The mechanics of salvation

[Elena]

A friend shared her view of salvation with me.

God the Father has a righteous wrath towards all of us, Jesus stands between us deflecting this wrath from us and so saves us.

This vision of the Trinity standing in opposition confused me and I retreated from the conversation muttering something about that being an interesting idea. Can anyone advise me as to a suitable response, indeed to a general emphasis on God's just and righteous wrath.

[Kris]

A friend shared her view of salvation with me.

God the Father has a righteous wrath towards all of us, Jesus stands between us deflecting this wrath from us and so saves us.

This vision of the Trinity standing in opposition confused me and I retreated from the conversation muttering something about that being an interesting idea. Can anyone advise me as to a suitable response, indeed to a general emphasis on God's just and righteous wrath.

Peace,

This idea is one common among Protestants. However, it is also a dualist one that seems to undermine the unity of the Godhead, pointing almost to some kind of quasi-Arianism.

I would recommend you read the River of Fire by Alexandre Kalomiros, which deals with this issue in some depth; quoting extensively from Orthodox Fathers like St. Isaac the Syrian.

The article is very polemic, and tends to over-generalise the Protestant view, but its a very good answer to your friend's position.

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

Please pray for me, a sinner.

[Elena]

Dear Kris,

Thank you for posting 'The River of Fire'. It is a very forceful work on the difference in attitudes between east and west. I am sorry for taking so long to reply but I wanted to read it several times before I did. Whilst it was very useful I would also like to know what the more general Orthodox view of Jesus' role in salvation.

With love,

Elena

[Kris]

Dear Kris,

Thank you for posting 'The River of Fire'. It is a very forceful work on the difference in attitudes between east and west. I am sorry for taking so long to reply but I wanted to read it several times before I did. Whilst it was very useful I would also like to know what the more general Orthodox view of Jesus' role in salvation.

With love,

Elena

Dear Elena,

I am not particularly well qualified to answer such a profound question, but I'll give it a shot.

God created man to be in communion with Him. This is man's natural state; just like a fish was created to swim in the water. When a fish is taken out of the water, it eventually dies. In the same way, when Adam, using his God-given free will, chose to reject God and separated himself from Him through his sinful actions, he became subject to sin and death.

The aim of the Incarnation and the redeeming work of Christ was to reverse this separation, and to free man from the bondage of sin and death. By taking into Himself a complete human nature, God (without changing what He was already) became omoousios (of one essence) with all mankind.

By His death, He descended into Hades. But because He was also God, Hades could not hold him and, to use the language of the Fathers, vomited Him out. By this, His glorious resurrection, He destroyed death's binding power, opening the way to resurrection for all of us.

He changed death from eternal bondage into a passover (Pascha) from this fallen life to the next eternal one. And by His ascencion, He "elevated" man, so to speak.

I apologise for the inadequacy of this explanation, but hope it was of atleast some use.

In XC,
Kris

[Elena]

Dear Kris,

Thank you for you reply, and so speedy as well. Your explination was just what I needed and tallied with what I had instinctively thought about salvation. I confess before my friend brought it up I had never thought that much about the actual mechanics of salvation as a whole, all I knew was that I recoiled from her vision of it. Unfortunaly I am ignorant of much of the Church's theology and well everything, so please forgive me if I ask what seem very obvious questions.

Thank you again, with love,

Elena

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Elena

One of the problems with Western Protestant thought about salvation is that it tends to take one of the analogies used in the Scripture and excludes many of the others.

Our sinful state is indeed described as something that justly places us as deserving of God's wrath, but of course it is God Himself who loves us and sends His Son for our life and not for our judgement.

The idea that God is so angry that He needs to punish SOMEONE, so His Son comes and defends us from God's anger, has never been part of the consensus of Orthodox thought. God is angry with our sin, and angry with us even when we give way to sin, but His reponse is love, not hatred.

If there is anyone who says 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' it is God Himself.

Other analogies that are necessary to help us to get a rounded view of salvation are the idea of sin as a sickness which Christ heals, especially through the medicine of salvation, the sacraments.

Or the idea of salvation as an Ark, using the model of Noah. We are all drowning souls and God Himself provides a means of our rescue.

Or the idea of Christ being a Trojan Horse which deceives the enemy who thinks that by compehending the incarnate Word in death he has won a great victory but discovers too late that Death by Death is trampled down.

Or even the idea of Christ paying a ransom to set us free from slavery and bondage.

There are many more analogies and signs and symbols in the Scriptures.

These all show various aspects of our salvation, different shades of meaning. But any one, taken on its own, could lead to error or imbalance. This is, I think, what has happened in the West, in Augustinian Catholicism and then in Protestantism.

We can see the same prospect of error in our own Apostolic Tradition where the temptation is perhaps to believe that mere participation in the form of the sacraments is the same as participation in the grace.

This is surely analagous in failing to comprehend what salvation means in the Orthodox concept, to the Protestant idea of simply being able to pray a prayer and all of our sins will be washed away and we will be guaranteed a place in heaven.

Both are a form of ritualism I guess. Though the Protestant ritual is rather barer and simpler than our own.

One of the interesting questions is the different conceptions of what salvation is for? Is it to get us to heaven, or to transform us here? The one seems to allow for a simple legal transaction - I was a sinner, now Jesus has taken my place and bears my punishment so I can go to heaven; or to an emphasis on a life of effort and transformation and an entering into salvation as a process now.

Peter

[Gary DeSha]

Orthodoxy does not accept the idea that we are guilty of Adam's sin. No, Adam alone was guilty of his sin. However, we do share the consequences of his sin. We are born into corruption, and with an inherited tendency or inclination toward sin. All of us sin, and so we deserve the consequences of sin: spiritual and physical death, and eternal separation from God in hades.

Between the time of Adam's fall and the coming of Christ, there were many righteous men and women, whom we read about in the Old Testament. But they, even through their godly lives, were unable to reverse the consequences of the Fall. Grace could act on them from the outside, as it did on the Prophet Moses, so much so that he had to cover his radiant face as he descended from Mount Sinai. However, this was only a temporary radiance, as the Holy Scriptures and Fathers say. He and all the Old Testament prophets did not have the Grace of the Holy Spirit abiding within them, as their personal strength and power. And after death, everyone, even the most righteous, went down into hades, being cut off from Paradise and heaven.

During the Old Testament period, God gave laws to the Hebrews to help them live righteous lives. He instituted animal sacrifices, which the Hebrews were to make as offerings for sin. These sacrifices were a prefiguration of Christ's sacrifice, to prepare the people of God to understand and accept the meaning of Christ's death on the Cross. But neither the sacrifices nor the laws were able to restore mankind to the state he had lost at the Fall.

