|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Johnny
Much of andreas' thinking re the next life is explained if you read River of Fire, from which andreas gave some extracts earlier.
I didn't like its polemic. The Augustinian argument has been done to death on these boards and it as as misleading as all partial truths are. We believe that God is good.
I'm gradually getting a handle on this. The hinge pin for River of Fire appears to be the quotations from the Fathers. But if you look at it closely, a very great deal depends on the understanding of the impassibility of God.
There is a clue in there in the assertion that the Eastern Orthodox are the true inheritors of Israelitic thought. A somewhat unconvincing and circular argument. In order for that to be true, the Israelitic thoughts expressed throughout the OT, of a God who is faithful in His wrath as well as His love, need to be washed. Oh, I have no doubt that one can find reformist thoughts along these lines which might be prayed in aid. But there is a lot of the other to be found as well. God in the OT is not pictured as impassible. That is not the way He comes across to me.
Actually, I incline to the view that there are a number of distinctive pictures of God in the OT, but it's hard to see impassibility in any of them unless you decide to place particular emphases on some texts to the exclusion of others. The beautiful Servant of the Lord passages talk of a God who is "burdened with their sins and wearied with their offences" (Isaiah 43:24). How is that impassible in the sense argued in River of Fire?
So I think the real clue is to found in the outworking of the impassibility of God. God is the same, yesterday, today and forever. He does not change. He is good. These ideas are welded with a particular understanding of impassibility to produce an understanding of God within which it is impossible for there to be wrath in Him.
At its heart, this is the assertion. And of course one needs to have an interpretation of last things which fits that assertion. The result is what we see. It is consistent. But it is a picture which, if examined in detail, produces all the problems of pictures pushed too far which Tom Wright and Kallistos Ware point out in their considerations of the Cross. All models are small imperfect versions of the Real Thing. Which will be a judgment, if the Creed means anything at all. Not a self-judgment. An active judgment of all by the highly exalted Suffering Servant.
It seems good to me at this point to repeat this hymn from the Orthodox Holy Saturday liturgy
"Let all mortal flesh keep silence
and with fear and trembling stand;
ponder nothing earthly-minded,
for with blessing in his hand
Christ our God to earth descendeth,
our full homage to demand."
"Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Psalm 85:10
Tomorrow, we will cry out in our millions.
"Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again!"
Today I will think of these things in silence. Tomorrow I will shout with joy for and to the whole world around me!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
To speak in terms of Richard's illustration, imagine that broken man being given his father's palace. He will still be broken despite living in the palace with his father. He will be living there, but he wont be partaking in what his father makes available for him. His hell will be his own brokenness.
But that still seems different to experiencing his Father's presence as hell. His father's presence in the illustration just doesn't help - but it isn't a cause of suffering in that man.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Johnny
Much of andreas' thinking re the next life is explained if you read River of Fire, from which andreas gave some extracts earlier.
Yep, I'm out of my depth here - some Orthodox shipmates have warned me off this as incompatible with Easter Orthodoxy - I don't know much about it. All a brief google turned up for me was that River of Fire is:
a) Contraversial in Orthodox circles.
b) very popular among Protestants converting to EO.
What conclusion one might want to draw from these two observations I shouldn't like to say. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 22. March 2008, 10:44: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
While I trust my typo above is obvious to all, I must say that it has a seasonal / liturgical appropriateness to it. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 22. March 2008, 10:47: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
From my experience of self-abusive people the presence of pure love and kindness tends to increase the self-torment the person experiences. Their abuse, not only to themselves, but to others also intensifies. Darkness really can not abide the Light and squirms in the presence of it.
This is why such people need an ontological change, something which allows them to receive love and healing. They can't achieve that my mere force of moral will, nor can anyone impose such a change on them (which is one of the things that breaks my heart the most as a GP, relatives come begging for help but often the person concerned is wholly unable to receive such help).
I guess it's been my life exposure to such complexities of human self delusion and abuse that resonated so strongly with me when I started to read Orthodox theology concerning human sinfulness and God's atonement.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
mdijon,
Yes it is!
God will restore all. But some are selfless and some are self-centered. When the selfless are restored they will partake in God who is also selfless. When the self-centered are restored, they will remain self-centered, which is their hell, and they will nor partake in God, who is the salvation of all.
Dear Barnabas.
a) you are making more of the river of fire than I intended to convey. It's good in so far it contains what the fathers wrote. It's not good in so far it has some rough points that stem from a peculiar ecclesiology (as Leetle Masha tried to say).
b) You are making the same mistake you accuse the Orthodox of making. You read the Old Testament thinking it speaks of a certain kind of God, and you see that all over the place. The problem is your assumption of how we are to read the Old Testament, and that assumption is far from being a given.
In other words, you think you can understand the Scriptures on your own, a big mistake that ancient abba you mentioned earlier did not make. You think that the Scriptures explain themselves. But is this the case?
