Thread: Purgatory: Catholic and Orthodox soteriology Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001176
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
OK, I've trawled through the Catechism of the Catholic Church and I'm none the wiser. Maybe I'm looking at the question far far too much through an evangelical lens but how, in Catholic and indeed Orthodox soteriology, does one 'get saved'/ receive salvation/ get to Heaven etc? My supplemental question to this is, how do you know that you are saved? This question encompasses not just the issue of assurance (or lack therof) of salvation but also (for lack of a better way of expressing it) the question, when does one have 'enough' faith, sacraments, etc to be able to say that one is going to Heaven were one to die at that moment?
[ 27. December 2014, 18:01: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on
:
For the RCC salvation is 'getting to Heaven' and is guaranteed for all baptised not dying in mortal sin, although there is Purgatory for those dying in venial sins which although forgiven are still subject to punishment. This idea of 'getting to Heaven after death' was the common view of the majority of Christians in the West from the RCC, don't know if that still applies.
For the Orthodox salvation isn't predicated on this dichotomy of earthly life v heavenly life in spirit, salvation is in becoming God through one's own experience, to become fully human, ie. in earth. It's a heresy to say there is final judgement after death because the final judgement is when Christ returns as well as presuming to speak for the father who is the only one who knows when this is, which is a rather slippery construct, and it applies as much in the here and now for individuals as it does for the earth for the Orthodox already walk in eternity. Salvation for the Orthodox is viewed in cosmic terms since Christ has already conquered death by death and bestowed life on all by taking all from the grave with him... God is God of the living and all that.
Advent has some pages on the RCC view, for the Orthodox, <shrug>.
Myrrh
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
But how do you, as Orthodox, know when you've sufficiently theosised (if that is a word!)/ 'become' God?
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on
:
God only knows..
..I'm waiting for the last judgement to check.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Myrrh
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
What if you don't quite 'make it'? And if you're 'not good enough' in that way, what was the point of Jesus' sacrifice?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
This question encompasses not just the issue of assurance (or lack therof) of salvation but also (for lack of a better way of expressing it) the question, when does one have 'enough' faith, sacraments, etc to be able to say that one is going to Heaven were one to die at that moment?
I am not Roman Catholic or Orthodox, but I believe the answer is that they don't regard it as something that's easy to know. If you're worried about it you're probably ok. If you're complacent about it you might not be.
The problem with 'how do you know you are saved' for both Roman Catholics and Calvinists is that anything can be copied by self-deception. Calvinists say that you know because you have assurance. But it seems that some people think they have assurance when they aren't saved. So how do you know that you really have assurance rather than just thinking you have assurance? Any answer only throws the question back a stage.
Salvation in RC theology or Orthodox theology as I understand it isn't based on quantities of faith or sacraments. If you're a member of the church then Christ died for you. You lose salvation if you've committed mortal sins and you're unrepentant.
But really the question for RC and Orthodox isn't 'am I saved?' 'Am I saved?' is not a practical question. The practical question is 'am I doing what God wants of me now?' If you try to respond to that question then the 'am I saved' question has already sorted itself out. If you worry about the 'am I saved' question and don't worry about asking what God wants of you then the answer is probably 'no'.
It's much the same in the moral life. If you spend too much time worrying about whether you're a good person, you're probably not going about being a good person. What you want to ask is what would a good person do, and then do it.
[ 08. July 2010, 14:12: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on
:
I "don't make it" all the time. The instruction from Christ is to become perfect as God is perfect. I'm a work in progress.
You're looking at salvation as an either/or and that's it, this is irrelevant in Orthodox thinking, we don't have a God who condemns, except as explanation for the difference between actually following Christ's instructions which is all about how we act in the world.(*) We're all already created in the image and likeness of God, and hey, we've become like God knowing the difference between good and evil..
.. or have we?
The point of Jesus's sacrifice is already achieved - to conquer death by death and on all in the tombs bestowing life. Life, from Christ's teachings, is in bringing the good out of ourselves, to perfection. It is to be that, here and now, Christianity is the practice.
Myrrh
(*)For example:
Matthew 22:31-33 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Salvation is not to be like that. Salvation is life, that is death.
M
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not sure I understand the Orthodox view on this one, Matt, and I can't speak for the RCs either ... but from what I can gather from discussions with the Orthodox the question you're posing, like the whole Arminian/Calvinism thing only makes sense from a Protestant point-of-view.
From my observations, Orthodox don't seem to worry too much about who is in/who is out, who is saved and who isn't. They just get on with being Orthodox as best they can.
I've always been intrigued by a comment Andrew Walker made about a sermon given by the late Metropolitan Anthony Bloom. He once exhorted his congregation not to get all worked up about being Orthodox but to concentrate on being 'fully human.'
There's a lot in that. And I'm sure it's something non-Orthodox could learn from too.
If we use salvation as some kind of reductionist badge, 'Look at me, I'm saved ...' then I suspect we've got problems.
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's a heresy to say there is final judgement after death because the final judgement is when Christ returns ...
The Orthodox do not believe in a judgment at death? If not, do they believe that the soul sleeps til the final judgment?
As an RC I believe that an individual undergoes a particular judgment upon death. That is where one's eternal destiny is established. The final judgment at the end of time is for all who have ever lived to see the final justice (and mercy) of God.
As an RC (and not a very good one most of the time) I have always thought that Catholics and Orthodox believed pretty much the same thing (with a very few exceptions) but expressed this common belief different.
For example, a Catholic might view Confession as a legal proceeding whereas an Orthodox might view it as a spiritual hospital.
As for the initial question, as a Catholic I will not know my eternal destination - sulpher or frankencense - until I am judged. By looking closely and obectively at my life I might have a reasonable or even fairly certain expectation of beholding the Beatific Vision, but to state categorically that "I am saved" as some Protestans do would be the sin of presumption. On the other hand to state categorically that "I am lost" would be the sin of dispair.
For Catholics, salvation is a life long process of cooperating with God's grace to transform our lives into conformity with Christ. To become smaller so that He might become larger. Often we fail at this. I certainly do. But we must pick ourselves up and start over. Sometimes that's hard. (I believe that the Orthodox speak of this life long process as "divinisation.")
It seems to me that many Protestants who go about asking "are you saved" seem to think that once one is saved (in their theology) that's it - nothing more is expected or, indeed, required. You can be saved at 20; become an adulterer at 25 without repentance; a murderer at 30 without repentance; etc, etc. and still go to heaven.
That does not make sense to me nor, as a Catholic, do I find that view supported by scripture or tradition.
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on
:
Sorry for the double post, but the Catholic Encyclopedia at the New Advent site has a good basic summary of the Catholic view of individual salvation. You can read it here. (Scroll down to the individual salvation section.)
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Matt -in one way it is astonishingly simple - we are saved through the merits of the blood of Jesus Christ,poured out in sacrifice for our sins.
Jesus asks us to follow Him ,to trust in Him and to 'love God and love our neighbour as we love ourselves
Knowing that is the easy part - carrying this out,given our innate selfishness and propensity to 'sinfulness' makes it difficult.
If we believe in Jesus,trust in Him and not worry too much about things,Jesus will not let us down.
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's a heresy to say there is final judgement after death because the final judgement is when Christ returns ...
The Orthodox do not believe in a judgment at death? If not, do they believe that the soul sleeps til the final judgment?
The concept of a judgement at death at which it is decided whether a soul gets to heaven or hell for eternity is very much a western concept. This point is called a heresy because death is not the final judgement, which is when Christ returns etc. which time only the father knows. This is why Orthodox see RCC doctrine here as a heresy. For the Orthodox Christ has already conquered death so it's not something we're particularly concerned about.
So, all the dramas about who is saved or not so loved in the West don't really have any meaning for us.
