A year and a half ago (or so) when Orthodoxy was not even on my radar, I taught a Bible study on James 2. I recently re-listened to it. My comments are as follows:
- It seems to me obvious that the teaching of James is that faith saves us, and not works. Rather, saving faith qualitatively includes works. This is proved linguistically (if we understand the original language) and by the consensus of the Church in their extensive commentaries on the passage.
- While works have a role in salvation (particularly our sanctification/Theosis), this is not what James was talking about. So, to take this passage as a counter-argument against Protestant soteriology is ultimately self-defeating, because James was not passing comment on sanctification and therefore not offering the soteriological nuances that differentiate Protestantism from Orthodoxy/Roman Catholicism.
- It is pretty clear that in the video, I unbiblically rejected the efficacy of sacraments. I honestly cannot guess my own psychology as how I would have responded to someone saying that the Scriptures say we need confession, baptism, the Eucharist and etcetera. So, ultimately what I teach here is incomplete as we do need the sacraments.
- Upon reflection, it seems pretty clear to me that in retrospect a thorough (and Pro-Protestant) interpretation of James 2 was probably the crucial intellectual development I needed to become Orthodox. The usual Orthodox/Roman Catholic apologetic for the chapter is both unbiblical and unorthodox. Orthodoxy does not teach that our works are an additional requirement for salvation. They are necessary (as Protestants who are not antinomian affirm), but they do not earn us the priceless gift of salvation. By thoroughly understanding justification Biblically, I was also able to afterward understand sanctification and Theosis properly. Ultimately, Protestantism ignores Theosis and when their best theologians do not (such as John Piper), it begs the question as to why one should even remain Protestant as the soteriological question is then settled.
Thank you, my readers, for joining me in my journey with Christ.
On another note, if you have money to burn, please consider helping missionary efforts in Cambodia, my wife’s country. It has more Buddhists per capita than any nation in the world and the people there are receptive to a new religion. It is of paramount importance that Christianity, and specifically Orthodoxy, makes in-roads in this fertile field. For more information on donations please see the Orthodox Church of Cambodia (Moscow Patriarchate) website.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Craig : I am also in Moscow Patriarchate (ROCOR). What converted me to OC was not Luther’s debate on Rom. 3:28 and James 2:24, but Peter Gillquist’s book that quoted John 15:26 and saved me from Filioque.
I am in an OCA church, but I weekly go to the ROCOR monastery in Jordanville. As for the church in Cambodia, it is important that they receive support. My wife is Cambodian and we both feel very strongly about bringing Christianity to her homeland.
Craig, the Catholic Church does not teach that works contribute to our salvation either. Salvation is by grace and it is (prevenient and efficacious) grace through Christ that enables us to do good works. Therefore we do not earn any credit from good works, though we are required to do them as commanded by Christ Himself.
Please note that the video was made when I was a Protestant, but I do think the RC soteriology is as you state: https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2017/04/21/thought-experiment-reconciling-catholic-and-protestant-soteriology/
Craig–
Really impressed with these videos. It’s good to hear you spouting solid biblical theology and backing it with the voices of the Fathers (just as the Reformers themselves did).
I don’t believe that you DID teach that the Sacraments are unnecessary, but that, like good works, they are unnecessary for justification. To say otherwise is to undo all that you said. If justification is by faith and not by works, then it cannot be increased. It is or it is not. (Like a woman is either pregnant or she not. One cannot be a little bit pregnant. One doesn’t become more pregnant. But the pregnancy, nevertheless, develops)
EO/RC interpretation of James 2 runs counter to your interpretation for a reason. Against the Fathers, they do indeed teach in two types of genuine faith, one that justifies and one that does not. A dead body is still a genuine body they will say. But with faith, we are dealing with an abstraction. When freedom is dead, there is NO freedom. Everybody understands that.
If you truly believe in JBFA, you are in the wrong church. Respectfully, I warn you to leave. Otherwise, within a couple of years, I predict you will disavow EVERYTHING in these videos!! (Are you unaware of how vociferously EO and RC apologists denegrate Sola Fide????)
(I think I’ve said it before, but the Reformed only disavow theosis when it is taught in such a way as to cross the Creator/creature divide. I believe this would be true even of John Piper, but feel free to send me a citation to the contrary.)
Perhaps this does not completely get at the issue theologically, and I don’t feel like arguing about it, but let’s talk about the concept of “real faith” versus “nominal faith.” The faith that saves is alone, but it is not alone as Calvin and Luther wrote. So, that real faith that saves in the Orthodox paradigm includes sacraments (presuming they are available), for if I love Christ it is unthinkable that I would avoid communion with those that have His flesh and blood in the Eucharist. But those same fathers I quoted (and Paul and John) would have also included schism as one of those things that forfeit saving faith. For example, how can I say I believe in Christ, but hate my neighbor and refuse to commune with His Church? Both John and Paul addressed these matters and viewed it as damnable.
In the end of the day, the Protestant is forced to re-define what the “Church” is, or to be inconsistent in their application of saving versus nominal faith, etcetera. It does not seem like you understand it, but I can pretty much affirm every single thing I spoke about in those videos OTHER than my uncharitable, and ignorant, comments about the sacraments. The Orthodox approach to soteriology, which I have linked to on my website and you have already read because you have seen chapter 3 of my book, is exactly what you see in the video because it simply reiterates the view of the fathers.
This is not just my wide-eyed Protestant convert opinion. Simply read Orthodox councils and catechisms on the subject:
For example, St. Philaret’s Catechism:
5. Why must a life according to faith, and good works, be inseparable from this faith?
Because, as the Word of God testifies, Faith without works is dead James ii. 20.
481. What should be the effect and fruit of true faith in the Christian?
Love, and good works conformable thereto.
In Jesus Christ, says the Apostle Paul, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love. Gal. v. 6.
482. Is not faith alone enough for a Christian, without love and good works ?
No; for faith without love and good works is inactive and dead, and so can not lead to eternal life.