Perhaps we should discuss about whether God changes or not. Like all good modern people, you imply that that's a Greek philosophical thought the Orthodox Christians took from the philosophers, only to change the pure ancient faith. Dan Brown-ism is more widespread than one would have though. Even among non-conformists ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
If I may make a suggestion, I suggest reading the Divine Names*, by Saint Dionysius the Areopagite. One will need to read them many times. And then, read the five keys to the bible by father Johne Romanides, here. That will serve as an introduction to a difficult issue. But it will only be an introduction for someone wanting to get initiated further.
c) "at heart this is the assertion". No, we don't begin with philosophical thoughts. At heart lies the experience of God we in the Orthodox Church have (or have the potential of having). We do not know another God than the one we worship.
*I don't know how good a translation that is but still, it's free and it's online...
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
p.s.
I've never read the 'River of Fire' so don't know what it says. My own thoughts derive from a mixture of my reading of Scripture, the Fathers, Orthodox Liturgy as well as 'mainstream' Orthodox writers (like +Kallistos Ware) along with a dose of life experience and a core aversion to PSA (which was there right from the start but I learned to not ask awkward questions of either myself of my leaders )
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I haven't read it before these boards either. I think I read it after fr. Gregory linked to it at some point. Anyway, can't remember. I quoted a few paragraphs from that paper, which were Orthodox. To jump from that to "andreas thinks the whole thing is the authentic voice of Orthodoxy on judgment day" is a bit... well... superficial. If you guys want that much for me to make an assessment of that text, I would say that it has a rough side and this rough side is incompatible with Orthodoxy.
Don't read more into my posts than what I am saying...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Johnny
Much of andreas' thinking re the next life is explained if you read River of Fire, from which andreas gave some extracts earlier.
I didn't like its polemic. The Augustinian argument has been done to death on these boards and it as as misleading as all partial truths are. We believe that God is good.
The polemic of the River of Fire is precisely that believing God good does not make the God described actually good.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
andreas, I'll reply more fully, on Monday, but I was talking about eschatology, not ecclesiology. Is your eschatological understanding different to that spelled out in "River of Fire".
I'm not arguing that the Orthodox have a philosophical understanding of impassibility, BTW. I don't "do" Dan Brown at all.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Johnny
Much of andreas' thinking re the next life is explained if you read River of Fire, from which andreas gave some extracts earlier.
I didn't like its polemic. The Augustinian argument has been done to death on these boards and it as as misleading as all partial truths are. We believe that God is good.
The polemic of the River of Fire is precisely that believing God good does not make the God described actually good.
Myrrh
Oh I appreciate it is about the different descriptions of God. Here is Bishop Tom Wright doing a good job of summarising my understanding. You can say such a God is not good in your understanding if you like - but we would disagree.
quote:
Face it: to deny God’s wrath is, at bottom, to deny God’s love. When God sees humans being enslaved – and do please go and see the film Amazing Grace as soon as you get the chance – if God doesn’t hate it, he is not a loving God. (It was the sneering, sophisticated set who tried to make out that God didn’t get angry about that kind of thing, and whom Wilberforce opposed with the message that God really does hate slavery.) When God sees innocent people being bombed because of someone’s political agenda, if God doesn’t hate it, he isn’t a loving God. When God sees people lying and cheating and abusing one another, exploiting and grafting and preying on one another, if God were to say, ‘never mind, I love you all anyway’, he is neither good nor loving. The Bible doesn’t speak of a God of generalized benevolence.
(From his Maunday Thursday sermon of 2007, link provided on p51 of this thread in a post from me to Johnny S)
But I suppose Bishop Tom doesn't know how to interpret OT (or NT) scripture, either?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
andreas, I'll reply more fully, on Monday, but I was talking about eschatology, not ecclesiology.
Ecclesiology affects everything. If one is part of the Church, then one is expected to have a closer to God understanding than one who chooses to remove himself from the church and accuse the church of apostasy. The latter is led by a different spirit and it would be no surprise if his views are somehow not that accurate.
quote:
I'm not arguing that the Orthodox have a philosophical understanding of impassibility, BTW. I don't "do" Dan Brown at all. [/QB]
I think you do. Because, you said this:
quote:
A final point. I am personally not sure that impassibility conveys accurately the nature of God as we see it in scripture. I think it is a philosophical concept.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I suppose Bishop Tom doesn't know how to interpret OT (or NT) scripture, either?
If he does, then I am mistaken for not being a Protestant
And yes, I don't accept the view he expressed about God in that passage you quoted.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I appreciate it is about the different descriptions of God. Here is Bishop Tom Wright doing a good job of summarising my understanding. You can say such a God is not good in your understanding if you like - but we would disagree.
quote:
Face it: to deny God’s wrath is, at bottom, to deny God’s love. When God sees humans being enslaved – and do please go and see the film Amazing Grace as soon as you get the chance – if God doesn’t hate it, he is not a loving God. (It was the sneering, sophisticated set who tried to make out that God didn’t get angry about that kind of thing, and whom Wilberforce opposed with the message that God really does hate slavery.) When God sees innocent people being bombed because of someone’s political agenda, if God doesn’t hate it, he isn’t a loving God. When God sees people lying and cheating and abusing one another, exploiting and grafting and preying on one another, if God were to say, ‘never mind, I love you all anyway’, he is neither good nor loving. The Bible doesn’t speak of a God of generalized benevolence.
