For Bible, I would also add Behr's "The *Mystery* of *Christ*: Life in
Death", which is a condensed version of his "Formation of Christian
Theology" series.

I personal favorite on the theology side is Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic
Theology" - but don't expect as organized and detailed a dogmatics
presentation as you would find in a systematic theology like Pieper or
Mueller; it's more like the systematic theology in St. John Damascene's
"Exposition".

Christopher


On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:

> For books discussing the approach to the Bible, etc. I would suggest
> looking at the footnoted works cited in my "The Authority of Scripture in
> the Orthodox Church, for Lutherans".  I would especially look at Frs. John
> Behr (his "Formation of Christian Theology" series), John Breck (" Scripture
> in
Tradition<http://www.svspress.com/product_info.php?cPath=43_6&products_id=252&os\
Csid=qie28q80d75h8hbks95mopolq4>")
> and Seraphim Rose.  You could probably also put Lossky in the same camp, as
> well as many works by Florovsky.  I have also heard very good things about
> Louth's "Discerning the Mystery".  SVS Press also has some interesting books
> on the topic by Kesich and Barrois; I'd stay away from Tarazi, personally.
>
> The best way to read Scripture would be through the Fathers.  Theophylact
> of Ochrid's commentaries on the Gospels are very good; as is the ACCS series
> from InterVarsity.  Archbishop Dmitri (Royster) also has exegetical books on
> Romans and Hebrews.  Manley's Bible and the Holy Fathers for
Orthodox<http://www.svspress.com/product_info.php?cPath=43_6&products_id=11&osCs\
id=qie28q80d75h8hbks95mopolq4>is also good, but it's expensive and the print is
not always very friendly
> on the eyes.  A very interesting way to read the Bible is through the Great
> Canon of St. Andrew of Crete: read the hymns and then check the Scriptural
> citation to see how the Saint 'read' the passage in question.
>
> Christopher
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Richard <PastorFutrell@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Greetings:
>>
>> I'd like to ask you all a favor. Being former Lutherans, can you provide a
>> list of books I can read to help me understand Eastern Orthodoxy, including
>> the biblical approach, language usage, theological emphases, etc?
>>
>> I know you all will say the best way is to "come and see." But please help
>> one, like you all previously were, steeped in western theological thinking
>> and speaking to apprehend things Eastern.
>>
>> From all your suggestions I'll put together a list by consensus. Who
>> knows? It may even turn out to be a permanent list on this Yahoo site for
>> others.
>>
>> Note Bene: I've met and visited Fr Andy Moore, a convert from Lutheranism
>> as an LC-MS pastor, and find his discussion of things to be robustly
>> Lutheran in many ways (according to the Confessions, not Lutheranism as it
>> exists today in North America). In some ways, what he says put flesh and
>> bones on what the Lutheran Confessions mention in passing or assume to be
>> the Christian worldview. But I haven't asked him this question that I've put
>> forward to you all.
>>
>> I've no intention to convert (unless I'm convinced EO has a better grasp
>> on the Truth), but I want to truly understand Eastern Orthodoxy and get past
>> the caricatures.
>>
>> Thanks. And awaiting you replies. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

One caveat with the Intervasity ACCS commentaries is that they include
commentary from  heretics without distinguishing them from those of Orthodox
fathers.

I was looking through a volume of the series came across some comments from one
Isho'dad of Merv.  I'd never heard of him so I looked him up; he was Nestorian.

It seemed odd--almost unbelievable--when I discovered that....but there you are.
I heard a monastic point that out, too.  The series is edited by scholars;
perhaps they see it as more scholarly than practical...or perhaps they don't see
some of the heretics as heretical.




________________________________
From: Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...>
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:00:03 PM
Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Best Books to read for a Lutheran pastor  to
understand Eastern Orthodoxy


For books discussing the approach to the Bible, etc. I would suggest looking
at the footnoted works cited in my "The Authority of Scripture in the
Orthodox Church, for Lutherans".  I would especially look at Frs. John Behr
(his "Formation of Christian Theology" series), John Breck (" Scripture in
Tradition<http://www.svspress .com/product_ info.php? cPath=43_ 6&products_
id=252&osCsid= qie28q80d75h8hbk s95mopolq4>")
and Seraphim Rose.  You could probably also put Lossky in the same camp, as
well as many works by Florovsky.  I have also heard very good things about
Louth's "Discerning the Mystery".  SVS Press also has some interesting books
on the topic by Kesich and Barrois; I'd stay away from Tarazi, personally.

The best way to read Scripture would be through the Fathers.  Theophylact of
Ochrid's commentaries on the Gospels are very good; as is the ACCS series
from InterVarsity.  Archbishop Dmitri (Royster) also has exegetical books on
Romans and Hebrews.  Manley's Bible and the Holy Fathers for
Orthodox<http://www.svspress .com/product_ info.php? cPath=43_ 6&products_
id=11&osCsid= qie28q80d75h8hbk s95mopolq4>is
also good, but it's expensive and the print is not always very
friendly
on the eyes.  A very interesting way to read the Bible is through the Great
Canon of St. Andrew of Crete: read the hymns and then check the Scriptural
citation to see how the Saint 'read' the passage in question.