He that loveth not his brother, abideth in death. 1 John iii. 14. What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James ii. 14, 26.
483. May not a man, on the other hand, be saved by love and good works, without faith?
It is impossible that a man who has not faith in God should really love him; besides, man, being ruined by sin, can not do really good works, unless he receive through faith in Jesus Christ spiritual strength, or grace from God.
Without faith it is impossible to please God: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him, Heb. xi. 6.
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Gal. iii. 10. For we through the spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. Gal. v. 5.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph. ii. 8, 9.
484. What is to be thought of such love as is not accompanied by good works?
Such love is not real: for true love naturally shows itself by good works. Jesus Christ says: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: if a man love me, he will keep my word. John xiv. 21, 23.
The Apostle John writes: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. 1 John v. 3. Let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 1 John iii. 18.
__
Or Decree 13 of The Confession of Dositheus
We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. But [the idea] that faith can fulfill the function of a hand that lays hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and can then apply it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy. For faith so understood would be possible in all, and so none could miss salvation, which is obviously false. But on the contrary, we rather believe that it is not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifies through works, with Christ. But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises {cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10} that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad.
You obviously see in the above the Orthodox explanation, that I give in the videos as a Protestant. It all pertains to a different paradigm in Orthodoxy as it pertains to speaking of justification via a vis sanctification. Within Orthodox language, it would be impossible to differentiate between justification and sanctification (which Biblically, is correct.) So, just as Protestants would affirm sanctification includes works and those who are saved are undergoing the sanctification process, Orthodoxy affirms the same thing: those who are being sanctified likewise have a real faith that precedes this sanctification–but those who lay claim to having faith but have no fruits are not being sanctified, and are not being saved, and are therefore liars.
This is not to mean death bed repentances and stuff, which are outside of the purview of what they are addressing here, are not possible (because we have stories of such saints).
Hence, if you can get passed language hurdles, you begin to see within Protestantism a distinction without a difference. And, quite frankly, the Orthodox formulation is simply not even that offensive to Protestant eyes–it does not say works save, it does not say there are not those who are saved by faith alone, it simply says that those who have faith are sanctified and have good works, against (perhaps the misunderstood idea of what Calvinism is) that we are saved irregardless of our decisions and what we do (i.e. substantive nature of) our faith.
God bless
Craig
Craig–
Thanks for the interchange.
There are times when–like you–I believe that this dispute between our faith traditions is a matter of semantics. There are other times when I definitely don’t. I’m starting to harden my position in favor of the latter for the following reasons:
1. The intractable opposition on the part of Orthodoxy (and Roman Catholicism) to Reformed soteriology. If JBFA truly enshrined a “difference without a distinction,” then the animosity should simply not be there, let alone be so vehement. If it is based on sheer ignorance of what Calvinists actually believe, then what does that say of your correligionists?
2. EO and RC apologists seem to be as blindly dogmatic in their interpretation of the Fathers as they are in their interpretation of the Reformers. There is no integrity, no unadulterated striving after truth, no flexibility, teachability, or humility. The almost universal copping of an attitude doesn’t make me even want to understand the differences between us.
3. As a result, actual modern beliefs within the Great Tradition strike me as totally new, as not particularly beholden to the ECF’s…or even Augustine or Aquinas or Chrysostom. There might be some rapprochement possible between St. Thomas’s Thomism and the Reformed, for example. But not between us and Nouvelle Theologie. Orthodoxy, for its part, seems deeply confused, but probably undergirded by as much modernism as the Romans.
4. EO’s speak of justification being made efficacious by Sacraments and Works. That makes justification contingent on works and nullifies Sola Gratia. You simply HAVE to choose: Sola Gratia or synergism. You can’t have both. It’s self-contradictory. If justification is by grace alone, you cannot add “cooperation with that grace” to the mix.
Justification is by faith alone. But not by a faith that is alone (without works). Nevertheless, those works must NOT by any means be considered part of the justification. It is a difference with a PROFOUND distinction: above everything else, our justification, grounded in our mystical union with Christ, must be attributable to Christ alone (as even the Council of Trent stipulates).
“Faith” that justifies is not our exercise of that faith. It is our faith as gift from the Giver that justifies. It is a living, loving faith that we are given. But it is the giftedness that matters.
Deathbed conversions are, therefore, not extraneous to the argument. Justification is something that develops. It is not something increased or added to. It is not something contingent on our efforts. It’s something that happens to us, initiated by the Father, maintained by the Holy Spirit, completed by the Son. That’s why I used the pregnancy analogy. We are made new creatures. We develop in time, learning to use our newfound abilities. But it all–everything–depends on Christ and on his grace. Our efforts are not simply “assisted” by his. On the contrary. everything is attributable to him. Grace is not a “sine qua non.” It is not merely an essential ingredient. It is the whole ball of wax.
5. Dositheus (above) clearly doesn’t comprehend the biblical doctrine of election, and thus undermines God’s sovereignty, opting instead for some sort of misbegotten Free Will theism where everyone must be given equality of opportunity or else “things aren’t fair.” He rejects the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us…merely on the notion that it must needs be given to everyone to be genuinely from God. This is the clay telling the Potter what he must do.
Calvin, Sproul, Piper, Clark clearly do not understand the Bible’s doctrine of election and thus you wrongly demonize Dositheos and reject the Bible’s defense of free will.
Luther said. In defense of why he added “alone” to Romans 3:28 to try to make Paul contradict James 2:24, “It is so. And I will have it so. When they ask why faith “alone” is so, it is because I, Herr Doctor Martin Luther say that it is so. And my own will is reason enough”.
I agree that Dositheus does not really address Calvinist doctrine, because just like you don’t understand what Orthodox mean by synergism (though i have quoted CHrysostom and Augustine on it), Orthodox do not understand what Calvinists mean by monergism. St. Cyril Lucaris I believe was trying to defend Orthodox thought within Calvinist language.