(From his Maunday Thursday sermon of 2007, link provided on p51 of this thread in a post from me to Johnny S)
But I suppose Bishop Tom doesn't know how to interpret OT (or NT) scripture, either?
Well, we'll have to disagree. As I read that sermon I became more and more sick at heart at the 'righteous anger' generated. Christ was explicit - God loves perfectly. God's love goes out to the evil equally as it goes out to the good. In God's love there is no fear. That is the perfection we have to strive for.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
God's love goes out to the evil equally as it goes out to the good. In God's love there is no fear. That is the perfection we have to strive for.
I think it's simplistic to see Bishop Tom's writings as oppossed to those sentiments.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
From that sermon:
quote:
Precisely out of his fathomless love the creator God sent his own Son not simply to share in the mess and muddle of our human existence, but to take upon himself the task of being the place where God would pass judicial sentence upon sin itself, sin as a fact, sin as a deadly power, sin as the poisonous snake whose bite means death itself.
You guys are still speaking of judicial sentences.
N.T. Wright becomes very paternalistic when he says "The word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." It's my way or the highway. It does not even occur to him that there can be other interpretations of the cross, that Paul might have meant something different than what he means when he said "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
You are perishing, that's why you don't agree with me. I can't believe this man!
[ 22. March 2008, 14:13: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
mdijon
Regrettably, that's the issue so often. Both ways. In fact every which way. The initial "off-put" prevents any serious look at the follow-through. It's as JJ said a couple of pages back. I tend to put it this way. Sometimes we have to hold our noses to get to the roses.
But I show my ecumenical scars.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You are perishing, that's why you don't agree with me. I can't believe this man!
Anyone so sure about the judgment of God on others that they can make such a statement must be wrong.
andreas you've just said that we are perishing because we disagree with you. Have you suddenly become God? Have a little rethink. Learn to hold your nose. This sort of over-reaction is hardly helpful.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
N.T. Wright becomes very paternalistic when he says
Change paternalistic for patronizing.
Anyway, we didn't get that far, did we? He is saved, and since I reject his position I am perishing and I find the Cross to be my stumbling block.
Suddenly, in just one sermon, all my prejudices against Western Christianity got justified. How very odd.
Barnabas, That's what NT Wright is implying! He is using that verse by Paul against those who have a different view than he does. He takes for granted that he and Paul view the Cross the same way, and goes on from that. His premise is faulty. Very faulty.
[ 22. March 2008, 14:20: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
God's love goes out to the evil equally as it goes out to the good. In God's love there is no fear. That is the perfection we have to strive for.
I think it's simplistic to see Bishop Tom's writings as oppossed to those sentiments.
He is utterly, completely, opposed to Christ's teaching about God. This is a perfect example of how Augustine's doctrine have created a God which pretends to goodness with clever argument, but which actually presents the God against Christ's own teaching, teaching the opposite.
This is a profound difference, simple, but not simplistic.
quote:
When God sees people lying and cheating and abusing one another, exploiting and grafting and preying on one another, if God were to say, ‘never mind, I love you all anyway’, he is neither good nor loving.
Is not Christ's teaching. Is not what Christ died for.
God's love goes out to the evil equally as it goes out to the good, is Christ's teaching. This preacher is not teaching it.
This is the point the River of Fire is making. There is such a distorted view of God in the West because of Augustine, whose God as he described and proved in this sermon has made evil appear good, and is incompatible with Orthodox thinking on the subject.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Anyone so sure about the judgment of God on others that they can make such a statement must be wrong.
I don't know what's stranger here. That you linked to an article that basically says I'm perishing because I don't follow NT Wright's view on the Cross, or that you are saying Paul has no right to write (pun intended) that sentence in the first place.
Or that you didn't get I was referring to what the sermon was saying, to which I replied "I can't believe that man!".
Very strange indeed.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
andreas
Thanks for the clarification - I did misread you. I really thought you'd flipped and I'm very glad you haven't! It would have helped me if you'd included the phrase in quotes which you thought summarised his sermon. My misunderstanding was genuine, but probably based on too hasty a reading. (We've got dinner guests this evening and I'm helping my wife with meal preparation, so I'm kind of dodging in and out.)
And Tom Wright is certainly not saying that anyone will perish for disagreeing with his theology of the cross. Your assertion that that is what he believes is a mistake. He doesn't believe he is God any more than you do.
It has got a bit out of hand. I summarise one of the objective differences between us as this.
View of God 1. There is wrath in God against sin and it is consistent with his love of all humankind.