Christopher

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Richard <PastorFutrell@ centurytel. net>wrote:

>
>
> Greetings:
>
> I'd like to ask you all a favor. Being former Lutherans, can you provide a
> list of books I can read to help me understand Eastern Orthodoxy, including
> the biblical approach, language usage, theological emphases, etc?
>
> I know you all will say the best way is to "come and see." But please help
> one, like you all previously were, steeped in western theological thinking
> and speaking to apprehend things Eastern.
>
> From all your suggestions I'll put together a list by consensus. Who knows?
> It may even turn out to be a permanent list on this Yahoo site for others.
>
> Note Bene: I've met and visited Fr Andy Moore, a convert from Lutheranism
> as an LC-MS pastor, and find his discussion of things to be robustly
> Lutheran in many ways (according to the Confessions, not Lutheranism as it
> exists today in North America). In some ways, what he says put flesh and
> bones on what the Lutheran Confessions mention in passing or assume to be
> the Christian worldview. But I haven't asked him this question that I've put
> forward to you all.
>
> I've no intention to convert (unless I'm convinced EO has a better grasp on
> the Truth), but I want to truly understand Eastern Orthodoxy and get past
> the caricatures.
>
> Thanks. And awaiting you replies. :-)
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

As far as commentaries, I might suggest additionally those of St John
Chrysostom....his commentaries on most of the NT are available online (and hard
copy) in the old NPNF set.  They  have influenced later Orthodox commentators
universally.

The disadvantages are that it is an older translation, and not very well laid
out...you may have to do some hunting to find stuff on a particular verse.
Also, most are sermons preached to his church, and  long (people back then had a
better attention span).  Sometimes he describes 4th century Constantinopolitan
life in fascinating detail....for instance, some people were so into chariot
racing they could discuss the strengths and weaknesses of  individual horses on
teams, much as we may with NFL offensive lines...but couldn't name the four
Gospels.

Theophylact, whom Christopher mentioned, distilled them and added material from
other fathers....they are quite well laid out and easy to follow for personal
edification or sermons.  I use  Theophylact and/or Chrysostom on a daily basis.

R.




________________________________
From: Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...>
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:00:03 PM
Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Best Books to read for a Lutheran pastor  to
understand Eastern Orthodoxy


For books discussing the approach to the Bible, etc. I would suggest looking
at the footnoted works cited in my "The Authority of Scripture in the
Orthodox Church, for Lutherans".  I would especially look at Frs. John Behr
(his "Formation of Christian Theology" series), John Breck (" Scripture in
Tradition<http://www.svspress .com/product_ info.php? cPath=43_ 6&products_
id=252&osCsid= qie28q80d75h8hbk s95mopolq4>")
and Seraphim Rose.  You could probably also put Lossky in the same camp, as
well as many works by Florovsky.  I have also heard very good things about
Louth's "Discerning the Mystery".  SVS Press also has some interesting books
on the topic by Kesich and Barrois; I'd stay away from Tarazi, personally.

The best way to read Scripture would be through the Fathers.  Theophylact of
Ochrid's commentaries on the Gospels are very good; as is the ACCS series
from InterVarsity.  Archbishop Dmitri (Royster) also has exegetical books on
Romans and Hebrews.  Manley's Bible and the Holy Fathers for
Orthodox<http://www.svspress .com/product_ info.php? cPath=43_ 6&products_
id=11&osCsid= qie28q80d75h8hbk s95mopolq4>is
also good, but it's expensive and the print is not always very
friendly
on the eyes.  A very interesting way to read the Bible is through the Great
Canon of St. Andrew of Crete: read the hymns and then check the Scriptural
citation to see how the Saint 'read' the passage in question.

Christopher

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Richard <PastorFutrell@ centurytel. net>wrote:

>
>
> Greetings:
>
> I'd like to ask you all a favor. Being former Lutherans, can you provide a
> list of books I can read to help me understand Eastern Orthodoxy, including
> the biblical approach, language usage, theological emphases, etc?
>
> I know you all will say the best way is to "come and see." But please help
> one, like you all previously were, steeped in western theological thinking
> and speaking to apprehend things Eastern.
>
> From all your suggestions I'll put together a list by consensus. Who knows?
> It may even turn out to be a permanent list on this Yahoo site for others.
>
> Note Bene: I've met and visited Fr Andy Moore, a convert from Lutheranism
> as an LC-MS pastor, and find his discussion of things to be robustly
> Lutheran in many ways (according to the Confessions, not Lutheranism as it
> exists today in North America). In some ways, what he says put flesh and
> bones on what the Lutheran Confessions mention in passing or assume to be
> the Christian worldview. But I haven't asked him this question that I've put
> forward to you all.
>
> I've no intention to convert (unless I'm convinced EO has a better grasp on
> the Truth), but I want to truly understand Eastern Orthodoxy and get past
> the caricatures.
>
> Thanks. And awaiting you replies. :-)
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, Randall.  Sorry about my faux paus when in my last post I called you
Chris.  I was also thinking about Chris Orr's work on the scriptural canon . . .
and well the rest is history.

