Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
I obey Christ, not THE church. I can trust that my pastors won't lead me down the wrong path and I am under their authority in spiritual matters, but my allegiance and my obedience is to Christ and Him alone.
I obey Christ, not THE church. I can trust that my pastors won't lead me down the wrong path and I am under their authority in spiritual matters, but my allegiance and my obedience is to Christ and Him alone.
= = =
Well said.
You might enjoy my #10,235
They were ORDINARY people who did extraordinary things. See, God didn't play favorites with them. He took just folks who were willing and did great things through them, which He does with many Christians today, especially those who are being martyred in third world nations. They didn't have any special qualifications except to love God and obey Him.
"I think that's what I said way back in reply #10027."
Indeed you did. I shouldn't jump into the middle of things.
"I agree that repentance is dying to self, for it is a turning away from the direction you are going, here self will, and changing direction."
Its certainly part of it, probably the first part of dying to the self but not even close to all of it. Repentance, at least for us Orthodox, isn't something we do for God, we do it for ourselves, to start on the process of "metanoia" and that process and everything we do in that process, we do for ourselves and not "for" God. I am likely misinformed, but I interpret much of the Latin Church's theology surrounding repentance as being a sort of quid pro quo thing run with God. I understand it this way because of the plenary indulgences which often are attached to acts of repentance or other types of devotion. As I say, I may be misinformed and Orthodoxy doesn't have "indulgences" as such so they are rather outside my post Catholic elementary school experience.
I am wondering how Protestantism views what we Orthodox do in the way of repentance, prayer, devotions, fasting, etc. Do you see them as "works" in the sense that it appears to you that we do these things because they are in themselves salvific (salvation by works). Or do you see them as a means of, as I have said so often, dying to the self, consequently being able to "experience" the grace of God more fully and thus come into a union with God's uncreated energies, which is theosis? For that matter, do you see the distinction I am making? By the way, none of this even starts without responding in Faith to the grace God has given us.
Kolo,
We believe that Christ saves us by grace through faith period. Salvation is a one-time act that is a done deal because it rests in what He did for us on Calvary. We also believe that true faith WILL produce good works and create in one the desire to be like Christ. Those works are not the cause of salvation but are the result of salvation and reason for salvation. They are part of our sanctification which is not completed until we reach heaven. So, salvifically, we are justified by grace through the faith God gives to us. Santification wise, we are in a process all of our lives of becoming more Christ-like. Some don't get very far in this process and will suffer loss as far as rewards go in heaven - yet, they themselves will be saved. Glorification is when the entire process wraps up and we don't know yet what that will entail -only that we will be like Him.
I'm not sure how close the Orthodox come to this point of view. That you all believe one can be saved and then lost seems to imply salvific import to works. We believe once someone is born again they can't be unborn. Once a son (or daughter) one can't no longer be a son or daughter. The fellowship can be broken. The relationship remains.
We do not believe that one can have mere intellectual assent as to what Jesus did and truly be saved. Salvation comes through the fruit of the Spirit in our lives called "faith" and that true faith is one that does produce the fruit of works. If the fruit isn't evident, chances are the faith isn't the fruit of the Spirit which saves.
"First of hall, the idea that the son 'had to' go through all of these things to come back. I don't believe that is the case."
In this parable, the fact is that he did go through all those things...and that's what lead him to die to his own selfishness and become humble before his father. It doesn't have to happen the way it happened to the son in the parable, but all of us, in one way or the other, have to die to the self and become humble before God.
"I think it is eisegesis that the son realized how much he loved the father. I don't know that we see that here. He realized what he had done wasn't working. He remembered the good old days with the father. But he hoped that he could make a deal with the father to where he could be a servant. He just knew he couldn't be a son any more - after all, that's the way he himself would have treated any son who had done to him what he had done to the father- if even that good. So, devoid of anything he could offer the father but service, he went with his tail between his legs to beg for mercy."
The Fathers say that this is a demonstration that he did still love his father, because he was humiliated and returned with his tail between his legs ready to be a slave, but he did that because he remembered that he loved his father. If he scorned his father, the Fathers teach, he would not have returned. The truth is, many, maybe even most, people don't return.
"But there is another point that all of us have ignorred here. It is in the elder son."
Very good! The Fathers wrote at length about the elder brother and to tell the truth, I have heard more sermons from orthodox priests about him than the younger brother!