A perfect, blameless sacrifice was needed—a man who was without sin—in order to destroy the consequences of sin. That was why Christ came. The first Adam fell from his original designation, bringing everything into ruin. Therefore Christ, Who is called the Second Adam or the New Adam, came into the world to fulfill man's original designation and restore what was lost. But Christ did even more than that. He not only restored man to what Adam was before the Fall: He gave man the possibility to become that which Adam was supposed to become, what Adam could have become had he not fallen.

Now, having looked at the pre-Fall state and the consequences of the Fall, let us look more closely at how Christ restores man to the pre-Fall state and in fact beyond and above this state.

The how of the redemption, like the nature of God the Holy Trinity, is ultimately a mystery. And yet the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers help us to approach this mystery. They enable us to understand and believe in our redemption by Jesus Christ in such a way that, believing, we can receive the gift of salvation.

Our redemption by Jesus Christ began with His incarnation. When He took flesh, He became like us in everything except sin (cf. Heb. 4:15). In assuming human nature, He deified it. Since human nature is one, this gave us the potential of being deified as well: not deified by nature and Sonship, as Christ was, but deified by Grace and adoption.

But with Christ's incarnation, man was still not able to actualize the potential for deification. Because of his spiritual corruption, man was an impure vessel. Because of the barrier of sin, man could not receive and keep the Grace of the Holy Spirit within himself. So Christ, having overcome the barrier of nature at His incarnation, now had to break down the barrier of sin. He would do this through his death. As St. Nicholas Cabasilas says, Christ broke down the three barriers that separated man from God: the barrier of nature by His incarnation, the barrier of sin by His death, and the barrier of death by His Resurrection.

As God, Christ knew He had come to earth to die for man, and in dying to rise from the grave. On the day before His crucifixion, He said: Now is My soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour (John 12:27).

Through his single spiritual death (at the Fall), Adam brought a twofold death into the world—spiritual death and bodily death. St. Gregory goes on to say, "The good Lord healed this twofold death of ours through His single bodily death, and through the one Resurrection of His body He gave us a twofold resurrection. By means of His bodily death He destroyed him who had the power over our souls and bodies in death, and rescued us from his tyranny over both."

This, again, is because human nature is one. St. Paul writes: If by one man's offence death reigned by one [that is, Adam], much more they which receive abundance of Grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign by one, Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:17).

Following the words of Christ and St. Paul in the Scriptures, the Holy Fathers use a juridical or legal model to explain how Christ broke down the barrier of sin separating man from God.

The juridical explanation can be expressed in basic terms as follows: At the Fall, death was the sentence for sin. When He died on the Cross, Christ took upon Himself that sentence, but since He was without sin and thus undeserving of the sentence, the sentence was abolished for all mankind, and mankind was freed from the consequences of the primal transgression.

The word "redemption," of course, comes from this juridical explanation. As Vladimir Lossky points out: "The very idea of redemption assumes a plainly legal aspect: it is the atonement of a slave, the debt paid for those who remained in prison because they could not discharge it. By His death Christ ransomed man out of servitude to sin, and redeemed man from the eternal consequences of sin which had been incurred at the Fall. Christ Himself spoke of this. He said of Himself: The Son of Man came … to give His life as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28). In the Epistle to the Hebrews we read: Christ is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance (Heb. 9:15). And in the book of Apocalypse: Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy Blood (Apoc. 5:9).

Christ paid the debt of sin that man himself could never pay. The Apostle John writes in his first Epistle: He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2). And the Apostle Paul tells us: Ye are bought with a price (I Cor. 6:20, 7:23). St. Paul even says that Christ was made to be sin for us and made a curse for us (II Cor. 5:21, Gal. 3:13). Being totally without sin, He bore the penalty of sin on our behalf, so that we would be forgiven and purified of sin and freed from its curse. St. Gregory Palamas says: "Since Christ gave His Blood, which was sinless and therefore guiltless, as a ransom for us who were liable to punishment because of our sins, He redeemed us from our guilt. He forgave our sins, tore up the record of them on the Cross and delivered us from the devil's tyranny.

Out of His infinite love for us, Christ died in place of us, so that we could be given life. St. Paul says: … That He [Christ] by the Grace of God should taste death for every man (Heb. 2:9); and elsewhere he says, God commendeth His own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). St. Athanasius the Great explains this as follows: "Taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to corruption and death, He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished.

Together with the juridical model of explaining how we are redeemed by Christ's death, the Holy Scriptures and Holy Fathers use the model of sacrifice. As mentioned earlier, the Old Testament sacrifices were a prefiguration, a "type" of the one true Sacrifice that would be offered for the whole world: Christ, Who was sacrificed on the Cross. In the first Epistle of St. Peter we hear Christ described as a spotless sacrificial lamb: Ye were redeemed with the precious Blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot, Who was foreordained before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19–20). And in the Epistle to the Hebrews we read: Now once at the end of the world Christ hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26).

Many of the Holy Fathers wrote on this theme of Christ as sacrifice. Origen (who is not a Holy Father) and, following him, St. Gregory of Nyssa, posited that the sacrifice was offered to the devil. But St. Gregory the Theologian and all the Fathers after him rejected this idea. They often spoke of the sacrifice as being offered to God the Father, and sometimes they spoke of it as being offered to the Holy Trinity, since the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are One God. St. Symeon the New Theologian writes: "God, Who is incomparably higher than the visible and invisible creation, accepted human nature, which is higher than the whole visible creation, and offered it as a sacrifice to His God and Father.… Honoring the sacrifice, the Father could not leave it in the hands of death. Therefore, He annihilated His sentence.

Why did the Son have to offer Himself in sacrifice to the Father? Why did God sacrifice Himself to God? Here we get at the crux of the mystery of Redemption. St. Gregory the Theologian urges us not to try to conform this mystery to human logic, not apply to it human conceptions that are unworthy of God. He says: "The Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or felt any need of it, but on account of economy," that is, to fulfill the Divine plan of our salvation in accordance with the Divine ordering of creation.

St. Gregory Palamas sheds more light on this question. He says that God could have found other ways of saving man from sin, mortality and servitude to the devil. But He saved man in the way He did—by coming to earth, dying and resurrecting—because this was according to justice and righteousness. As the Psalmist says: God is righteous and loveth righteousness … and there is no unrighteousness in Him (Ps. 11:7, 92:15). Death was the just penalty for sin, and Christ paid that penalty. But because He was sinless, His death was unjust. Therefore, He justly destroyed death. This was God's economy, completely in accordance with His righteousness.

The devil thought He could destroy Christ by inciting people to put Him to death. But Christ's death proved to be the devil's undoing because, unlike every other person who had ever lived, Christ did not deserve death. St. John Chrysostom offers us a vivid image to highlight this teaching: "It is as if, at a session of a court of justice, the devil should be addressed as follows: ‘Granted that you destroyed all men because you found them guilty of sin; but why did you destroy Christ? Is it not very evident that you did so unjustly? Well then, through Him the whole world will be vindicated."