View of God 2. There is no wrath in God for He is love. But sinners experience as wrath His love of all humankind because of their impurity.
Can we get back to discussing such things in a more measured way? (Even if you have to hold your nose?)
I should have kept to my earlier resolve to keep silence today! Back tomorrow eve/Monday morning.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And Tom Wright is certainly not saying that anyone will perish for disagreeing with his theology of the cross. Your assertion that that is what he believes is a mistake.
My assertion is different. Not that we will perish for disagreeing with his view on the cross. But that we disagree with his view on the cross because we are perishing.
It would do some injustice to him, to add the Orthodox in that "we" that are perishing. He is not talking against my view on the Cross. No, that's under his radar, because his audience is very specific, so he does not address my view on the Cross, although he does address other views and contrasts them with his view in that manner, equating his view and Apostle Paul's view.
Anyway.
I don't know who holds View 2, so I will just insert a third view:
View 3: God is love. God will restore all. Some will remain in their selfishness though and experience their own darkness. This is Hell.
[ 22. March 2008, 15:13: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
This argument makes no sense to me. The whole notion of Christus Victor implies that there is some kind of conflict struggle between light and dark. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it. The wrath of God is manifested in the victory of Jesus Christ over the powers of sin and death, in the harrowing of hell.
Now I can see the argument against a straight PSA understanding of the wrath of God being manifested in the death of Jesus. (Personally I think the darkening sky and the temple veil being torn are signs that God was Not Happy about what was done to His Boy.) But to say that God loves the good and evil indifferently is just bizarre. Presumably I imagined the stuff in the New Testament where Jesus calls people whited sepulchres, vipers, liars, murderers and children of the devil? What about all that stuff about the Synagogues of Satan, the Whore, the Great Beast and the rest of it? What about Chorazin and Bethsaida and the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
But to say that God loves the good and evil indifferently is just bizarre.
It's more than bizarre. It's scandalous
Glory be to God Who loves us all without discriminating between the (self-)righteous and us wicked ones.
Anyway, I am not for the Christus Victor model. In fact, I think that while as imagery it is OK, as a philosophical explanation it's heretical. Or deeply inadequate. Or whatever.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is the point the River of Fire is making. There is such a distorted view of God in the West because of Augustine, whose God as he described and proved in this sermon has made evil appear good, and is incompatible with Orthodox thinking on the subject.
Myrrh
The problem is not only with Augustine's doctrines, but with the God he sets up from which his doctrines flow.
"if God were to say, ‘never mind, I love you all anyway’, he is neither good nor loving."
I'm at a complete loss to understand how you're able to understand Christ's words when you follow teachers who call themselves Christian but baldly state that Christ's God isn't good and present the 'evil father' of those Pharisees he argued against as if this were Christ's good God.
This is still the same argument Christ had with those of his time who presented a God opposed to Christ's and the answer to this preacher is the same. Instructions to us:
Matthew 5:44-46 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Luke 6:34-36 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
For this they sought to kill Him and succeeded. The Victory of Cross is Christ's faithfulness to the bitter end; God is ever merciful, ever forgiving. This is what is meant by God is love.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's more than bizarre. It's scandalous
Andreas you are confusing patience with indifference. The scriptures are replete with references to God's patience (long-suffering) but nowhere is he described as being indifferent to evil.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm at a complete loss to understand how you're able to understand Christ's words when you follow teachers who call themselves Christian but baldly state that Christ's God isn't good and present the 'evil father' of those Pharisees he argued against as if this were Christ's good God.
Yes we can all read the Sermon on the Mount. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) That would be the bit that ends with Jesus telling a story about what will happen to those who do not obey his words - the rain will fall and destroy their houses. Is God not sending that rain in chapter 7?
(Either this 'just happens' as Freddy said - natural consequences - or it comes as the active will of God. Either way round your reading of the Sermon on the Mount falls apart.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm at a complete loss to understand how you're able to understand Christ's words when you follow teachers who call themselves Christian but baldly state that Christ's God isn't good and present the 'evil father' of those Pharisees he argued against as if this were Christ's good God.
Yes we can all read the Sermon on the Mount. That would be the bit that ends with Jesus telling a story about what will happen to those who do not obey his words - the rain will fall and destroy their houses. Is God not sending that rain in chapter 7?
(Either this 'just happens' as Freddy said - natural consequences - or it comes as the active will of God. Either way round your reading of the Sermon on the Mount falls apart.)
Happy Easter!
One of many examples where Christ admonishes the people to turn them from doing evil in a society which had been given the commandments on Mt Sinai and so knew what was good and what was evil and saw themselves as singled out as a nation to keep those commandments in a special relationship which gave them all a fresh start once a year at Yom Kippur, all sins forgiven.
