Posted on 09/14/2008 10:21:07 PM PDT by Gamecock
As I tried to explain a little in my last post, it depends on what "being Christ-like" means. There can be no "Christ-like" without first having faith.
"Invincible ignorance" simply means that those who don't know Christ can still be saved by God. I am not sure what it is that you don't recognize as valid about it?
Oh, I respectfully disagree because that is only one application of it. Invincible ignorance can be directly related to (not) following the Apostolic Church. From the Catechism:
I "think" the only place I fail above is in denying "the Church's authority and her teaching" (on some things). I question the validity of the doctrine because I do not think recognizing the Apostolic Church's authority has anything to do with salvation.
FK: Therefore, if it WAS true and applied to me it would be in SPITE of my beliefs, not because I claimed it.
If it [invincible ignorance] were true? Are you saying all things are not possible with God?
No, but obviously not all things ARE true just because they COULD be true because of God. :)
“There can be no “Christ-like” without first having faith.”
Ah, well, we Orthodox, at least most of us, wouldn’t presume to say that, assuming that what you mean by faith is faith in Christ. +Symeon the New Theologian said that it isn’t what a man has done or said here which counts for his eternal life but rather upon examination if he bears a resemblance to or differs from Christ. We cannot say what God’s judgments will be in that regard any more than we can limit where and to whom the Spirit goes.
That innovation is barely 500 years old. For 1,500 years prior to that, there was no other authority; being a Christian was and is synonymous with the Apostolic Church.
NO! :) GOD ALONE has been the only authority since forever, but on earth since the day He created it. Throughout the Bible God declares His sovereignty. In addition, you cannot tell me that the first organized Reformers were the first to truly be separated brethren. For the first 1,500 years after Christ there were true Christians (and false Christians) who did not recognize the authority of the Apostolic Church. Do you disagree with that?
Christ left the Church to the Apostles to care for the souls of the believers. There was no "authority" outside the Apostolic Church.
That sounds like you mean the buck stops with the Apostolic Church. We would say the buck always stops with God.
“For the first 1,500 years after Christ there were true Christians (and false Christians) who did not recognize the authority of the Apostolic Church. Do you disagree with that?”
Well, there were Arians and Gnostics and Montanists, people like that. The Arians, interestingly enough, could return to The Church by a simple profession of faith. There were people like the Severians, but they were at base Monophysites and thus like today’s Oriental Orthodox and so part of The Church. Historically speaking, for the first 1500 years of The Church there was nothing like an “organized” ecclesial movement akin to what the Reformers kicked off in the 16th century except for some pretty terrible heresies which you wouldn’t want to be identified with.
“That sounds like you mean the buck stops with the Apostolic Church.”
Because The Church is God’s Church, here the buck does stop with The Church which in its fullness cannot err.
“We would say the buck always stops with God.”
That doesn’t follow at all. God prints the buck and owns them all.The bucks are grace. The Church has always taught that its what we, in the exercise of our Free Will, do with those bucks which determines our similitude (and thus theosis) with Christ. Any other notion is simply a 500 year old (or less) innovation.
Ah, well, we Orthodox, at least most of us, wouldn’t presume to say that, assuming that what you mean by faith is faith in Christ. +Symeon the New Theologian said that it isn’t what a man has done or said here which counts for his eternal life but rather upon examination if he bears a resemblance to or differs from Christ. We cannot say what God’s judgments will be in that regard any more than we can limit where and to whom the Spirit goes.
While we can agree that God can make exceptions to general Biblical rules as He sees fit, how could anyone "resemble" Christ without faith? I would say that's impossible. Was +Symeon the New Theologian's idea that resembling Christ consisted solely or mostly of doing good deeds like He did?
Undoubtedly, at some point "love" will come into this conversation, so I would like to preemptively ask if Christ-like love is self-generated? If it is not, does God give Christ-like love to those who continue without faith? If you say "Yes", then it makes no sense to me that He would do that without also giving Christ-like faith. The giving of such faith is the ultimate act of love from God Himself. That would be a contradiction since He would be giving what He is simultaneously denying.
