Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
" St. John Chrysostomos writes:
"The soul is of course a creation of God, but it is incorporeal, rational and immortal." (John Chrysotsomos, On the Statues, Homily 11,2 PG 49,122. On I Corinthians, Homily 39,3 PG 61,335. On Genesis, Homily 13,1 PG 53, 106f)
and St. Gregory Palamas says the following:
"The soul of each man is also the life of the body that it animates...Yet the soul has life not as an activity [as animals do] but also as its essence, since it is self-existent; for it possesses a spiritual and noetic life that is evidently different from the body's...Hence when the body dissolves the human soul does not perish with it but it continues to exist immortally, since it is not manifest only in relation to something else, but possesses its own life as its essence. (St. Gregory Palamas, Philokalia, "Topics of Natural Science and Theological Science", #32).
Summarizing the Orthodox view:
The "immortality of the soul is not a natural attribute; it is a gift of the grace of God." ("Free Will and Death, Orthodoxinfo.com)"
This is exactly what I have been taught and have always believed. When I first came across this idea that the soul is not immortal, in Kalomiras I think, I was astonished. Perhaps the snip from Orthodoxinfo, not my favorite source nor one which I find particularly reliable given its pedigree, explains this idea, namely that the soul being created is not naturally immortal, but rather immortal as a gift of God. I don't find that very satisfying at all. On the other hand, the Fathers speak continually about a spiritual death, which would seem to fly in the face of spiritual imortality on the surface of things. That said, even that is far too simplistic. It seems to me that spiritual death is separation from God while "immortality" is everlasting life with God. But in both instances, there is no end to the state we put ourselves in.
A, maybe you can explain this "the soul is not immortal" concept in a way my simple peasant mind can understand. :)
No, but the Gospel of Grace is different then then three other Gospel messages preached, The Gospel of the Kingdom, the everlasting Gospel and the false Gospel that Satan uses to hide the truth.
Even from Paul alone, I can show that Paul does not teach "faith alone". Throw in Peter, John, James, and Jesus, the argument is over before it begins...
No, Paul does teach that a man is only saved by faith alone.
Works come after salvation to show that one is saved, it doesn't add anything to salvation that already has been acomplished.
Ye shall know them by their fruits (Matt.7:16).
The root (salvation) produces the tree which shows the fruit.
The fruit does not produce or aid the root.
You want a clue? Look to Romans 4:4, one verse removed from one you cited. That will explain what "works" mean to Paul. It is something done for pay. Nothing we do earns anything. Salvation is not earned. But Paul STILL commands we obey Christ. You misunderstand "doing something out of love" with "doing something for pay".
And what part of Rom.4:5 and Eph.2:9 do you not understand as it relates to salvation?
Rom.4:4 speaks of the fact that if one can do something for his salvation he can claim a debt owed, but salvation is a free gift and cannot be earned.
A Christian is supposed to do good works (so stop attempting to set up a straw man, as if we are arguing against good works), but the good works cannot add anything to salvation, they only show that one is saved.
If the person stops producing good works, that faith is dead and God will deal with it discipline and even death.
But, since he is a new creature in Christ, he will still be saved, he will lose any rewards that he might have had at the judgement seat of Christ (Rom.14:10, 2Cor.5:10, 1Cor.3:13-15)
Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Tit.3:5)
gospel Gospel. This great theme may be summarized as follows:
I. In itself the word Gospel means good news.
II. Four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished"
(1) The Gospel of the kingdom. This is the good news that God purposes to set up on the earth, in fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant 2 Samuel 7:16 a kingdom, political, spiritual, Israelitish, universal, over which God's Son, David's heir, shall be King, and which shall be, for one thousand years, the manifestation of the righteousness of God in human affairs. (See Scofield "Matthew 3:2") .
Two preachings of this Gospel are mentioned, one past, beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist, continued by our Lord and His disciples, and ending with the Jewis rejection of the King. The other is yet future Matthew 24:14 during the great tribulation, and immediately preceding the coming of the King in glory.
