Replies

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

And if the elect were to do that, what happens? Unelection? Or is the answer the elect wouldn't do that? And the damned, do they get more damned?
The message is concerning the Judaizers who were trying to frustrate the grace of God by adding works to salvation. Paul was calling what they were doing for what it was. The elect do not add works to their salvation and are saved by the grace of God alone. So therefore, the hypothetical is something that would not happen.

K "And the damned are still damned by God from all eternity."

B "No. They are damned by their own actions. God does not hold them back. They refuse to come."

Whoa, wait a minute. If the elect are always elect and can't be snatched or fall from God's hands, then the damned must be damned from all ages. God decided that. They don't refuse to come. In your system, God already rejected them. What are they refusing? God gives them nothing but eternal torment.
You are incorrect. In "my system" which frankly, I'm getting a little tired of it being called for "my system" is held by Reformed Christians everywhere. I didn't make it up. I have spent many many many years studying Scripture and have seen it clearly within Scripture. So, it is not "my system" any more than Orthodoxy is "your system".

Anyway, it is a mischaracterization of what I have already explained concerning Reformed theology. God knew that man would rebel. He allowed the rebellion. He did not force the rebellion. He gave free will to Adam and Eve. They chose, freely, to sin. Knowing this from all eternity God also knew that all of Adam and Eve's proginy would refuse to come to Him. All of them. Romans 3 is clear. None seeks God. So, he chose, because He is GOD and can do that, to choose many to salvation. The rest, He allowed to exist and go THEIR OWN WAY - not because He didn't choose them but because of their own choice. God does not OWE mercy. Yet, in His design of things He allows the ungodly to exist to teach us about sin, wrath, holiness, and mercy.

"Says you. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Why do the elect need this, to avoid being unelected?
No. To fulfill God's purpose for us. Ephesians 2:8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

"If we are all sinners and have no assurance of God's mercy when we die, then somehow, we have merited God's mercy." Why does this follow?

"and if we have become Christ-like "enough" for his liking. This is unbiblical, Kolo."
Your becoming Christ-like, in Orthodoxy, requires that YOU do certain acts. YOU adopt certain attitudes. In other words, Christ's death didn't reconcile You with God and it wasn't enough to save you eternally. It required something more. This doctrine ADDS something to the sacrifice of Christ for salvation. Scripture indicates that it was His sacrifice alone that saved us.

Titus 3:4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Hebrews 9:12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Hebrews 10:14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

And many many many more.

Not at all, B. God created man in His image and likeness. The the potential to attain, through a response to God's grace, that likeness was lost in the Fall. Through the Incarnation, that potential to respond was restored. Our created purpose is to become like God. We either do or we don't. because we are all sinners we likely will attain very little similitude to Christ. Our only hope is that God will be merciful.
Scripture says that NONE seeks after God, no not one. By the theology that you illiterate, Christ is dead in vain. Nobody will come per Scripture, but gee, At least Christ's death made it possible for them to come. Reformed theology recognizes man's depravity. It recognizes his unwillingness to come. It recognizes God's need for justice and fulfillment of that justice. And it recognizes God's grace towards the objects of His mercy while preserving His justice.

"And when it was done, He cried it is FINISHED! No more needed to be done to reconcile man with God. It was enough."

God's blood lust was satiated, B?
Do not be snide. Christ's blood is our life. The wages of sin was death. To give us life, the shedding blood was necessary to make atonement for sin. Leviticus 17:11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.; Hebrews 9:22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Without the blood-sacrifice of Christ Jesus, our sins were not atoned for and our salvation was not obtained. It was not blood-lust. It was God's justice and mercy in action. If you don't like it, your argument is against Scripture.

"Well, I'm sorry to hear about your personal experience with Islamic militants. What year, month, day did you personally gain so much more experience with them than the rest of us on this thread?"

Most recently in the late 90s, but going back to the 70s in Saudi, in Egypt, in Turkey, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in Thailand. And as you know, I come from a culture which lived under Mohammedan oppression for 500 years. No brand of Protestantism ever faced even a few years of dhimmitude. Orthodoxy has spent the past 500+ years living with it.
And you YOURSELF, personally experienced this oppression? Not your culture, but you, Kolokotronis?

