but nothing compared with the absolute hell, if you'll pardon the pun, of -10.

This, in turn, is all seen in the context of the presence in our eternal lives of the light of Christ. For the saved, it is enlightening and warming, while for the damned it burns and cannot be looked on without pain.

Hence, there is no real change after death -- we pretty much pick up on the other side where we left off on this side, but with no further progress for the saved or deterioration for the damned.

I came in to this conversation with the belief that, in Christ, all are perfected in death so that, in effect, everyone who is saved ends up with a +10, while the damned all end up with a -10.

This is simplistic, and quite possibly a mischaracterisation of what my priest told me, but it is a starter for the sake of discussion.

Theophrastus

01-05-2009, 07:16 PM

As Jung would say, "Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit", which might be loosely, "river-of-firely" translated as "Whether you face Him or turn away from Him, God is present".

Of course, each choice has its own outcomes.

Paul Cowan

01-05-2009, 11:40 PM

I came in to this conversation with the belief that, in Christ, all are perfected in death so that, in effect, everyone who is saved ends up with a +10, while the damned all end up with a -10.

I don't think this sounds right. Are you saying we are perfected in death as in we have the opportunity to alter our state after death? This is pergatory and the EO do not believe this. We only have this life to perfect ourselves. If you mean we will come face to face with our creator and all sin is wiped away from His presence, then I think we do believe this.

St. Paul was taken up to the 3rd Heaven. That says to me there are varying degrees to theosis as well as verying degrees of hell so your sliding scale sounds like a good mental picture. God will spew out the luke warm. I hope I am at least a 0.01 on your scale.

Paul

Kosta

02-05-2009, 03:58 AM

Orthodoxy does indeed believe in degrees of seperation. One cannot expect the avergae joe to recieve the same rewards and bliss in paradise as a martyr for instance. Likewise one should not expect that a petty criminal to recieve the same severe punishment as Hitler.

This is not something new of course, its found all over the scripture. The disciples debated amongst themselves as to who is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven. Christ responded. 'Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven"(Matt 18.4).

Likewise Christ says, "...Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for sodom and Gomorah in the day of judgement than for that city."(Mark 6.11)

Sin is missing the mark. The more you miss it the more you seperate yourself from God. In the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus, the rich man is not that bad off, he can see Abrahams bosom, he could of been in utter darkness where theres gnashing of teeth.
Anotherwords he is further seperated from the divine Light. Or as some theologians point out, the holy souls feels and experience the pure and divine light as bliss while the wicked feel that same light as a burning tormenting flame, a kind of radiation.

Paul Cowan

02-05-2009, 06:21 AM

I've read somewhere a man in the deepest pits of hell asked the devil why he was constantly being tormented in the extreme yet others were not as miserable as he was. The reply was "That man over there was a murderer and he is being punished for his sin. This one was a thief and is also being punished for his sin. You though, because of the obscene materials you made available for others, causing them to commit sin have the worse punishment since even after your death people are sinning because of you. Each person that now commits sin because of you, his sin is credited to your punishment now and into the future."

Paul

Christopher Dombrowski

02-05-2009, 09:15 AM

Well, I can see one point that this girl might be making in saying that the Eastern Orthodox do not believe in punishment of sin. Of course in a general, unqualified, and absolute manner this does not make sense. But for example, if we are to look at the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, we can see that there is a difference in understanding how and when and in what cases of sin this punishment happens. The Romans propose that believers must suffer the punishment due their sin even if they have repented and turned away from it to the Christian life. To most Eastern Orthodox believers this sounds like utter nonsense. Why would a repentant Christian still be bound to suffer punishment for sins that they have left behind and that God has forgiven them? Rather the penalty for sin is the self-inflicted torment experienced by the hardhearted who insist on rejecting the salvation of Christ. This is very different from the juridicial, inherent, and absolute principle of punishment for sin found in the West, and it could very well be said that the EO do not believe in that type of punishment of sin.