Jewish teaching is that God is always forgiving, He can't be anything else because that is His nature, but to access that forgiveness requires a move on the part of the sinner; to make up with those offended before coming to God for forgiveness. Christ didn't teach anything different from this in general, but to his followers he was more specific; to become like that Jewish God who is ever forgiving and is ever merciful, because he loves all equally.What are His instructions to his followers? From that we know what Christ's God is like.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think God can love human kind equally and still use a whip to drive money-changers out of the temple. Of course Jesus still loved them as he was doing it. Equally, if Jesus said he didn't mind about the money-changing and showed no anger, that wouldn't be loving towards those who needed correction and towards those they were exploiting.
There's no contradiction.
[ 23. March 2008, 12:10: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
And so Augustine's reasoning, that it's right to physically abuse someone who has left the Church in order to force them to return, because it's for their own good...
Shrug. I can only repeat. Christ taught us to strive to be perfect as He said God was perfect; to love all equally as God loves - not to judge, not to condemn. When some apostles wanted to show God's power of destruction against those refusing hospitality to Christ, He admonished them firmly - telling them they didn't understand which spirit they were of - He had come to save lives not to destroy them. You can believe in a God who sits in judgement over his creation and metes out punishment for infractions against him as if they are criminals even though we none of us have had a say in the creation of ourselves, I prefer to view it differently. I see nothing worth emulating in a God who has already punished his creation by estrangement for a sin they didn't commit, ymmv.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
And so Augustine's reasoning, that it's right to physically abuse someone who has left the Church in order to force them to return, because it's for their own good...
Augustine was hardly innovating in that direction. St Gregory of Nazianen was happy enough to applaud the Edict of Theodosius, particularly since Theodosius was happy enough to depose the Arian bishop of Constantinople on his behalf. And it was the Empire of Constantinople which closed the Academy and the Lyceum which had been the intellectual lighthouses of Europe since the days of Plato and Aristotle.
To pretend that Augustine somehow uniquely legitimised coercion in human relations whilst ignoring your own dubious past is somewhat hypocritical.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's more than bizarre. It's scandalous
Andreas you are confusing patience with indifference. The scriptures are replete with references to God's patience (long-suffering) but nowhere is he described as being indifferent to evil.
I am not sure that you two are using this word "indifferent" in the same sense.
"Indifferent" can mean without any emotional reaction. E.g. I may be indifferent about watching one of two specific TV programs because I like them equally little - I have no emotional investment in watching either of them. So "indifferent" can mean "lack of emotional investment" - "don't care".
"Indifferent" can also mean something more like "impartial", an objective equality. Christ loves all of us impartially - he does not have "teacher's favourites" or "pets". In this sense, Christ is "indifferent" to us and *to our deeds* - for while we were yet sinners (and were really unlikeable in any subjective sense), he died for us. Christ on the cross could beg forgiveness for the people who were crucifying him. He looked beyond their deeds to see them as objects of redemption. He did not let how he felt about being the victim of their torture obscure his vision of what he wanted to give them (namely redemption).
Does Christ get righteously angry with a child molester, or does he see that person as someone to redeem, to die for? The world certainly hates the child molester, and believes that it is entitled to be as mean as possible to such people.
Christ did attack hypocrisy: the person who claims to present God's will but who perverts it (e.g. the Pharisees in the Gospels). He drove out the money changers - but tells the robber on the cross that he will be in Paradise. So it seems that He was not driving out the money changers because they were dishonest (Zacchaeus had also been dishonest, and Christ chose to eat at his house) - rather he drove out the money changers because the Jewish leaders were (by allowing the money changers) depicting God as a venial money grabber, and presenting God's house as a sordid money-grubbing dive. The people responsible for proclaiming the love of God were perverting the message.
Christ acted to correct false images of God - he was a teacher, the upholder of truth. His action in the temple was teaching - God is not after your money like a selfish huckster, for he loves you and pours out himself for you. His anger always seems to be with the false presentation of God's love, not with sinners who were (so to speak) plain unhypocritical do-badders - including even torturers.
Anyway, that is my attempt at understanding this debate.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And so Augustine's reasoning, that it's right to physically abuse someone who has left the Church in order to force them to return, because it's for their own good...
I don't think that's a necessary conclusion to what I said. I certainly don't think it's a consequence of Christ's driving the money-changers from the temple.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Does Christ get righteously angry with a child molester, or does he see that person as someone to redeem, to die for?
Both, I think. Why is it either/or?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Personally I think the darkening sky and the temple veil being torn are signs that God was Not Happy about what was done to His Boy.)
I think St John Chrystostom agrees with you.
Some interesting descriptions of His (nonexistent) wrath in action. No doubt this is a protestant misread. What is obvious is not obvious.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
St Gregory of Nazianen was happy enough to applaud the Edict of Theodosius, particularly since Theodosius was happy enough to depose the Arian bishop of Constantinople on his behalf.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
And so Augustine's reasoning, that it's right to physically abuse someone who has left the Church in order to force them to return, because it's for their own good...