Chris,

you know, when I first started using the ACCS and reading som of the Fathers, I
thought they were all weird and strange.  What they wrote often seemed off the
wall--and sometimes didn't even make sense!  Now they are not so strange.  I
suppose it shows how much we have changed!

I agree.  It was a whole new world that proves how subjective the
perspicacity of Scripture argument is.  That is, what obvious to one is
quite the opposite to many another.

The note regarding heretical Fathers in the ACCS is important.  However,
remember it isn't the Orthodox Patristic Commentaries on Scripture, but
simply Ancient Christian.  Those non-orthodox Fathers provide something of
the world in which the Church developed.  Some, like Pelagius and Origen and
Theodore of Mopsuestia, are also not heretical in everything they wrote and
were highly regarded as exegetes long after their time (and
anathematization, especially in the case of Origen; Mopsuestia often comes
to us via Chrysostom, too).  Some of the editorial choices are also a little
odd: for instance, it is assumed that Rufinus (I think that's who)
translated Pelagius; since Rufinus' work was accepted as Orthodox, they
simply rename all his presumed translations of Pelagius as Pelagius without
taking into account the fact that Rufinus may have tidied up Pelagius for
future consumption.

Personally, I often find the Protestant apologetical comments of the editors
to be the most annoying in the ACCS series.

Christopher



On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Richard <PastorFutrell@...>wrote:

>
>
> Chris,
>
> you know, when I first started using the ACCS and reading som of the
> Fathers, I thought they were all weird and strange. What they wrote often
> seemed off the wall--and sometimes didn't even make sense! Now they are not
> so strange. I suppose it shows how much we have changed!
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That seems to be a never-ending process...beginning to put on the "mind of
Christ," as St Paul says.

I think the same thing is true in the written prayers and public services...no
matter how many times a prayer is repeated, it can always strike the soul more
deeply.  (One of our priests always said "We don't need to change the words, we
need to change our hearts.)

R.






________________________________
From: Richard <PastorFutrell@...>
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 9:15:57 AM
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: Best Books to read for a Lutheran pastor  to
understand Eastern Orthodoxy


Chris,

you know, when I first started using the ACCS and reading som of the Fathers, I
thought they were all weird and strange.  What they wrote often seemed off the
wall--and sometimes didn't even make sense!  Now they are not so strange.  I
suppose it shows how much we have changed!




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Greetings dear Brother - as a Lutheran Pastor in your similar position of
investigating the Orthodox Church, here is a list of what I have read & am
reading:

Vladimir Lossky
http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Theology-Eastern-Church/dp/0913836311/ref=sr_1_1?\
ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964637&sr=8-1

Alexander Schmemann
http://www.amazon.com/Life-World-Sacraments-Orthodoxy/dp/0913836087/ref=sr_1_1?i\
e=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Eucharist-Sacrament-Kingdom/dp/0881410187/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UT\
F8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-3

http://www.amazon.com/Water-Spirit-Liturgical-Study-Baptism/dp/0913836109/ref=sr\
_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Lent-Journey-Alexander-Schmemann/dp/0913836044/ref=s\
r_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-8

Lawrence Farley
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_1_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywo\
rds=let+us+attend+a+journey+through+the+orthodox+divine+liturgy&x=0&y=0&sprefix=\
Let+us+att

And, if you would like an intriguing look at Western Theology up to the middle
ages regarding Infant Baptism & Confirmation & First Communion as one integrated
Rite - as it still is in the East (and WAS in the West), check out Fisher's
Book:
http://www.amazon.ca/Baptism-Medieval-West-Disintegration-Initiation/dp/15952500\
18/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1255964871&sr=8-2-fkmr0

I can't recommend Schmemann enough. After Lossky, I read him and have been
hooked on Orthodoxy ever since as the fullness of the Christian faith.

Feel free to email me if you would like to dialogue further about Lutheranism
(the confessional kind) and Orthodoxy.