Scott–
1. I can only assume you are not conversant with compatibilism. Calvinism has no quarrel with free will.
2. Luther’s addition is completely unnecessary. The basic question Paul is addressing is whether justification is by grace through faith and works…or by faith by itself without works. Paul sides with the latter formulation and TONS of exegetes and linguists have concurred that Luther is fully within his rights to add “allein” (in terms of its not changing the meaning one iota).
Nobody, either Reformed or Lutheran, has bothered to follow Luther in this addition, however, simply because it is utterly superfluous.
The Bible nowhere mentions Luther’s rights, so that is not true. It doe s falsify Paul Gal. 5:6, 1 Cor.13:13 to add “alone “. If they don’ follow Luther or
Calvin how is it that they are Lutheran or Reformed? All that is true in the papacy and Reformation is from or agrees with Orthodox Church. Not one Orthodox says Luther taught the truth. He disagrees with Church Fathers.
Scott–
1. Martin Luther doesn’t need your permission to translate the Bible into German. His translation formed the basis for the standard German tongue. He possessed a Doctorate in NT.
Plenty of theologians and exegetes have stood behind his addition. I doubt there are too many world-class German linguists who are Orthodox who have the standing to gainsay him.
2. And besides, the point is moot. The “allein” in that verse adds about as much meaning as “too” in the following sentence:
“You brushed your teeth, and I brushed mine, too.”
3. That living faith interacts with love is ENTIRELY extraneous to our current discussion. Who in the world do you believe denies that?
4. Luther disagrees with YOUR interpretation of the Church Fathers.
So????
Luthers view of the Church Fathers was wrong, and he disagrees with Paul, and Luther disagrees with the Bible when he says “Be a sinner, sin boldly”.
Luther disagrees with the Church Fathers. He did not know Photius so he greatly erred he did not understand John 15:26.
Craig–
You’ll have to tell me what I don’t understand about synergism. It’s not exactly rocket science.
And I can attribute Orthodox misconceptions of monergism to nothing short of willful ignorance. The info is readily available.
Tag: Monergism
Plucking the TULIP (4) — An Eastern Orthodox Critique of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
September 22, 2012 · Robert Arakaki 49 Leave a Comment on %s
Monergism and the Heresy of Monotheletism Much of the Reformed tradition’s Christology and Trinitarian theology came out of the ancient Ecumenical Councils. There were many gatherings in the early Church. Many were local councils but the great Councils made decisions that would ensure the wellbeing of the entire Church (hence the name “Ecumenical”). These gatherings followed the precedent by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 and are the fulfillment of Christ’s…
Scott–
Slow down just a little. You’re making a lot of assertions and precious few arguments.
What on earth is your point about John 15:26?
“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.”
Are you talking about the filioque? If so, your quarrel is with the entire West, not just Martin Luther.
Scott–
Thanks for the Arakaki article.
This is great example of the type of irrational animosity and willful ignorance I was telling Craig about. I didn’t know it was even possible to understand Calvinism so little!
It’s a common dishonesty and falsehood that Arakaki and I do not understand Calvinism. Nothing could be farther away from the truth.
Scott–
Nobody knows exactly what Luther meant when he said, “Be a sinner and sin boldly (but trust in Christ more boldly still).”
It was found in a private letter to a personal friend who was still squeamish about the change from the Catholic system of reconciliation (contrition, confession, absolution, and penance) to a Lutheran one.
We KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn’t to promote an Antinomian way of thinking. We can be certain of this from a plethora of Luther’s public sentiments on the matter.
So if he wasn’t saying–unbiblically–that we should sin that grace may abound, then what WAS he saying? Merely that we cannot outsin the mercy of God. If we are genuinely penitent and change our ways–if we seek to restore those whom we have wounded–no sin is too big for God to forgive.
How does Orthodox theology differ on this? Simple answer: it doesn’t.
Now go and quit being uncharitable before I remind you of some of the truly horrible things St. Chrysostom said…publicly. (Of course, Luther did, as well, but then we have never pronounced the erstwhile scoundrel a saint, now, have we?)
It is an insult to compare Chrysostom with Luther. The sin of Ham was not to cover his father’s nakedness. Are you being honest by suggesting i is I who is being uncharitable ? What is uncharitability? I dot not have blood on my hands. Luther spoke out against the so called murderous horde of peasants and call for their public slaughter. I was a child. I did not need to be fed poison with Luther’s definition of charity It would have been better for him to have said, Do no sin. Bu if you do, don’t despair or give in to
hopelessness.
Scott–
He was talking to a friend…privately.
Go ahead and send me the entirety of your private email messages, and we’ll see how unlike Luther you really are.
And Luther was not the only theologian ever to call for slaughter. Here is your beloved Chrysostom, from the first of his eight homilies on the Jews:
“You Jews broke the yoke, you burst the bonds, you cast yourselves out of the kingdom of heaven, and you made yourselves subject to the rule of men. Please consider with me how accurately the prophet hinted that their hearts were uncontrolled. He did not say: “You set aside the yoke”, but “You broke the yoke” and this is the crime of untamed beasts, who are uncontrolled and reject rule.
“But what is the source of this hardness? It come from gluttony and drunkenness. Who say so? Moses himself. “Israel ate and was filled and the darling grew fat and frisky”. When brute animals feed from a full manger, they grow plump and become more obstinate and hard to hold in check; they endure neither the yoke, the reins, nor the hand of the charioteer. Just so, the Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer”. And still another called the Jews “an untamed calf.”
“Although such beasts are unfit for work, THEY ARE FIT FOR KILLING. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew FIT FOR SLAUGHTER. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them”. You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness…not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: “I did not choose this fast,” says the Lord. “Why? You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists.” But if your fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?”
***********
So then, Scott, do you have blood on your hands?