(2) The Gospel of the grace of God. This is the good news that Jesus Christ, the rejected King, has died on the cross for the sins of the world, that He was raised from the dead for our justification, and that by Him all that believe are justified from all things. This form of the Gospel is described in many ways. It is the Gospel "of God" Romans 1:1 because it originates in His love; "of Christ" 2 Corinthians 10:14 because it flows from His sacrifice, and because He is the alone Object of Gospel faith; of the "grace of God" Acts 20:24 because it saves those whom the law curses; of "the glory" ; 1 Timothy 1:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4 because it concerns Him who is in the glory, and who is bringing the many sons to glory Hebrews 2:10 of "our salvation" Ephesians 1:13 because it is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" Romans 1:16 of "the uncircumcision" Galatians 2:7 because it saves wholly apart from forms and ordinances of "peace" Ephesians 6:15 because through Christ it makes peace between the sinner and God, and imparts inward peace.
(3) The everlasting Gospel Revelation 14:6. This is to be preached to the earth-dwellers at the very end of the great tribulation and immediately preceding the judgment of the nations Matthew 15:31. It is neither the Gospel of the kingdom, nor of grace. Though its burden is judgment, not salvation, it is good news to Israel and to those who, during the tribulation, have been saved ; Revelation 7:9-14; Luke 21:28; Psalms 96:11-13; Isaiah 35:4-10.
(4) That which Paul calls, "my Gospel" Romans 2:16. This is the Gospel of the grace of God in its fullest development, but includes the revelation of the result of that Gospel in the outcalling of the church, her relationships, position, privileges, and responsibility. It is the distinctive truth of Ephesians and Colossians, but interpenetrates all of Paul's writings.
III. There is "another Gospel" Galatians 1:6; 2 Corinthians 11:4 "which is not another," but a perversion of the Gospel of the grace of God, against which we are warned. It has many seductive forms, but the test is one--it invariably denies the sufficiency of grace alone to save, keep, and perfect, and mingles with grace some kind of human merit. In Galatia it was law, in Colosse fanaticism Colossians 2:18, etc. In any form its teachers lie under the awful anathema of God.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=re&chapter=014
"A, maybe you can explain this "the soul is not immortal" concept in a way my simple peasant mind can understand. :)"
I think I tried in 8292. As you will note, my first words were that the soul is indeed immortal. In summary, I think that the way different Orthodox writers talk about the immortality of the soul depends on what they want to emphasize.
If wanting to emphasize the fact that we are not and never will be of one essence with God, but are created beings who depend on him for our very existence at every moment, it is said that the soul is not immortal by nature.
If wanting to emphasize the fact that our souls have an eternal destiny for which we must prepare in this short life on earth, and that we must attend to "the one thing needful," then the immortality of the soul is emphasized.
I also think that all of this must be considered against the backdrop of pagan Greek philosophy, from which men like Kalomiros and Constantine Cavarnos (who wrote what is perhaps the best little book on this topic that I have read) want to distance themselves.
Most pagan Greek philosophy contained, as I understand, the idea of the eternal self-existence of matter. There was perhaps a "prime mover" of that matter, but there was not a God outside of matter, space, and time who had created all of these things at a moment in which time began for that creation. There were ideas of the soul being eternal and immortal, even if there were different theories about the changes that the "substance" of the soul had undergone during its eternal existence
Modern Orthodox writers are writing in an atmosphere dominated by conventional Western historiography and histories of Christian theological development. According to that conventional wisdom, as we have discussed many times on this thread, Catholicism is based in Aristotelean philosophy and Orthodoxy is based in Platonic philosophy.
Now the three of *us* know from our personal experiences of worship and prayer within the Orthodox Church that we are not engaging in trying to achieve union with an impersonal Platonic "The One," with our immortal souls, being pieces of the original One, returning to their source.
But given the fact that the patristic writings are filled with *terminology* from Greek philosophy (imagine that, since it is the same language with the same vocabulary to draw on), and that many early Christian writers had a deep respect for Plato and Socrates because they had, in a very real sense, radically changed Greek religion/philosophy from a crude polytheistic paganism into a well-tilled field ripe for planting Hebrew/Christian doctrine and concepts, Orthodoxy indeed has its work cut out for herself to explain how it is that we do *not* ultimately have our roots in pagan Greek philosophy or in some sort of shotgun marriage between a bowdlerized Hebrew religion and a dressed-up Platonism.
There was indeed this Gentile "protoevangelion" and it is the reason why some early Christian writers even referred to Plato as "the prophet of the Greeks," and speculated that he must have had contact with the writings of Moses and the prophets for him to have arrived at some of the positions that he did.