Albion

02-05-2009, 10:21 AM

Can anyone suggest readings for me apart from River of Fire?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

02-05-2009, 04:16 PM

Albion wrote:

If I understood my priest correctly, heaven and hell lie on something like a continuum running, say, from minus 10 to plus 10. Anything in negative territory would be described as hell, and anything in positive territory as heaven.

At death, each of us ends up with a number, based on the extent to which, if at all, we have striven during our lives toward theosis, with +10 being some sort of perfect union with Christ and, say, +3 a very poor second. The same, in negative terms, would apply to hell. A -1 would be pretty miserable, but nothing compared with the absolute hell, if you'll pardon the pun, of -10.

The challenge I think is for us to discern where anyone else is along this line. The Good Thief after all stole paradise in a second. A second before it was quite different!

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

Theophrastus

02-05-2009, 04:44 PM

But for example, if we are to look at the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, we can see that there is a difference in understanding how and when and in what cases of sin this punishment happens. The Romans propose that believers must suffer the punishment due their sin even if they have repented and turned away from it to the Christian life.

I think a Roman might point to Matthew 5:26:

Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Perhaps the idea here is that, repentance is necessary, but the effects of one's actions must still play themselves out. Someone with an STD might repent and be forgiven for past discretions, but he would still have to experience the physical consequences of his actions.

Owen Jones

02-05-2009, 05:03 PM

Paul Cowan

02-05-2009, 08:26 PM

Perhaps the idea here is that, repentance is necessary, but the effects of one's actions must still play themselves out. Someone with an STD might repent and be forgiven for past discretions, but he would still have to experience the physical consequences of his actions.

Yes, but the repentence and consequesnces are here and now, not in the next life. Once there, all is finished. There are no do-overs or do-betters. Since none of us are worthy of Heaven, it s only by Grace and Mercy God may allow us to enter regardless of our sinfulness; or piety.

Paul

Kosta

02-05-2009, 10:19 PM

Can anyone suggest readings for me apart from River of Fire?

I always liked the book: "The World Beyond the Grave or the Afterlife" written by Bishop Athenagoras Cavadas originally written back in like 1940 or something. It doesnt sensationalize anything and basically sticks to scripture and the Fathers. And i think it may explain the basic concept your priest was talking about

I believe you maybe able to get it directly from HolyCross Publishing from brookline and i see below a few used copies are available thru Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Beyond-Grave-After-Life/dp/0917651529/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1241295266&sr=1-1

Christopher Dombrowski

03-05-2009, 12:31 AM

I think a Roman might point to Matthew 5:26

I think if they were to do so to suggest that all must suffer the punishments of their sin regardless of their status in the Kingdom, then they must not be aware of the context of that passage. If you read even just the passage proceeding it, it should make it quite clear that it is referring to the unrepentant:

"Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court* (javascript:void(0);) with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny." (emphasis mine)

Perhaps the idea here is that, repentance is necessary, but the effects of one's actions must still play themselves out. Someone with an STD might repent and be forgiven for past discretions, but he would still have to experience the physical consequences of his actions.

I would say that has more to do with the consequences of the Fall. Contracting an STD is not an inherent consequence of infidelity or casual sex, and thus it cannot be simply be viewed as a penalty for these actions. Furthermore, if a person were to become repentant for sexually immoral behavior, or really even most if not all sorts of sin, if they were to eventually repent in their lifetime without dire consequences catching up to them, I would not expect that they would have to suffer punishment for those sins in the afterlife. So there's a major difference between suffering the consequences of the Fall and even consequences directly related to your sins and the RC reality of inherently having to suffer the punishment for your sins whether in this life or the next.

Christopher Dombrowski

03-05-2009, 12:36 AM

My sense of the intent of the RC doctrine of Purgatory is that it is not one more chance for God to take a whack at you, but a last opportunity for salvation. It is akin to the idea of Toll Houses which some Orthodox ascribe to.