'Soul sleep until final judgement' as a doctrine isn't a concept familiar to us either, the soul is conscious and we continue to interact to some extent or other with 'the dead'... This tends to freak out a lot of western Christians, but as an RC you won't have a problem with it in principle. For us 'the dead' are still active members in our liturgy which is at each place and time one and the same, this gets complicated, but simply the liturgy isn't an expression of individual events in linear space and time, but the act of the whole Church in eternity in every individual event in linear space and time; and 'the dead' are alive in this with us.
quote:
As an RC I believe that an individual undergoes a particular judgment upon death. That is where one's eternal destiny is established. The final judgment at the end of time is for all who have ever lived to see the final justice (and mercy) of God.
Oops, I should have included that in the first reply, but since I'm here. That is exactly why it is considered a heresy. One's eternal destiny isn't decided until the final judgement according to Orthodox.
quote:
As an RC (and not a very good one most of the time) I have always thought that Catholics and Orthodox believed pretty much the same thing (with a very few exceptions) but expressed this common belief different.
For example, a Catholic might view Confession as a legal proceeding whereas an Orthodox might view it as a spiritual hospital.
There's a world of difference between the juridical theology of the RCC and the Protestants from that, and us. It's complicated, but one reason I quit such discussions was a growing irritation of being told by Orthodox that 'Catholics and Orthodox believed pretty much the same thing'. I'm not going there again.
quote:
As for the initial question, as a Catholic I will not know my eternal destination - sulpher or frankencense - until I am judged. By looking closely and obectively at my life I might have a reasonable or even fairly certain expectation of beholding the Beatific Vision, but to state categorically that "I am saved" as some Protestans do would be the sin of presumption. On the other hand to state categorically that "I am lost" would be the sin of dispair.
This Beatific Vision isn't something familiar to us either, we concentrate on becoming God here and now. The RCC has ruled this a heresy. (It makes all RCC doctrine about baptism, being free from mortal sin at death to get into heaven, etc. etc. irrelevant.)
quote:
For Catholics, salvation is a life long process of cooperating with God's grace to transform our lives into conformity with Christ. To become smaller so that He might become larger. Often we fail at this. I certainly do. But we must pick ourselves up and start over. Sometimes that's hard. (I believe that the Orthodox speak of this life long process as "divinisation.")
Again we're going into complicated waters here as you've mentioned grace.., but generally speaking the process and practice is to become God through knowing God in personal experience (being), that's the only concern Orthodox have.
quote:
It seems to me that many Protestants who go about asking "are you saved" seem to think that once one is saved (in their theology) that's it - nothing more is expected or, indeed, required. You can be saved at 20; become an adulterer at 25 without repentance; a murderer at 30 without repentance; etc, etc. and still go to heaven.
Well, I've found that much Protestant theology is so peculiar as to defy sense, as I'm about to post on another thread, but as this comes initially from RCC doctrine about God I'd have to include RCC in that, sorry, and I've had my fill of Augustine arguments so that's somewhere else I'm not going. The standard view is that RCC and Protestanism are two sides of the same coin. Neither side makes any real sense to us as the differences which appear so great between the members of the two sides and between the various denominations on one side appear to us as mere nuances on the same theme.
quote:
That does not make sense to me nor, as a Catholic, do I find that view supported by scripture or tradition.
The arguments really are irrelevant to us as we don't begin with the same premises, (which you have in common), but I have to say I do find them fascinating when they get going!
Myrrh
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I've had my fill of Augustine arguments so that's somewhere else I'm not going.
Phew! Thanks be to God and his Blessed Mother, and all the holy saints of God for that relief! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
A simple Catholic definition would be "I am saved, I am being saved, I hope to be saved".
So it is past, present and future. Christ by his life, death and resurrection has saved us. By our co-operation with his Grace and desire to lead lives in accordance with his will, we are being saved. In the end, we hope to be saved.
It's an Anglican I read (can't remember who - may have been Geoffrey Rowell) who put it rather well in illustrative form: I am in the sea drowning. I see a lifeguard dive into the water to rescue me. So I can say "I am saved". But clearly that's not the full picture. The lifeguard reaches me and puts his arms around me and begins to swim me to the shore. Again I can say "I am saved". But in fact it's only when I finally reach the shore that I can fully say "I am saved".
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on
:
I was researching this very issue last night for a sermon. Can I run my understanding past those more knowledgeable to see if it's good enough for public consumption?
From the split in 1054 onwards, the Western church developed its thinking on “salvation”, whereas the Eastern developed its thinking on “transformation”. That whereas people in the Western want to “get saved” so they can be with Christ forever, the Orthodox want to “be transformed” into the image of God to be proper stewards of the world with God forever.
Where the Western church sees things in terms of an individual perspective, the Eastern has a more universal, cosmic vision of our place in the universe. The Protestant tradition pushes “I know I'm saved by Jesus”, unlike the Orthodox, “Let God alone be the Judge”.
Now if I understand correctly, I would suggest that these perspectives are complementary rather than opposing, apart from the last part.
I found this helpful.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
Matt Black,
As a protestant, perhaps I can answer your questions in a way a protestant would understand. Although, bear in mind that this is my opinion of what the RCC and EOC seem to teach.
The basic paradigm, shared by both, is:
a) The convert repents of their past sins and is forgiven.
b) The convert then works toward sanctification, an ongoing process throughout which God aids them.
The widespread view is that anyone who has done 'a' and is trying for 'b' is "saved" in a Protestant sense. It is fairly similar to how most protestants would take for granted that everyone in their own church was saved. However people are discouraged from being cocky and over confident about their salvation as that could lead them to stop working toward sanctification, and is seen as presumptuous. But it is usually agreed that if anyone is worried they might not 'make it', then that very worry is proof that they will make it - that they are a person who cares enough about God and what God thinks and who is trying for sanctification. I see their position on this as somewhat analogous to how I think of "stress" itself: Too much stress is bad cos you get stressed out, but not enough stress and you're not motivated to do things.
One difference I've noticed between Orthodox and Catholics is that Orthodox often have a much stronger tendency to universalism, which seems correlated with their much stronger emphasis on the love of God toward all. Thus, if you ask an Orthodox person what their assurance of salvation is, you are quite likely to receive an answer that focuses on the love of God - ie God's desire to save them is their assurance that they will be saved.
One of the most helpful articles I've ever found on the web on Orthodox soteriology is The River of Fire. It goes much farther than official Orthodox teachings, expounding in detail a concept of salvation that is widely popular among Orthodox theologians, without being the teachings of their church per se.
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on
:
Sarah G - 1054 is an artificial contruct of division, it was around the 8th Century that Orthodox began realising that RCC doctrines and Orthodox were incompatible, see Photios (Photius) and later St Mark of Ephesus. And see the River of Fire which is bog standard Orthodox - and the reason Starlight is cagey about claiming it is, is because of this artificial contruct of division, created in the 20th Century by the mutual masturbation of Constantinople and the Vatican..
Myrrh
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And see the River of Fire which is bog standard Orthodox - and the reason Starlight is cagey about claiming it is, is because of this artificial contruct of division
Actually, no, I am cagey because the Orthodox don't tend to have an "official" definition of their soteriology in the same way that other Christian groups do, and allow for a bit more speculation within their own theologians. Whereas the RCC, by contrast, has defined all their doctrines to the nth degree in their various councils. The River of Fire article exemplifies a common viewpoint and way of thinking among many theologians (probably the majority) within Orthodoxy. However not everything it says (especially the polemic) has reached the status of "official" Orthodox dogma - it's more the status of "widely held viewpoint".
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
From my observations, Orthodox don't seem to worry too much about who is in/who is out, who is saved and who isn't. They just get on with being Orthodox as best they can.
If we use salvation as some kind of reductionist badge, 'Look at me, I'm saved ...' then I suspect we've got problems.
I suppose it's more in the context of "if you were to fall under a bus today, do you know or are you comforted by where you are going?" Can me a Prot or an evo or anything you like, but I for one am not satisfied with "I don't know" as an answer; it didn't reassure me or give me comfort when I was a Catholic (and is one of the reasons I'm not now) and it doesn't now - I don't want to live my life in fear.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
[Missed edit window] I find Forthview's and TT's posts more comforting...