It is against this backdrop that I think that we must consider these expositions on the soul not being immortal by nature. It is in the service of distancing ourselves from any idea of the pagan concept of the eternal self-existence of the "substance" of the soul.
St. Gregory Palamas was writing in a very different atmosphere. When he says that the soul is "self-existent," it is in the context of saying that the soul will not die and decay as does the body, and is emphasizing our difference from the animals in that regard. He is emphasizing the well-known fact that man is a curious combination of physical matter in a way that is similar to animals and of spiritual essence in a way that is similar to the angels. I doubt that St. Gregory Palamas would have questioned the assertion that the soul was created at a moment in time by God, and was not eternally pre-existent and self-sufficient, nor would he have questioned the assertion that the soul's self-existence and immortality is a gift of God, and not something that exists outside of God's animating power, "in which we live, and move, and have our being" -- in short the Holy Spirit, "the Lord, the giver of life."
K, that's as simple as I can make how I see all of this. But I've got a lot of manure on my boots still from having been at the ranch all last week, so maybe I can do better once I get me some citifying back into my system.
I don't remember Kalomiros's exact words, but he is as prone to poor choices of words as anyone, and if he simply stated that the soul is not immortal, I would consider that to be misleading and incomplete.
Are you trying to say that what Jesus says in Matthew 25 is the false Gospel that Satan uses to hide the truth? I had always wondered why Protestants ignored Jesus teachings so much and prefered Paul's. They think Jesus teaches the false Gospel...
What more can I say to you?
I pray that God opens your eyes to the truth found in the entire Bible, not just your version of Romans and Galatians.
The rest, quite frankly, I didn't bother reading, after seeing your first sentence.
Regards
That is correct, we do not grieved the Holy Spirit, since we want to be controlled by Him and not our flesh(Rom.7)
The race being run has to do with rewards not salvation. (1Cor.9:24-26) LOL!!! Read the next verse. As usual, you have to cut and paste Scriptures to get it to say your heretical views of the Word of God.
Vs 27 has to do with being found unfaithful in the ministry.
Hence the loss of crowns (see 1Pet.5)
"I keep my body under, and bring [it] into subjection, lest preaching to others, I myself should become reprobate" 1 Cor 9:27 Other translations say "become disqualified". In either case, "there's no soup for you!" You don't get a prize for being disqualified or reprobate!
Exactly!
If he fails, he gets no crowns
Which has nothing to do with salvation since there will be Christians who not get any rewards, but will still be saved (1Cor.3:13-15)
So, if one does not produce fruit then one gets no crowns in eternity, but that has nothing to do with ones salvation.
The final glorification has to do with our receiving our resurrection Body, not salvation (Rom.8). Too many verses to prove this wrong. "For if ye live according to the flesh, ye shall die [yes, you too, Christians who have been 'saved'];
Yes, you will die, you will die the sin unto death (1Jn.5:16)
That verse has nothing to do with eternal damnantion.
but if through the Spirit ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live
That is correct, walk in the spirit and not in the flesh (Rom.8:1) so God does not have to judge you in time. (Gal.6, Heb.12)
Romans 8:13 we are sons of God, and if sons, also heirs certainly of God and joint-heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with [him] that we may be also glorified together [with him].
That verse proves my view that since the believer is a heir, he is saved, but only fruit bearing will result in his glorifiction at the Judgement seat of Christ (Rom.14:10)
Romans 8:17 "with the hope that the same creatures shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God" Romans 8:21 HOPE! "For in hope we are saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man sees, he does not wait for Romans 8:24 Wow. FAITH ALONE DOESN'T SAVE! We are also saved by hope!
No, we are not saved in the sense of the soul , but with the body, the final glorification of both body and soul together in one resurrection body.
vs.23 defines what the hope is referring to, 'to wit the redemption of the body.
As I said, Sanctification is in three phrases, first, salvation of the soul/spirit which is permanent at the time of faith in Christ, second, the Progressive sanctification, which is growth to earn rewards in heaven, and finally, ultimate sanctification, which is the receiving the resurrection body, which we now 'hope' for, yet do not yet see.
Well, that's enough for now, I don't have time to go through every verse in Romans 8, but you should be able to see that eternal salvation is not a done-deal. Our salvation from sin has only begun.
No, what you have shown is that you can just cite scripture without context and understanding.