Christ saved us in the way He did not only to manifest His justice and righteousness, but also to manifest His love. St. Isaac the Syrian writes: "God the Lord surrendered His own Son to death on the Cross for the fervent love of creation. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to death for our sake (cf. John 3:16). This was not, however, because He could not have redeemed us in another way, but so that His surpassing love, manifested hereby, might be a teacher unto us. And by the death of His only begotten Son He made us near to Himself. Yea, if He had had anything more precious, He would have given it to us, so that by it our race might be His own."

Through the totality of Christ's work of redemption, man is spiritually united with God and deified, and man's body and the entire creation are to be renewed as a spiritual and divine dwelling place.

Praise be to God!

[Ian Leyda]

Greetings all:

I will do my best to represent the Protestant point of view on this discussion with a brief comment or two. I think the first-mentioned Protestant view of salvation, that "God the Father has a righteous wrath towards all of us, Jesus stands between us deflecting this wrath from us and so saves us" may better represent the "Evangelical" point of view rather than the traditional Protestant/Reformed view.

But I do think the complexity of Atonement lies behind some of this reasoning. We must work out the tension between a God of both justice and mercy. Unfortunately, because of our need to use categories to define our thoughts we often end up assigning those attributes to particular persons of the Trinity. Thus it is within the "economy" of the Trinity that our mechanism of salvation/atonement gets worked out.

Here is the favorite: Godhead is wrath/judgment. Jesus is forgiveness/mercy. Holy Spirit forwards the exchange.

Of course, this is not quite right.

Here are some of the difficulties of Atonement that I could think of:

1. How exactly does God's judgment get worked out in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? Is God's wrath appeased or "satisfied" with Jesus' death on the cross, as Anselm argues. Did God "require" suffering (by Jesus) for justice to be realized?

2. Is Satan really in posession of our "souls" and have a valid claim on us because we have sinned? It is obviously very problematic to think that God "owed Satan" and had to pay ransom to Satan for us. Yes, the redeemer metaphor is used, but its scope must be limited. And it also is a problem to think that the cross was a "bait and switch," where God essentially tricked Satan into releasing his claim on us. God the deciever? Surely the powerful God of the Exodus did not need to outwit Satan to free his people.

Perhaps one virtue of Protestant thinking on this is its affirmation of the sovereignty of God, which places overwhelming pressure against these metaphors of atonement. Satan has valid claim to nothing and ownership of nothing by virtue of God's primacy. To whom is God indebted, for he is creator of all things? If all things were created and thus belong to God, then to whom shall God pay ransom? Will God use deception to take back what is rightfully his?

Surely I will admit and affirm the biblical metaphors of sacrifice and redeemer, for they both are used effectively to explain the implications of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. But there is much more to this mystery, I think. Indeed, salvation began in incarnation, moved through death, and capitulated in resurrection.

Ok, I am finished now. Thanks for allowing my ventillation and forgive foolishness as you have encountered it here.

Peace,

Ian

[Owen Jones]

I think the best way to look at it is that Atonement is not to be equated with salvation. Atonement makes salvation possible, but it is not the same as salvation, as Protestants would like to believe. Salvation is much, much more than just atonement for sins. Mercy through atonement is what introduces us to salvation. It is the beginning of healing if you will. Just as a visit to the hospital is just the beginning of healing. Then there is a process in which our will must become in accord with that of the physician so that we follow the regime set down and not only temporarily restore our bodies to health but transform our lives in such a way that true health becomes the natural state. In a phrase, there is no salvation apart from transformation.

[Ian Leyda]

I think the best way to look at it is that Atonement is not to be equated with salvation. Atonement makes salvation possible, but it is not the same as salvation, as Protestants would like to believe.

You are right to say that salvation and atonement are not the same thing. (Most of the handsome Protestants would agree too). Closely related in the Christian tradition, they are however. But I thought, since we are discussing the "mechanics of salvation," some of the issues of atonement are in play here.

But I will ask this question: Is salvation impossible without atonement? In fact, this is the issue I attempted to draw out above. There are other examples of salvation in the Bible without atonement (the Exodus). And the Exodus is the paradigmatic salvific event. Why is salvation impossible without atonement?

[Alex Haig]

Is salvation impossible without atonement?

What about Enoch and Elijah? Any thoughts anyone?

With love in Christ

Alex

[Owen Jones]

I think the point is that Christ's atonement brings salvation to mankind. It's no longer a Jewish thing.

[Ian Leyda]

I think the point is that Christ's atonement brings salvation to mankind. It's no longer a Jewish thing.

I disagree with Mr. Jones on this one. Salvation comes to all the people of the earth because of God's promise to Abraham and David. The Son is sent to Israel as God's way of keeping these covenant promises. Matthew's gospel begins with genealogy as a way of linking Jesus to both Abraham and David in 1:1. It links Jesus with and through these promises.

We should see the calling of Abraham (Genesis 12) in light of God's desire to save all peoples through Abraham and through the Abraham covenant.

Genesis 12:1-3: God blesses Abraham and sends him, so that he might be a blessing to all. God says this to Abraham: "In you, all the families of the earth shall be blessed." The book of Genesis ends, then, with Joseph (Abraham's descendant) saving both the families of Israel, the families of Egypt, and the peoples of Canaan from famine (Gen 47:13-25). All nations shall be blessed through Abraham. Salvation comes through the children of Abraham.

The sending of Jesus, then, is God's keeping of his promises to Abraham and to David, these "everlasting covenants" that bring with them the promises of salvation.

1. The promise to Abraham: Numerous descendants and the Promised Land. (Gen 17:1-8).

God's covenant promises Abraham will be exceedingly fruitful, producing nations and kings (17:6). That covenant shall be "everlasting" and with all of Abraham's descendants (17:7).

2. The promise to David (2Sam 7: 12-17): An everlasting kingdom/dynasty.

God promises David that "your dynasty (house) and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever."

So when the Gospels begin, it appears that none of these promises of God according to these covenants are being kept. The Babylonian exile and Roman occupation ended the Davidic King, foiling that promise. Israel no longer posesses the land (Rome does). And Herod (just like Pharaoh) is killing the children of Abraham (Matt 2: 16-18).

The promises of God to Abraham and David (descendants, land, king) are all in jeopardy.
Thus, God sends his Son to:
1. Save Abraham's descendants.
2. Lead them into the promised land.
3. Be the Davidic King and proclaim the Kingdom of God.

We are "saved" because God keeps his promises to Abraham and David by sending the Son. And we become heirs to these promises through faith in the Son.

Romans 4 works this out. The key is that Abraham trusted that God would keep his promises. "Faith" is that Abraham trusted that God would keep his promises to him (Rom 4:20-24), and note especially v. 21-22. Faith is essentially "trust in God."

Paul will go on to argue, then, that we Gentiles are "grafted in" to these promises to Abraham and become heirs to those promises by faith.