In Orthodoxy, we call this parable "The Parable of The Two Sons". And you are very right about the Pharisees. What the older brother represents is a lack of love and mercy and compassion, but mostly a lack of love. He "did" everything right, played by all the rules, but condemned himself by his jealousy as one who had learned nothing except arrogance and a sense of entitlement which lead not to experiencing the love his father showed, not to becoming like his father, but rather the opposite, consumed with hatred.
"I'm not sure how close the Orthodox come to this point of view."
Its not the same at all. We have no concept of salvation as you describe it. It sounds as if "santification" might be "something like" theosis, however.
Did you just wake up? Maybe you need a good cup of coffee, HD? Normally, you don't sound so out of touch.
The New Testament was written in Greek, Matthew being a sole exception as possibly existing in Hebrew but no one has a copy to compare. So, I would say that the NT is most definitely "correct" in that context.
The Old Testament is, of course the Septuagint, which was also the OT used in more than 90% of the cases as reference by the Apostle (Christ even quotes from it in the NT).
That alone should be a hint that it is "correct." But, I imagine that the 72 Jewish scholars who translated it from Hebrew 300 years before Christ was born vouched that it is "correct" (as least as far as their Hebrew copy is concerned).
So I would say that the Scripture used by the Orthodox Church is most definitely correct I can's say anything about the Bible put together by some renegade priest. He threw out the whole OT and replaced it with the Old Testament of rabbis who rejected Christ and anything Christian in Jamnia (100 AD); in fact they even commanded everyone to curse Jesus of Nazareth.
The Protestant community uses their book as scripture! Congratulations! Of course, that OT (the Masoretic Text) was then edited with vowels and vowels change words, not just the pronunciation. The oldest Masoretic Text was found in a Moscow synagogue in the 9th or 10th century after Christ.
Now, all Scripture has been edited, deleted, added to, copied, falsified, etc. Thus, the Bible used by the Orthodox Church dates back to the 5th century Alexandrian Codex. It is predated by the Codex Sinaitucs and Codex Vaticanus, both of which date to the 4th century AD. They differ from the Alexandrian in that the Alexandrian reads more "Christian" than the older versions.
These are the earliest complete bibles the world has. The Sinaiticus contains also the Epistle of +Barnabas. For some reason, this book has been left out of all subsequent copies to this day in all the Bibles I know. +Barnabas was, as you probably know, +Paul's close associate.
Earlier fragments exist for the NT and the OT, but there is no complete canon of either Testament known.
The Orthodox believe that despite human corruption, copying errors, translational errors, redactions, etc. the Scripture in its totality conveys God's truth as is immune to human imperfection. The truth is revealed despite and not because of what version of the Bible one reads, if one's intent is true.
That doesn't mean that we are at liberty to change, add or subtract intentionally the oldest copies we have, or that we can freely interpret the Scripture through the prism of modern trends, values and 'official truths,' but in context of the times, and mindset of the Apostolic times and realities of Israel.
This is where Church documents and opinions of the earliest Fathers come to rescue, because they are contemporary accounts of what transpired, and how it was perceived at that time and in such and such a place. If we perceive it differently because of our modern society and secular life style, we must go back to the Patristics to re-interpret it it context of their times, mindset and culture.
We call that the Holy Tradition. I really don't know what the problem with it seems to be with the Protestants who, frankly, interpret the Bible as they darn well please.
Thus 'brothers' are not the same as they are in the 21st century American society. And the devil is not the same in pre-Christian Judaism as it is in Christianity.
I did. I quoted Eze 28 from the Septuagint.
That is certainly true, Kolo, but it is also true that the parable advocates rewards for those who disobey and who repent when all else has been lost. Their disobedience is without consequences. Yet the older brother, who was driven to arrogance and envy out of sense of injustice, is the villain.
In some ways, our society does this too, namely reward the negative and suppress the positive. No wonder the negative wins. The younger brother had a good time and when everything dried up and he was starving he all of a sudden 'repented.' He had no choice, but to 'repenet' or die. When he returned to his father and asked to be taken as a servant, he didn't do that out of 'humility' but out of knowing that he squandered his fortune and dignity willingly and knowingly and had no right whatsoever to demand anything. The older brother felt like a fool.
This is one of those homilies that always leaves me with my head shaking.