One possible response is that God gives neither faith nor love, but merely offers them both. But that answer presupposes that there are many who accept the offered Christ-like love, but reject the Christ-like faith. Again I would say that is impossible. One CANNOT love as Christ did and reject God. It is impossible by definition.
“Was +Symeon the New Theologian’s idea that resembling Christ consisted solely or mostly of doing good deeds like He did?”
Oh, not at all. Indeed it is quite the opposite. Here’s the actual quote:
“In the future life the Christian is not examined if he has renounced the whole world for Christ’s love, or if he has distributed his riches to the poor or if he fasted or kept vigil or prayed, or if he wept and lamented for his sins, or if he has done any other good in this life, but he is examined attentively if he has any similitude with Christ, as a son does with his father.”
Remember that when and where +Symeon wrote, there were only two types of people, members of The Church and pagans.
No. Such love doesn't occur in nature spontaneously.
If it is not, does God give Christ-like love to those who continue without faith?
Yes, of course he does. God gives his love to all humanity. What humanity does with his love is a matter of personal choice. Some are grateful and others take it for granted. Some use it for God-pleasing deeds; others use it for evil. Most do both. Christians continue to sin even though they believe.
They continue to sin because they have not attained the likeness of Christ. And most never do. Soteriologically, what matters is whether they are honestly trying, even if they are honestly failing.
If you say "Yes", then it makes no sense to me that He would do that without also giving Christ-like faith. The giving of such faith is the ultimate act of love from God Himself.
God is not partial. He desires all men to be saved. He knocks on our hearts and we either let him in or we shut him out. No one is forced.
Those who come to him are his and he knew them from before the foundations of the world in his foreknowledge by their choice. But they were not forced to come to him.
One possible response is that God gives neither faith nor love
No, that's not a possible answer.
Again I would say that is impossible.
Wow, we agree! :) [probably for different reasons!]
One CANNOT love as Christ did and reject God. It is impossible by definition
The point is that faith is not enough. It's a good start. It's a dinghy on the French coast and America is a loooooong way from there.
So, if you think you will get to America by just sitting in your dinghy, and not rowing, good luck! It's possible, but it's highly unlikely. You don't have to make it, but you certainly have to die trying.
You have many faithful who simply sit on their faith, confident that, no matter what, whether they even try to be Chirts-like or not, they are still saved.
On the other hand, you don't have to believe in God to have gratitude and compassion. Compassion comes from God, but it is not necessary that we know that in order to be compassionate.
This is a reminder that there are poeple who go to church, tithe, pray, volunteer and what not. They may appear angelic to others, but if they do that in order to score "points" that will not count.
Unprotected speech is a necessity. The problem is where do you draw the line. It's like driving on the right or on the left. It's restrictive but the alternative is chaos.
Some societies are more restrictive than others, depending what is perceived as threat.
I am trying to imagine what that would be like and it is very difficult. One has to say either that "my beliefs are wrong, but I'm going to keep them anyway",
Your beliefs "make sense" to you. When they stop making sense, then you will change them. As I said, people defer to God even though they don't have all the answers.
I could just say that I willfully stay in God's Church and persevere by God's grace, despite having never been an Apostolic myself.
You can't, because the "Church" as you define it never existed until Luther invented it. Christ gave authority to his Apostle. That authority rests in the Apostolic Church from day one. Luther didn't have to leave the Church. He chose to do so, just as you choose to stay out.
I mean, everyone goes through faith-challenging times, but if she went through her whole life with those views then I'm at a loss to explain it.
She did believe, but she couldn't make sense of it. It's difficult to speak of God when one realizes that the Universe was not built around us. It's like Gaileo's realization that we are just another planet going around the Sun and that the world does not rotate around us. The glove doesn't fit, FK, if you know what I mean.