We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, through the promises God made to Abraham (and David).

Indeed, Salvation is an utterly Jewish thing.

Peace,

Ian Leyda

[Antonios]

Dear Ian,

My understanding is that the economy of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was not a reactionary response of God because of the fall of man, but rather as the paramount catalyst in the culmination of the cosmos to partake in the Divine Nature. God, Who is All Knowing, had foreknowledge of the fall of man, and thus His 'keeping of His promises' is not what saves us, per say, but rather our faith in the Risen Lord, the living of our lives in obedience to the Lord's commandments, and trust and participation in the Holy Church He established on earth, as maintained, strengthened, and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

The economy of the Son is, and was, not primarily a 'Jewish thing', but entirely cosmological in scope, incorporating all of creation. This is beautifully expressed by the Orthodox hymns of the Epiphany. When the Holy Trinity was revealed in the Jordan River after St. John the Baptist baptized Jesus, it was not Christ who was cleansed, but rather, the Jordan River and all of creation with it which was sanctified.

Yes, salvation comes from the Jews, as Christ said, but in an etiological sense. Salvation was not, however, only for the Jews. I think this is the point Owen is trying to make. In fact, it was the Jews who gave the greatest resistance to the early Church and, in contrast, the Gentiles who more readily accepted the Gospel.

[Kris]

I think the point is that Christ's atonement brings salvation to mankind. It's no longer a Jewish thing.

Hi,

I might have misunderstood you, but you seem to be suggesting that prior to Christ's Incarnation, salvation was open to the Jews but closed to the rest of mankind who needed God to become a man.

If that is what you meant, then I have to say I disagree. The very purpose of God chosing the Jewish people was to facilitate His Incarnation, a preparatory act if you will.

Before Christ "trampled down death by death" by His glorious resurrection, the fullness of salvation was open to none - all went into Hades (not Gehenna, but Sheol) - whether Jew of Gentile.

Christ's saving work opened the way to resurrection for us all, liberating us from death.

In XC,
Kris

[Owen Jones]

Theologically yes, but as a practical matter, the symbol of the Promised Land as a physical place is a perpetual mortgage against Judaism becoming a universal promise. And as most if not all Jews interpret it today, the Jews brought ethics and morality to mankind. Nothing more. All of this is, for mysterious reasons, providential of course.

[Ian Leyda]

Theologically yes, but as a practical matter, the symbol of the Promised Land as a physical place is a perpetual mortgage against Judaism becoming a universal promise. And as most if not all Jews interpret it today, the Jews brought ethics and morality to mankind. Nothing more. All of this is, for mysterious reasons, providential of course.

Jews brought nothing more than "ethics and morality to mankind?"

What?

To this I would say simply that Jews brought Jesus to mankind.

Jesus was Jewish, as was his mother and father. Jesus was a Palestinian Jew who practiced the religion and faith of second-temple Israel. Jesus was not a Christian but a Jew. And most importantly, Christianity began as an early or proto-form of Judaism. We begain worshipping in synagogues and practicing Jewish piety, and all of the first Christians were Jews.

Jewish tradition formed the entire theological corpus of early Christianity and interpreted the life and person of Jesus Christ for us. This is what Matthew is trying to say by beginning his Gospel with a genealogy.

I do not understand, Owen, how you can separate Christianity from its Jewish roots. The very first verses of the Christian New Testament in Matthew begin by ROOTING Jesus into the Jewish tradition and covenants. The purpose of the geneaology is to link Jesus to David and Abraham.

Matthew 1:1 "An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

Matthew 1:17 "So, all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations.

The Gospels begin by identifying Jesus as Jewish and linking him to the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants. The whole point is to say Jesus is Jewish and is interpreted according to their traditions.

Far more than merely "ethics and morality."

Peace,

Ian

[Peter Farrington]

Theologically yes, but as a practical matter, the symbol of the Promised Land as a physical place is a perpetual mortgage against Judaism becoming a universal promise. And as most if not all Jews interpret it today, the Jews brought ethics and morality to mankind. Nothing more. All of this is, for mysterious reasons, providential of course.

This is indeed one of the constant issues around Orthodoxy. It ties itself to a place because it is a 'local' and 'universal' community, but then finds it very hard to dislocate itself from that one place and be at home somewhere else.

This is why Greeks have told me that it is not possible to be Orthodox unless you are Greek. This is why Greeks and Russians tend to worship in languages that folk don't understand.

Your point about what prevented Judaism becoming universal is well taken, but it is as much a danger for Orthodox. Indeed it has been a danger for many missionaries who export their own local culture with the Gospel, surely this is no different to the case of the Jews.

Peter

[Ian Leyda]

thus His 'keeping of His promises' is not what saves us, per say, but rather our faith in the Risen Lord, the living of our lives in obedience to the Lord's commandments, and trust and participation in the Holy Church He established on earth, as maintained, strengthened, and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

I agree fully with you, Antonios, about your assertion of faith. But it is not exactly faith that saves. We are saved "by grace through faith." I am thinking of Ephesians 2: 8-10 on this.

"Promises" are the means of grace that come to humanity through Abraham, which we trust in by faith (Romans 4:20-22). What does it mean, then, when Paul speaks of us being "heirs to the promise" made to Abraham in texts such as Romans 4: 13-25?

Peace,

Ian

[Antonios]

Dear Ian,


I agree fully with you, Antonios, about your assertion of faith. But it is not exactly faith that saves. We are saved "by grace through faith." I am thinking of Ephesians 2: 8-10 on this.

Thank you for correcting me, Ian. What you write is completely Orthodox teaching. In the end, it is God's Grace that saves us!


"Promises" are the means of grace that come to humanity through Abraham, which we trust in by faith (Romans 4:20-22). What does it mean, then, when Paul speaks of us being "heirs to the promise" made to Abraham in texts such as Romans 4: 13-25?

This is a good question Ian, and being that I am a simple layman and am only a recorder which replays beautiful words written by much more learned people, I will try to address your question with quotes heavily taken from "The Orthodox Study Bible" by Thomas Nelson Publishers.

In Romans, as you may well already know, Paul deals extensively with the relation of the Old Covenant to belief in Christ, and how Gentiles can be full members of the New Covenant by grace through faith. Thus, the topic of circumcision is addressed since this was an obvious obstacle to the Gentiles. Paul goes on to explain that Abraham, although still uncircumcised had attained true righteousness by faith, and that true righteousness transcends the law. Thus, by faith we actively participate in God's grace given to us, His righteousness. By continuing in it, we are gradually transformed internally and externally into His likeness. Those who relegate God's righteousness to something external (ex:circumcision) and "spiritual" by saying righteousness is not really ours, but only "imputed" to us, miss the truth. They externalize God's righteousness as much as did many Jews. Faith and righteousness lead to the greater reality of internal circumcision, the life of faith, of the Spirit in us, the walk in the steps of the faith (Romans 4:12)

Romans 4:13 states : "For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

Righteousness is not through physical descent. For if one has to become a Jew to inherit the world (God's Kingdom, v. 12), Abraham's salvation based on his faith and God's promise, is made void (v.14). The law which requires physical descent brings about wrath (v.15); only grace has the power to satisfy the law so there is no transgression. The righteous, then, are those of faith, not those of the law (v.14), that is, merely physical descendants of Abraham. Abraham's true offspring are spiritual- he is the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile (v.16,17). And the righteous "seed" or descendant of Abraham is Jesus Christ the Messiah.