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Matt Black,
As a protestant, perhaps I can answer your questions in a way a protestant would understand. Although, bear in mind that this is my opinion of what the RCC and EOC seem to teach.
The basic paradigm, shared by both, is:
a) The convert repents of their past sins and is forgiven.
b) The convert then works toward sanctification, an ongoing process throughout which God aids them.
I think there's more to it than that; infant baptism would perhaps for example fall outside that paradigm.
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
Caveat: I am not Roman Catholic or Orthodox, but pretty catholic and orthodox with it.
Matt - I think you may be making something out of a terminological distinction. You, in your self professed protestantism would go under the Number 37 confident that you had been saved in your faith in the redemptive power of the crucifixion. No problem.
I think those with a more catholic view are less concerned about their individual position. When the bus comes, they go in their confidence in the all-embracing and infinite redeeming love of God. Their sustaining hope is that that love will do anything possible to redeem their situation. Text would be Romans 8:38-39. If it is possible that I have been 'saved' as in more protestant terminology, then that will have been accomplished.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The basic paradigm, shared by both, is:
a) The convert repents of their past sins and is forgiven.
b) The convert then works toward sanctification, an ongoing process throughout which God aids them.
I think there's more to it than that; infant baptism would perhaps for example fall outside that paradigm.
I believe that the sacraments are generally seen as facilitating 'a' and 'b', as part of God's supernatural aid to the believer. Baptism, communion etc contribute to 'b' above - they are part of the way God aids the convert in sanctification/deification. Roman Catholics also conceive of infant baptism as being part of 'a' as well (forgiveness of Original Sin) - the Orthodox are unwilling to say that a newborn is sinful and therefore in their system it cannot perform 'a' (but for an adult it can and does). Catholics talk about their sacraments "imparting grace" IIRC, and by 'grace' they mean the supernatural power of God working inside the believer toward sanctification.
[ 09. July 2010, 09:53: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Matt, I know exactly where you're coming from and have a lot of sympathy but I think 3rd Footer has answered this one more eloquently than I can.
I am not complacent but neither am I cocky. If I am to be saved at all it is through the grace and love of God and not my own works or deserts.
Consequently, if the number 37 crushes me this afternoon it ain't going to be my theology which saves me - be it Protestant, RC or Orthodox - but the infinite love and mercy of Almighty God revealed in Christ Jesus.
This may not make sense but I can honestly say that just as the whole Arminian/Calvinistic debate seems increasingly irrelevant to me, so does worrying about my own state of grace and whether I'm 'in' or 'out'. That doesn't mean that I'm no longer interested in 'working out my salvation with fear and trembling' but it does mean that I can live with ambiguity.
Sadly, and I don't mean this to sound patronising or critical, ambiguity is something I find many evangelicals find it hard to handle. Hence this constant need to formalise everything, to pin it all down to definite events or experiences (my conversion, my 'baptism in the Holy Spirit', my conviction of sin or my sense of 'assurance') or to doctrines - the 'final perseverance or preservation of the saints' etc.
By extension, I would observe that this is what I find most exasperating about the posts of Enders Shadow, Johnny S, Jamat and Call Me Numpty. As much as there are nuances and differences between them they all share, it seems to me, this very 'westernised', very Protestant tendency (imbibed through juridical and very legalistic Roman models) to try and codify the guts out of everything and to pin them all down into a neat formulary.
I may be doing our RC friends a disservice there, but it strikes me that there's a very legal Latin mindset which has persisted into Reformed Christianity (of whatever stripe) and which, although providing useful tools, can lead to a certain rigidity and inflexibility.
Am I making sense?
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on
:
Matt - I think Gamaliel is making sense. It's the mindset created out of the juridical relationship with God as taught from the RCC on in the West which permeates the majority spiritual view of savation here. If we feel we're constantly on trial and at any moment of lapse on our part consigned to the judgement of eternal damnation we're living in real fear. We may tweak out theology to change that to a guarantee of salvation as some Protestants have, New Yorker's gripe, but that's just creating a get out clause - the fact that it's still based on the juridical relationship with an uncompromising God remains intact.
But this isn't Christ's teaching.
None of these western theologies fit into Christ's actual teaching on the subject because of this.
If your fear comes from looking for certainty while still not having given up this idea of a juridical God, then give up this God. Christ didn't teach him.
Myrrh
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I don't want to live my life in fear.
Then don't. Trust God to keep His promises.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
God is not willing that any should perish (2 Pet 3:9). He gave his Son that any who trust in him will not perish (John 3:16).
What more do you need to pin down? Fear comes from overthinking salvation into a juridical system in which unless the i's are dotted just right, and the t's crossed perfectly, you go to Hell. But Jesus dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's himself. Worrying that you might have left something undone is works righteousness. Worry that you might have been predestined from eternity to perish is pointless -- if you were, then no amount of worry is going to change that, and there's nothing you can do. But then that understanding of predestination is not a universal in Christianity, and I have not encountered it in Orthodoxy at all.
What I worry about is not this, but that our Lord will say to me not, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant," but, "You suck. Good thing I died for you." Am I building with stone, or with straw? (1 Cor 3:13)
The Orthodox I know do not worry about whether they are saved. They don't "know" they are saved, in the Protestant sense of that concept, but they trust God to save them.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hey, Mousethief's said it better than I could, Matt Black.
Does that mean I'm headed across the Bosphorus? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Come on in, the water's fine! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hey, Mousethief's said it better than I could, Matt Black.
Does that mean I'm headed across the Bosphorus?
Let's start an Anglo-Orthodox wing of the CofE.we could do with another faction.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
That would be soooo cool!
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I suppose it's more in the context of "if you were to fall under a bus today, do you know or are you comforted by where you are going?" Can me a Prot or an evo or anything you like, but I for one am not satisfied with "I don't know" as an answer; it didn't reassure me or give me comfort when I was a Catholic (and is one of the reasons I'm not now) and it doesn't now - I don't want to live my life in fear.
The thing is, Matt, we can't answer your question because, from our point of view, it just doesn't make sense. "Are you saved"? Yes, of course, all Creation was saved through the Incarnation and Resurrection. "But are you saved?" I don't know. What do you mean by that? "Are you going to heaven?" What's heaven except the presence of God? How could I not go to heaven? If I were to go to Hell, he would be there with me. He went there before me.
So how can we be afraid of it? Every Pascha, in every Orthodox Church, we hear the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom, which concludes this way:
quote:
Let no one fear death, for the Savior's death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was embittered, when it encountered Thee in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains. It took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.
O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.
And we sing "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!" We sing it, we shout it, we sing it some more. Christ is risen! Truly he is risen!
What do we have to fear? He loves us. Whatever happens to us, he's been there first. He's there with us. Nothing we can do can change that. It's impossible. That "separation from God" thing they talk about in those little tracts? It's impossible. He's omnipresent. He shares our nature. God with us. Emmanuel.
If you want to really understand us, Matt, spend Great Lent and Pascha with us next year. You'll see.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
Mousethief said:
quote:
Worry that you might have been predestined from eternity to perish is pointless -- if you were, then no amount of worry is going to change that, and there's nothing you can do. But then that understanding of predestination is not a universal in Christianity, and I have not encountered it in Orthodoxy at all.
Hey, take it even further and make it true! This understanding of predestination isn't found anywhere in Christianity. You don't need to become Orthodox to avoid it; you can just stay exactly where you are.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Nobody believes double predestination? Hallelujah! It's about time.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I don't want to live my life in fear.
Then don't. Trust God to keep His promises.
That's not an honest reading of what Matt said. I agree with the sentiments 100% though.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nobody believes double predestination? Hallelujah! It's about time.
There aren't any worried reprobates, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any reprobates.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nobody believes double predestination? Hallelujah! It's about time.
