Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Then what is the sealing of the Holy Spirit of promise, "Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."?
The promise is that the gift of eternal salvation is ours through the communion of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; yet to claim it we have to read, and, more importantly, live, the rest of the scripture and not pluck it apart verse by verse.
"12 ... With fear and trembling work out your salvation. 13 For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. 14 And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; 15 That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Philippians 2).
I think there is a certain core of Christianity even among most Christians who find it more fun to argue about the differences. But yes, when I first read Palamas, his writing had such a familiar ring that I felt quite at home.
Also, since his writings were in the 1300+ he would be very close to the era of the Reformation.
I don't think there is any historical cause here. Luther didn't tack up his theses against the selling of indulgences (which I don't believe the Orthodox have never done--they don't have a treasury of merits to grant or sell indulgences from) until 1517, although John Wycliffe and the Lollards were around in the 14th century and John Huss and his Hussites in the 15th. Palamas was trying to defend some monastics who claimed they had direct experience of the light of Christ. Palamas made his defence by affirming what he saw as traditional Christianity.
It's interesting, though not surprising, that some of his views were considered heretical until later in life.
That has happened quite a bit in church history--both East and West.
Pelikan does give a fairly good summary of the Palamite controversies. Keep in mind that while he was very Orthodox in mindset, he did not actually convert to the Church until much later (just a few years before his death this last month.)
IMHO, he gives more weight to Meyendorff's analysis of Palamas than is due. Meyendorff's book had a lot of influence in the Church here in the West because he was the first one to publish works on Palamas.
But Meyendorff was fundamentally handicapped by the fact that he came out of the St. Sergius "Paris" school of Russian theology. This was a very academically oriented school, but other than Vladimir Lossky, the role of the inner life of the Orthodox spiritual life didn't seem to be understood very well.
It is worth hunting down Fr. John Romanides' two articles critiquing Meyendorff's books. While Fr. John (and especially some of his more enthusiastic followers) sometimes was a little over the top himself, he does understand traditional Greek Orthodox spirituality in general, and Palamas in particular. The articles are on line. I'll try to remember to send you links.
" Rather interesting as some of his ideas sound very Protestanish, for an Orthodox."
Apropos of that, and the ongoing side discussion of the Most Holy Theotokos, try reading this:
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/dormition.html
Let me know if +Gregory still sounds "Protestantish"! :)
"I don't think agreeing to something without knowing the deeper meanings does much to help matters."
And I think that's a great rule, Jo!
"But veneration of Mary is different in that in her we see the human before the Fall, who acts like Eve should have acted, -- rather than someone we'd like to directly imitate."
Now you see, Alex, the first part of your statement is pure Orthodoxy; cut the "rather than" in the second part and the whole thing would be Orthodox. :)
They are great articles; of course you know what I think of Meyendorff and the Paris School! :)
Here's a link:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.15.en.notes_on_the_palamite_controversy.01.htm
Seeing Mary as human before the Fall is accepting her Immaculate Conception. Hug, hug.
"The promise"
It isn't a promise, it is a statement of fact, a completed action without regard to the past, present or future. When you trusted you were sealed, period. Nothing else is necessary for justification and regeneration. Everything else is working out what one is, saved to the utter most. Now one can get on with the business of working out that salvation with the new life that has been given without having to worry about whether the redemption took or having confessed enough to the professional.
LOL!
Hey, the bell at St. Dom's in your old city fell down through at least two floors and the City is now concerned that the structure may have been rendered unstable!
And I think that's a great rule, Jo
I am listening to the hockey game online and have finished 5 full pages of written notes on the Trinity and the West/East differences in their views. (Quite a diverse set of hobbies?) From my reading so far, esp. as sythesized by St. Augustine, the West see God's Divine Nature first, and subsequently looking at the Persons next; while the East looks at the Three Distinct Persons first, seeing God most especially in the Father. If this summary is correct, I can understand why the West and East have a lot of talking to do on this issue. However, I continue to think these are differences of views (Aristotle vs. Plato), not necessarily a "right" vs. "wrong". I am not convinced that Hesychastism is faithful to the fullest consensus of the Fathers, since God is simple, and not a distinct Energeia and Ousia. This seems to imply a demiurge. But I will continue to read. I can't believe that the Orthodox of the 1200-1500's have returned to Neo-Platonism so rudely condemned by St. Ireneaus. I must still be missing something.
Regards
"...and not a distinct Energeia and Ousia."
NO, NO, NO! Energia is GOD, Ousia, ONE OUSIA, is God! Here's a link to another article; not exactly how I'd put it, but accurate after a fashion and perhaps worth the read:
"http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Energies%20of%20God"
In the meantime, Pelikan is a good read.
And....? Wouldn't their interpretations that they did through their extensive preaching throughout the known world have held the day? Wouldn't these understandings of Scripture have been carefully passed on to every new Christian and every new generation?
Yes, the interpretations of the Apostles would have held the day, but as to whether they were successfully passed down, I can only hope so, but history doesn't give me much cause for optimism. :) God gave His word directly to the people in the OT, and look what happened to it via interpretation. The Jewish hierarchy had transformed it into something not resembling its original form. I can't prove that it happened with the Apostles' teachings, but then I am left with the problem of explaining why the Apostles would teach so counter intuitively to their writings.
[On FK's assertion that Apostolic teaching bars God from interpreting His own word:] God is not barred from doing anything -- I don't know where you get that idea. The Church passes on what it understands to be the Apostolic teaching -- what else should it have done?