Thus, to answer your question directly the best I can, what Paul means by us being the 'heirs of the promise', is that by grace through faith, and by walking in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had, we can attain to the righteousness of God given freely to all through His Son, Our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

[Ian Leyda]

Dear Ian,

Romans 4:13 states : "For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

Thus, to answer your question directly the best I can, what Paul means by us being the 'heirs of the promise', is that by grace through faith, and by walking in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had, we can attain to the righteousness of God given freely to all through His Son, Our Saviour, Jesus Christ.


Dear Antonios,

I believe that Paul in Romans 4:13 has drawn a parallel here in his argument. The logic of the parallel is this:

The promise

comes to Abraham or his descendants


not through the law



but through faith.

This is the same theological parallel we will see later in Eph 4:

Grace

comes to Abraham or to us


not through the Law (circumcision)



but through faith

In Paul's thought, the promise=grace. The promise came to Abraham and his descendants. This is assumed. Paul's question, then, is HOW it came to him/them. It came to them not through the law but through faith.

Thus, it comes also to his descendents through faith (in Jesus Christ). This is Paul's trajectory, capitulating in Romans 4:22-24.

Thus, we say we are saved "By grace through faith in Jesus Christ."

This is why I make the argument of the importance of Abraham that is not lost with the "old/new covenant." The centrality of the promise to Abraham is never lost. What changes from the "old" to the "new" covenant is the HOW.




Through Law (Old Covenant)
Promise to Abraham/Grace




Through Faith (New Covenant)
I suppose this is why I get up in a tizzy when Christians claim that Abraham is "old covenant." Through Abraham came the promise of which we are heirs. Through Abraham came Jesus. We have not severed our ties to Abraham. We have formed ties to Abraham through Jesus. And for this I am quite thankful.

Please forgive the length of my blatherings.

Peace,

Ian

[Antonios]

Dear Ian,



In Paul's thought, the promise=grace. The promise came to Abraham and his descendants. This is assumed. Paul's question, then, is HOW it came to him/them. It came to them not through the law but through faith.

Thus, it comes also to his descendents through faith (in Jesus Christ).

I am very interested in your statement that promise=grace, but I must admit, from my understanding, this may be oversimplicating God's grace to the fulfillment of His promise, and de-emphasizing our own charge and responsibility to live faithful lives (in the most inclusive sense of the word) and follow the Lord's commandments.

In your the analogy that


The promise
comes to Abraham or his descendants
not through the law
but through faith.

This is the same theological parallel we will see later in Eph 4:

Grace
comes to Abraham or to us
not through the Law (circumcision)
but through faith

Paul writes "And he recieved the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of ciurcumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. (Romans 4:11-12)

In this statement, it can be interpreted that Abraham was the father of Gentiles who live by faith even before he became the father of faithful Jews (in fact, he was living by faith when he was 75 but was not circumcised until he was 99). Thus, circumcision was a sign and seal for Israel, a lesser reality- emphasizing the external and physical- pointing to a greater reality, the righteousness of faith. The Jews mistook the lesser reality for the greater. But outward circumcision points to inward circumcision, which consists in putting off the sins of the flesh and being kept by the Spirit in the heart. Again, true righteousness transcends the law (which included external circumcision at the time).

Thus, by God's grace through faith we participate in true righteousness.

Now of course, this is one interpertation of the reading from Scripture, and one person may read it and understand it differently from another. This is one instance in which the Church's economia becomes necessary. In the Orthodox understanding, the Old Testament is always pointing to the Incarnation. The Old Covenant is preparing the way for the Word of God become flesh. Thus, etiologically, yes, Abraham is the descendant of the Messiah. Yes, David fulfills that role as well. However, this preparation and it's final culminating soteriological effect is not for the children of Abraham, nor for the children of Israel, but for the entire creation, for all God's children, the Jews, the Gentiles and the heathens, in so far as His children are willing to accept it and be saved.

So, I agree with you that we have not severed ties with Abraham, but I would re-phrase the statement that 'we have formed ties to Abraham through Jesus'. I think a more orthodox way to state it would be that we and Abraham have formed ties of righteousness to the Holy Trinity through Jesus, not through a promise, but by the mystery of the Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Son of God.

[Father David Moser]

In Paul's thought, the promise=grace.

I would take issue with this conclusion. It does not follow at all that promise is equivalent to grace, but only that they are connected. Much of what I have read so far of your arguement is based on a non-Orthodox understanding of grace. Grace is (in a very short and incomplete definition) the energy of God by which we are transformed into the image and likeness of God (being that the image and likeness are inherent in our creation, but are not actualized). It is grace, that is acquired through faith (that is through believing that what our Lord has shown us is true and therefore following in the path that He sets before us), that actualizes in us that image and likeness and makes us "like God" and brings us into union with God.




Thus, we say we are saved "By grace through faith in Jesus Christ."


Faith implies that we not only believe what our Lord has said but that we put into practice those things which He has told us to do. St Seraphim of Sarov in his conversation with Motivilov (http://www.fatheralexander2.org/booklets/english/sermon_st_seraphim.htm) makes the proposition that the goal of the Christian life is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, and in particular the grace of the Holy Spirit. He discusses the many ways by which we acquire this grace and also talks about it's effect on us.

Fr David Moser

[Gary DeSha]

Thank you Fr. Moser! I was about to jump in.....I thought I was at an evangelical discussion instead of an Orthodox one.

[M.C. Steenberg]

So, I agree with you that we have not severed ties with Abraham, but I would re-phrase the statement that 'we have formed ties to Abraham through Jesus'. I think a more orthodox way to state it would be that we and Abraham have formed ties of righteousness to the Holy Trinity through Jesus, not through a promise, but by the mystery of the Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Son of God.

One of the classical phrases of the fathers is that Abraham has, in Christ, been fully revealed as the 'friend of God'. He is seen as the paradigmatic type of Christ in this sense, inasmuch as in him was a true and genuine meeting, or friendship, of God and man - a meeting that is perfect in Christ by his incarnate union, where in Abraham it was a friendship rooted in economy (in faith). So Abraham is the friend of God we are called to emulate, though in Christ the friendship seen in Abraham is transcended - 'Behold, I call you no longer servants, but friends'. By faith was Abraham called forward to communion and union, to the intimate 'friendship' between God and man that is the gift of the incarnation -- the servant responding in faithful love to the call of his master. But Christ is 'the finisher of our faith', the one who turns the call and the charge into union.