There aren't any worried reprobates, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any reprobates.
So worry is proof of regeneration?
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation.
[ 10. July 2010, 06:50: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation.
Are you saying that no one actually believes in double predestination?
Or that the people who are predestined to hell aren't likely to believe that they are, and so aren't worried about it?
Or that worrying about your salvation is evidence that you are not predestined to damnation?
Or something else?
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation.
Are you saying that no one actually believes in double predestination?
Or that the people who are predestined to hell aren't likely to believe that they are, and so aren't worried about it?
Or that worrying about your salvation is evidence that you are not predestined to damnation?
Or something else?
b & c.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Hallelujah! I'm not predestined for damnation. Wait -- is there a middle category?
If anybody asks if I am certain of being saved, I'll say, "Numpty said I was. Would Numpty lie?"
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
If that's the case, CMN, then what did you mean by this post?
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Mousethief said:
quote:
Worry that you might have been predestined from eternity to perish is pointless -- if you were, then no amount of worry is going to change that, and there's nothing you can do. But then that understanding of predestination is not a universal in Christianity, and I have not encountered it in Orthodoxy at all.
Hey, take it even further and make it true! This understanding of predestination isn't found anywhere in Christianity. You don't need to become Orthodox to avoid it; you can just stay exactly where you are.
If some Christians do believe that some people are predestined to Hell, then how can you say that this understanding of predestination isn't found anywhere in Christianity?
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
John Newton says it well:
’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears reliev’d;
How precious did that grace appear,
The hour I first believ’d!
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
If that's the case, CMN, then what did you mean by this post?
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Mousethief said:
quote:
Worry that you might have been predestined from eternity to perish is pointless -- if you were, then no amount of worry is going to change that, and there's nothing you can do. But then that understanding of predestination is not a universal in Christianity, and I have not encountered it in Orthodoxy at all.
Hey, take it even further and make it true! This understanding of predestination isn't found anywhere in Christianity. You don't need to become Orthodox to avoid it; you can just stay exactly where you are.
If some Christians do believe that some people are predestined to Hell, then how can you say that this understanding of predestination isn't found anywhere in Christianity?
Because Mousethief said that, "Worry that you might have been predestined from eternity to perish is pointless -- if you were, then no amount of worry is going to change that, and there's nothing you can do" which isn't a fair or faithful presentation of the doctrine that he doesn't believe. It's a straw-man.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
If that's the case, CMN, then what did you mean by this post?
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Mousethief said:
quote:
Worry that you might have been predestined from eternity to perish is pointless -- if you were, then no amount of worry is going to change that, and there's nothing you can do. But then that understanding of predestination is not a universal in Christianity, and I have not encountered it in Orthodoxy at all.
Hey, take it even further and make it true! This understanding of predestination isn't found anywhere in Christianity. You don't need to become Orthodox to avoid it; you can just stay exactly where you are.
If some Christians do believe that some people are predestined to Hell, then how can you say that this understanding of predestination isn't found anywhere in Christianity?
Because Mousethief said that, "Worry that you might have been predestined from eternity to perish is pointless -- if you were, then no amount of worry is going to change that, and there's nothing you can do" which isn't a fair or faithful presentation of the doctrine that he doesn't believe. It's a straw-man.
I'm sorry, Numpty, but it doesn't look like a straw-man to me. But maybe I've just been misinformed about the doctrine of double predestination. If it doesn't mean that some people were predestined to perish, what does it mean?
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
Yes, you misunderstand the experiential component of it, probably because you've been misinformed about it more generally.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I note you didn't answer the question.
It appears you are being disingenuous. I wasn't saying that the "experiential" component is "believed" by anyone -- I'm not at all sure what that would mean. I was saying there are people who believe that some people are destined to Hell. Which is true. How that feels experientially to someone is not the doctrine of double predestination, and I wasn't addressing that at all in the post you responded to. I wasn't saying, "some people believe you can be worried about your salvation and still go to hell, but Orthodox don't." I was saying, "some people you can be predestined to Hell, but Orthodox don't." I can't believe somebody as intelligent as you are could have been confused on what I was actually saying. It has the appearance that you were purposely pretending you didn't understand what I was saying so you could attack it.
Let me say it again: I am not saying anything about whether somebody who is predestined for damnation can worry about it. I'm saying there is no need to worry about it if nobody is predestined for damnation. There may also be no need to worry about it because worry proves predestination to glory. I don't know; I will take your word for that. But it has nothing to do with what I was saying.
Am I clear yet?
[ 10. July 2010, 08:19: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hey, this is beginning to get interesting ...
At a risk of a tangent, I've heard Orthodox people commend Newton's 'Amazing Grace' for being a fine hymn - albeit ruined sometimes by contemporary evangelical rearrangements.
But then, it's been one that's been rearranged a good number of times down the years. Rather like the Puritan take on things ... diluting away into an experiential pietism.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I can't go there with "Amazing Grace". Grace didn't appear the hour I first believed. Grace, as an energy of God, has existed from eternity, and is especially in evidence ("appeared") in the incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord some 2000-odd years ago. Which is what saves me. So it was there long before the hour I first believed*. It might be worthwhile to go through this hymn from an Orthodox POV, but it's late and my bed is calling. In Slavonic. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
*footnote: doesn't "prevenient grace" predate a person's conversion? or am I misunderstanding that bit of Calvinist theology?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fear comes from overthinking salvation into a juridical system in which unless the i's are dotted just right, and the t's crossed perfectly, you go to Hell. But Jesus dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's himself. Worrying that you might have left something undone is works righteousness.
I'm guessing this is actually some mish-mash of Protestant and Orthodox sentiments: basically twisting a false Protestant dichotomy of work vs. grace to support a false Orthodox dichotomy of judgment vs. love, and vice versa.
In truth though, the favorite Orthodox analogy (well, at least favored by Ship-Orthodox) of the Church as hospital of souls immediately cuts through the bullshit. For if a doctor is standing in front of you making a diagnosis, then there is somewhat limited value to hearing "Rejoice. There are treatments. There are double-blind studies. There are pharmaceutical companies. People can be cured." OK. Yeah. Right.
What you want to hear is something like "Well, your blood fat levels are elevated and you have high blood pressure. We need to do something about that, or you will be in serious danger of a stroke or heart attack. Let's talk about changing your diet, getting more exercise and taking some beta blockers." Now, that doctor judged your health and the life style that lead to it. He also followed some fairly clear cut rules in evaluating the situation and possible treatments. And this is perfectly fine and is not an indication that the doctor is a bad one and the medicine is ineffective. Quite to the contrary. Yes, we all know that there are doctors who lose sight of their patient over their knowledge. But still most of us will prefer Western medicine over a witch doctor.
Truth to be told though, the analogy to actual medicine works best concerning morals. Because the basis of Christian morals is natural moral law, which then gets superformed by charity. That one can draw up some clear rules is based on this natural basis, just as medicine is based on the nature of the body. Since grace does not destroy but perfect nature, these rules remain valid in general. For spiritual formation I think the analogy is less appropriate, but then people generally bitch about moral "Dos and Don'ts" anyway.
Suffice to add that McCoy's judgment "He's dead, Jim." remains entirely possible concerning the spiritual state. If you swallow a glass of cyanide, you will drop dead bodily. If you commit a mortal sin, you will drop dead spiritually. If you don't like the result, then you shouldn't do the deed. Many things in life are complicated, but this isn't. There's no point whatsoever in going on about the miracles of medicine if you are about to swallow cyanide. Unless a doctor is right there to remove the cyanide from your system, you are going to be stone cold dead and no medicine in the world is going to cure you. Similarly, if you die in mortal sin then you are going to fry in hell, i.e., remain stone cold dead spiritually. Unless you repent and confess to get the poison out of your system in time.