But intellectually, I don't understand what is gained from calmly disagreeing with God, or the infallible Church (for Apostolics). I mean, when we act out our sins we are ostensibly saying that we know better than God. However, in the calm of our thoughts we never think that
I think that is a mischaracterization, FK. St. Augustine didn't disagree with the Church; he simply hypothesized while admitting that his hypotheses may be wrong (because we are imperfect beings). The deference to God's Church he makes is simply recognizing his own fallibility.
What he proposed made sense to him at that time. Before he died he published his Retractions (a much less known work and much more difficult to find), because some of his postulates no longer made sense.
I hope none of us is any different, and that whether in private or in public we all recognize and are unceasingly aware of our own fallibility.
God has faith? You mean he believes in "things unseen?" Or will you pull out another definition?
Who had more faith than Christ?
Who could have more?!?
The deeds that are Christ-like follow from Christ-like faith
Christ-like deeds come from people who are Christ-like by choice. People do good by choice regardless of what God they serve. God's laws are inscribed in everyone's hearts; even the atheists have access to them. We choose to follow them or not. Pride gets in the way.
Gal 2:15-16 : 15 "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
How arrogant! The Greek text says "We by nature [phystei] are Jews and not of the Gentile sinners..." The Jews, by nature, are not sinners?
How untrue! The Jews, unlike Paul, very much believed and believe to this day that, by following the commandments, man is made acceptable to God.
Paul may have been a lot of things to a lot of people, but he was no spokesman for the Jews.
The atheist could devote his entire life to doing what appear to us as good deeds, and still be lost forever.
So can a Christian who pretends to be faithful but is nothing even remotely Crist-like.
Maybe it depends of what you mean by "faitahful"!
Imperfection leaves room for man's ignorance. One way or another, "invincible ignorance" recognizes ignorance as pardonable fault becase we are not accoutnable for that which we don't know, but only for our informed choices.
I "think" the only place I fail above is in denying "the Church's authority and her teaching" (on some things).
Based on what? Ignorance? Or by choice?
The NT makes it very clear that the authority to bind and losen and to forgive are "powers" vested in the Apoostolic Church. +Pual claimed to have the auhtority to preach his gospel by the authority and inspiratrion of Christ. Gos appoints those ("In God's Church, some are appointed apostles...") he chooses. No one is denying God's sovereignty. Throughout the Bible, God chooses his "deputies," whether they are angelic hosts or man and women.
That sounds like you mean the buck stops with the Apostolic Church. We would say the buck always stops with God.
The catholic and apostolic Church is the Church God appointed on earth to assist and guide Christian souls on the path to theosis. He did not appoint any other "churches."
Oh, not at all. Indeed it is quite the opposite. Here’s the actual quote:
“In the future life the Christian is not examined if he has renounced the whole world for Christ’s love, or if he has distributed his riches to the poor or if he fasted or kept vigil or prayed, or if he wept and lamented for his sins, or if he has done any other good in this life, but he is examined attentively if he has any similitude with Christ, as a son does with his father.”
OK, thanks for the quote. However, I'm not sure I understand the contrast being drawn. If there was a good father and a good son wanted to be like him, then they would both be doing the kinds of things seemingly excluded above. Does +Symeon mean that no one of those things will be a singular determining factor, but that judgment will be based on the "whole package" of similitude?
“Does +Symeon mean that no one of those things will be a singular determining factor, but that judgment will be based on the “whole package” of similitude?”
Similitude to Christ is what this is all about, not about whether or not one completed certain tasks. There isn’t a “whole package” of similitude. There’s just similitude, FK, to a greater or lesser or non-existent extent.
Maybe this will help, +Symeon says in Discourse LXXVIII,
” “Do not deceive yourself,God is fire and when He came into the world, and became man, He sent fire on the earth, as He Himself says; this fire turns about searching to find material — that is a disposition and an intention that is good — to fall into and to kindle; and for those in whom this fire will ignite, it becomes a great flame, which reaches Heaven.... this flame at first purifies us from the pollution of passions and then it becomes in us food and drink and light and joy, and renders us light ourselves because we participate in His light”
Or this, a poem he wrote as abbot of a monastery outside of The City:
“By what boundless mercy, my Savior,
have you allowed me to become a member of your body?