INXC, Matthew

[Ian Leyda]

I would take issue with this conclusion. It does not follow at all that promise is equivalent to grace, but only that they are connected. Much of what I have read so far of your arguement is based on a non-Orthodox understanding of grace.

Fr David Moser

I see that I have overreached in my argument. I didn't quite mean to say that God's promises are the same as Grace, which seems to slipped from my typing fingers.

My interest was mostly in affirming the role of Abraham (and Jews) in God's plan for salvation. That was the urgency of my previous posts, in answer to Mr. Owen Jones' comments that Jews had "brought nothing more than ethics and morality," etc.

My goal was not necessarily to explain/define grace as it was to link grace and faith to Abraham.

And, of course, I ask your patience in my theological approach and its deviance from Orthodox tradition. I am a Presbyterian trying to glean as much as I can about Orthodoxy from your comments.

Peace,

Ian

[Gary DeSha]

To my Presbyterian friend,

In order to come to a full understanding of Orthodoxy one has to forget what you have been taught previously. If you do not, your previous knowledge spoils the deep truths within Orthodoxy which results in a quagmire of different theories and concepts.

In my experience, that is what my mentor advised me to do. It was hard, and I generally was corrected many times before I finally realized that I had to put all my prior learning in a wood pile metaphorically and burn it up. There are general theological realities that are equal in terminology, like the Virgin Birth, or the Holy Trinity. But when seen with Orthodox eyes, the eyes of our holy fathers, we discover so much more......a depth that you cannot fathom until you dive in. My brother, let it go, and dive in!

Let me share something along the lines of this thread. Mans faith is absolutely necessary for the power of God to function in man, to lead him to salvation. It is necessary for salvation that objective faith be converted into mans subjective faith. This is achieved with the indwelling of the objective faith of the Uncreated in the created, the indwelling of God in man. Man is called by Christ to become faithful, accepting the truth revealed in Christ as life in Christ and to live this truth in order to become true, as Christ is true. This becoming true presupposes his union with the True God.

The faith that works for salvation is Orthodox. Why? Because there is a falsification of faith and at the same time its refutation in heretical teachings, since it adulterates (falsifies) faith in two ways. On the one hand, in relation to the believer in Christ and on the other hand, in the way Christ is received. In heresy Christ is cut up and is not received as a whole, but in parts, by a divided, unwhole man. This is because he is approached by mans intellect and lips alone, while mans heart and his being is far from God. Therefore, every heresy, is not only a false teaching but literally not-Orthodoxy and not Christianity.

Please refer to Mark 16:16; Romans 8:9; 1 John 5:20; Matthew 15:8.

If I may conclude with this statement: The true Path which one should follow is Orthodoxia; we must understand that Truth is not a concept, not a theory, not a rational philosophy, not a theology, not an "ism," but a Person, Jesus Christ our Lord God and Savior!

I hope this adds a little flavor to what Fr. Moser wrote earlier.

Blessings to you all! +

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

This has been a most interesting thread thus far. I was reading back over it this morning, and a few things caught my eye.


I think the best way to look at it is that Atonement is not to be equated with salvation. Atonement makes salvation possible, but it is not the same as salvation, as Protestants would like to believe. Salvation is much, much more than just atonement for sins. Mercy through atonement is what introduces us to salvation. It is the beginning of healing if you will. Just as a visit to the hospital is just the beginning of healing. Then there is a process in which our will must become in accord with that of the physician so that we follow the regime set down and not only temporarily restore our bodies to health but transform our lives in such a way that true health becomes the natural state. In a phrase, there is no salvation apart from transformation.

To which Ian replied:


You are right to say that salvation and atonement are not the same thing. [...] But I will ask this question: Is salvation impossible without atonement? [...] There are other examples of salvation in the Bible without atonement (the Exodus). And the Exodus is the paradigmatic salvific event. Why is salvation impossible without atonement?

Both of these posts bring to mind the question of just what one means by the phrase 'atonement'. The question becomes even more pronounced when the work is treated as a kind of coherent doctrine, or specific act, as 'Atonement' or 'The Atonement'. To what precisely does this refer?

Owen wrote about it as a kind of 'introduction to salvation' that engages a person (or a people) with God's mercy. This is a very specific description, and one that I find quite compelling; but it still begs the question of just what the actual idea of 'atonement' means, even if -- and perhaps especially if -- it is somehow integral to the introduction to salvation.

If atonement means in some sense that a response to transgression is rooted firstly in personal sacrifice, in taking upon one's self the effects of another's transgression and division, meeting them through personal sacrifice in order to effect mercy and love for another, then it is easy to see the atoning character of Christ's offering in the incarnation, as also in his passion. It is also clear that Owen's distinction between such atoning action as introduction, rather than the whole of salvation, is necessary. In atoning in this manner for mankind's transgression, Christ opens the door to salvation. It is the starting point of a new character of life, not its fulfilment.

It might also give some scope for addressing Ian's question, regarding salvation without atonement. Perhaps. To 'save' another without entering into that other's experience of life through personal sacrifice and co-suffering, will always be, ultimately, a kind of juridicial salvation: to play judge from afar with respect to categories of right and wrong, etc. But this is a kind of superficial saving.

The exodus from Egypt is probably a good example. I do not think it right to say there was salvation here without atonement. God entered into the suffering of his people through his prophet Moses (who for this reason is read so often by the Church fathers as a type of Christ), whose life was itself a life of sacrifice. There is great loss in the exodus; it is not simply an escape from Egypt, but a radical transformation of what Israelite life is to be, and how it is to be lived.

Regarding Christ's sacrifice 'making salvation no longer a Jewish thing', it was further written above:


I disagree with Mr. Jones on this one. Salvation comes to all the people of the earth because of God's promise to Abraham and David. The Son is sent to Israel as God's way of keeping these covenant promises. Matthew's gospel begins with genealogy as a way of linking Jesus to both Abraham and David in 1:1. It links Jesus with and through these promises.

We should see the calling of Abraham (Genesis 12) in light of God's desire to save all peoples through Abraham and through the Abraham covenant. [...] Salvation comes through the children of Abraham. [...] The sending of Jesus, then, is God's keeping of his promises to Abraham and to David, these "everlasting covenants" that bring with them the promises of salvation. [...] We are "saved" because God keeps his promises to Abraham and David by sending the Son. And we become heirs to these promises through faith in the Son.

It is quite clear from Christ's own comments that being a child of Abraham (i.e. one of those in covenant relationship with the Abrahamic promise) is not what links one to the salvation he offers ('Do not say to yourself, We have Abraham as our father; I tell you that out of these stones he could raise up children of Abraham for himself'). To be a child of Abraham is, in Christ, something quite different from being 'Jewish'. The incarnation of Christ makes cosmic what was once local; to be Abraham's child is now to be Christ's child, for in Christ is the perfection of Abraham's faith. Where Abraham was God's friend by faith -- a union of human with the divine through will and economy -- Christ is by nature this union perfected, God and man in the flesh.