Irrational response. Sin in Chrysostom does not justify sin in Luther. And besides we can’t be sure quotes from Chrysostom are not interpolations, forgeries, falsifications, spurious misquotes from non-Orthodox anti-Orthodox writers … we often get ancient writers from heterodox Mercersburg writers like Schaff … but we know perfectly well what Luther said from unassailable reliable scholars like Pelikan … I have never seen a more learned literate Lutheran than he.
Hans: “So then, Scott, do you have blood on your hands?”
Non sequitur. Your facts are non-coordinated.
Scott–
Orthodox scholars admit that the homilies belong to Chrysostom. They usually excuse them on two bases: 1. In context, he is being Anti-Judaistic rather than Anti-Semitic. 2. It was the rhetorical style of the day to be harsh in one’s polemics.
St. Augustine can be shown to be more Anti-Judaistic than Anti-Semitic (and less of an Anti-Semite than St. Jerome) in his correspondence with the latter church father.
Chrysostom, quite frankly, sounds Anti-Semitic here. But even if he’s not somehow, it cannot be considered legitimate to call for the slaughter of the Jews.
I’m NOT a Lutheran. I have no reason to defend Luther except when he happens to be right. I denounce his Anti-Semitism (and Anti-Peasantry) in the strongest possible terms. I have no connection to the man and thus no possible blood on my hands. You, on the other, are Orthodox…and Chrysostom is an Orthodox saint. So a case could perhaps be made.
Nevertheless, I would count you correct on the “non sequitur.” Then again, I wasn’t trying for a valid argument…but for a “tu quoque.”
The argument from rhetorical convention could be made for Luther as easily (or more so) as for Chrysostom. Luther was raised a blue-collar, bucolic rube. His hyperbolic, vulgar conversation style was quite common at the time.
Fair enough, brother. GBY.
By the way, saying that Pelikan is your favorite Lutheran is kind of like Catholics calling Scott Hahn their favorite Presbyterian.
Pelikan remarked (when he switched to Orthodoxy) that he was merely returning, having peeled back the layers of his beliefs to reveal what he had always been.
i was attempting to be charitable to the good things that exist in Lutheranism, not to agree with its doctrines when they go wrong.
Craig, you are the rare exception amongst the EO. My observation of other EO apologists is that the set up a straw man of what they think sola fide is and then they viscerally attack it. What I find is that they actually agree with basic premises of the doctrine but then anathemitze the logical conclusion. If one believes that good works bring no merit, and that faith( define as trust and reliance upon the person of Jesus , not mere cognitive assent) sufficiently brings peace with God, then one should not have any problem with sola fide. It never meant that true faith can operate without works. The term was a relative term to answer the question on how one is made acceptable before God. It is a real distinction with a real difference when it comes to our acceptance by God. If the concern is pastoral due to distortions (easy believisim)by some modern day evangelicals then certainly I can sympathize. But the response by the EO is always to blame the reformers and misrepresent what they taught on this issue.
It is also important to point out that the sola fide and sacramentalism (objective means of salvific grace) are compatible and harmonious amongst Anglicans and Lutherans. It seems to me that the EO/RC and baptistic evangelicals have this one thing in common, they both believe that sola fide and sacramentalism are mutually exclusive. The difference is the former rejects SF and the later rejects sacramentalism. This is tragic because because both are needed.
Good points. I have found that the real difference is the “necessity” of sacraments. EO teaches they are normative means of grace. Lutheranism teaches this about baptism, and the rest make it sort of optional but sort of important. EOs IMHO are like really serious Lutherans without western constructs of merit and we pray to saints for intercession.
God bless,
Craig
Anglicans, Lutherans, and the classic reformed tradition (contemporary reformed is different story) all affirm the the sacraments as ordinarily necessary to salvation. Contemporary evangelicalism disses the sacraments but not true for the above traditions.
But do those traditions teach sacraments play a role in salvation?
Craig, You said you have family from Cambodia. God bless you. You said the Cambodians are largely unreached for Christ and the Church. In the John Ankerberg tv show, they estimate 2.8 billion people have never heard of Jesus Christ. There are some 7,140 languages in the world, and of these, some 4,000 do not have printed Bibles in their languages. And of these 7,140 languages, 70 percent are illiterate and cannot read a Bible in their own languages anyone. Pastor Morgan Jackson, of Faith Comes by Hearing, has a ministry in which they record the whole BIBLE in thousands of languages in an audio proclaimer machine in foreign languages. If I had an opinion of missionary work the Orthodox Church could do, like Saint Nicholas of Japan and Saint Stephem of Perm and Saint Herman of Alaska, they could reach the native peoples, learn their language, teach the people how to read the Bible in their own languages. If the people of Cambodia were reached for Christ in the Khmer Cambodian languages, they have KHMER Cambodian Bibles from Baltimore, MD Pastor Charles Heidenreich, Bible in My Language, and Multi Language Media Christian Literature Crusade, Fort Washington, PA. If they could use only 3 books in Cambodia, and in other nations, I would suggest for the various nations who learn to read their own languages, Khmer versions of Old Orthodox Prayer Book, Erie, PA, Russian Orthodox Church of the Nativity of Christ, Old Rite, Archpriest Pimen Simon, 3rd edition, see also Fr. Michael Azkoul, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston, MASS Saint Photios, On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, Boston, MASS Studion Publishers, 1983, and The Orthodox Study Bible, Father Jack N. Sparks, ed. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Bibles, 2008. If these books could be given permission by the publishers to have them translated in Khmer and various foreign languages, Spanish, and so on, it would help win souls to Christ in these foreign lands.
On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:57 PM Orthodox Christian Theology wrote:
> Craig Truglia commented: “But do those traditions teach sacraments play a > role in salvation?” >
Thank God there are two active Orthodox parishes in Cambodia. They are some Cambodian converts. The King James Bible is translated into Khmer, but there is a lack of pretty much everything else (my wife also thinks the Khmer translations that the Russians are making are not easy to understand.)