I would personally have to say that it's really neither. Sure, it would be safe to say that "it is not one more change for God to take a whack at you", because the Roman Catholics do not believe in a vindictive God, rather one with a rather inflexible and legalistic conception of justice. This is because He does not allow any sin to go unpunished, even if it be a sin that has been repented for and left behind. I have heard this straight from the mouth's of Roman Catholics who quoted the Vatican in saying that even those sins that have been repented for, even if they simply be venial sins, will have to be suffered for in Purgatory after death. Thus, I don't think it would even be akin to the idea of Toll Houses, because that idea is much more centered on repentance, whereas Purgatory is about the absolute nature of punishment for sin in Roman Catholicism.

Max Percy

03-05-2009, 01:54 PM

Can anyone suggest readings for me apart from River of Fire?

In Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev's book Mystery of Christ there is a good chapter on this

Albion

03-05-2009, 08:43 PM

Thanks, Max. I think the book you are talking about is Mystery of Faith, no?

Meantime, I've found a short catechism by Bishop Hilarion which answers some of the questions, but not all.

I'm meeting my priest and catechist again on Thursday, and will take it up with him again.

Albion

04-05-2009, 08:20 AM

Here is an article that was passed on to me, which I think might be of help to those with similar question:

http://aggreen.net/beliefs/heaven_hell.html

Albion

04-05-2009, 08:43 AM

Kosta,

Thank you too for your suggestion on the book by Bishop Cavada.

Albion

04-05-2009, 05:37 PM

Christopher Dombrowski

04-05-2009, 09:44 PM

Okay, brethren, I'm beginning to get the knack of the Orthodox view of heaven and hell, which raises another question: how does the repeated assertion that neither place is actually a "place," as eternity is outside of time and space, square with the doctrine of the resurrection of the body?

Well, I personally do not buy the idea that Heaven is not at all a place. I think Heaven has been a physical place ever since OLGS Jesus Christ Ascended into it with His body. I will admit that the nature of Heaven is transcendent to space and time. Thus I think the coming together of Heavenly and the Earthly will begin to share in their attributes as in the communicatio idomatum and thus result in an environment that is at once in time but beyond it and in space but beyond it, and the reality of space and time will be transformed to become "super-temporal" and "super-physical", so to speak. I think at the end of time there will be an ultimate reconciliation of the cosmos with the heavens and the cosmos will be assumed up into heaven and thus for everything there will be this communication of attributes. This is how I reconcile the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

When we speak of Heaven and Hell not being distinct places, I do not think the point is that they are not temporal or not physical. Rather, I think the idea is that Heaven and Hell are not distinct from each other in location, and thus are not different places. Both the saved and the damned will be in the direct presence of God, the substantial difference rather being the experience of that place due to their disposition to God.

Anna Regan

09-05-2009, 02:36 AM

Can anyone suggest readings for me apart from River of Fire?

I have been following this thread for awhile and for me it has raised more questions than answers, so I went looking for other material. I recently started "Life After Death" by Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos (trans. Esther Williams). I am not too far into it, but what I have read so far has been very helpful, and fascinating as well. I purchased it from St. John of Kronstadt Press.

Alvin Kimel

11-05-2009, 05:02 PM

In my opinion, the great value of "The River of Fire" is the numerous quotations to the Church Fathers. Its great weakness, though, is the way it traduces the Western tradition. Kalomiros sets up a straw man which he then effectively knocks down. I am not saying that one cannot examples (too many examples, perhaps) of the kind of theology to which Kalomiros objects, but I am suggesting that he misrepresents the Western tradition for the sake of polemical purposes and ignores the many Western voices that have sought to correct the faults and errors that he identifies in his paper.

I wonder, for example, if Kalomiros's critique touches at all the presentation of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory found in John Paul II's catechetical teachings (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM) or Benedict XVI's encyclical Spe Salvi (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html). Is not St Therese of Lisieux a Western saint and doctor of the Church and is not the love and mercy of God powerfully stated in her writings and meditations?