In Christ God does, yes, 'keep his promise' to Abraham, but he keeps it by bringing it to its full fruition, its end (its 'perfection' in Greek, which is a word whose root is telos, 'end'). The covenants which are eternal are not the specifics of the covenants with Abraham, with Noah, etc.: the eternal covenant of God with man is the covenant of the incarnation, foreknown before the creation of the world, the eternal glory of God and man. This is what was 'known by faith' by those before Christ; but Christ has 'finished the faith' of the forefathers.

Perhaps the great key to understanding these themes lies in reading the fathers on the ideas of Abraham as the friend of God, and what this means in terms of God's relationship to man in the incarnate Christ.

Regarding some of this, Antonios wrote:


My understanding is that the economy of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was not a reactionary response of God because of the fall of man, but rather as the paramount catalyst in the culmination of the cosmos to partake in the Divine Nature. God, Who is All Knowing, had foreknowledge of the fall of man, and thus His 'keeping of His promises' is not what saves us, per say, but rather our faith in the Risen Lord, the living of our lives in obedience to the Lord's commandments, and trust and participation in the Holy Church He established on earth, as maintained, strengthened, and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

The economy of the Son is, and was, not primarily a 'Jewish thing', but entirely cosmological in scope, incorporating all of creation. This is beautifully expressed by the Orthodox hymns of the Epiphany.

I find this characterisation very helpful, especially the idea that the economy of the Son is 'the paramount catalyst in the culmination of the cosmos to partake in the Divine Nature'. This is certainly in line with the hymnography of the Church, as Antonios notes. The feasts of the incarnation (Nativity, Theophany, Pascha, etc.) make explicit and repeated reference to this aspect of the incarnation, as indeed do many of the fathers. Gregory's famous reference to Christ as 'the lamb slain before the foundation of the world' sums it up neatly.

INXC, Matthew

[Herman Blaydoe]

Something I put together from various Orthodox sources that might be relevant:

Rom. 3:25 and Heb.9:5 (A.V., "mercy-seat") the Greek word _hilasterion_ is used. It is the word employed by the LXX. translators in Ex. 25:17 and elsewhere as the equivalent for the Hebrew _kapporeth_, which means "covering," and is used for the lid of the ark of the covenant (Ex. 25:21; 30:6). This Greek word (hilasterion) came to denote not only the mercy-seat or lid of the ark, but also propitation or reconciliation by blood. On the great day of atonement the high priest carried the blood of the sacrifice he offered for all the people within the veil and sprinkled with it the "mercy-seat," and so made reconciliation. In 1 John 2:2;4:10, Christ is called the "propitiation for our sins." Here a different Greek word is used (hilasmos). Christ is "the propitiation," because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations He reconciles us to God. (Comp. Heb. 2:17, where the expression "make reconciliation" of the A.V. is more correctly in the R.V. "make propitiation.")

A "better" English word might be "expiation"

Guilt is said to be expiated when it is visited with punishment falling on a substitute. Expiation is made for our sins when they are punished not in ourselves but in another who consents to stand in our room. It is that by which reconciliation is effected. Sin is thus said to be "covered". The cover or lid of the ark is termed in the LXX. hilasterion, that which covered or shut out the claims and demands of the LAW against the sins of God's people, whereby he became "propitious" to them. The idea of expiation runs through the whole Old Testament system of sacrifices. It is not God who is being "satisfied" but the LAW.

I look forward to correction or expansion as appropriate.

[Ian Leyda]

The idea of expiation runs through the whole Old Testament system of sacrifices. It is not God who is being "satisfied" but the LAW.

I look forward to correction or expansion as appropriate.

God must satisfy the Law?

It sounds very much like what our President is dealing with right now, in that the U.S. Constitution says that "no one is above the law." The Constitution is written this way that we would not have a king, so that the President would not be a "sovereign" ruler.

Is it true, then, that God is like the U.S. President and bound to honor the law? That God must satisfy the law?

How does this argument not render the urgency of the Law superior to the urgency of God? Can God be truly sovereign and at the same time bound to the Law?

Peace,

Ian

[Ian Leyda]

Let me share something along the lines of this thread. Mans faith is absolutely necessary for the power of God to function in man, to lead him to salvation. It is necessary for salvation that objective faith be converted into mans subjective faith. This is achieved with the indwelling of the objective faith of the Uncreated in the created, the indwelling of God in man. Man is called by Christ to become faithful, accepting the truth revealed in Christ as life in Christ and to live this truth in order to become true, as Christ is true. This becoming true presupposes his union with the True God.


Does Orthodoxy consider Pelagianism heresy?

How is this argument not Pelagian? To say that "Man's faith is 'absolutely necessary' for the power of God to function" is essentially the definition of Pelagianism. Faith becomes a "meritorious act."

Described above is a condition of hindered or forwarded Grace: Man saves or does not save himself by his choosing/not choosing faith. This removes the full agency of Grace from God and includes Man in its realization. Man "helps along" God's grace?

If Grace is to be, as Augustine argues, the "unmerited or undeserved gift of God," then the action of Grace must function independently of the work of Man. God initiates the process of salvation and finishes it himself.

Thus, Jesus attributes Peter's profession of faith to the Father and not to Peter at Phillipi (Matt 16: 15-17). Peter's faith is the gift of God AND the profession of God. God's Grace cannot be hindered OR forwarded by human beings.

The action of God's grace, then, is not "contingent" upon Man's response, as though Man is the gate-keeper that gives Grace permission to pass.

What does Orthodoxy say about the Council of Carthage in the 5th Century?

Peace,

Ian

[Father David Moser]

Man "helps along" God's grace?

If Grace is to be, as Augustine argues, the "unmerited or undeserved gift of God," then the action of Grace must function independently of the work of Man. God initiates the process of salvation and finishes it himself.

A couple of items here.

1. Augustine: While revered for his repentance, his doctrinal writings are not accepted as authoritative or even necessarily accurate.

2. Grace: Lets grant the definition of grace as "the unmerited or undeserved gift of God" however it still does not follow that grace "must function independently of the work of man." Grace is the agent of our salvation - the thing that transforms us into the image and likeness of God, however, we must make use of that grace. God gives the grace but it is up to us to use it. That's where faith comes in. We accept with faith the commandments of Christ, the way of life that He prescribes for us. We take *by faith* that this way of life, that these actions will acquire and put to use the grace that God gives us super abundantly and completely without condition in such a way that it is effective for our salvation. Salvation is not a "state of being" but rather an active process of being united to Christ and sharing in the Life of the Holy Trinity. Man does not "help along" God's grace - rather he utilizes the grace that God gives. God certainly is the author and finisher of our faith - but they synergy between God and man (the cooperation between God and man) fills the middle and it is difficult to get from the beginning to the end without going through the middle.