--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <PastorFutrell@...>
wrote:
>
> Greetings:
>
> I'd like to ask you all a favor.  Being former Lutherans, can you provide a
list of books I can read to help me understand Eastern Orthodoxy, including the
biblical approach, language usage, theological emphases, etc?
>
> I know you all will say the best way is to "come and see."  But please help
one, like you all previously were, steeped in western theological thinking and
speaking to apprehend things Eastern.
>
> From all your suggestions I'll put together a list by consensus.  Who knows? 
It may even turn out to be a permanent list on this Yahoo site for others.
>
> Note Bene: I've met and visited Fr Andy Moore, a convert from Lutheranism as
an LC-MS pastor, and find his discussion of things to be robustly Lutheran in
many ways (according to the Confessions, not Lutheranism as it exists today in
North America).  In some ways, what he says put flesh and bones on what the
Lutheran Confessions mention in passing or assume to be the Christian worldview.
But I haven't asked him this question that I've put forward to you all.
>
> I've no intention to convert (unless I'm convinced EO has a better grasp on
the Truth), but I want to truly understand Eastern Orthodoxy and get past the
caricatures.
>
> Thanks.  And awaiting you replies. :-)
>

I would definitely encourage people to read well beyond Schmemann.  I
think his pastoral works on Great Lent and the Winter Pascha are
excellent; he also did a great deal to further publication of Orthodox
theology and works in English.

However, he is definitely a certain 'type' of Orthodox theologian, and
that type is not accepted around the world in all its particulars -
especially after the fall of Communism and the resurgence of the
former Eastern Bloc churches and the reflowering of Mt Athos.  He is
especially controversial regarding his suggested changes to Orthodox
practice relative to what he identifies as past 'abuses', 'Western
influences', Byzantine and Turkish influences, etc.  Even his academic
work has been superseded in more recent years both in and outside of
Orthodoxy.  His influence on the autocephaly of the OCA and the
narrative behind the Russian Mission being the only 'canonical' source
for Orthodox unity in North America is also being questioned more and
more.  That is, he was a man of his times and should be read as such
along with a broad, 'conciliar' selection of Orthodox witnesses to the
Faith.

I should note that my spiritual father had Fr. Alexander as his
confessor in Seminary.  He is also the grandfather of a priest's wife
I was teaching a retreat with yesterday.  So, I'm not anti-Schmemann,
just pointing out that he is not the undisputed gold standard of
Orthodoxy.

Christopher

On 10/19/09, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:
> Greetings dear Brother - as a Lutheran Pastor in your similar position of
> investigating the Orthodox Church, here is a list of what I have read & am
> reading:
>
> Vladimir Lossky
>
http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Theology-Eastern-Church/dp/0913836311/ref=sr_1_1?\
ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964637&sr=8-1
>
> Alexander Schmemann
>
http://www.amazon.com/Life-World-Sacraments-Orthodoxy/dp/0913836087/ref=sr_1_1?i\
e=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-1
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/Eucharist-Sacrament-Kingdom/dp/0881410187/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UT\
F8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-3
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/Water-Spirit-Liturgical-Study-Baptism/dp/0913836109/ref=sr\
_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-4
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Lent-Journey-Alexander-Schmemann/dp/0913836044/ref=s\
r_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-8
>
> Lawrence Farley
>
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_1_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywo\
rds=let+us+attend+a+journey+through+the+orthodox+divine+liturgy&x=0&y=0&sprefix=\
Let+us+att
>
> And, if you would like an intriguing look at Western Theology up to the
> middle ages regarding Infant Baptism & Confirmation & First Communion as one
> integrated Rite - as it still is in the East (and WAS in the West), check
> out Fisher's Book:
>
http://www.amazon.ca/Baptism-Medieval-West-Disintegration-Initiation/dp/15952500\
18/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1255964871&sr=8-2-fkmr0
>
> I can't recommend Schmemann enough. After Lossky, I read him and have been
> hooked on Orthodoxy ever since as the fullness of the Christian faith.
>
> Feel free to email me if you would like to dialogue further about
> Lutheranism (the confessional kind) and Orthodoxy.
>
>
> --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <PastorFutrell@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Greetings:
>>
>> I'd like to ask you all a favor.  Being former Lutherans, can you provide
>> a list of books I can read to help me understand Eastern Orthodoxy,
>> including the biblical approach, language usage, theological emphases,
>> etc?
>>
>> I know you all will say the best way is to "come and see."  But please
>> help one, like you all previously were, steeped in western theological
>> thinking and speaking to apprehend things Eastern.
>>
>> From all your suggestions I'll put together a list by consensus.  Who
>> knows?  It may even turn out to be a permanent list on this Yahoo site for
>> others.
>>
>> Note Bene: I've met and visited Fr Andy Moore, a convert from Lutheranism
>> as an LC-MS pastor, and find his discussion of things to be robustly
>> Lutheran in many ways (according to the Confessions, not Lutheranism as it
>> exists today in North America).  In some ways, what he says put flesh and
>> bones on what the Lutheran Confessions mention in passing or assume to be
>> the Christian worldview.  But I haven't asked him this question that I've
>> put forward to you all.
>>
>> I've no intention to convert (unless I'm convinced EO has a better grasp
>> on the Truth), but I want to truly understand Eastern Orthodoxy and get
>> past the caricatures.
>>
>> Thanks.  And awaiting you replies. :-)
>>
>
>
>

Christopher makes good points about Schmemann. At least from my experience
though, with a Lutheran Pastor education/mindset, Schmemann has spoken to me far
more than any other Orthodox Author I have read (thus far). He has answers for
much of the questions Lutheran Pastors bring to the table. Despite what Global
Orthodoxy may criticize/critique him for, he is an extremely helpful resource
for Lutheran Pastors exploring Orthodoxy.