Salvation is by faith alone, without works-proven by Rom.4:5, Eph.2:9)
Works show ones faith, they do not add to it since salvation is a free gift and cannot be earned.
Good works are suppose to be done by a Christian to glorify Christ before men and one is rewarded for them by crowns, gold, silver and precious stones in eternity.
The hope we hope for is the resurrection body and that is the final aspect of our eternal sanctification.
1Jn.5:13, 'these things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life...
You are suppose to know you have eternal life, not be striving for it.
Born again is not being baptized (at least not with water).
Christ speaks of two births, one from water (flesh) and then one spiritual(vs.6)
Regarding Matthew 25:14-30, David Cloud writes What he writes is incomprehensible nonsense not related to Matthew 25.
No, it is very clear.
Matthew 25 has nothing to do with any Christian, it is related to Jews.
The man who thought Christ was a 'hard man' was an unbeliever, who did not know Christ.
All Jews were regarded as servants of God since God had created that nation for Himself.
you have never read the Pauline Epistles The Pauline epistles teach the very same thing: salvation is by grace through faith sustained by good works. No part of the New Testament cotradicts another. If you believe that St. Paul contradicts St. Matthew, or St. James, then you do not understand St. Paul. For example, Ephesians 2 indeed explains that salvation comes by grace through faith, but it also calls us to "walk good works" while avoiding pridefulness. This is a perfectly Catholic thing that St. Paul is saying there. It would also be useful for you to read therest of the letter, and find, for example, that we are to "walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called", "kind one to another; merciful, forgiving one another", "walk in love", -- just like the Church teaches.
Nothing you cited states that good works substain salvation.
Salvation is never substained by anything but God Himself (Eph.4:30, Jude 24, Rom.8:38-39).
You continue to say None of those exhortations to charity have anything to do with ones salvation, and that is the point that Paul is making by saying that works have nothing to do with salvation, they have to do with showing ones salvation This is not contained in the epistles. Work for reward and work mandated by law is explained to be not salvific; but work of charity is exhorted as salvific. If St. Paul meant to sweep up all the works as unrelated to justification he would not habitually segue into such exhortations in every letter right after he speaks of lack of salvific merit in works of reward and law. For example, St. Paul calls for virtuous life in Ephesians 5:1-4, then concludes "understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Seems that works of purity and marital duty are exactly that, salvific.
Note the word inheritance, that has to do with rewards.
Good works are a result of salvation, they result in eternal rewards but never can keep one saved or get one saved (Acts.15)
they are goats because they did not believe and they show that they unbelievers by their lack of good works. What prevented Christ from saying so, if that is the case? What about the preceding parable in Matthew 25, where it is shown that it is what you do with your talent of faith, not the possession of it, that counts for salvation.
And where do you read that the talents have to do with faith?
Does Christ say that it does?
In Matthew 18:24 a talent is described a being money, not faith.
That it is faith is an assumption you want to make.
But the Lord said in Matthew 7:17 that a tree is known by its fruit, not that the fruit has anything to do with substaining either roots or the tree.
No, what I am saying is that Satan has a false Gospel which Paul calls accursed (Gal.1:8) that mixes faith plus works, as do most religions in the world.
What more can I say to you? I pray that God opens your eyes to the truth found in the entire Bible, not just your version of Romans and Galatians.
I pray that you really did believe in Christ for your salvation so you will not meet the same fate as those who have rejected the Gospel of the Grace of God, faith alone in Christ alone.
The rest, quite frankly, I didn't bother reading, after seeing your first sentence.
Study to shew thyself a workman, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2Tim.2:15)
Even Peter found some of what Paul was speaking of tough going (2Pe.3:16) and had to be corrected by him (Gal.2) for trying to go back to his Jewish roots.
"I too find it very interesting although I'm not convinced that our Lord Jesus simply made up a new word. That would be like Him telling the disciples, "Give us this day our xpwbosbuess bread." "
Hardly. The word "epiousios" is not a random collection of Greek letters. It is grounded in Greek etymology, and the creation of new words from parts of other words in order to convey a particular concept is hardly unknown. It happens all the time in the LXX -- if one reads some of the earlier Western grammars of LXX Greek, one sees these scholars -- grounded in what they consider to be "proper" classical Greek -- groaning at and ridiculing the gross Hebraisms and novel word constructions.