There's no way around it somehow somewhere we have to work out our salvation - we have to actualize the potential that God has given us utilizing the tools (the grace) and the rules for their use (the faith) to conform ourselves to His will. This is a major disconnect between most protestant theologies and Orthodoxy - we use the same words: salvation, faith, grace, etc but we mean very different things by them.

A final metaphor on the action of grace and our own role:

The grace that God gives us is like a waterfall and we are standing under that waterfall, surrounded on all sides by the water. Standing under the waterfall, I hold in my hand a cup. That cup is my soul and the goal is to fill my soul with grace. But the cup is already filled with dirt and sand and pebbles (sin). The water/grace runs right off and doesn't stay in the cup because it is already full. In order to make room for the grace to remain in the soul, I have to extract all the dirt, sand and pebbles - this extraction is accomplished by the ascetic labor of repentance such as confession, fasting, prostrations, self denial, and so on. But even when the cup is empty the water still does not fill it and remain in the cup because the cup is turned upside down and not oriented properly. In order to orient the soul in such a way as to retain the flood of grace it must be turned right side up. The proper orientation of the soul is accomplished by the works of virtue: prayer, alms, mercy, kindness, etc. God gives the grace, it is free, abundant and without condition and we are standing under the overflow of that grace as though under a waterfall. All we have to do is empty the cup/soul that we have filled with dirt/sin and then orient the cup/soul so that it retains the grace that God gives. God's grace does the rest. That little bit of emptying the soul and orienting it towards God is what we mean by "working out our salvation". The cup doesn't just empty and orient itself even if we believe and accept the idea that it should be and the waterfall doesn't empty the cup and orient it for us - it is just there falling around us waiting to be captured and used.

We are saved by grace (the uncreated energy of God) through faith (the way of life that God gives to us). But faith without works is dead and so it is necessary to act on our faith, to follow the law of God that is given to us in Christ, to actively participate in the life of the Body of Christ (that is the Church - and specifically the Orthodox Church, but that's another discussion)


Fr David Moser

[Kris]

It is not God who is being "satisfied" but the LAW.


Forgive me brother Herman, but I cannot make sense of what you're saying.

It was God who instituted the Law, it is not some entity that exists independantly of Him. Thus it seems to me that if the Law needed satisfying, it was infact God - its Author - which needed to be satisfied.

I do not believe God is confined by the Law He instituted, nor by any concept of Holiness (God is holiness, and so to say He had to do something because He is holy seems like flawed reasoning), and so I reject both these ideas of "satisfaction."

Or have I misunderstood you?

In XC,
Kris

[Herman Blaydoe]

God must satisfy the Law?How about God CHOOSES to satisfy the Law?

Why did God INSTITUTE the Law?

[Herman Blaydoe]

It was God who instituted the Law, it is not some entity that exists independantly of Him. Thus it seems to me that if the Law needed satisfying, it was infact God - its Author - which needed to be satisfied.Indeed, it was God who instituted the Law. Why, do you think?

[Father David Moser]

Why did God INSTITUTE the Law?

I think it is important to take a step back and look at this from a bit of a different angle. As a parent I made certain "laws" in my household that applied to my children - when and what could they eat, how late they could stay out, how late they could stay up, when television could and couldn't be watched, etc, etc. I am certain that every other parent has made similar laws. I made the law, but the law was never intended to apply to me or my wife. I sometimes obeyed the law as a matter of good sense - not because it was the law, but because, in my adult judgement it was the right thing to do.

WHY did I institute these laws? I did so to instruct my children in certain attitudes, values, skills, priorities etc that they would need in adulthood. Now both of my children are adults and living on their own. Do my laws still apply to them - no; do they still follow the laws - in some cases, yes. Why do they follow the laws? Because now they have grown to see the purpose of the law and its value and so have incorporated those things which before they did only because it was the law into their own lives because they see it and experience it as good for them. I suspect that the "Law" instituted by God has the same purpose - for our training and education. The Law shapes us in our spiritual infancy, teaching us the values and attitudes that will guide us through the spiritual life along the path of salvation and bring us to salvation, to the kingdom of God. Does God need the Law for Himself - no; is He subject to the Law Himself - no; does He follow the Law - yes, but not because it is the Law, but because He knows that it is good. In this case, He is the Father and we are the children.

Fr David Moser

[Gary DeSha]

Ian, you missed this part of my response: "This is achieved with the indwelling of the objective faith of the Uncreated in the created, the indwelling of God in man."

Romans 2:4, "Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" NKJV

In the Greek, it is in the continuous present tense which means that God "is leading all the while you are despising!"

This speaks of God's grace in man......wooing and gently leading him to repentance.

Also, St. Paul tells us that God gives every person a measure of faith. Where does that come from? God!

Salvation is synergistic......God's part and our part!

And yes, Orthodoxy does consider Pelagianism a heresy!

[Owen Jones]

Why do we need to inject Cartesian and Hegelian type terms such as "objective" into our doctrine? Is there some fear that otherwise faith is somehow "subjective?"

[Ian Leyda]

Indeed, it was God who instituted the Law. Why, do you think?

How about Law as an expression of God's will? It is God's "Word(s)."

[Ian Leyda]

[QUOTE=Gary DeSha;38352]
Romans 2:4, "Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" NKJV

In the Greek, it is in the continuous present tense which means that God "is leading all the while you are despising!"

This speaks of God's grace in man......wooing and gently leading him to repentance.

Also, St. Paul tells us that God gives every person a measure of faith. Where does that come from? God!

Salvation is synergistic......God's part and our part!
QUOTE]

Well Gary,

I don't want to argue too much with your idea of "synergy" because I am fond of the idea and desire to maintain some measure of accountability/responsibility in the doing of "our part."

Honestly, I haven't figured this all out myself yet. Augustine's argument for the purity of God's Grace is very convincing to me. The texts that you have listed above do help to make that argument, that repentance and faith are both initiated and compelled by God.

The "purity" of God's grace, however, seems to necessitate 100% of God's responsibility for salvation. God is either 100% responsible for salvation or God is not.

But these texts also allow for the necessity of our responsive repentance/faith. Is our response to God's Grace an act of participating in salvation or is it sanctification?

If we are baptized as infants, how do we participate at all in our being both united with Christ in his death and resurrection? We have no cognition, no maturity of will. Is our response to baptism part of our salvation or is it sanctification?

I have 2 questions in light of this, then:

1. What does Orthodoxy say of the doctrine of Original sin?

2. If we must "synergize" with God's grace, or as Fr. Moser says "make use of that grace:" What then is sanctification?

Isnt sanctification our response and the "making use of God's grace" rather than "salvation?"


Peace,

Ian