So, ultimately they need the litrugy and prayerbook retranslated. Father Roman, the priest there, has expressed interest in having St Nicolai of Zica’s catechism translated into Khmer. Please pray for this. I want my wife to help in this, but we have not been given a “blessing” to do it yet.
Craig: I believe all Orthodox Christians need to Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese Catechism of the Christian Doctrine of the Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church. I think that it is the best brief Orthodox catechism of all the Orthodox catechisms. I also think all Orthodox need to read, know, and study, the mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by blessed Patriarch Photius of Constantinople the Great (820-895). The best version is: Azkoul, Fr. Michael, Ph.D., & Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston, MASS: On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Saint Photius. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers, 1983. The Khmer people need to know the traditions of Photius, too.
just repeating what Fr Roman wants!
Peter, did you read this? https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2017/04/21/thought-experiment-reconciling-catholic-and-protestant-soteriology/
Craig, I did read this article. While I certainly don’t believe that gap (between Protestant & Catholic on justification)is a mile wide as some Protestants would suggest, neither are the differences paper thin as you suggest in this article. I can assure that rc apologists did not get your memo that that the rc really teachs what Protestants mean about sola fide. Even if the rc teaches sola fide for initial justification (Not sure about that), it clearly teaches the good works done in grace increase justification and this procure final salvation. In the RC, the instrument of salvation changes from the beginning to the end. In Protestantism it does not. God does not change the means of his acceptance of us which is faith alone from beginning to end. Works do not justify from beginning to end. A necessary fruit of justification but not an instrument of justification. Our sanctification is grounded in our justification. Those who are justified are progressively being sanctified. When sanctification collapses into justification that is where the problem lie.
If you also view this issue in terms of folk theology, the average rc really does believe that his doing good is key to getting into heaven. That is a deficient understanding of the gospel.
I think the monkier “initial justification” is really a response to Protestant sensibilities. We are all justified by faith alone…but do we “stay saved?” Do we continue in our sanctification which begins with “justification?” Protestants do not have a single answer. The RCs and Orthodox teach that we can forfeit salvation through faithlessness and wickedness. So, if we view salvation as something as a journey and experience and not a financial transaction that happens only once, then the RC and EO view makes sense and we realize where the sacraments fit in (they play a role in salvation without earning it.)
God bless,
Craig
Craig: A heads-up on the reading (some of it) that led me to conclude that the Orthodox Church (and Orthodoxy) were the correct and historic form of true Christianity. While struggling through years of an Augustinian worldview, and the immorality I myself committed (which is over now [for the most part[), I was changed by the Spirit of God and my willingness to take self-control and responsibility for all of my actions. Not only Orthodoxy on paper, but the Spirit convinced me I must live Orthodoxy in action; and leave aside questions I had had about how then I shall live the rest of life. Now I seek whatever opportunity God has for me for whatever His will turns out to be for the relational rest of my life. As it is, what converted my faith to Orthodox faith was John 15:26 (and I later read Acts 2:33 as well) in: Gillquist, Peter E. (1989). Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith. 1st ed. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers; “The Addition to the Creed”; “1054: How the West Was Lost”.
I read also: Rose, Fr. Seraphim. (1999). Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. 4th ed. Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Press.
Ostroumoff, Ivan N. (1971). The History of the Council of Florence. Translated from the Russian by Basil Popoff. Boston, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery.
Saint Photios. (1983). On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Rev. Fr. Dr. Michael Azkoul, Ph.D./Holy Transfiguration Monastery, trans. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers.
Saint Photios. (1987). The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Joseph P. Farrell, Ph.D., trans. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
Siecienski, A. Edward. (2010). The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Romanides, Fr. John S. (1982). Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay of Theology and Society. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
Holy Apostles Convent. (1990). The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy: Saint Photius, Saint Gregory Palamas, Saint Mark of Ephesus. Buena Vista, CO: Holy Apostles Convent.
Schaeffer, Frank. (2002). Dancing Alone: The Quest For Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press.
Whelton, Michael. (1999). Two Paths: Papal Monarchy- Orthodox Collegiality. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press.
Bush, William. (1999). The Mystery of the Church. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press.
Archbishop Paul of Finland. (1978). The Faith We Hold. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Please tell me, Craig, how you came to learn on the Filioque and Charlemagne, and what you know on this, and on Saint Augustine’s book “De Trinitate” “On the Holy Trinity” on the Filioque, and what you know about: Anselm of Canterbury, On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Peter Lombard, “The Sentences: Book I, On the Holy Trinity”, and James Likoudis, James. Ending the Byzantine-Greek Schism: Containing the 14th Century APOLOGIA of Demetrius Cydones for Unity with Rome and Saint Thomas Aquinas “CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM”, all of which touch on the WESTERN view of FILIOQUE, which I recommend to you, CRAIG, if you want to read these sources on Filioque. GOD bless you. In friendship, SCOTT Erie PA Russian Orthodox Church of the Nativity of Christ (OLD RITE), new church member, here in USA. Take care. God save us.
I honestly do not know too much about the Filioque. Have you seen my video about how I became Orthodox?
Craig: No. I have not seen your video.
Can you send me a link on that, thanks?
Were you always Reformed before you became Orthodox?
Did you say you were Reformed Baptist? There are Free Will and Arminian Baptists, too. What denomination of Reformed Baptist were you? Did your parents teach you any form of Christianity? My parents were Lutherans and later Presbyterians. They did not think much about theology or Bible, they just believed in Jesus, and were comfortable going wherever they could sing. They were singers, choir members.
I had attended Roman Catholic weddings and funerals, and Protestant services in Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist Churches. I studied different religions. Take care. God bless you. I became Orthodox because I agreed with what Peter Gillquist said about Filioque, and I later learned much of my personal problems came from the certain attitude of people like Luther, my attitude was the same. Believe in Jesus. And then, “Be a sinner. Sin boldly”. That was kind of my antinomian belief for many years. I didn’t take faith in Jesus seriously enough to keep the 10 commandments. Faith alone. As it were. Luther. But I myself am responsible for my particular sins. Not Luther.