One of the great tasks undertaken by Western theologians has been to understand and state how the triune God of the Bible can be both a God of infinite love and mercy and a God of perfect justice and righteousness. This is no easy matter. Perhaps the task is impossible. Yet I do not think we do justice to the whole witness of Scripture if we do not assert both the love and justice of God. It's easy enough to say that God does not "send" anyone to Hell, that it is the sinner who sends himself to Hell by his rejection of God; but I think that more than a few moments reflection will reveal that this does not suffice as an adequate answer. It is true, perhaps the most essential thing for us to say; but it is not the whole truth. If it is true that Hell exists, that there are individuals who freely and definitively reject God and thus suffer pain eternally as a result, it is also true that in some way we must say that God wills this to be so. It he did not, it would not be. Nothing exists apart from God's willing. We cannot, of course, even begin to understand any of this, because we cannot conceive the interacdtion between the infinite transcendent Deity and the finite contingent universe he has made. If there are some individuals who suffer eternally, then somehow this must be understood as just, as a just punishment, because the God and Father of Jesus Christ would never permit injustice to stand eternally.

When I first read "The River of Fire" I remember well my first reaction: Has this man never read C. S. Lewis?

Matthew Panchisin

16-05-2009, 10:05 PM

Dear Father Alvin,

It seems here that there are many problematic concepts within much of what you have written, I don't have much time now so I'll comment on a few that stick out, starting with the most disturbing.

You have mentioned:

"If it is true that Hell exists, that there are individuals who freely and definitively reject God and thus suffer pain eternally as a result, it is also true that in some way we must say that God wills this to be so. It he did not, it would not be. Nothing exists apart from God's willing."

My first thought in response to your comments is that sin exists, God did not will it into existence, it was choosen by others, it was not willed by God. God did not will the fall of Devil or Adam. He knew it would happen as he knows all things, but foreknowledge isn't the same as God's will being done. To this day man can choose to do God's will or go other ways that lead to different places. At least that is what we are taught in Orthodoxy.

At best, this sounds like a blatant injustice to God and the Gospel. Father Alvin, upon further reflection, what do you think it does to the fiat of the Theotokas when she learned that she would give birth to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. What type of joy and gladness is there in wrong conclusions about Gods will. In your tradition is there not a novena that is prayed so that like Mary, Christians say yes to God, in all circumstances in life that are discerned as right and pleasing to God. Surely you would not say yes that in some way God wills that which is not salvific. Perhaps better to say God's gift of free will is freely received and freely given. If it was Gods' will that free will be constrained wrongly so that his will is done it is not free will. Mans freedom with that gift is to work hand in hand with God. It is never God's will that the most blessed of relationships are severed. A great price was paid as you know for even a greater relationship. Friendship, cooperation is always more intimate than subjectivity. It is good to be keeping in mind that the Orthodox relationship with the heavenly king, the comforter, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth (who is everywhere present) comforts us in the knowledge that the Glory of the Lord God shines in the New Jerusalem, there is no shadow of turning with God. It's the most blessed light.

The wrong way would be a much different understanding of God, who he is, his wisdom and his providence than encountered in the Orthodox Church. The prayers that Orthodox Christians pray do not convey such notions as you have expressed, at all. A different type of mercy is conveyed. I think that we can recall in Holy writ we read that God desires not the death of sinners. As such when sinners are in wrong places it is not God's holy will that prevails. God doesn't preach disobedience to his commandments or allow people to perish so that his will is done, their will is done not his. That's how people end up in the wrong places. So for us, it is not also true that in some way we must say that God wills this to be so. God's kingdom does not come from below. If a house divided cannot stand how could king divided be a just place. If his seamless garment is torn, it is not his will. Unity of faith presupposes that God's justice is not a contradiction to his holy will, the Orthodox are aware of such things. If it is Gods' will in some way that people perish because he allows the free will of man to be used (as you have mentioned) then God's will would not be done by God. The will of the good shepherd is good, it is not the good shepherds will that his sheep should perish. One sheep even on the Sabbath is precious to him. To me what you have written and others that you reference justify the remarks of Kalomiros having read what you have written in response. His thinking is not something we have not heard before or misunderstood.