That Christ has come to save all does not mean that you can't doom yourself. If you believe that Christ cannot possibly say "He's dead, Jim." with finality, i.e., in a Last Judgment, then you need to read scripture a bit more (1 Cor 6:9-10, Gal 5:19-21, Rom 6:19-23, Rom 8:5-8, etc.). Truths need to be faced, not hidden, and placebo effects are real but limited, also in the spiritual realm. And frankly, if you do not have any fear of God, then you are worshiping a Love Bear idol. Love overcomes fear, and yes, it can raise us even from the nothing that we are to the Everything that He is. But love must has some fear to overcome here, because that fear is good and true. A child can love God without fear in its naivety, but we adults are not, we must become like children before God. And that means developing child-like love, not remaining in childish love.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That Christ has come to save all does not mean that you can't doom yourself. If you believe that Christ cannot possibly say "He's dead, Jim." with finality, i.e., in a Last Judgment, then you need to read scripture a bit more (1 Cor 6:9-10, Gal 5:19-21, Rom 6:19-23, Rom 8:5-8, etc.). Truths need to be faced, not hidden, and placebo effects are real but limited, also in the spiritual realm. And frankly, if you do not have any fear of God, then you are worshiping a Love Bear idol.
I don't remember saying you can't doom yourself. People who have read me on other threads about salvation will know that I admit (sadly) that it is possible to be a "holdout" against God for all eternity. This is the reason I am not a "real" universalist. I believe God wants all to be saved, and God has done all that is required for one to be saved, but one can still reject it. God will save no-one against their will. I have maintained this quite consistently in all the time I have been on the Ship of Fools. (Indeed this is one of my major bones-to-pick with predestination: it denies free will, without which we are not humans at all.) You will not be able to find a post where I deny this. If you had asked me what my belief on this was, I would have told you honestly and forthrightly.
Placebo effects? Jesus' saving grace is a placebo? You can't mean that. What placebo are you referring to?
What is fear of God? You mean to be afraid of God the way I'm afraid of sticking a screwdriver into an electric socket? I suppose God could "zap" me like that, although everything I know about God leads me to believe this is not likely, because He loves me and wants to save me.
Well I suppose he could "zap" me to teach me a lesson about something -- which poses the question of whether or not I would know the "zap" is from God, and not just a part of the circumstances of life that God allows as part of the natural processes of this world.
But if I knew the "zap" was from God, why would it make me afraid of God? I am afraid of electrocuting myself, but I am not afraid of electricity per se. If I were, I would take myself off the grid and live with candles and (say) a gas range, wood heat, etc.
So what fear of God do you want me to have? Fear that he's a son-killing monster? I don't fear that. Fear that he might throw me into hell? That is sometimes a concern (perfect love casteth out fear but my love is far from perfect), but Numpty assures me that this means I'm saved, so the fear is obviated. What sort of fear are you referring to here?
If you mean fear of God as God, and not because of anything God might do to me (or not do to me), perhaps the better word would be "awe" or "reverence"? If you're accusing me of not having awe or reverence for God because I say that (in my best moments) I don't fear that I'm not saved, then you are equivocating on the word "fear". I do not doubt that I don't have nearly enough awe and reverence toward God. But that's not the same thing as fear of damnation, nor does fear of damnation prove one has proper awe and reverence. It's neither necessary nor sufficient.
Contrasting "childish" and "child-like" is a cute rhetorical device, but unless you explain what the difference between them is, vis-a-vis fear of God in this case, it's not a very useful or helpful one.
I don't doubt I need to read Scripture more. But I don't need you to tell me that, especially when it's based on a misunderstanding of what I was saying.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
mousethief said:
*footnote: doesn't "prevenient grace" predate a person's conversion? or am I misunderstanding that bit of Calvinist theology?
Yes it does, but it's generally a feature of Arminian rather than Calvinist theology.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
mousethief said:
*footnote: doesn't "prevenient grace" predate a person's conversion? or am I misunderstanding that bit of Calvinist theology?
Yes it does, but it's generally a feature of Arminian rather than Calvinist theology.
I stand corrected. (Was John Newton a Calvinist, or an Arminian?)
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I note you didn't answer the question.
I did. I answered b and c to josephine's original question.
quote:
I was saying there are people who believe that some people are destined to Hell.
That's part of what you were saying, yes. However, it was couched in experiential terms which I took as a misrepresentation of the doctrine. You appeared to be suggesting that a proper understanding of double predestination can result in lack of assurance of salvation, by virtue of the nature of the doctrine itself. I disagree in that I think that 1) reprobates by their very nature do not - and cannot - worry about their salvation, 2) the elect can indeed take worries and scruples about their salvation as sure evidence that they are in fact elect.
quote:
How that feels experientially to someone is not the doctrine of double predestination, and I wasn't addressing that at all in the post you responded to. I wasn't saying, "some people believe you can be worried about your salvation and still go to hell, but Orthodox don't." I was saying, "some people you can be predestined to Hell, but Orthodox don't."
That's how it read to me. If I read you incorrectly, I apologise.
quote:
I can't believe somebody as intelligent as you are could have been confused on what I was actually saying. It has the appearance that you were purposely pretending you didn't understand what I was saying so you could attack it.
No, that's not true.
quote:
Let me say it again: I am not saying anything about whether somebody who is predestined for damnation can worry about it.
OK.
quote:
I'm saying there is no need to worry about it if nobody is predestined for damnation.
True.
quote:
There may also be no need to worry about it because worry proves predestination to glory. I don't know; I will take your word for that. But it has nothing to do with what I was saying.
I think it does. Reprobate is a very big word, like the word heretic and apostate.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I note you didn't answer the question.[/QB
I did. I answered b and c to josephine's original question.
quote:
It appears you are being disingenuous. I wasn't saying that the "experiential" component is "believed" by anyone -- I'm not at all sure what that would mean. I was saying there are people who believe that some people are destined to Hell.
That's part of what you were saying, yes. However, it was couched in experiential terms which misrepresent the doctrine. You suggested that a proper understanding of double predestination can result in lack of assurance of salvation, by virtue of the nature of the doctrine itself. I disagree in that I think that 1) reprobates by their very nature do not - and cannot - worry about their salvation, 2) the elect can indeed take worries and scruples about their salvation as sure evidence that they are in fact elect.
quote:
How that feels experientially to someone is not the doctrine of double predestination, and I wasn't addressing that at all in the post you responded to. I wasn't saying, "some people believe you can be worried about your salvation and still go to hell, but Orthodox don't." I was saying, "some people you can be predestined to Hell, but Orthodox don't."
That's how it read to me. If I read you incorrectly, I apologise.
quote:
I can't believe somebody as intelligent as you are could have been confused on what I was actually saying. It has the appearance that you were purposely pretending you didn't understand what I was saying so you could attack it.
No, that's not true.
quote:
Let me say it again: I am not saying anything about whether somebody who is predestined for damnation can worry about it.
That's how it read to me.
quote:
I'm saying there is no need to worry about it if nobody is predestined for damnation.
True.
quote:
Am I clear yet?
Yes.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
Is there an echo in that last post? Sorry about that. Not sure how that happened.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I can't go there with "Amazing Grace". Grace didn't appear the hour I first believed.
That's not what Newton is saying. He is remembering how precious grace appeared to him when he was converted. In other words he is recounting a change in his spiritual perceptions concerning the grace that has existed from eternity.
He is recounting the conscious experiential moment when eternal grace became a precious treasure to him. He is not saying that his perceptions conferred value on grace either; he is saying that his affections were stirred and fired by a Spirit-inspired apprehension of the value of God's grace.
One of the marks of evangelicalism is conversionism. Newton is describing an experiential aspect of his conversion. In this case it concerns a shift in his understanding concerning grace. As an unbeliever grace was a meaningless concept; at his conversion grace became a pearl of great price to him.