To this day the Protestant cultures of the West throw Orthodox Christians and Eastern Christians in communion with Rome to the Mohammedan wolves. We're doing it in Lebanon, we're doing it in the Palestinian territories, we're doing it in Egypt, we're doing it in Saudi, we're doing it in Iraq and we're doing it in Kosovo.
How do the Protestants throw the Orthodox to the wolves? Is your complaint against the US Policies in these areas? If so, I would not claim it to be a "Protestant Culture" but a secular one. Yes, the President is Protestant and the VP and several on his cabinet. But I don't see a lot of Protestants in the Supreme Court & I think the Attorney General is Catholic. Tony Blair is basically a New Age nominal anglican. I am not sure what big bad "Protestant Cultures" are throwing Orthodox folks to the Islamic wolves.

Is this because Protestants are the elect and the rest of us damned, or is it because the Protestant Reformation and its child the Enlightenment leads you to a better understanding of the Mohammedan world than your fellow Christians who live or lived with it and thus the West's active participation in the destruction of Orthodox and Eastern Christianity in places like Kosovo or Iraq or the disregard shown the same evil throughout No. Africa and the Middle East is OK because you guys know better?
Us guys? Okay, it appears that you are trying to slam US Policy. As such, you are exposing a bigotry towards anyone who is a Protestant. The US President makes a decision, so it was "Protestantism" that hurt the Orthodox in Kosovo, Lebanon, and every other place you want to lay blame at the feet of "Protestantism".

Arguably, you may have more experience with actual Muslims than many of us on a personal basis (though I would not cede that point to you, for we have no idea who is lurking on this thread and I know people personally whose lives are in danger because they are Christians in some very militant Muslim lands- all Protestants). But, what you do not know about American culture is a lot.

America is NOT a Protestant nation. It is very secular. Christians vote for sure, but Protestantism does not drive our votes. It drives our worldview on certain issues, but none of these issues are uniquely "Protestant" (i.e., right to life is also a HUGE Catholic issue). Our support for Israel is the one political thing which may be influenced by a Protestant (specifically evangelical) worldview. But the Protestants in the World Council of Churches reject this support and our national policy has not been super Israel-friendly in the past several years - so even there, we are ultimately secular. I would that we were Protestant. Protestants run Samaritans Purse, one of the largest humanitarian organizations in the world ministering to Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., all over the world with the Word of God. But Protestantism is NOT the cause for all of the ills of the Eastern Orthodox church.

"The elect do not add works to their salvation and are saved by the grace of God alone. So therefore, the hypothetical is something that would not happen."

My point exactly, B.

"In "my system" which frankly, I'm getting a little tired of it being called for "my system" is held by Reformed Christians everywhere."

My apologies.

"So, it is not "my system" any more than Orthodoxy is "your system"."

But Orthodoxy is, among other things, a theological system. That's what I meant by the term system. Truthfully, I meant no offense by it. When I mean to be offensive I am much more obvious, B.

"Anyway, it is a mischaracterization of what I have already explained concerning Reformed theology. God knew that man would rebel. He allowed the rebellion. He did not force the rebellion. He gave free will to Adam and Eve. They chose, freely, to sin. Knowing this from all eternity God also knew that all of Adam and Eve's proginy would refuse to come to Him. All of them. Romans 3 is clear. None seeks God. So, he chose, because He is GOD and can do that, to choose many to salvation. The rest, He allowed to exist and go THEIR OWN WAY - not because He didn't choose them but because of their own choice. God does not OWE mercy. Yet, in His design of things He allows the ungodly to exist to teach us about sin, wrath, holiness, and mercy."

But this is more, in part, like +John Chrysostomos' foreknowledge than predestination, if I am reading you right. Where your explanation falls, however, is in the way you have explained the election part and couple that with the verses from +John's gospel. For example, you write: "Yet, in His design of things He allows the ungodly to exist to teach us about sin, wrath, holiness, and mercy." To what end, B? If the elect are already in and aren't getting out, what's the point of the lesson?