Craig, you say that “we all justified by faith alone”. I have no doubt that your fellow EO’s will not agree with you on that. You ask “but do all stay saved”? Lutherans and Arminians teach one can forfeit salvation by returning to unbelief. Calvinists teach that the
saved will be kepted saved based on their understanding of predestination. Those who are kept saved will preserve in faith. But all three affirm that faith from beginning and preserving in faith in the end for final salvation. Faith remains the sole instrument, he does not change his plan of salvation in the middle of ones journey. He does say I accept you by grace through faith in the beginning, but now” let’s see how you perform from now on”. No classical Protestant reduces salvation to a transaction, but an imputation of righteousness is an essential foundation. Our journey of transformation is the fruit of faith. Every house has a foundation and a foundation without walls and a roof Is not a house.
You asked me on a previous post if Lutherans and Anglicans believe that the sacraments play a role in our salvation. I am surprised by the question, but the answer is yes. But unlike rc/eo they adhere to sola fide, which is compatible with sacramentalism when properly nuanced.
I think you are inconsistent with this. I the Eucharist necessary for our sanctification? If you can affirm this, then you are no more sola fide than an Orthodox.
Craig, your comment verifies what I wrote in a previous post in observation about eo apologists When it comes to SF. There is this constant tendency to set up a straw man about what sola fide is and then treat it according to the straw
Man. I was very clear in a previous post of what sola fide is
And what it is not. There is no inconsistency on part. The Eucharist is necessary for sanctification and sola fide works very well with it. Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer affirmed and harmonized both.
I must disagree, I do not see the harmony. If you affirm the Eucharist is necessary or salvation, that sacraments do not contradict the salvific role of faith, then you cannot honestly draw a dichotomy between sanctification and justification.
Craig, I don’t draw a dichotomy, but a distinction, not a separation (that is what a dichotomy is). If you read my previous post I was pretty clear that sola fide does not mean that real faith operates alone. The sacraments are God’s objective sacred actions on which his grace is offered to us. Faith is the subjective reception of that grace. The sacraments are ordinarily (though not absolutely)necessary for the provision of grace. Faith is necessary for reception. Sacraments while necessary for salvation are not sufficient to effect salvation. Faith is necessary and sufficient for salvation. The “alone” in the sola fide is relative only to our response (not god actions) and to the sufficiency of faith to save. The sacraments properly speaking are works of god not our works. It seems your reluctance to harmonious them is due to your being an ex-reformed Baptist. In that paradigm sola fide was pitted against sacramentalism. Excuse the pun, but I think you throughout the baby with bath water when you went EO.
My argument is that what you are espousing is Orthodox theology. The question is, would you join the Church and embrace her teachings, or is your nod to sacramentalism really a talking point?
Craig, the comment shows you and I at an impasse. If what I am espousing is eo theology than you should no longer be opposed to sola fide because that was crucial in by presentation in relationship to the sacraments.
But you are opposed to it, and like other eo apologists you distort it and then accuse me of word play!! I refuse to give up sola fide for the eo for the same reason I would never give up sacramentalism to the modern evangelicals. They will accuse me also of a “nod “ as well, but to sola fide. But they are just clueless as you are on what that means. I take sacraments very seriously, that was a major reason I left an evangelical denomination after 30 years and surrendered my ministerial credentials. I assure you this was not a nod to sacramentalism for a talking point. You are usually better than that Craig. It was not just an offensive statement but intellectually weak
eo theology has nothing at all whatsoever with sola fide in the sense that Martin Luther used it; Luther’s use of sola fide was equivocal and he contradicted himself in the corpus (body) of his official works and his tabletalk, offhand comments. When eo fathers use the words “sola fide” “faith alone”, they are referring something real, real faith, and not the spurious equivocal unreal sola fide that Luther used. Luther was so disgusted with the whole papist false system of works that he went in to the opposite extreme error and fell into an equivocal antinomianism; at times he seemed to repudiated antinomianism and affirm law-abiding, and at times to say antinomian things. He simply did not get James 2 or 1 John. Lutheran theology professed to go by “faith alone but not by a faith that is alone” (without good works). But Luther was half serious when he said “Be a sinner. Sin boldly”. At one time he affirmed that polygamy might not be forbidden by Scripture. There is nothing in Saint John Chrysostom or the other eo fathers that anywhere even approaches Lutheran antinomian lawlessness. What eo theology affirms is that we are in sin by our natural state, and we cannot save ourselves; our will is still free and can choose good, and God, but we are wounded by sin and the knowledge of evil. St. Mark the Ascetic in Volume 1o f the Philokalia affirms 226 points no righteousness by works, on those who affirm they are made righteous by works, but nowhere does St. Mark affirm anything close to antinomianism or Lutheranism. Much of what happened to me, I failed to take responsibility for my actions, and I lived a style of thought word and deed that was consistent with Lutheran antinomian sola fide be a sinner and sin boldly. It took the grace of God in Christ to begin to deliver me from my evil, and as it is, I have to call on God frequently all the time for Christ to save me from evil. The consistent enemy of Christian souls is the evil one, and when we come to Christ, we have a Saviour fully able to deliver us from the evil one. Beyond mere intellectual assent of sound doctrines, we need prayer to God in Christ and the grace of GOD in the sacraments of God’s Church.
I think Scott is right here. Peter, I don’t mean to be mean, but you are equivocating. Are you accepting faith alone as CHrysostom defines it? Then you are Orthodox. Or don’t you? I am asking you in all earnest. When I was a Protestant, it was my misunderstanding of what Orthodoxy teaches that holds me back. Read my newest article on the subject, I hope it clears things up.
And Scott, I am wondering about your opinion on it.