The Apostles had Christ right in front of them to ask questions of him -- they wouldn't be scratching their heads for long. A difference, as we have pointed out many times on this thread, between Protestantism and Orthodoxy is that we believe that the understandings that the Apostles had from their time with Christ had staying power, and weren't lost with the death of St. Paul.
"I don't think you can accuse Protestants of this simple because they are not reading the subtle nuance that some say is there."
No, but I can point out that Protestants read their own deeper meanings into this and other passages in the Bible. The difference, again, is that Protestants do so while completely ignoring or approaching patristic writings with extreme skepticism -- picking a few things and rejecting most of the rest. While we Orthodox use our brains and the guidance of the Holy Spirit when we read the Scriptures, we do so in the context of standing fast, and holding the traditions which we have been taught, whether by word, or by epistle.
"...it simply begs the question why the disciples didn't dispense the Eucharist daily..."
Who says they didn't? In those days, the Eucharist appears to have been in the context of communal meals -- and most people eat daily. There is nothing that I can see indicating that it took place only 4 times a year, as it was in my Reformed background, or only once a year, as Zwingli's practice was. You have no more direct evidence from Scripture that it wasn't daily than we have clear evidence that it was -- and you perhaps have less.
"It also means the Church is not following through on a command they now believe to be there."
The Eastern Church never felt that there was a command for the Liturgy to be served daily, that I can tell, if St. Augustine was already complaining about it in the 4th century that they didn't.
St. Paul says "as oft as ye" eat and drink the Body and Blood... so there I don't see a command for all to receive daily anywhere in the Scriptures, personally. I would point out, again, that if one considers all churches and monasteries worldwide, many Orthodox priests are serving the Divine Liturgy and the Body and Blood of Christ are being partaken of by many -- not only daily, but probably around the clock... So if there is a command, the Church is keeping it.
"To make any claims other than "our daily bread" is presumptuous."
You'd better write those Reformed folks who put out "Daily Bread," then, and tell them that they need to stop their presumption and change the name of their Scriptural devotional booklet.
"Good works are suppose to be done by a Christian to glorify Christ before men and one is rewarded for them by crowns, gold, silver and precious stones in eternity."
Hey guys, sort of like 72 black eyed virgins, right?
Sorry ... typo ...
Those which have a true Christian faith will produce corresponding works ...John 6:28 Then said they unto him,
What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
__________________________________________________________
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
"Good works are suppose to be done by a Christian to glorify Christ before men and one is rewarded for them by crowns, gold, silver and precious stones in eternity."
Perhaps in a spiritual sense ... but there are rewards nonetheless ...1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
"What would (Southern Agrarians like) Donald Davidson or Allen Tate think about this?"
Well, none of us are on their intellectual level, so they would have considered us to be pretty amateurish. But I think that they probably would have had some appreciation for our lengthy discussions on various Greek and Latin words, what they mean, and how they were used in various works -- such as the discussion that Annalex, HarleyD and I have been having about the word "epiousios" in the Lord's Prayer.
I certainly think that John Crowe Ransom would have approved. Read "God without Thunder," and you will read someone who would have fit in on this thread very nicely. And I think that most of us would agree with Davidson's "intense disgust with the spiritual disorder of modern life...."
As to Tate, well, he would aloofly have intellectually eaten us all for lunch with room left over for dessert -- had he condescended to speak with us. But I think that had he dived in, he would have found, in the discussions between Orthodox Christians and Catholics and Protestants, some things of great interest, given the fact that he, perhaps more acutely than any of the Agrarians, saw the deep internal contractions and conflict in the Western European mind -- between scientific rationalism and Western forms of Christian dogma. As he wrote in "Religion and the Old South:" "This was the peril of the European mind and the medieval Church knew it." Tate saw that the "Russian or eastern European mind" was very different, but thought it was "quite simply supernaturalism."
Where Ransom's ultimate pulling back from any consideration of actually becoming Eastern Orthodox was based on a sort of cultural "abhorrence," (which is understandable since his only personal contact with Orthodox Christians were with non-English speaking immigrants in a Wyoming mining town -- yet for all that he said that he admired them and their religion) Tate's objections to the Eastern Church were, to put it bluntly, based on an inadequate understanding of how the Eastern -- that is to say, Orthodox -- mind works, and that mind is hardly devoid of reason.