I say that God is barred from interpreting His own word because Sola Scriptura is declared false. Sola Scriptura MEANS that God interprets His own word. Instead, my impression is that the Church follows Sola Tradition in interpreting scripture.
The Church shouldn't have done anything else, I'm just not so sure how successfully it has been done. If today's Apostolic teaching is what was taught at the beginning, I have a mental picture of the first teachers with any of the NT in their hands and how much explaining they had to do. "Now when Paul said that 'all have sinned' he didn't really mean that, instead he meant there were exceptions for Mary, and maybe John the Baptist, and maybe Job". Or, "Now when John said that a believer will have eternal life he really didn't mean that, instead he meant that a believer will have eternal life until he loses it again at the next mortal sin". The Catholics will basically admit that the Bible is incomprehensible without the prism of the Church. Why is that? I don't understand why the Apostles couldn't have just written what they meant.
Could you choose one of the Fathers you mention, looking at his writings as a whole, and say that his faith was fundamentally the same as yours -- i.e. could you say, "this guy is one of ours?"
No, I have to admit that I don't know enough of the totality of any of the Fathers' works to be able to say that, but I'm not sure what that shows. If any Father was one of my guys, in the totality of his work, then he never would have been in the hierarchy of the Church in the first place. I also wonder what the Fathers would say about the teachings and practices of the Church since their times. Would they even recognize it? I know the Orthodox would have a strong answer for this, but I don't get the same impression with Catholicism.
In other words, Christianity was hijacked extremely early (maybe in the first generation after the Apostles) by men of false views and practices.
No, I didn't mean anything that sinister. :) I was using the dictionary definition of "indoctrinate", simply to teach doctrine. I can't claim to know all the "hows" or "whens" of error entering the Church. I just see what is being taught today, and then I look at the Bible, and I see that the two do not match. Of course I am also looking through my own Protestant prism, however, in comparison the stress and strain put on the words of the text of the Bible is less in Reformed theology than in Apostolic teaching, IMHO.
[On St. John Chrysostom's support of reading scripture:] Do you approve? Does that sound like the banning of Scripture?
I am heartened to hear it. :) I know the Orthodox have a reverence for scripture that is different from others and so I have full respect for that. I was just commenting on how strange it is that any faith at any time would ever prohibit the laity from reading the faith's own holy book. To me that is prima facie evidence that the faith doesn't match the book.
There is no evidence that anyone tried to suppress the reading of Scripture. On the contrary, we have the most prominent preacher of the day urging his faithful to read the Scriptures to their families in their own homes. Yet no Reformation happened.
And neither did a Great Schism happen. But apparently, a point was reached when your theological forefathers had enough and broke away, or the Catholics left you. It just took us 500 more years to follow suit. :) In the broadest terms, were not there similar reasons for us both not to be Catholics today? Our theological ancestors both thought the RCC had strayed too far away from the original faith. Of course specifically, we both are not Catholics for very different reasons, but I'm talking in the most general terms. I don't imagine that at the time the thought of schism was taken lightly by anyone, it must have been a very big deal.
But implicit in that is my original question: doesn't it seem funny that over the period of 1500 years, that there is no record of visible and organized churches that held Protestant beliefs until the Reformation itself?
I don't imagine it was very easy to break away from the only game in town. Some did break away, but what they formed I would not call Christian. I see the Reformation as something that was building for some time, i.e. it did not magically happen all at once. I don't see how it could have had any staying power if this were not so. One of the reasons given as the straw that broke the camel's back was the "pay for pray" (not an Orthodox practice as far as I know). So the Reformers had their own Great Schism, albeit that it was a little more dramatic. :)
What went wrong? Why were the Reformers able to start a Christian movement that lasted and expanded to cover the globe, while Christ and the Apostles couldn't?
Christ and the Apostles did start a Christian movement that is alive today. Look at how much we have in common. We disagree on the meaning of Baptism, yet every card-carrying member of both of our faiths gets baptized. The same can be said about accepting Christ into our lives as Lord and Savior. We all agree that we want to go to a real place called heaven, we all agree that we should do works that please God, we all agree that we go to church for the purpose of worshiping God, we all agree that we should conform ourselves to the image of Christ, and that Christ is the Son of God and died on a cross for our sins and was then resurrected, etc.
We disagree on much of the mechanics of Christianity, but we are all still Christians nonetheless. I'd say that Christ and the Apostles did a pretty good job. :)
In the gospel of Blue Duncan? I'll wait for the movie, thanks.
This is really sad. Ten years ago the Diocese decided to restore Sacred Heart and close St. Dominic. The judgement was based at least partly on the repairability of either church. St. Dominic is much older and this kind of thing was bound to happen.
If all honor and glory belongs to God, then none belongs to man, and thus salvation is not dependent upon man exercising his "free will" decision to do anything.
"Reflected light and surfaces" sounds warm and poetic, but it means zilch.
We are either saved by His completed work on the cross, or we're not.
Amen.
Now, Abraham did not work for his righteousness, his works showed it.
And quoting James 2:14 out of context doesn't change the truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone.
The entire chapter 2 of James is about the Christian responsibilty to show his faith by his works, not that his works save him from eternal damnation.
Note the use of the word 'profit'.
Without God's love controlling the Christian (1Jn.3:16-17) there is no profit for the Christian, neither in giving everything (1Cor.13:3) or in giving nothing (James.2:15-16) and he will be judged both in time (Heb.12:6-7, 1Jn5:16) and at the Judgement seat of Christ (1Cor.3:13-15)
Amen right back at ya.
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith." -- Romans 3:23-27"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.