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:
>
> I would definitely encourage people to read well beyond Schmemann.  I
> think his pastoral works on Great Lent and the Winter Pascha are
> excellent; he also did a great deal to further publication of Orthodox
> theology and works in English.
>
> However, he is definitely a certain 'type' of Orthodox theologian, and
> that type is not accepted around the world in all its particulars -
> especially after the fall of Communism and the resurgence of the
> former Eastern Bloc churches and the reflowering of Mt Athos.  He is
> especially controversial regarding his suggested changes to Orthodox
> practice relative to what he identifies as past 'abuses', 'Western
> influences', Byzantine and Turkish influences, etc.  Even his academic
> work has been superseded in more recent years both in and outside of
> Orthodoxy.  His influence on the autocephaly of the OCA and the
> narrative behind the Russian Mission being the only 'canonical' source
> for Orthodox unity in North America is also being questioned more and
> more.  That is, he was a man of his times and should be read as such
> along with a broad, 'conciliar' selection of Orthodox witnesses to the
> Faith.
>
> I should note that my spiritual father had Fr. Alexander as his
> confessor in Seminary.  He is also the grandfather of a priest's wife
> I was teaching a retreat with yesterday.  So, I'm not anti-Schmemann,
> just pointing out that he is not the undisputed gold standard of
> Orthodoxy.
>
> Christopher
>
> On 10/19/09, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:
> > Greetings dear Brother - as a Lutheran Pastor in your similar position of
> > investigating the Orthodox Church, here is a list of what I have read & am
> > reading:
> >
> > Vladimir Lossky
> >
http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Theology-Eastern-Church/dp/0913836311/ref=sr_1_1?\
ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964637&sr=8-1
> >
> > Alexander Schmemann
> >
http://www.amazon.com/Life-World-Sacraments-Orthodoxy/dp/0913836087/ref=sr_1_1?i\
e=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-1
> >
> >
http://www.amazon.com/Eucharist-Sacrament-Kingdom/dp/0881410187/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UT\
F8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-3
> >
> >
http://www.amazon.com/Water-Spirit-Liturgical-Study-Baptism/dp/0913836109/ref=sr\
_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-4
> >
> >
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Lent-Journey-Alexander-Schmemann/dp/0913836044/ref=s\
r_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-8
> >
> > Lawrence Farley
> >
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_1_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywo\
rds=let+us+attend+a+journey+through+the+orthodox+divine+liturgy&x=0&y=0&sprefix=\
Let+us+att
> >
> > And, if you would like an intriguing look at Western Theology up to the
> > middle ages regarding Infant Baptism & Confirmation & First Communion as one
> > integrated Rite - as it still is in the East (and WAS in the West), check
> > out Fisher's Book:
> >
http://www.amazon.ca/Baptism-Medieval-West-Disintegration-Initiation/dp/15952500\
18/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1255964871&sr=8-2-fkmr0
> >
> > I can't recommend Schmemann enough. After Lossky, I read him and have been
> > hooked on Orthodoxy ever since as the fullness of the Christian faith.
> >
> > Feel free to email me if you would like to dialogue further about
> > Lutheranism (the confessional kind) and Orthodoxy.
> >
> >
> > --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <PastorFutrell@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Greetings:
> >>
> >> I'd like to ask you all a favor.  Being former Lutherans, can you provide
> >> a list of books I can read to help me understand Eastern Orthodoxy,
> >> including the biblical approach, language usage, theological emphases,
> >> etc?
> >>
> >> I know you all will say the best way is to "come and see."  But please
> >> help one, like you all previously were, steeped in western theological
> >> thinking and speaking to apprehend things Eastern.
> >>
> >> From all your suggestions I'll put together a list by consensus.  Who
> >> knows?  It may even turn out to be a permanent list on this Yahoo site for
> >> others.
> >>
> >> Note Bene: I've met and visited Fr Andy Moore, a convert from Lutheranism
> >> as an LC-MS pastor, and find his discussion of things to be robustly
> >> Lutheran in many ways (according to the Confessions, not Lutheranism as it
> >> exists today in North America).  In some ways, what he says put flesh and
> >> bones on what the Lutheran Confessions mention in passing or assume to be
> >> the Christian worldview.  But I haven't asked him this question that I've
> >> put forward to you all.
> >>
> >> I've no intention to convert (unless I'm convinced EO has a better grasp
> >> on the Truth), but I want to truly understand Eastern Orthodoxy and get
> >> past the caricatures.
> >>
> >> Thanks.  And awaiting you replies. :-)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

Christopher makes good points about Schmemann. At least from my experience
though, with a Lutheran Pastor education/mindset, Schmemann has spoken to me far
more than any other Orthodox Author I have read (thus far). He has answers for
much of the questions Lutheran Pastors bring to the table. Despite what Global
Orthodoxy may criticize/critique him for, he is an extremely helpful resource
for Lutheran Pastors exploring Orthodoxy.