Tate observed that "the Western Church established a system of quantity for the protection of quality, but there was always the danger that quantity would revolt from servitude and suppress its master..." Very perceptive. He notes that "the Eastern Church never had to ... construct a plausible rationality round the supernatural to make it acceptable; it has never had a philosophy, nor a dogma in our sense; it never needed one." Again, very perceptive, and I think he would have seen that contrast right here on this thread.
And there are further parallels: Tate observed that "the South could be ignorant of Europe because she *was* Europe... and the South could remain simple-minded because she had no use for the intellectual agility required to define its position... The Southern mind was simple, not top-heavy with learning it had no need of, unintellectual, and composed; it was personal and dramatic, rather than abstract and metaphysical..." I could go on and on from that particular essay.
Tate's self-described "irreligiosity" in his treatment of the Christianity he saw in the West in general and America in particular was not something he saw as being desirable -- but simply unavoidable given this clarity of vision. Tate saw not only the deep contradictions within the Western Christian mind, but specifically saw that the religion of the South was fundamentally flawed. He said that "the South would not have been defeated had she possessed a sufficient faith in her own kind of God. She would not have been defeated, in other words, had she been able to bring out a body of docrine setting forth her true conviction that the ends of man require more for their realization than politics. The setback of the war was of itself a very trivial one."
Fascinatingly, Davidson asks the question: "How may the Southerner [or I would say, the "agrarian" in general] take hold of his tradition? The answer is: by violence."
He says: "The Southerner is faced with this paradox: He must use an instrument, which is political, and so unrealistic and pretentious that he cannot believe in it, to re-establish a private, self-contained, and essentially spiritual life."
What I am slowly getting at is that there are a great many "agrarians" -- whether they would recognize themselves as such, or have read Tate and Davidson and Ransom or not -- who have taken a very different kind of "violence" (a distinctly non-political or apolitical violence) to re-establish these "private, self-contained, and essentially spiritual" lives for themselves and their families. They have gone beyond the cultural "abhorrence" and discovered a way not to be "defeated" by the modern world -- which world is simply a finely honed version of what "the world" has always been for those who have sought God from the time of Adam and Eve outside the gates of Paradise down to our own Christian day. These agrarians have become Orthodox... There are a fair number of us around FR.
Sorry to have nabbed your screen-name, but first-come, first-served. :-) And indeed, "long live the green fields of Our Lord." I'm going to ping a couple of people who I think might be interested, and invite them to ping any others who might enjoy this turn of conversation (there are no rules on this thread other than that one make modest attempts at civility)...
Nice to have someone around here who has read Tate, Davidson, et al -- all too many of them have left over the years, primarily because it is hard to be an agrarian and blindly cheer for anything the Republican party happens to do on a given day... I primarily hide out on the religion threads now, because it doesn't seem that there is anyone to talk to about that other stuff these days on FR, unlike my early days on FR when we would have long threads discussing Cato, Cicero, Russell Kirk, the Agrarians...
Maybe we can re-establish an Agrarian thread or two, and try not to get banned in the process.
Once I let go, it's like it never was there. A mental exercise that doesn't even seem to put a notch on what I feel inside. It is that incredible divide that always amazes me. But, I have to admit that A makes some good points, as always, even though he would have us believe that he is but a farmer with mud covered boots. And, of course, there is nothing simple about you Kolo either. But, you know how it is, the more complex the minds, the simpler the soul, and I mean that in a positive sense.
I would like to add a comment on A's mention of Aristotelian philosophy. If Aristotelian philosophy defines Latin Catholicism, then the soul would not be immortal if I understand it correctly. Aristotelian way of thinking is that the soul is here and now and as long you or something exists, the soul exists. Thus a match has a 'soul' in that it exists as a match and only for one purpose — to produce fire. Once a match is used, and is burnt, it is no longer a match; it ceases to exist as a match. Thus a human at the moment of death ceases to be that curious combination of animal and angelic.
Platonism, on the other hand, thought of essence as something that cannot be changed; we never cease to be human, even when we die. Orthodoxy specifically prohibits cremation for that purpose, and the universal idea of respecting even dead humans is a reflection of that thinking.
A strikes the bullseye when he says that the difference in our way of thinking is that we are not being returned to the impersonal One. Christianity differs from other religions in that we not only interact with God's energies but through Christ makes it possible for the ineffable God to become visible and close to us on our level; a filter or descrambler if you will between the uncreated and the created.