I am not sure about what Chrysostom said on faith alone. I do get that he is not saying the same thing Luther said. That’s all I get. I have not read much Chrysostom at all. Very little. I have read more Romanides, Photius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, John Damascene, Lossky, Gillquist, Schaeffer, Carlton, Whelton, Bush, Mark of Ephesus. The Old Orthodox prayer books mention faith alone, and they show we can not work or think our way to salvation, we can merit or earn nothing. It’s all grace. But Luther did not hold what the eo Church holds.
Scott: You and Hans already went round for round when it it comes to Luther, Chrysostom, and faith alone. So it makes no sense to waste ink on my part. It seems to me your subjective bad experience in the Lutheran church has marred your ability to objectively analyze Luther.( I am not Lutheran so have no investment in defending Lutheran Church)
Craig: I am not the one equivocating. I have been quite clear on sola fide. It is you who is frankly all over the map. You reject the term sola fide but then you affirm the term because Chrysostom utilizes it. You go to great lengths to say that his sola fide is not Martin Luther’s sola fide. But there is no conflict in what both say on that issue. You state that Chrysostom did not teach that sola fide meant mere intellectual faith. News flash- neither did Luther. Chrysostom taught that humble and complete trust and confidence in Christ sufficiently saved . “But You believe the faith but why do you add other things as if faith is not sufficient to justify?”(epistle to Titus homily 3). I can quote a plethora of quotes from him which clearly shows he is harmony with the reformers on this issue. But as long as you and Scott continue to straw man sola fide we will never get anywhere. I don’t mean to be mean either, but I see amongst the eo this toxic misrepresentation of sola fide as a disingenuous attempt to win converts. The real equivocation is when you claim that works don’t justify but yet that is exactly where you end up. Because if a real faith can not sufficiently save then something else is needed in addition to that in order tosave. Which is exactly what Chrysostom opposed, Works are in addition only as evidence of real faith but not in addition to save for real faith sufficiently saves. This is nuance not evocation. So the real question is if you really believe in Chrysostom’s sola fide or not? I certainly do.
The idea that Craig and Scott do not understand Luther’s sola fide and posit a straw man is a lie and is a Lutheran straw man. The Lutherans simply accept what Luther says without protesting against Luther or reforming Luther, and there is a Lutheran book What Luther Says, even as there is a Calvinist book What Calvin says. If the Calvinists were really Reformed, they would Reform their own Calvinist Reformation, but they leave Calvinism itself unreformed and simply accept it and do not attempt to reform it. They simply believe it is the gospel. They also Lutherans and Reformed do not Reform the Filioque of the Papacy and Charlemagne by rejecting Filioque. Traditional Calvinists consider it heresy to question anything in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Westminster Standards, they loudly profess to believe in Scripture alone, but then they say the believe in the Westminster Confession of Faith also, which is not Scripture. So they are following hypocrisy and do not follow Scripture alone, for if they did, they would simply read the KJV from Genesis to Revelation without comment and interpretation and simply let the Bible interpret itself without any Calvinist Reformed doctrine or comment on the Bible. The Bible itself would speak for itself they would not need to preach Calvinist sermons if they really believed in sola Scriptura, they would simply read the Scripture out loud at their Reformed meetings and leave it at that.
Scott, you now want to shift to sola scriptura. Well, I will stick right now to sola fide. Either you don’t understand or refuse to understand because you clearly possess a toxin hatred toward Lutheranism that you can’t evaluate objectively.You continue your straw man attack on luther’s Teaching on sola fide. Anyone who has read Luther knows that he did not teach antinomianism nor taught faith as intellectual assent. That is why is utilized the Latin term fide and not credo. He was indeed a flawed man but that does not mean he was wrong on SF. What ever his flaws or alleged inconsistencies that only reflect his humaness not the truthfulness of SF. I am not Lutheran, and I am more interested in SF that Luther.
I disagree, I think you are the one here purposely disagreeing with the EO position. What, presented here about Orthodoxy, do you reject?
Craig, my beef is with EO apologists like yourself and Scott who mispresnet sola
Fide. Look Craig, it really is not my desire to be contentious. But you can’t expect me or others to sit back while you propagate a straw man on the reformation view of SF. I really wish we could have a fruitful dialogue because you and I do find points of agreement. It seems to me maybe the Eo triumphantaliast mindset seems to disable you from genuinely hearing me and objectively evaluating SF.
We could really make a positive step forward if you could concede that the core of SF doctrine as taught by the reformers is at least compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy though the EO May say more about it and may utilize different terminology. But I realize you will not concede that because eo church would never concede that. So there is your answer to your question. EO as you presented it, clearly rejects and anathemitises the reformation view of SF. It rejects a biblical and patristic doctrine. I would highly recommend
Thomas c. Odens work on the patristic fathers and justification by faith.
God bless
I agree with the first half of your second paragraph. I think, in all honesty, the rest of the paragraph is incoherent. So, SF (as you present it) is compatible with EO but EO as I present it rejects SF.
Which is it? Please answer this point, because really does not make sense to me.
I think you are where I was (when I was studying Oden’s commentaries on the fathers researching exactly the matter you are addressing.) You, like me, claim to be defending the Protestant soteriology, but SF as you are describing is not different than EO theology. Every stripe of Protestant, heck, every individual Protestant has their own definition of SF. So, when EO rejects SF, perhaps they are not rejecting your definition, but the common definitions that exist, such as the Lutheran theologians at Tubingen. But as Scott pointed out, Luther himself changed his own definition and ideas throughout his whole lifetime. So, it is not possible for us to confront a single definition.
Peter, as you already described, if faith includes works and sacraments are essential for salvation, then guess what, you’re Orthodox. It seems to me you need to backtrack on your own statements or seriously consider Orthodoxy.
Real faith is not faith alone. James says faith without works is dead. Luther did not believe faith without works is dead. He believed faith alone saves. Without works. Protestants quote Eph. 2:8-9 as the key to salvation, and do not add Eph. 2:10 as necessary, their whole soteriology is based on these two verses as a proof text for Protestantism and they do not consider they are in heresy by not looking at the rest of the NT and what it says about faith and works, justification and sanctification. Luther considered James and 1 John to be heresy.