Me, the unclean, the defiled, the prodigal.
How is it that you have clothed me
in the brilliant garment,
radiant with the splendor of immortality,
that turns all my members into light?
Your body, immaculate and divine,
is all radiant with the fire of your divinity,
with which it is ineffably joined and combined.
This is the gift you have given me, my God:
that this mortal and shabby frame
has become one with your immaculate body
and that my blood has mingled
with your blood.
I know, too,
that I have been made one with your divinity
and have become your own most pure body,
a brilliant member, transparently lucid,
luminous and holy.
I see the beauty of it all, I can gaze on the radiance.
I have become a reflection of the light of your grace.”
What? How can one use God's love for evil? I have never heard of that.
Soteriologically, what matters is whether they are honestly trying, even if they are honestly failing.
Well, if I believed that man determines who will be in Heaven then I suppose I would want the 'A' for effort clause too! :) Unfortunately, it's not in scripture.
God is not partial. He desires all men to be saved. He knocks on our hearts and we either let him in or we shut him out. No one is forced. Those who come to him are his and he knew them from before the foundations of the world in his foreknowledge by their choice. But they were not forced to come to him.
OK, then the answer is that you do not believe that God gives anyone Christ-like faith or Christ-like love, at least as I use those terms. For example, the Father did not knock on Christ's heart and hope Christ would choose to accept who He was. Christ was sure of who He was and was sure of the identity of the Father. So, what you describe I would not consider to be "Christ-like". I'm not saying I think you believe God gives nothing, but it is just something else besides Christ-like.
FK: One CANNOT love as Christ did and reject God. It is impossible by definition.
The point is that faith is not enough. It's a good start. It's a dinghy on the French coast and America is a loooooong way from there. So, if you think you will get to America by just sitting in your dinghy, and not rowing, good luck! It's possible, but it's highly unlikely. You don't have to make it, but you certainly have to die trying.
To use your analogy, true faith is carried across the ocean by the power of God, EVERY time. I don't do the rowing because I can't do it. God does the rowing and never fails for those who love Him. If you think you can do the rowing under your own power, then I will wish you the best of luck with that and really hope you make it. :) Would you say that it really doesn't matter if you make it anyway, as long as you tried?
You have many faithful who simply sit on their faith, confident that, no matter what, whether they even try to be Christ-like or not, they are still saved.
Not possible. Those who have true Christ-like faith will always do Christ-like works because they flow from that faith.
FK: What? How can one use God's love for evil? I have never heard of that.
God gives equally to "the righteous and the unrighteous." Matthew 5 is all about doing the right thing with God's blessings. The righteous will use God's blessings to do good things and the unrighteous will do evil.
Well, if I believed that man determines who will be in Heaven then I suppose I would want the 'A' for effort clause too!
We will be judged for our deeds. Christ also tells us to be(come) perfect like the Father in heaven is perfect.
Unfortunately, it's not in scripture.
Fortunately it is! You just gave to find it. :)
OK, then the answer is that you do not believe that God gives anyone Christ-like faith or Christ-like love
No, what I am saying is that God gives everyone his love. Some cherish it and do good thing; others take it for granted and sit on it; others yet reject it and do evil with it.
For example, the Father did not knock on Christ's heart and hope Christ would choose to accept who He was.
He didn't have to being one and the same God. You have to make up your mind if you believe in a Trinitarian God (one God) or in three "Gods."
I'm not saying I think you believe God gives nothing, but it is just something else besides Christ-like.
Likeness to God is not given. It can be achieved. It is not what you do but how you are. Faith does not make you automatically Christ-like.
It's that Protestant/Baptist convenient I-dont'-have-to-do-anything "limo" ride to heaven. God pays for your ticket and you expect him to carry your luggage and row for you to your destination too? Christ never taught anything like that.
Would you say that it really doesn't matter if you make it anyway, as long as you tried?
Yes. No one is perfect. None of us will die divine. None of us will make it across on our own. In the end we all must be rescued.