[ 10. July 2010, 09:23: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
You appeared to be suggesting that a proper understanding of double predestination can result in lack of assurance of salvation, by virtue of the nature of the doctrine itself. I disagree in that I think that 1) reprobates by their very nature do not - and cannot - worry about their salvation, 2) the elect can indeed take worries and scruples about their salvation as sure evidence that they are in fact elect.
Perhaps you could weigh-in over in the What is so bad about 'Works Righteousness'? thread where a few of us have looked at how Calvinism indeed fails to deliver the "assurance of salvation" that it claims is important.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
You appeared to be suggesting that a proper understanding of double predestination can result in lack of assurance of salvation, by virtue of the nature of the doctrine itself. I disagree in that I think that 1) reprobates by their very nature do not - and cannot - worry about their salvation, 2) the elect can indeed take worries and scruples about their salvation as sure evidence that they are in fact elect.
And you've got Bible passages that, in a clear and straightforward reading, would back up those two claims? I can't imagine.
There seems to be something decidedly unwholesome about a doctrine that says:
1. Some people are predestined to heaven, and some people are predestined to hell.
2. I sometimes worry about which group I'm in.
3. That worry is actually a good thing, because it proves that I'm going to heaven.
4. People who don't worry about whether they're going to heaven or hell because they don't believe like I do are the ones who are going to hell.
Maybe I'm still misunderstanding you. I hope I am, because that line of reasoning seems to me to be utterly foreign to the Gospel of Christ. Trying to figure out whether I get to go to heaven or not is bad enough. Trying to figure out if those people over there are going to go to heaven is even worse. When Peter himself asked Jesus about John's fate, Jesus told him it was none of his business.
John had his own master before whom he would stand or fall. So do the rest of us. You don't get a vote.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Placebo effects? Jesus' saving grace is a placebo? You can't mean that. What placebo are you referring to?
Grace is no placebo. To bandy grace about certainly can be. It works, mind you, to an extent - just like placebo. But actual grace is uncomfortably concrete and practical, like for example the sacrament of confession.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What is fear of God? You mean to be afraid of God the way I'm afraid of sticking a screwdriver into an electric socket?
Well, talk to Uzzah about that... (1 Chr 13:9-10).
No, the fear of God is stunned awe with a serious bite. [D]o not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt 10:28) People like to stick to the awe alone, turning God into something merely impressive, like a sunset over the Grand Canyon. But that's not it. Again, love has a job to do here. Nobody needs love to get over sunset awe.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well I suppose he could "zap" me to teach me a lesson about something -- which poses the question of whether or not I would know the "zap" is from God, and not just a part of the circumstances of life that God allows as part of the natural processes of this world.
Interesting distinction. I don't think that it is valid.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you're accusing me of not having awe or reverence for God because I say that (in my best moments) I don't fear that I'm not saved, then you are equivocating on the word "fear".
First, except for the very first paragraph, I was not talking to you, mousethief, but to you, generic "you". Second, my statements were framed as "if" clauses. He who does not meet the condition need not worry about the consequence. Third, there is a fine line between trust and presumption. On which side you (mousethief) stand, only you can guess and God can know.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Contrasting "childish" and "child-like" is a cute rhetorical device, but unless you explain what the difference between them is, vis-a-vis fear of God in this case, it's not a very useful or helpful one.
Well, a child may believe that God is a nice old man. An adult who believes that, and therefore has no fear of God, remains childish. People are happy enough to drop the "old" and the "man", but often not the "nice". That is still childish. God is not nice. Nowhere in the bible is the slightest indication for that. Nowhere in our lives do we find evidence for that. The Church has not taught that. Yet it is comforting to think so, and people childishly do. But seeing that God is not nice with all the mental abilities of an adult, and then overcoming fear of God with loving trust, that is a state I would call child-like. There is nothing false and inappropriate then.
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on
:
As always, thank you, IngoB.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
You appeared to be suggesting that a proper understanding of double predestination can result in lack of assurance of salvation, by virtue of the nature of the doctrine itself. I disagree in that I think that 1) reprobates by their very nature do not - and cannot - worry about their salvation, 2) the elect can indeed take worries and scruples about their salvation as sure evidence that they are in fact elect.
And you've got Bible passages that, in a clear and straightforward reading, would back up those two claims? I can't imagine.
Romans 3:9-18 and Romans 7:21-24.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The opposite of nice is nasty. If God is not nice He must be a Calvinist.
I don't know about whether God is "nice" -- "nice" has so many shades of meaning, even in a perfunctory dictionary like merriam-webster (online), it's hard to know which one you're rejecting. Indeed I'm not sure I would apply any of the synonyms in the definition to God. At which point I wonder why you thought I would.
God is love. What is the biblical description of love? It's longsuffering, kind, doesn't envy, isn't vain, bears, hopes, believes, and endures all things. Do none of these apply to God? If not please explain why. "Longsuffering" is well attested in the Psalms -- consider 103 (MT numbering -- not sure if LXX is the same at this point). I think your view of God is very much predicated on your belief in a juridical model of atonement.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
You're going to have to do some explication there, Numpty. I don't see in either passage the idea that "reprobates by their very nature do not - and cannot - worry about their salvation," nor do I see anything that says that "the elect can indeed take worries and scruples about their salvation as sure evidence that they are in fact elect."
Here's the passage from Romans 3:
quote:
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
And here's the one from Romans 7:
quote:
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
I've read what you said, and the passages that you cited, and I don't see how you can get from the passages to your assertions. Perhaps you can fill in the gaps that come between them.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
No, I don't think I want to take you up on this offer. I think that the passages are self-explanitory and I don't have the time to explain them to you. Perhaps you could ask your husband or perhaps your priest if it's that important.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I too think it's bogus, so I can't explain it. I doubt our priest is a Calvinist either.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
I have replied here.
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on
:
If St Paul was so certain of the doctrine of assurance, why did he worry "lest having preached to others, he himself might be a castaway? (1Cor. 9:27.)
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
My belief that God is entirely love, and that what we experience as wrath, judgement etc. are in fact this same love, but that our position creates the different impression, does not mean that I think God is exactly nice. In our terms, almost anything can be preferable to love, but God is, and God is love.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
And to return to the original question, as I understand it there is no such thing as a catholic soteriology, because there is no individual salvation. We are in relationship, with each other and with God. We are bound to God by his grace through the sacraments, and as we live, so we work out how to live closer to God. To that extent, I suppose you could see catholic soteriology as being a question of process, but I'm not sure that's meaningful.
This understanding is rather under-educated, so I'd be interested to know how others react to my exposition.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No, I don't think I want to take you up on this offer. I think that the passages are self-explanitory and I don't have the time to explain them to you. Perhaps you could ask your husband or perhaps your priest if it's that important.
I believe that a husband is the spiritual leader in a marriage and I believe that a pastor/priest is the spiritual leader in a flock. That said, this phrase comes across rather cold. While I am a Calvinist, I have attend church with the MouseThief Familia, eaten brunch with them and find them to be reasonable, kind people. I think it IS important. That question was one that drove me into seeking answers in both the RCC & EO. I even attended catechism classes at an EO church in the South Bay (where I live) for awhile. I did walk away with a greater understanding and I felt refreshed to dive back into Sola Scriptura. I also find it distasteful when anybody thinks that there are more saved people in the Protestant churches than any of the RCC or EO ones. To my mind, there are just as many people playing the game, wearing their Sunday best, putting on a circus show of Christianity. I sadly came to that conclusion some years ago. The question Matt Black asked about salvation is one I too struggled with in outside Sola Scriptura. But I still struggle with TULIP and the double-predestination is one I have actually encountered taught. Unfortunately, it is out there and it has done a fair amount of damage, I'm afraid to peoples' perspectives of what the L is in TULIP. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I was once in a church in Los Alamos where the very benevolent & sweet pastor spoke this during Sunday Class featuring an RC Sproul video on the topic of Election..."there will be people rejoicing in heaven over some people going to hell". He was then quiet. <crickets> <pin drop> <a sparrow crowed>. I was aghast. I literally felt the wind knocked out of me. He saw my expression and tried to move on, explained him more and made a joke out of my gasp. But I was never the same since and that was a year ago.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
So, what I'm getting from the Orthodoxen is a call to re-examine the legalistic, juridical nature of must of Western soteriology, and what's coming from the Catholics is a critique of the individualism contained within evangelical soteriology. Is that a fair assessment thus far?