Scott, real faith is not alone , no disagreement there. But real faith saves alone even though it does function or exist alone. You continue to misrepresent Luther You say,” he believed faith alone saves without works”. But you miss his nuance. He is speaking only how faith saves not on how faith operates. He also said that faith alone saves but such faith is never alone. The “without works” only means that works don’t save, faith does. “”Without works” does not mean that the real faith which saves, can exist “without works” as necessary evidence. Calvin said it even better , “no one is saved by their works, but one is not saved
Without them. He wording differently than Luther but still the same. This is not word play but gets to the heart of the gospel. Good works are the fruit of gods
Acceptance of us but never a
Means of his acceptance. To deny this is the real heresy.
Scott, I made a grammatical mistake. Meant to say “faith does NOT function or exist alone”.
Craig, if I am sounding incoherent that is because I am dealing with an incoherency amongst the EO. You ask me to backtrack . Okay, in one of my first post (please review) I said the premises of sf are accepted by Orthodox but not its conclusion. The point i am trying to articulate is that the eo clearly rejects sf yet logically there is no reason why they should. It seems to me that eo wants to convert Protestants at all cost. That means a visceral attack on its key principles by strawmaning the meaning of sf to mean sola credo.
I am not going to bite the hook of your relativistic argument about different understandings of sf. It is no different than the jw who rejects the trinity by asserting that there are different understandings of it so it can’t be believed. There is general Protestant consensus on sf , not difficult to understand.
At the end of your post you continue to do your shtick by putting the weight on me when again, like a broken record, you misrepresent. I have explained quite plainly what sf is and what it is not. I have explained how it works with sacramentalism. Really Craig, what do you continue to miss what I have said on this matter? I assure you that there are numerous Anglican, Lutheran, and high reformed theologians that teach sf and sacramentalism are in harmony.
So you claim that I am really Orthodox because I describe “faith includes good works and the sacraments are essential for salvation”. But your clearly missed the nuanced distinction between how it includes in one sense and how does not include in another sense. The nuanced distinction is analogous to why we believe
In one yet three in the trinity. The nuance is at the heart of the gospel.
So you think that I am really Orthodox from what you perceived i have said.. Would That mean I could be a good eo and believe that genuine faith alone saves me though it never exist alone? Could I
preach and teach that with full acceptance.? Would Thatmean that I should no longer hear any eo apologists condemning it?
Unfortunately, I believe the answer will be no. I would like to end with these questionsto for you;
Do you believe that genuine faith is a trust and reliance in Christ and his promises?
Do you believe that such faith will result in love and good deeds?
Do you believe that this faith sufficiently brings peace with God?
Do you reject good works as a means or merit for you to have peace with God?
If your answer is yes to all those questions then you are still in your heart a Protestant.
“So you claim that I am really Orthodox because I describe “faith includes good works and the sacraments are essential for salvation”. But your clearly missed the nuanced distinction between how it includes in one sense and how does not include in another sense”
I am really not understanding this, so if you can explain to me in your own words what this distinction is I would appreciate it.
“Do you believe that genuine faith is a trust and reliance in Christ and his promises?”
That is part of a genuine faith, but not a complete definition, but we don’t disagree that the above is a part of faith.
“Do you believe that such faith will result in love and good deeds?”
Of course. However, we do not believe good deeds done in addition to faith have no bearing on salvation, which Luther clearly would not affirm as he even said good deeds were evil (I’m sure he did not mean it, but the forensic justification view makes deeds superfluous and not salvific.)
“Do you believe that this faith sufficiently brings peace with God?”
Yes. Works do as well. Christ Himself said that “to those who give alms of what they have all things are clean.” James says that confessing forgives sins. So, because faith brings place with God, this does not give us Biblical reason to say that faithful things we do likewise do not bring such peace.
“Do you reject good works as a means or merit for you to have peace with God?”
In the end, no. Works in of themselves are meaningless. However, works merit rewards in heave (2 Cor 5:10), so any Biblical view of salvation has to include works in its definition of not only having peace with God, but also increased Godliness.
God bless,
Craig
Craig, I will try to keep my response shorter this time, because I have found our discourse exhausting 😀
Though enlightening.
Please review my posts from nov 21 onward and there I clearly and plainly explain in my own words the nuance distinction.
Your answers to the my questions
Does cause me to retract something I said previously. I assumed that the eo accepted the premises of sf but not it’s conclusion. If your answers are the eo position then it is not so clear now that EO does accept those premises.
Your answers are informative. My evaluation:
Quest 1: Your wanting to pack more into faith is ends up making it something that it is not. To make it less or more than what it is makes it what is not.
Quest 2: It has no bearing with peace with God, from beginning to end. But certainly the evidence of it
Quest 3: self- contradictory statement. If faith is sufficient then works are not necessary. If works are necessary then faith would be
Necessary but not sufficient . It makes romans 5:1 meaningless.(I use “necessary “ as means not as ends in the above statement)
Quest 4: no disagreement of rewards in heaven for works. But does not contribute to peace with God which is a gratuitous gift that we can’t work for. Rom 4 is clear on that.
Okay, I said I would be short but not really😀
I think the difference we have pertains to definitions, particularly of “Faith” but i think my protestant sermons on James prove that the definition here is Biblical.
Craig, I agree we do differ on definitions of faith. You and I can continue with response and counter-response but I do think we would just be on an endless road. While the dialogue at times quite frustrating yet it has been informative.
I would like to end on a personal note. Your journey and
Mine had similar beginnings though with different endings. We saw something missing in previous traditions where the sacraments were dumb downed. We both ended up in liturgical, sacramental, and ancient communions. I am sure both of us begin our asking the lord to keep us from this day and yet end the day asking for forgiveness and mercy based on the promises of Christ. May Holy Spirit continue our hearts and minds to truth.
God bless,
Peter
Correction- meant to say “keep us from sin this day”