Christians pray prayers like "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". Since this prayer comes down to us from the heart of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I think that it implies that Gods' will is not always done on earth by man. God does not will that Gods' will is not done on earth or anywhere else according to the understandings found within the Orthodox Church. God is longsuffering and of great goodness, he maketh the sun to shine on the good and the evil. The free will given to man by God is given so that God is glorified, therein is the ultimate joy for mankind. How is God glorified rightly as in the Orthodox way (with right faith and worship ) when one subscribes to notions that end up greatly distorting who he is.

I don't think we must say with you that in some way that it is God's will that his creatures that he loves eternally suffer pain eternally. One is free to think in such ways, but we are not of one mind with you on this. This seems to us to be way out of sync with what we must say, namely that God is love and that love and communion can't relagate itself to accept the things with papal papers that are inconsistant with the tradtitions of the Orthodox Church. In our Orthodox tradition such thoughts are not to be expressed rather they are to be dismissed at the root. The problem is the root in west with the errors that are taught and preached, the root being obedience to those in error or heresy.

When a man loves who is father and lets his children freely play within in their home and a child disobeys his guidance for the children not to play with matches, or other things, does that mean it is the fathers will that children are hurt? Man is made in Gods' image and likeness and is called to obedience to God for his own good, it is not Gods' will that his image and likeness perishes or that it is distorted. Man knows this within himself when he sins, and response of the Orthodox Church is loving. Sins are forgiven and man is reconciled with our loving God. If we can see that a good father on earth does not want his children to perish, it is not his will, how much more so does our Father who is in heaven not want man to perish. We would say so much so that he sent his only begotten son to suffer for us in atonement for our sins in a different way.

Hence there is authentic joy in the Orthodox Church, this often seen by others during Pascha. Popes often comment on how beautifully the Orthodox Church celebrates Pashca. The Orthodox see liturgical developments and reductions in the west as symptomatic of greater problems. It is an often expressed hope that your tradition might return to the true Church of Christ the Orthodox Church so that the errors of the papacy stop entangling people.

You have mentioned:

"One of the great tasks undertaken by Western theologians has been to understand and state how the triune God of the Bible can be both a God of infinite love and mercy and a God of perfect justice and righteousness. This is no easy matter. Perhaps the task is impossible."

I don't think it can ever be understood as long as right faith meaning Orthodoxy is not embraced, its a matter of how such questions are approached. If the real approach fathers is lived, then it can be understood. I say this having spent some time with those that go about things that way, which I think is good to share with others to some extent. The extent is limited by my limitations, this is a common challenge for all of us.

At the root of this, it seems that it might be good to keep in mind that God is holy beyond reason, but not beyond faith for us. The ceaseless chanting of Holy, Holy, Holy, by those that are very close to God, the holy angels, might seem redundant using our reasoning abilities, but the depths of the mysteries of God are not rightly probed with the intellect detached of from Orthodoxy.

Questions regarding Gods' will I think need to bear in mind that his ways arenot our ways. They are much higher because he is Most High. So the example of a loving Father not wanting his children to perish (it is not his will) are confined somewhere between heaven and earth at this time. However the Father will reap what he sows, love for his children even if they don't listen to him? We would say yes, he still loves them and no lover of man wills in anyway the eternal damnation of the beloved, that would seem quite perverse. The holy will of our heavenly Father, the chalice is approached in the fear of God with faith and love as we know in the Divine Liturgy.

Even matters relative to the Theotokas and the novel IC dogma from Rome are really not even addressed liturgically in the Orthodox Church as they are in general discussions in other places. Rather encountered much differently therein. Such endeavors often reveal the limitations of reason. One can bring to mind the Akathist to the Theotokas to see the limitations of human reasoning, even for the holy angels with rather keen intellects. It is good to hear others point to that blessed place where the things of heaven are on earth... To the glory of God, alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, (right worship) transcends the reasoning of others outside the Church .