But it still doesn't answer my real question of "how do you know when 'enough is enough' soteriologically?" Just dismissing this as "well, you're asking the wrong question", doesn't really assist me in understanding, since this is a vital question for me and needs to be engaged with in order to help in bridging that gulf of comprehension...please?
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But it still doesn't answer my real question of "how do you know when 'enough is enough' soteriologically?"
Um, isn't the answer to that simply that Catholics and Orthodox reject the idea of "assurance of salvation"? Hence they can't know for sure when 'enough is enough'?
As this thread discussed briefly, in a tangent, Calvinism doesn't actually provide true assurance of salvation either, despite its claims to do so.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
So you're in essence piloting blind?
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on
:
Dearest duchess,
You have stated that you believe that in marriage the husband is the "spiritual leader". Does that mean that the husband is in the default position for married women, or the pastor is the default leader for the unmarried of the flock?
Or does this only apply to the "equally yoked'?
No, I'm not having a shot at you, this does have me genuinely confused (if not a little horrified)
I don't wish to stray into Dead Horse territory and your tradition and mine do differ, but please think about the prospect of Joe Bob Duggar (or worse) as your spiritual leader.
m (and no, I don't regard +++Benny as mine.
m
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So you're in essence piloting blind?
It might be more analogous to believing in the existence of the aircraft and trusting the pilot.
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
Matt, I have been thinking about your concern about 'flying blind'. In a way you are right in that I have to accept the risk that I may not be saved in the same way as I accept the risk that all my faith may be unfounded.
However, I believe (as in have faith) that no sin is too great for God to redeem the sinner. That the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection was, is and will be* effective in my salvation and (at least) any other sinner who has faith in it. My personal status sits with Bathimaeus (i.e. blind) and calls "Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me".
I guess the question comes down to when do I, like Bartimaeus, receive my sight? Does it prefigure Revelation?
I hope this helps.
(*a single thing that is effective from any time-based view of it)
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
Dearest duchess,
You have stated that you believe that in marriage the husband is the "spiritual leader". Does that mean that the husband is in the default position for married women, or the pastor is the default leader for the unmarried of the flock?
Or does this only apply to the "equally yoked'?
No, I'm not having a shot at you, this does have me genuinely confused (if not a little horrified)
I don't wish to stray into Dead Horse territory and your tradition and mine do differ, but please think about the prospect of Joe Bob Duggar (or worse) as your spiritual leader.
m (and no, I don't regard +++Benny as mine.
m
Dear Multipara, you do have that right...I believe that the husband is the spiritual leader. It is a whole another topic that has been discussed in the past by me
see the last page please (I did also post more in previous pages here). I don't want to hijack this thread but c'mon, you know I am a bible-banging Calivnist...what's there to be shocked about?
On to the OP, I think the question Matt Black is standing in is the one I myself watch this thread with great interest on reading. I don't have the answer on that one as I did throw Bishop Kallisto's book against the wall (and Fr. Gregory happened to know him, so I had to apologize for that least it reach the author, but Fr. Gregory understood). My frustration with the justification explanation was too much for me to bear to become Orthodoxy. I though respect the religion and my friends who got caught up in the plot. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on
:
Dutchie, I did say "confused" and "a little horrified" but not "shocked"...
As a non Bible-banging non- Calvinist, I only have to look at the poor standard of the average male ( cleric or lay, Catholic, Protestanr or holy roller) to suspect the the Almighty isn't as literal-minded as Paul et al would have us believe.
Each to her own, as the old lady said when she kissed the cow...no bull.
m
m
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
quote:
Originally flung by Duchess:
...as I did throw Bishop Kallisto's book against the wall...
Did it stick? Its a good test for sound theology.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
AFAIK, the Catholic view of salvation can be expressed in three words: Being in Christ. Salvation for a Catholic is participation in the life of the triune God; in the Spirit, by Christ, to the Father. This is why the Incarnation is so important — just like in the Orthodox Church. (I have the impression that many protestants doesn't really understand what the Incarnation really is. I often hear from protestants that Christ 'came to die.' That is true, but it doesn't encompass the whole of soteriology.)
Catholic soteriology emphasizes that we are made partakers of the divine nature by the incarnation — body, soul, spirit — of the Logos. (John 1:1-3.14)
This theme of participation runs through every aspect of Catholic theology — from the sacraments through prayers. And this is also related to the question of assurance. Because in the Catholic Church the focus isn't merely on subjective feelings, the focus is on objective criteria. The most important one of these is baptism; the sacrament which (together with the Eucharist) constitutes the Church. The CCC states (bold emphasis added):
quote:
#1213: Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”
#1257b: The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
#1259: For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
This shows us that in the Catholic Church assurance relies not on any subjective 'burning in the bosom,' but on objective criteria: (1) being baptized, and (2) being in good standing with the Church.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
And where the heck in all of this is the resurrection? We will only be "saved", whatever that may mean, when we rise with Christ. This, however, does not mean that life in God starts at some ill-defined point in the future; it starts now. We are called into it by baptism.
I came, John has Jesus saying, that they may have life and have it abundantly. Live now. Live fully - it may just lead to your being saved.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
On to the OP, I think the question Matt Black is standing in is the one I myself watch this thread with great interest on reading. I don't have the answer on that one as I did throw Bishop Kallisto's book against the wall (and Fr. Gregory happened to know him, so I had to apologize for that least it reach the author, but Fr. Gregory understood). My frustration with the justification explanation was too much for me to bear to become Orthodoxy. I though respect the religion and my friends who got caught up in the plot.
I'm just glad I wasn't standing between you and the wall. I'm sure your biceps are quite developed from that ironclad Bible you carry.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So you're in essence piloting blind?
Yeah, I'm blind with one baby-like hand in the Father's, one in my brother Christ's, and a Bird cooing overhead. (And, yes, sometimes I get poop on my head. Who knew a Bird had a sense of humor?)
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So you're in essence piloting blind?
Yeah, I'm blind with one baby-like hand in the Father's, one in my brother Christ's, and a Bird cooing overhead. (And, yes, sometimes I get poop on my head. Who knew a Bird had a sense of humor?)
Who's got the stick?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I don't know. I'm blind, remember? Just toddling along the best I can, trying not to be too much of a two year old.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
foolishly poking my head in where angels fear to go--
There is such a thing as a single predestinarian position. Just thought I'd mention it.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
That's what I'm counting on: universalism. Abba! Pweeze?!! ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But it still doesn't answer my real question of "how do you know when 'enough is enough' soteriologically?" Just dismissing this as "well, you're asking the wrong question", doesn't really assist me in understanding, since this is a vital question for me and needs to be engaged with in order to help in bridging that gulf of comprehension...please?
Lyda*Rose got it, Matt.
Do you have children? Imagine that your child is terribly sick, in danger, near death, how much does that child have to do for you to rescue him? That doesn't even come into the equation! If someone said to you, "Why are you doing that? Look at that child of yours. What did he ever do to deserve that?" You'd probably rip their head off! Deserving doesn't have anything to do with it. "Enough" doesn't have anything to do with it. That's your kid. That's all that's required.
quote:
If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
There was a little girl my neighbor used to babysit for. She was the best-behaved little girl you've ever met. She was almost unnaturally good. My neighbor said it was because, when her parents divorced, she worried that they might divorce her. She worked very, very hard to be so good that her parents would love her and wouldn't go away from her. That was heart-breakingly sad. But it's something that, as a child of God, you don't have to worry about. God isn't going to abandon you. If you go to Hell, you'll find out that he's already been there, too, and he'll stay there with you. He's not going to leave until the place is empty.