As for the progeny of Adam & Eve refusing to come to God, well yes, He foresaw that. He also foresaw that the reason for that refusal was that because of sin people couldn't conform themselves to His likeness and were in bondage to death. Now God doesn't "owe" anyone anything. We don't make deals with God, bargain with Him any more than Reformed Protestants do. We do believe that God's grace falls equally on all of us because we are told that God loves His creation. All of us have an equal opportunity to become like God and thus fulfill our created purpose. Does God have foreknowledge of who will become like Him and who won't. Well, our language is necesarily limited when speaking of the One Who creates existence, Who doesn't "exist", except through the Incarnation, in any way we comprehend, but to the extent we can know the mind of God, yes, He knew. But we can't and don't have that foreknowledge. It is for that reason that we can say that God knows who is in His hands for keeps, or will be in His hand for keeps. But that doesn't mean that any human is predestined to attain theosis.

I do think that in part you are right about God allowing evil people to exist as an object lesson. I also believe that their continued existence is an example to us of God's "respect" for free will. God has given us, in the Incarnation, everything we need for theosis, He has lead the horse to the water, but He won't force us to drink. In many ways the same can be said about natural disasters. While it is clear that God has caused some as a sort of didactic "punishment" to get rid of overwhelming sin, it is also clear that such disasters are also the result of the distortions in creation caused by our sins, the accumulated burden of sin.

"Your becoming Christ-like, in Orthodoxy, requires that YOU do certain acts. YOU adopt certain attitudes."

Yes, we are taught that in order to become like God we need to have a metanoia, to accomplish which God has given us freely all the grace we need and that is found within The Church. What The Church does is take a spiritually sick person and nurse him/her to a point where he/she is freely willing to respond to God's grace and be healed of their spiritual sickness. That's what we believe the purpose of The Church and the scriptures is.

"Scripture indicates that it was His sacrifice alone that saved us."

Indeed it does. So does The Church. It restored a potential which was lost in The Fall. Theosis is becoming like God, B. Before the Incarnation we belonged to death, a state we put ourselves in. Scripture says none seek after God. Left to our own devices, that's likely true. But despite what the NT says, the OT is filled with examples of the Righteous. Christ freed them from the bonds of death when He descended to the place of the dead. Similarly, by God's grace the baptized Christian likewise seeks God. We see it everyday. Because, as +Paul wrote, "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." The "hope", B, not the dead on certainty of becoming like God.

"Without the blood-sacrifice of Christ Jesus, our sins were not atoned for and our salvation was not obtained. It was not blood-lust. It was God's justice and mercy in action. If you don't like it, your argument is against Scripture."

This atonement theory is distinctly Western as you have expressed it. Indeed Christ's sacrifice reconciled man to God, but not because God demanded a sacrifice to Himself. Christ's death reconciled us to God because it freed us from our self created bondage to death caused by our sins. We became free to become what God created us for, to be in the image and likeness of Himself. The "ransom" was paid to "death", not to God and death got cheated. "Hell took a body and found God!". "Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!"

I never should have made that crack about the West lecturing Eastern Christianity about Mohammedanism, though I truly believe it. It necessarily leads to a foreign policy discussion which is way off point here and I shouldn't have gotten into it. I am sorry. I will only say this. I have never in any substantial and extended way personally found myself in a state of dhimmitude. I have dealt with Mohammedans in the context of their own religious cultures. I have encountered and dealt with in various places in the Mohammedan world people we would consider today (and then for that matter) a pretty bad bunch. Because of that "stuff", its best that I don't go to certain places in the Mohammedan (and communist too) world. But I have never personally, unlike a number of Eastern Christians on FR, ever had my parish church burned or been driven from my home nor have I, save in one place, been forced to worship in secret. Finally, you write,

"But, what you do not know about American culture is a lot.
"

Gee, I had a grandmother whose family came to Massachusetts in 1623, two of my sisters are members of the DAR and I qualify for membership in the SAR (I've had the forms for admission for years; I just never got around to filling them out). I have an ancestress who was tried three times for witchcraft in 17th century Massachusetts and beat the rap all three times. Another was the first published poet in the English New World (17th century) and, I believe the first published poetess in the English language. I have two others who were "saved" after one of Jonathan Edwards' sermons. I have another who was scalped in the first Indian war and another who was carried off to Quebec by the Indians. Others who fought at Louisburg and still others whose homestead was burned flat by the Indians three times during the French and Indian wars. Does that count? :)