Since God is holy beyond reason (I think that reason is like a dry leaf in a fire in such matters) how many seemingly reasonable prayers do people pray and find unsatisfactory responses according to tenets of reason? In the Theotokas we can see that faith and obedience transcend reason. There are many things in the gospel accounts that don't seem reasonable via the mind. Yet I think the great faith of the Fathers (as understood in the Orthodox Church) rightly order their intellects so it is illuminated reasoning or graceful thinking. With faith moving beyond reason (which seems to me to be how the Church fathers lense things) the intellect is subdued or rightly ordered, that is within the Orthodox Church. The papal west just goes about things much differently. I think this is why in the Orthodox Church the same Church Fathers can be read and understood much differently than in other places. What seems to happen is that things that are utterly foreign to Orthodoxy end up being forced into text by people who want them to say things that they don't even really say. In other words the spirit of Orthodoxy ends up being subject to the reasoning of men which explains why impossible tasks become reality for them. So the spirit of dominance over things and people ultlimately creates problems, the dominated can have true peace, those that dominate can't. That is why the papacy that the west has created is so terrible and many more errors can be seen developing. Many have argued in the past and present that what Rome has done to text from the Church Fathers and Holy writ to set up a man or rather puff him up is straw, I agree with them.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Evan

17-05-2009, 05:40 PM

My problem with "River of Fire" is perhaps more simple: Kalomiros is so determined to assert that our salvation depends on our freely choosing to love God that he reduces God to a static entity, an indifferent fire that consumes straw and purifies gold, rather than a shepherd that seperates the sheep from the goats.

I found the critique of "River of Fire" presented earlier in this thread to be highly compelling, as it spoke to just this issue. I'm curious as to whether both essays are considered fully Orthodox.

Alvin Kimel

19-05-2009, 08:31 PM

Matthew Panchisin, given that your acquaintance with the Catholic tradition is clearly limited, I would suggest that you avoid comparisons between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Both of our traditions are much richer and more complex than your comment suggests.

It would be wonderful if the mysteries of damnation, suffering, providence, and divine causality could be reduced in such a way that God is absolved of all responsibility for Hell; but I do not believe that either Scripture or philosophical reasoning allows us such a simplistic solution. Several parables of our Lord portray God as he who actively and decisively separates the wheat and the chaff, the sheep and the goats, the wicked and the righteous. The parable of the marriage feast (Matt 22:1-14) and the last judgment (Matt 25:31-46) immediately come to mind. God is not just a passive witness to our freely chosen damnation: he is also our judge.

The relationship between divine and creaturely freedom must not be simplistically construed. Even if we wish to say--as indeed I certainly wish to say, and as all good Catholic theologians do say, and as the Catholic Church has dogmatically defined!--that God does not ordain evil, the simple fact remains that God actively maintains me in existence and gives me the power to act wickedly at every moment, at this moment in this particular sinful act. Perhaps we might wish to employ here the language of permission--i.e., God permits evil but does not ordain it--but it is a permission that is similar to and different from a parent who "allows" his children to make free choices The difference is posed by the fact that creaturely existence, including free creaturely acts and their consequences, is radically and ultimately dependent upon and comprehended within God and his creative will. Divine permitting is itself a kind of willing. I suspect we cannot truly understand this, as we cannot truly understand the relationship between the transcendent Creator and creation.

More to the point, if God "permits" individuals to suffer eternally in eternal alienation from God, when, for example, he could, if he so chose, simply withdraw existence from them and allow them to collapse into non-being, please explain to me how he is not, in some sense, responsible for Hell. I suggest that this element of divine responsibility is expressed in the notion that God will punish the wicked on the last day.

I return to my original comment. Kalomiros is guilty of irresponsible caricature and traducement. He does not understand the Catholic theological tradition. He has created a straw Western man simply for the purpose of asserting the superiority of the Eastern tradition. This is not to say that "River of Fire" lacks all positive value. I am grateful for the various patristic citations in the article, and I welcome the passionate assertion of the infinite love and mercy of God. But the essay is severely flawed nonetheless. It is perhaps best classified as polemic and not theology.