He doesn't love you because you're good enough, and he's not going to save you because you're good enough, because you're not. He's going to save you because he loves you.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
Oops. I was talking about Lyda*Rose's post about holding God's hands -- I didn't see her most recent one until after the edit window. (Yeah, I started a post, got distracted talking to one of the boys, and didn't get around to finishing it for a while.)
I can't be a universalist, because that would deny free will. But I find it hard to imagine anyone holding out against the love of God forever. I believe that they could, but I am not certain that I believe that anyone will.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm just glad I wasn't standing between you and the wall. I'm sure your biceps are quite developed from that ironclad Bible you carry.
That's really not fair. I threw it out of frustration of hours of studying Orthodoxy and yet not finding resolution. It may be a sign of my immaturity...I dunno...it may be a sign I was not to become at that orthodoxy. But it was not slammed against you or anybody else who believes it. I wish I could say I had ironclad biceps and that I really knew the Word the way I should but I often fail in that regard. I wish you could understand but I guess I am coming off very badly.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Duchess, I'm sorry, I wasn't saying anything negative about you, just trying (and obviously failing) to make a light-hearted joke about your throwing the book -- to show I am not offended by your not liking H.G. Bishop Ware or his book (or throwing it), or by you not wanting to be Orthodox. Please don't think I'm upset with you, or angry at you, or want to belittle you in any way. Please forgive me for coming across that way; it certainly wasn't intended. I feel terrible to have given you cause to react that way. I am really, really sorry.
I can't ask anybody to do anything but what they in their heart feel God is calling them to do -- because that's what I did when I became Orthodox. I don't dislike anybody, or think poorly of anybody, or believe God will condemn anybody, because they don't become Orthodox. If any of us is in "the wrong church" (and if it matters), God can sort it out. It's His call, not ours.
CS Lewis (through Screwtape) says God is pleased even with our stumbles when we stumble toward Him. Which is good because stumbling is about what I'm capable of at this point. Clearly.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Oops. I was talking about Lyda*Rose's post about holding God's hands -- I didn't see her most recent one until after the edit window. (Yeah, I started a post, got distracted talking to one of the boys, and didn't get around to finishing it for a while.)
I can't be a universalist, because that would deny free will. But I find it hard to imagine anyone holding out against the love of God forever. I believe that they could, but I am not certain that I believe that anyone will.
Actually my "universalism" is more along your lines, a kind of semi-universalism: Abba Father is ever and always ready to take us in his arms, whenever and wherever we get over our ignorance, pride, and stupidity in holding out against him. The glass is often too dark this side of the grave for people to experience the love of Christ. I don't think the Godhead is limited in patience and love. If the Godhead can't love better than we can, I'm not sure what the point of worshiping him would be except to do it in actual fear and wary obedience and not love.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Abba Father is ever and always ready to take us in his arms, whenever and wherever we get over our ignorance, pride, and stupidity in holding out against him.
I think that, for some of us, the hardest thing about being saved is going to be accepting the fact that people who have hurt us, or have hurt those we love, are going to be saved, too. We may say "all have sinned," but most of us are like the rich young ruler, who told Jesus, "I've kept all the laws from my youth up." Like the Pharisee, we think we're good, or if we're not good, at least we're better than the publican over there.
That pride, that particular stupidity, is I think going to be terribly difficult for some of us to get past. Learning that being united with God means being united with everyone else who is also united with God -- including that person whom we consider so far beneath us ... that's going to be hard.
In fact, it's going to be so hard that I can imagine someone saying to God, "I'm not going to come to the wedding supper if he is going to be there." In fact, for certain values of he, I can imagine myself saying that.
But the Master of the feast makes out the guest list and the seating chart. Are you willing to share a table with your ex? With the bully who terrorized you during junior high? With Pol Pot?
By taking on our human nature in the Incarnation, our Lord Jesus Christ has already united all of us to himself, and through him to each other.
It's not always a pleasant thought. Some of us are going to find it very bitter. In spite of that, I still believe that, in the end, love wins.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
That reminds me of one of the ghosts who visits Heaven in The Great Divorce. He's a rough, tough guy who in life was a mean foreman and a mean husband yet who always worked hard for a living and asked nothing of nobody. He was met by a man who had worked under him, who had gone on to murder somebody. The foreman was affronted: they sent a dirty murderer to guide him in Heaven? The guide had repented and made reconciliation with his victim. He begged forgiveness for the evil thoughts he'd had about the foreman. But the foreman would not accept him or the fact that he, the foreman, was in Heaven on any sufferance for his own sins. If that was what the place was about, he'd have none of it.
The other side of turning toward repentance is Hans Christian Andersen's classic The Girl Who Trod on a Loaf. A very different story where the saved cried for the damned instead of rejoicing in their damnation as Augustine would have it.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So you're in essence piloting blind?
It might be more analogous to believing in the existence of the aircraft and trusting the pilot.
On reflection, I think that was extending the analogy to the extent of changing it the another one but since that's done...how does one know one's on the plane?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
How does one know whether one is on the plane? By looking out of the window? By listening to the pilot's announcements - 'This is your captain speaking ...' ('My sheep know my voice ...')?
By paying attention when the girl down the aisle goes through the bail-out and life-belt drill for the umpteenth time?
By the turbulence you feel at take-off and landing?
By enjoying the view, the inflight movie and, hopefully, the company of those sat next to you?
By believing what you have heard.
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How does one know whether one is on the plane? By looking out of the window? By listening to the pilot's announcements - 'This is your captain speaking ...' ('My sheep know my voice ...')?
By paying attention when the girl down the aisle goes through the bail-out and life-belt drill for the umpteenth time?
By the turbulence you feel at take-off and landing?
By enjoying the view, the inflight movie and, hopefully, the company of those sat next to you?
By believing what you have heard.
Nicely put Gamaliel.
Perhaps from an evangelical point of view, you heard the boarding call and went up the steps.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Duchess, I'm sorry, I wasn't saying anything negative about you, just trying (and obviously failing) to make a light-hearted joke about your throwing the book -- to show I am not offended by your not liking H.G. Bishop Ware or his book (or throwing it), or by you not wanting to be Orthodox. Please don't think I'm upset with you, or angry at you, or want to belittle you in any way. Please forgive me for coming across that way; it certainly wasn't intended. I feel terrible to have given you cause to react that way. I am really, really sorry.
I can't ask anybody to do anything but what they in their heart feel God is calling them to do -- because that's what I did when I became Orthodox. I don't dislike anybody, or think poorly of anybody, or believe God will condemn anybody, because they don't become Orthodox. If any of us is in "the wrong church" (and if it matters), God can sort it out. It's His call, not ours.
CS Lewis (through Screwtape) says God is pleased even with our stumbles when we stumble toward Him. Which is good because stumbling is about what I'm capable of at this point. Clearly.
Thanks MT. I think I am too often too sensitive about the subject as it is one that has infected me like a strange disease and pops up every so often. I can't stop looking higher up the candle however I am content to be here at the lower end for now if that makes sense. The good consequence is that I see Catholics and Orthodoxy as my brothers and sisters...and I don't question their faith unless they give me reason too (perhaps somebody breaking open a lightbulb in front of me and stirring up a cocktail of freebase might make me pause for a minute) much as I would a fellow Prot. This has actually caused dissension in some conversations I have had with fellow Prots. One Prot I had dinner with never talked much to me again and wrote off my faith as I refused to think that all Catholics and Orthodoxy were "not reading the bible". When I first became a born-again Christian, I would have agreed with her. So I am glad to have this experience.
Thanks for explaining. I guess I have been not as much on the ship and I forget to take things more lightly.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can understand where you're coming from with this one, Duchess. But I must admit, I was never tempted to throw +Kallistos Ware's books against the wall. If anything, I wanted to give the guy a hug ...
I've met him since and I didn't ...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0