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:
>
> I would definitely encourage people to read well beyond Schmemann.  I
> think his pastoral works on Great Lent and the Winter Pascha are
> excellent; he also did a great deal to further publication of Orthodox
> theology and works in English.
>
> However, he is definitely a certain 'type' of Orthodox theologian, and
> that type is not accepted around the world in all its particulars -
> especially after the fall of Communism and the resurgence of the
> former Eastern Bloc churches and the reflowering of Mt Athos.  He is
> especially controversial regarding his suggested changes to Orthodox
> practice relative to what he identifies as past 'abuses', 'Western
> influences', Byzantine and Turkish influences, etc.  Even his academic
> work has been superseded in more recent years both in and outside of
> Orthodoxy.  His influence on the autocephaly of the OCA and the
> narrative behind the Russian Mission being the only 'canonical' source
> for Orthodox unity in North America is also being questioned more and
> more.  That is, he was a man of his times and should be read as such
> along with a broad, 'conciliar' selection of Orthodox witnesses to the
> Faith.
>
> I should note that my spiritual father had Fr. Alexander as his
> confessor in Seminary.  He is also the grandfather of a priest's wife
> I was teaching a retreat with yesterday.  So, I'm not anti-Schmemann,
> just pointing out that he is not the undisputed gold standard of
> Orthodoxy.
>
> Christopher
>
> On 10/19/09, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:
> > Greetings dear Brother - as a Lutheran Pastor in your similar position of
> > investigating the Orthodox Church, here is a list of what I have read & am
> > reading:
> >
> > Vladimir Lossky
> >
http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Theology-Eastern-Church/dp/0913836311/ref=sr_1_1?\
ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964637&sr=8-1
> >
> > Alexander Schmemann
> >
http://www.amazon.com/Life-World-Sacraments-Orthodoxy/dp/0913836087/ref=sr_1_1?i\
e=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-1
> >
> >
http://www.amazon.com/Eucharist-Sacrament-Kingdom/dp/0881410187/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UT\
F8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-3
> >
> >
http://www.amazon.com/Water-Spirit-Liturgical-Study-Baptism/dp/0913836109/ref=sr\
_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-4
> >
> >
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Lent-Journey-Alexander-Schmemann/dp/0913836044/ref=s\
r_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255964662&sr=1-8
> >
> > Lawrence Farley
> >
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_1_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywo\
rds=let+us+attend+a+journey+through+the+orthodox+divine+liturgy&x=0&y=0&sprefix=\
Let+us+att
> >
> > And, if you would like an intriguing look at Western Theology up to the
> > middle ages regarding Infant Baptism & Confirmation & First Communion as one
> > integrated Rite - as it still is in the East (and WAS in the West), check
> > out Fisher's Book:
> >
http://www.amazon.ca/Baptism-Medieval-West-Disintegration-Initiation/dp/15952500\
18/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1255964871&sr=8-2-fkmr0
> >
> > I can't recommend Schmemann enough. After Lossky, I read him and have been
> > hooked on Orthodoxy ever since as the fullness of the Christian faith.
> >
> > Feel free to email me if you would like to dialogue further about
> > Lutheranism (the confessional kind) and Orthodoxy.
> >
> >
> > --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <PastorFutrell@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Greetings:
> >>
> >> I'd like to ask you all a favor.  Being former Lutherans, can you provide
> >> a list of books I can read to help me understand Eastern Orthodoxy,
> >> including the biblical approach, language usage, theological emphases,
> >> etc?
> >>
> >> I know you all will say the best way is to "come and see."  But please
> >> help one, like you all previously were, steeped in western theological
> >> thinking and speaking to apprehend things Eastern.
> >>
> >> From all your suggestions I'll put together a list by consensus.  Who
> >> knows?  It may even turn out to be a permanent list on this Yahoo site for
> >> others.
> >>
> >> Note Bene: I've met and visited Fr Andy Moore, a convert from Lutheranism
> >> as an LC-MS pastor, and find his discussion of things to be robustly
> >> Lutheran in many ways (according to the Confessions, not Lutheranism as it
> >> exists today in North America).  In some ways, what he says put flesh and
> >> bones on what the Lutheran Confessions mention in passing or assume to be
> >> the Christian worldview.  But I haven't asked him this question that I've
> >> put forward to you all.
> >>
> >> I've no intention to convert (unless I'm convinced EO has a better grasp
> >> on the Truth), but I want to truly understand Eastern Orthodoxy and get
> >> past the caricatures.
> >>
> >> Thanks.  And awaiting you replies. :-)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

I tried searching the forum for this but didn't come up with much, hence I will
post this now.