Augustine was hardly innovating in that direction. St Gregory of Nazianen was happy enough to applaud the Edict of Theodosius, particularly since Theodosius was happy enough to depose the Arian bishop of Constantinople on his behalf. And it was the Empire of Constantinople which closed the Academy and the Lyceum which had been the intellectual lighthouses of Europe since the days of Plato and Aristotle.
To pretend that Augustine somehow uniquely legitimised coercion in human relations whilst ignoring your own dubious past is somewhat hypocritical.
Granted, I used Augustine not merely out of habit, but because the whole line of thinking about God in the West is from his beliefs. But I was referring, to remind, specifically to the idea that God's love includes punishment, that punishment to the extreme is an expression of God's love. We do not have the 'fathers' as some last word on the subject, but what happened with Augustine in the West was these off the rail ideas became dogma and this created a different relationship to God entirely from that which we have retained by continual emphasis on God is love is ever merciful, ever forgiving and our ontological relationship in this.
To justify these ideas, that God punishes because he loves, from any of the 'fathers' by giving such examples as imprimatur to Christ's teaching is to as irrational as believing God good and then believing he authorised the genocide of the Canaanites.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Personally I think the darkening sky and the temple veil being torn are signs that God was Not Happy about what was done to His Boy.)
I think St John Chrystostom agrees with you.
Some interesting descriptions of His (nonexistent) wrath in action. No doubt this is a protestant misread. What is obvious is not obvious.
What is known about Chrysostom is that he jumped onto the anti-Jewish bandwagon of the Roman age and his description of the tearing of the veil of the Holy of Holies has that impetus forming it (Chrysostom played a big part in violently separating the Christian community from its Jewish roots - against Paul's warning of this). While his references to this being like the exile to Babylon and so on are not in contravension of Jewish history as they themselves understood it his "but declaring them to be unworthy even of His abiding there" is his own interpretation since, for example, we have the teaching that the Mother of God entered the Holy of Holies when as a child She was dedicated to the Temple; so our teaching is that Christ tore the veil of separation from the Most High for all - it's about direct access to God for each of us, not limited to place and so on.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And so Augustine's reasoning, that it's right to physically abuse someone who has left the Church in order to force them to return, because it's for their own good...
I don't think that's a necessary conclusion to what I said. I certainly don't think it's a consequence of Christ's driving the money-changers from the temple.
OK, so He could be a bad-tempered git..
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What is known about Chrysostom is that he jumped onto the anti-Jewish bandwagon
So I am given to understand, but I have never checked it out, so I do not know the truth of it. (It may be a slander for all I know).
What exactly has his suggested antisemitism to do with the "wrath in God" issue? I mean, if you discount this homily - or this part of this homily - on such general grounds, does that mean you throw out all his homilies? Or some of them? Or bits of them?
I don't regard Patristic tradition as authoritative myself, but I thought Chrysostom was regarded as an authoritative voice. Am I wrong?
Let me be clear. I don't mind at all if it is common practice amongst the Orthodox (or some Orthodox) to apply critical and selective criteria to the texts of the Patristic Tradition. Based either on the quality of exegesis or the character of the Fathers or both. Is that what you are saying?
Or is it just Chrysostom?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Going back to earlier posts on this thread, believers in PSA sometimes talk of 'paying the price'.
This payment needn't mean paying God the debt we owe.
Classic Christus Victor envisaged paying the devil. As up to date view of his is in a book by an RC priest:
…the neutralization of evil is not without a price. These who do good in the face of evil pay that price, for sin and its effecs of ten demand a martyr’s death before they are undone. The prophetic tradition in Israel, the life of Jesus, and the case of contemporary martyrs—Mahatma Ghandi, John and Robert Kennedy, Martin L ther King, Anwar Sadat, Oscar Romero, and other unknown millions who die be because of human injustice—bear witness here. Spiritual Development: An Interdisciplinary Study - Daniel Helminiak
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
andreas
I'm going to have to reply piece meal to your various points - this covers only some of them and may still be too long for comfort!
I had never heard of River of Fire until this post from you. The excerpts you quote deal with the two issues we have been discussing at some length (wrath in God and the nature of Divine justice), I take it that you agreed with the quotes i.e. they represented your own thoughts. Given that both quotes came from more general arguments on the nature of God and eschatology, I took the small liberty of assuming that you might well be in general agreement with these more general arguments. Perhaps that was an unreasonable assumption? If so, I am happy to withdraw it.
On impassibility, I confirm that there was no intention on my part to accuse Orthodox theology of being philosophical, but I can understand why you might have thought that from what I said, because I said less than I meant. The problem is that, in my understanding, impassibility is both
1. a philosophical conception which I believe pre-dated Christianity (maybe going as far back as Aristotle's unmoved mover and subsequent speculations) and
2. a label for a theological principle, evidence for which can be found in scripture and tradition.
It is certainly to be found in Anselm's writings, but I am sure the Orthodox take is characteristic of itself and it would be wrong to assume any other philosophical or medieval model as representative of Orthodoxy.