Kosta: You have many faithful who simply sit on their faith, confident that, no matter what, whether they even try to be Christ-like or not, they are still saved.
FK: Not possible. Those who have true Christ-like faith will always do Christ-like works because they flow from that faith.
First, no one has true Christ-like faith. Second, faith by itself doesn't make you Christ-like. We are all imperfect and our faith is imperfect and we all fall short of the glory of God. Obedience is a matter of choice. Demons believe in God too. The difference between the sheep and the goats is that the sheep follow in shepherd's footsteps and the goats don't care.
I don't understand, what unprotected speech is a necessity?
FK: I could just say that I willfully stay in God's Church and persevere by God's grace, despite having never been an Apostolic myself.
You can't, because the "Church" as you define it never existed until Luther invented it.
Nope, the "Church" as I define it has always been the community of all believers. Both Catholics and Orthodox claim their own Church as the one and only true Church, yet you are not in communion with each other. I would say that cancels out the claims of both. Apostolic faiths seem very concerned with who is first among all. I think Jesus would say that it doesn't matter, and that one's own faith in Him is what we should be focused on.
FK: But intellectually, I don't understand what is gained from calmly disagreeing with God, or the infallible Church (for Apostolics). I mean, when we act out our sins we are ostensibly saying that we know better than God. However, in the calm of our thoughts we never think that.
I think that is a mischaracterization, FK. St. Augustine didn't disagree with the Church; he simply hypothesized while admitting that his hypotheses may be wrong (because we are imperfect beings). The deference to God's Church he makes is simply recognizing his own fallibility.
Well, I can't imagine Augustine writing the "bad" things KNOWING that he was wrong (from your point of view). I CAN imagine that at the time he thought he was right in what he wrote and that was later rejected by a majority vote. IOW, if he didn't know at the time then that's different from someone today giving views that he or she already KNOWS disagree with the Church.
What I mean is that classifying some speech as unprotected is a necessity.
Nope, the "Church" as I define it has always been the community of all believers
Therein lies the rub. As many Protestants/Baptists there are that's how many "churches" there are. They all believe in his name. Even the devils.
Your definition by necessity must also include those who believe Jesus is a lesser God (Airans), Monophysites, Montanists, etc.
It's clear where that would lead us...
Both Catholics and Orthodox claim their own Church as the one and only true Church, yet you are not in communion with each other.
We can't be in communion because the west added things to the faith unknown to the undivided Church. That doesn't change the apostolic authority of both particular Churches.
I think Jesus would say that it doesn't matter, and that one's own faith in Him is what we should be focused on.
But one's own faith in him takes on numerous forms...
Well, I can't imagine Augustine writing the "bad" things KNOWING that he was wrong (from your point of view)
If you can't understand that we all can be wrong no matter how much what we believe "makes sense" to us at this moment, then you think some of us are perfect.
I CAN imagine that at the time he thought he was right in what he wrote and that was later rejected by a majority vote.
He wrote knowing that he could be wrong. That's humility.
IOW, if he didn't know at the time then that's different from someone today giving views that he or she already KNOWS disagree with the Church.
I am sure he was familiar with the Church position of the original sin before he postulated his own, in disagreement with the view held for almost 4 centuries.
But it wasn't a matter of dogma, so he could hypothesize as long as he didn't claim it to be official truth, just like Galileo could. St. Anselm's satisfaction atonement was also unknown to the Church for 1,100 years.
He was free to suggest his own vision of atonement. Immaculate Conception was not a dogma either. Catholics were allowed to believe it or not believe it intil the middle of the 19th century.
What St. Augustine could not do is disagree with the Church on matters established by the Ecumenical Councils, the "pillars" of Christianity.
Thus, if he denied Christ as God, or if he denied God as Trinity, or denied that Christ has two natures, etc. then he would be in grave danger of excommunication.
Everything else he could postulate, in disagreement with the traditional theologoumenna, mindful that one can be wrong and that only the Church as a whole can establish what is true.
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.