As I have mentioned previously, the cardinal strength of Lutheranism is our
teaching on Law and Gospel. However, the so called "Third Function/Use" of the
Law has been and still is highly disputed and/or misunderstood.  It relates to
the keeping/following/obeying of God's commandments in the regenerate
Christian's life. The debate (as far as I can tell) is: are good works law [Gal
2:16] or fruit of the Spirit [Gal 5:22-23] (FC VI)?  If they are defined as
"law" then the Christian is always guilty of not doing good works without sin,
and even good works are damnable acts under the law. If they are defined as
"gospel" then one must admit some level of synergism in co-working with Christ
in our sanctified life/salvation.

The question I have for Orthodoxy is: how do the Orthodox understand
keeping/following/obeying God's commandments in relation to Salvation/Theosis?

Thank you!

Anastasia Theodorides had a good line re this: "Good works do not earn
salvation; good works are salvation".

On 10/19/09, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:
> I tried searching the forum for this but didn't come up with much, hence I
> will post this now.
>
> As I have mentioned previously, the cardinal strength of Lutheranism is our
> teaching on Law and Gospel. However, the so called "Third Function/Use" of
> the Law has been and still is highly disputed and/or misunderstood.  It
> relates to the keeping/following/obeying of God's commandments in the
> regenerate Christian's life. The debate (as far as I can tell) is: are good
> works law [Gal 2:16] or fruit of the Spirit [Gal 5:22-23] (FC VI)?  If they
> are defined as "law" then the Christian is always guilty of not doing good
> works without sin, and even good works are damnable acts under the law. If
> they are defined as "gospel" then one must admit some level of synergism in
> co-working with Christ in our sanctified life/salvation.
>
> The question I have for Orthodoxy is: how do the Orthodox understand
> keeping/following/obeying God's commandments in relation to
> Salvation/Theosis?
>
> Thank you!
>
>

In retrospect I find the Lutheran discomfort with  synergy a bit odd.  St Paul
describes himself and other Christians  plain-as-day specifically as
'synergists' with God:  "theou gar esmen sunergoi," I Cor 3:9.  In Mark 16:20
Christ is described as divine Synergist, working with the Eleven.

Christ is in us, and we are in Christ....the phrase occurs over 160 times in the
NT.  This is precisely what synergy is.  St Paul states that we should "work out
our salvation with fear and trembling;" for  God is "at work in you, both to
will and to work for His good pleasure."  (Phil 2:12-3).  God is in us helping
our will and our work, but NOT doing everything for us....we are synergists. 
The Bible never tells us we don't have to worry about living a Christian life.

The Orthodox understanding of theosis puts things on an entirely different plane
than the Roman/Lutheran dichotomy.  Salvation is union with God, not presence or
absence of merits.  God freely gives us His grace and salvation; but that does
nothing if we don't make any effort.  No matter how hard we apply ourselves we
don't earn the tiniest bit of grace; but no matter how much grace He gives us,
it does nothing if we don't make an effort to live out our faith.   Jesus tells
us what will happen to those who cry out to Him "Lord, Lord," but never tried to
live out a Christian life, who never gave a cup of water to the thirsty.

How often do we see people who think of themselves as Christian---I say this
with a heavy heart---who are immersed in a non-Christian lifestyle, and may even
label themselves by the damning sin of their lifestyle?

Christ, St Paul and the whole NT present grace as a gift, and  the Christian
life as a glory and joy, our healing and life and participation in the "heavenly
places" and our calling.  In my Lutheran days I color-coded an entire NT....and
in the end there's nothing beyond this.

Don't we all sense it?  Obviously, we earn and deserve nothing; and, just as
obviously, we have to put out an effort to follow Christ.

---I will be happy to give you some quotes from the Fathers, but this is it in a
nutshell.  What a wonderful quote Christopher dug up:  good works don't earn
salvation, they are salvation.

R.

R.













________________________________
From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@...>
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:56:07 AM
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] "Third Function/Use" of the Law & Orthodoxy


I tried searching the forum for this but didn't come up with much, hence I will
post this now.

As I have mentioned previously, the cardinal strength of Lutheranism is our
teaching on Law and Gospel. However, the so called "Third Function/Use" of the
Law has been and still is highly disputed and/or misunderstood.  It relates to
the keeping/following/ obeying of God's commandments in the regenerate
Christian's life. The debate (as far as I can tell) is: are good works law [Gal
2:16] or fruit of the Spirit [Gal 5:22-23] (FC VI)?  If they are defined as
"law" then the Christian is always guilty of not doing good works without sin,
and even good works are damnable acts under the law. If they are defined as
"gospel" then one must admit some level of synergism in co-working with Christ
in our sanctified life/salvation.

The question I have for Orthodoxy is: how do the Orthodox understand
keeping/following/ obeying God's commandments in relation to Salvation/Theosis?