I would also agree that perhaps Kailomors sometimes uses unfortunate choices for his words, but the idea is that the a human being (a living soul as mentioned in Gen 2:7) dies, but it is clear that the soul, as the essence, is destined to spend eternity either with or without God. And in that, K says it simple and clear: "spiritual death is separation from God while "immortality" is everlasting life with God."
I must admit that I have not read much systematically in the area since college - at one time "I'll Take My Stand" was very dear to me.
Two of the professors I knew at Auburn, Dr Weatherby and Dr Allen, had been taught by agrarians at Vanderbilt, and both of these men became Orthodox Christians in the mid-1970s.
It's predictable but lamentable that Vanderbilt does its best to deny its connection with the agrarians, none of their poetry is taught today at Vandy. I suppose much of it can be laid at the feet of unthinking PC. To be fair to Vanderbilt, some of the agrarianism were openly racist, notably Davidson, who had the longest connection with the university.
Davidson, was, however, a great thinker, writer and poet. Great art should not be shunned merely because the artist is an SOB. If that were the test many museums and libraries would be nearly vacant.
Have you read "Crunchy Cons"? To be sure, it's not on the same plane as the primary agrarian works you mentioned, but Rod Dreher hits on many themes that agrarians hold dear. I understand that Rod is seriously considering becoming Orthodox. His chapter on Religion includes an interview with an Orthodox friend of mine.
I believe there is a connection between the world-view of Orthodoxy and agrarianism. Both share a conception of ordinary things as sacramental. The environment we live our lives in is important. There is more to life than materialism and efficiency.
Somehow I had a feeling that you had an agrarian connection, and that's why I pinged you. I think it is fascinating that you had two agrarian-educated professors who became Orthodox -- but not surprising.
I remember being floored when I read the essay by John Crowe Ransom collected in "The Superfluous Men," seeing his straight-forward assertion that orthodoxy was to be found first and formost in Orthodoxy. One didn't expect to see that in a man from Tennessee writing many, many decades ago. Likewise Tate's incredible essay on religion and the Old South that I quoted from (it is in his "Collected Essays."
You are right that some of the agrarians were openly racist. At the very least, many could be accused of pretending that racism and slavery had never existed. Not to take this obvious problem head-on doomed them to being forgotten. I think that this is a big unspoken part of what Tate's essay addresses -- the South had good instincts, but couldn't defend them, for a host of reasons, not least of which was the fact that they were never able to put their instincts together into a coherent whole.
"Davidson, was, however, a great thinker, writer and poet. Great art should not be shunned merely because the artist is an SOB. If that were the test many museums and libraries would be nearly vacant."
I couldn't agree more.
I'll have to check out "Crunchy Cons" -- I'm always interested in reading things in this line.
"I believe there is a connection between the world-view of Orthodoxy and agrarianism. Both share a conception of ordinary things as sacramental. The environment we live our lives in is important. There is more to life than materialism and efficiency."
I of course couldn't agree more. The original Agrarian movement was fatally flawed, but its study has incredible value for a host of reasons, not least of which is the fact that these gentlemen were trying to make sense of it all in a specifically modern American context, as are we.
Presumably, but not automatically. Consider that Paul tells his readers/listeners that people can be disqualified, can be disinherited. So persevere or else!
"I keep my body under, and bring [it] into subjection, lest preaching to others, I myself should become reprobate" 1 Cor 9:27 Other translations say "become disqualified". In either case, "there's no soup for you!" You don't get a prize for being disqualified or reprobate!
If he fails, he gets no crowns
Which has nothing to do with salvation since there will be Christians who not get any rewards, but will still be saved (1Cor.3:13-15)
Nice try, but one who is disqualified doesn't get ANYTHING. No heaven, no crown, no prize, nothing. One such as that is cast out of heaven, since anyone who achieves heaven has received a great prize. A person in heaven has NOT been disqualified. Again, you are desperately reaching, just as in James.
So, if one does not produce fruit then one gets no crowns in eternity, but that has nothing to do with ones salvation.
Wrong. No fruits, no heaven. Quite simply, if you have no fruits, you are not abiding in the Lord, you have no faith, you aren't saved... Attaining eternal life is not about a one-time event.