My comments were actually formed in part by the Patristic quote by St Anthony, which I found in "River of Fire. I'll repeat it here. It is well worth repeating, since it is very fine.
quote:
God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God's goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.
What I am saying is not meant at all as a blanket criticism of that saying at all, for it says much that seems to me to be right. Such thinking is bound to have influenced the Orthodox understanding of eschatology.
My concern is that the particular "dispassionate" view it expresses is not the only one which can be derived from the biblical material. I do not find the word dispassionate to be very helpful. The God of scripture seems to me in various descriptions to be "dispassionate, compassionate and passionate".
Of course there is a need to recognise the anthropomorphic tendencies and limitations inherent in these words, as we struggle to come to terms with the ineffable. But I believe Him to be more than "dispassionate". Human passions are obviously not wrong in themselves though they may lead us astray. {In your anger do not sin (Eph 4:26)}.
If indeed there is passion and compassion in God, then the best illustrations of it in Christ surely point to something in the Father? And Jesus was both passionate and compassionate. Passionate in the cleansing of the temple; compassionate over Jerusalem. Passionate in his condemnation of those Pharisees who laid heavy burdens while not lifting a finger to help. Compassionate over Zaccheus, Mary and Martha, countless others.
So while I think St Anthony's saying says much that is good, that is not all there is to say about goodness and righteousness in God. It is by no means obvious to me that the view that God is loving and merciful to sinners and angry about sin produces a schizoid picture of God. Neither of those dimensions seems right without the other.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What exactly has his suggested antisemitism to do with the "wrath in God" issue? I mean, if you discount this homily - or this part of this homily - on such general grounds, does that mean you throw out all his homilies? Or some of them? Or bits of them?
Barnabas, I was replying to the comment you made to Callan about Chrysostom could be agreeing with him about the veil and gave this homily as an example - of what is obvious and what isn't as the wrath of God.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Callan:
Personally I think the darkening sky and the temple veil being torn are signs that God was Not Happy about what was done to His Boy.)
I think St John Chrystostom agrees with you.
Some interesting descriptions of His (nonexistent) wrath in action. No doubt this is a protestant misread. What is obvious is not obvious.
I was replying to the veil example. Whatever the reasons for Chrysostom saying "but declaring them to be unworthy even of His abiding there" is not Orthodox teaching about the rent veil, so this 'obvious God's wrath' is as illusory as other examples of God's anger when Christ is quite clear that God responds with kindness to those who are evil.
You read everything with the "wrathful God", as Bishop Tom described, as a given, in this everything you read you make fit to the principle of this concept, as we do to our concept of God. First choose your God. Christ is explicit in his descriptions of how we are to be to become as perfect as God is perfect, and being wrathful and punishing those who offend us isn't in the brief.
quote:
I don't regard Patristic tradition as authoritative myself, but I thought Chrysostom was regarded as an authoritative voice. Am I wrong?
According to some Orthodox the whole Church is built on their authority... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Let me be clear. I don't mind at all if it is common practice amongst the Orthodox (or some Orthodox) to apply critical and selective criteria to the texts of the Patristic Tradition. Based either on the quality of exegesis or the character of the Fathers or both. Is that what you are saying?
Or is it just Chrysostom? [/qb]
Far as I know, in general practice the 'fathers' are little known, that sums up their importance. There are bits of them, Chrysostom's (Paschal Homily) especially and he has importance as a large figure in the Church on doctrine (and the form of the liturgy), but we are not taught to leave our critical faculties behind when reading his or any other work.
Myrrh
[ 23. March 2008, 17:42: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
HEY
LEAVE MY FATHERS ALONE
Barnabas
Myrrh is very right in putting the Faith before any individual person, no matter who that is. The Orthodox Faith comes first, and persons follow. We don't have Popes, we don't have Magisterium.
So, IF the Chrysostom had a different view of God than Orthodoxy, then the Chrysostom would not be listened to.
HOWEVER, the Chrysostom is perfectly Orthodox in these things, and it's only YOUR READING of him that does injustice to the Saint.
And just like we don't discard the Bible because other churches make all kinds of things with it, so we don't discard Chrysostom, when the same is done to him. Are you listening, Myrrh?
And if anyone want to have hatred towards the Saint, and say he was anti-semitic I want to have nothing to do with that person.
And if anyone tries to ascribe lowly motives to Saint Gregory the Theologian, one of the three persons whom the Church honored with the name of the Theologian, that magnificent and beautiful icon of Jesus Christ, that person shows who his real fathers are.
What will we hear next? Don't you have any idea at all who these men were? It makes me wonder!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Myrrh and andreas
Forget I'm a protestant! This is just about the obvious meaning of words. These words about darkness and cleft rocks.
quote:
.. for that darkness was a token of His anger at their crime. For that it was not an eclipse, but both wrath and indignation, is not hence alone manifest, but also by the time, for it continued three hours, but an eclipse takes place in one moment of time, and they know it, who have seen this; and indeed it has taken place even in our generation.