That's what I am sensing.
We believe that we ARE saved. We have eternal life. We are sons and daughters of God and nothing can change that.
We believe that our sanctification is a follow-on process in which we are becoming more Christ-like as the fruits of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, gentleness, meekness, faith, self-control all are playing out in our lives. Absent of those fruits, which one might see as works just be careful to recognize that it is a result of the Spirit's work in our lives not our own efforts, one is not not saved. By their fruits you shall know them applies both to the false prophets and in general. If one doesn't have the fruit of a life changed by the Spirit, no matter how much one "says" they are a Christian, doesn't make it so.
So, ultimately, we see works as a result of our salvation and the justification for calling ourselves Christians. They are not the cause but the result of salvation.
You, the Orthodox, view the entirety of salvation as a process of becoming more like Christ. While there are some scriptures that indicate a process within the life of the Christian whereby we become more like Christ, there are still many other Scriptures that speak of a one-time event. We already have forgiveness of sins, we already have eternal life, we already are redeemed by the blood of Christ Jesus. It's not the end of the story of our life as Christians, but it is the end of our salvation. It's a done deal. The rest is where we become what we were saved for- to become more like His Son. The orthodox call that part salvation and I would presume that to not attain this Christ-likeness or theosis means one didn't end up attaining salvation? Or am I wrong there about what Orthodoxy teaches?
the Protestants who, frankly, interpret the Bible as they darn well please.
NOT AT ALL.
. . . . unless, perhaps one is citing JW's or some other unorthodox sect not really considered very Christian by the bulk of Protesty's.
Even in some of the flakier congregations I've visited have made an earnest effort to the highest they were capable, of taking the text and the best scholarship of the text to discover what the text was really saying AND TO SEEK TO FOLLOW GOD ACCORDINGLY.
Of course, some folks seem to have a compulsion to wallow in IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP dynamics so compulsively that facts seem to matter little, if at all. BUT IN THIS CASE, I HAVE NEVER OBSERVED ANY PROTESTY'S TO BEHAVE AS DESCRIBED. I realize rock throwers will never lack for rationalizations to throw rocks, however.
Very sad, that.
"The orthodox call that part salvation and I would presume that to not attain this Christ-likeness or theosis means one didn't end up attaining salvation? Or am I wrong there about what Orthodoxy teaches?"
Yes and no. It really isn't that simple. So very few people attain a complete similitude to Christ in this life that one can only hope that something less, in God's mercy, will cut it. I think its a safe bet that Orthodoxy would hold that unless one attains some similitude to Christ, then one is the vine which bears bad fruit and is destined to be cut down and burned. We believe that we all have access to the same grace. Some respond, become like Christ and love God and so God's love is paradise to them. Others don't respond and grow to hate God. His love is an eternal torment to them. Same love, different effect.
"This is one of those homilies that always leaves me with my head shaking."
Does seem unfair, doesn't it?! But then again, "My ways are not your ways" etc.
What did Christ's death do in the view of Orthodoxy?
Will have to get the answer tomorrow. I'm on dial-up tonight due to some inclement weather knocking out our satellite and wireless. Will check in tomorrow.
There is no 'tie' between John's sparse lifestyle in the Dead Sea region and the term "Repentance" in Scripture.
Really? No tie?
4 John was in the desert baptizing, and preaching the baptism of penance, unto remission of sins. 5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. 6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and he ate locusts and wild honey.(Mark 1)
Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance
(Matthew 3:8)
The penance must be shown with a worthy fruit. Which is the fruit? St. John the Baptist the Forerunner's asceticism.
The point of the parable, which has apparently been missed here, is the LOVE and GRACE of the Father not the wisdom and virtue of the son
I agree, but the fact remains that the Prodigal Son had to hit bottom and come back. This is penance. For your point of magical security this parable offers a counterpoint, as this is another sheep secure in the father's house, yet lost.
Very much so (in St. Elizabeth's womb, not in "the old economy"). But he was "making straight the way" by showing the way. That was the way of penance. Incidentally, this is why he is called the Forerunner.
And those very words were laden with Scripture
The speaking in tongues looking drunk would seem to suggest speaking ad lib and not reading from a Hebrew or Greek book.
I was not challenging the point of the parable, which is as you both say, but rather pointing out that the lost sheep are truly lost, but may be found.
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.