Yes, you will die, you will die the sin unto death (1Jn.5:16)
Don't use John to prove Paul's meaning. They are two different writers using two different meanings. Go to the end of Romans 6:
For the wages of sin is [eternal] death, but the grace of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:23)
but if through the Spirit ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live
That is correct, walk in the spirit and not in the flesh (Rom.8:1)
And if you don't???
That verse proves my view that since the believer is a heir, he is saved...
No it doesn't. You forgot the word IF in Romans 8:13. IF you do such and such, THEN you will be such and such...
No, we are not saved in the sense of the soul , but with the body, the final glorification of both body and soul together in one resurrection body.
There is no sense of any sort of separation between salvation of the body and the soul. That is your personal twist that the passage [Rom 8:17,21] never distinguishes. And what about "hope saves"?
As I said, Sanctification is in three phrases, first, salvation of the soul/spirit which is permanent at the time of faith in Christ, second, the Progressive sanctification, which is growth to earn rewards in heaven, and finally, ultimate sanctification, which is the receiving the resurrection body, which we now 'hope' for, yet do not yet see.
I disagree with this. First of all, when we die, we aren't going to be receiving glorified bodies. That will not occur until the Final Judgment. Second of all, salvation is not permanent until we die. At that point, our eternal destiny is determined. Christ didn't teach that we could rest secure in our salvation as a done deal. He over and over preached perseverance - and He also told us that many will say "Lord, Lord..." and Jesus will reply "I never knew you". Only those who DO the will of the Father will be saved, not those who claim they know the Father.
We believe that justification/sanctification is an ongoing process that is never finished in this life - nor is it eternally secure in while we are alive, as one can always return to their former ways, as a "dog returning to the vomit (cf. 2 Peter 2:22)
Salvation is by faith alone, without works-proven by Rom.4:5, Eph.2:9)
Neither of those two verses say we are saved by faith alone. They say we are saved without works, but it doesn't say "faith alone". Sorry. Read what is there... You are the one twisting verses here. The Bible NEVER NEVER NEVER says we are saved by faith alone. I find that VERY strange, IF that was the true Gospel. The only time "faith" and "alone" are placed TOGETHER is when James DENIES it - "we are NOT saved by faith alone"...
You can complain and accuse me all you want, but the simple fact is that the Scriptures tell us that faith alone does not save.
I would be happy to discuss what else is necessary, but you are going to have to be more open to the truth, rather than repeating the same old stuff that the Scriptures explicitly denies.
Regards
That's a good description of what happens in purgatory. One shall "suffer as by fire". I don't see ANYONE suffering in heaven, brother... These verses are not talking about "losing rewards". They are talking about the purging fire that will cleanse away any remaining impurities - for nothing impure shall enter heaven.
Regards
How the medieval Schoolmen used Aristotle to explain Christian theology is a complicated question. What they took most from Aristotle was logic and dialectic method. They claimed to use logic to prove the truth of Revelation.
The Scholastics got their Aristotle from Muslim Spain--Greek translated into Arabic translated into Latin. They regrarded the Muslim Averroes as the greatest commentator and interpreter of Aristotle. Whether he understood Aristotle correctly or not, he affirmed an impersonal immortality of the soul.
By the Renaissance the arguments of the mortality or immortality of the soul reached such a pitch, that the Lateran Council of 1512 established the immortality of the soul as a dogma of the Church.
But there is another side to the argument. If your Christianity is informed significantly by considerations of pneumatology and eschatology, then I think you have to go the other way and say that the soul is created mortal and only receives its immortality at the Resurrection of the dead when it is reunited with the body.
There you go again, adding to my reading list.
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
That's a good description of what happens in purgatory. One shall "suffer as by fire". I don't see ANYONE suffering in heaven, brother... These verses are not talking about "losing rewards". They are talking about the purging fire that will cleanse away any remaining impurities - for nothing impure shall enter heaven.
My point was not that any would suffer in heaven.
I agree that God will parent His children to fitness for heaven ... whether in their earthly lives ... or beyond.
But my point was that it was not a preposterous idea that ... men/women shall be rewarded for their good works ... and that that reward is beyond salvation itself.
For the child that suffers loss is saved also ... but does not receive the aforementioned reward.
P.S. I find not one translation of the passage which is rendered ... suffers as by fire.
Each of a dozen translations I can find all say that such a one shall suffer loss, ... but is, himself, saved, ... as by fire.
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.