Anger, wrath, indignation, all applied to God.
and these
quote:
For He that cleft rocks asunder, and darkened the world, much more could have done these things to them, had it been His will. But He would not, but having discharged His wrath upon the elements, them it was His will to save by clemency.
Which says, NOT that God was without wrath, but it was His will, despite His wrath, to stay his hand against people.
I'm not being a Protestant here, just a reader looking at text. What exactly is my error in saying that the text says what it says? Spell it out for me.
Please don't give me the "spiritual milk" argument again. I dealt with that many posts ago. "Spiritual milk" means elementary principles, elementary truths, according to the author of Hebrews. Not "misleading" imagery.
There is no disrespect for any author, Patristic or otherwise, in saying, "this is what I see in what they say". I don't think I have expressed any disrespect for any Patristric author throughout these discussions.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My concern is that the particular "dispassionate" view it expresses is not the only one which can be derived from the biblical material.
Barnabas, Barnabas.
From the beginning of this discussion, you are trying to do your best. You are trying to make sense of a different position, and to engage with it. You are trying to speak with clarity about your views, so that we can come into mutual understanding. You hope for union, and if union cannot be achieved, you strive for charity as the very least.
I quoted that little sentence out of a long post, to say a few things about the way we "do theology".
The Great Anthony did not arrive at that conclusion by thinking on the biblical material. This is what that small story you mentioned earlier, from the desert fathers, means. We cannot arrive at truth by thinking over what the scriptures say. And as far as I know, you guys are doing just that.
What Saint Anthony did was to keep as hard as he could the commandments of Christ. He became a great ascetic, and his theology stems not from human syllogisms but from personal experience of the living God, experience that came with communion, which came through ascesis and not through thoughts.
Man is created to come into communion with God, but this cannot be done until we get purified from our passions first, and get enlightened by God then. Human reason cannot by itself understand scriptures. And when we do not have direct view of God, we are left with our natural capacities, of which human reason is one. And we try to do theology using our reason.
As far as I can tell, Protestants generally try to make sense of the Bible through their reason. And Reason plays a great role in Catholicism as well. Remember the speech the Pope gave in Germany...
While reason is respected highly in Orthodoxy, it is not seen as enough to make sense of the Scriptures. The meaning of the Scriptures is ontological, and one has to live it to really understand it.
This all plays an important role in our misunderstandings. I don't appeal to Great Anthony because he was a great thinker and he understood the Scriptures better than others through reason. No doubt he made a great use of his reason, but he was still the boy that didn't like the letters and preferred to spend time at home than go to school. He is the boy that left everything at age eighteen, the boy that did not attend the Academy and did not learn from the great teachers of his times. He learned theology in the cave, in the grave, in communion with God. And because God showed his light throughout the Ecumene, because God was pleased in Anthony and glorified him, I listen to what he is saying. With the potential of actually living what he said, as I put to death my ego, which is the most hard thing to do.
How do we do theology? I reckon there is a difference between the way Orthodoxy is supposed to promote, and the way you might be accustomed to.
What do you think? I hope you don't see this as combative. I'm trying to make a contribution and explain why in my view we have a problem.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Andreas1984 said:We cannot arrive at truth by thinking over what the scriptures say.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
andreas, that is indeed very helpful. And thank you for your recognition of what I have been trying to do.
You are entirely right in pointing to the limits and dangers of reason when revelation is central. Which truth also points to the limits of dialogue.
Here is a phrase which I have heard more than once in my own tradition, and have used myself in sermons. "We should not give ourselves airs. I am a beggar, seeking to tell other beggars about bread I have found".
(For all I know, it originates with a Desert Father. But I have always found it valuable)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
It reminds me of the story Plato said, about the cave and a man getting out of the cave and then upon seeing the world and the light of the sun he thinks it's a pity to have that all by himself, while his fellow men are in the cave, so he returns and tries to tell them about what's outside the cave and that they are seeing shadows while outside is a whole world, but upon returning it's difficult for him to adjust back to the shadows and the others mock him that he has lost his mind and that he has lost even the limited vision he had while with them and they don't want to follow him.
Personally, I agree with St. Seraphim of Sarov. Change yourself and thousands will get saved. Or something like that.
Which reminds me...
Do you want to read this great story about Saint Seraphim and another person with a difficult name I can't spell? Here: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/wonderful.aspx
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I will read it. It has been snowing in Norfolk today and the fields have been white. Thank you.
Christ is risen. He is risen indeed! Hallelujah!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
He is truly risen!
I remembered that discussion between the Saint and his friend because we said something about the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, I think it was in this thread, and it fits in how we do theology, just to get a glimpse into what the Saints live and what being saved means... Saint Seraphim is a great Saint... and he appears to other Saints, that lived after he died, so he is rather active, and I thought I'd share.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