Thank you!




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I love the simple fusion presented by Orthodoxy vs. the ginormous chasm between
justification and sanctification in Lutheranism.

So, in Orthodoxy, good works done by the Christian are defined as "Gospel" and
not "Law"? What Christ does through us?

I have a new Law/Gospel Matrix.  The Law exists as Curb (to control violent
outbursts of sin and maintain order) & Mirror (to show us our sin & need of
repentance) only. The Gospel consists of what Christ does for us (incarnation,
life, death, resurrection, etc.), to us in the Sacramental life of the Church,
in us (repentance & prayer) and through us (good works). Does this approach mesh
with Orthodoxy?


--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, randall hay <stortford@...> wrote:
>
> In retrospect I find the Lutheran discomfort with  synergy a bit odd.  St Paul
describes himself and other Christians  plain-as-day specifically as
'synergists' with God:  "theou gar esmen sunergoi," I Cor 3:9.  In Mark 16:20
Christ is described as divine Synergist, working with the Eleven.
>
> Christ is in us, and we are in Christ....the phrase occurs over 160 times in
the NT.  This is precisely what synergy is.  St Paul states that we should "work
out our salvation with fear and trembling;" for  God is "at work in you, both to
will and to work for His good pleasure."  (Phil 2:12-3).  God is in us helping
our will and our work, but NOT doing everything for us....we are synergists. 
The Bible never tells us we don't have to worry about living a Christian life.
>
> The Orthodox understanding of theosis puts things on an entirely different
plane than the Roman/Lutheran dichotomy.  Salvation is union with God, not
presence or absence of merits.  God freely gives us His grace and salvation; but
that does nothing if we don't make any effort.  No matter how hard we apply
ourselves we don't earn the tiniest bit of grace; but no matter how much grace
He gives us, it does nothing if we don't make an effort to live out our faith.  
Jesus tells us what will happen to those who cry out to Him "Lord, Lord," but
never tried to live out a Christian life, who never gave a cup of water to the
thirsty.
>
> How often do we see people who think of themselves as Christian---I say this
with a heavy heart---who are immersed in a non-Christian lifestyle, and may even
label themselves by the damning sin of their lifestyle?
>
> Christ, St Paul and the whole NT present grace as a gift, and  the Christian
life as a glory and joy, our healing and life and participation in the "heavenly
places" and our calling.  In my Lutheran days I color-coded an entire NT....and
in the end there's nothing beyond this.
>
> Don't we all sense it?  Obviously, we earn and deserve nothing; and, just as
obviously, we have to put out an effort to follow Christ.
>
> ---I will be happy to give you some quotes from the Fathers, but this is it in
a nutshell.  What a wonderful quote Christopher dug up:  good works don't earn
salvation, they are salvation.
>
> R.
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@...>
> To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:56:07 AM
> Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] "Third Function/Use" of the Law & Orthodoxy
>
>
> I tried searching the forum for this but didn't come up with much, hence I
will post this now.
>
> As I have mentioned previously, the cardinal strength of Lutheranism is our
teaching on Law and Gospel. However, the so called "Third Function/Use" of the
Law has been and still is highly disputed and/or misunderstood.  It relates to
the keeping/following/ obeying of God's commandments in the regenerate
Christian's life. The debate (as far as I can tell) is: are good works law [Gal
2:16] or fruit of the Spirit [Gal 5:22-23] (FC VI)?  If they are defined as
"law" then the Christian is always guilty of not doing good works without sin,
and even good works are damnable acts under the law. If they are defined as
"gospel" then one must admit some level of synergism in co-working with Christ
in our sanctified life/salvation.
>
> The question I have for Orthodoxy is: how do the Orthodox understand
keeping/following/ obeying God's commandments in relation to Salvation/Theosis?
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

For me...the law / gospel paradigm was never very helpful--for the exact
reason you say on your blog, "Yes, but how do  I help my neighbor in
practical ways?" “Christ died for you.”

I think the problem is even present in your revised form of L/G.  Yes,
anything we do that is good is through Christ--absolutely no argument
there--but what about when you know there is good to do but you don't want
to do it?  Why won't Christ just do it through you?  At some point we have
to cooperate and I think that is what is missing from the L/G model...our
cooperation...synergia.-----R

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:

>
>
> I love the simple fusion presented by Orthodoxy vs. the ginormous chasm
> between justification and sanctification in Lutheranism.
>
> So, in Orthodoxy, good works done by the Christian are defined as "Gospel"
> and not "Law"? What Christ does through us?
>
> I have a new Law/Gospel Matrix. The Law exists as Curb (to control violent
> outbursts of sin and maintain order) & Mirror (to show us our sin & need of
> repentance) only. The Gospel consists of what Christ does for us
> (incarnation, life, death, resurrection, etc.), to us in the Sacramental
> life of the Church, in us (repentance & prayer) and through us (good works).
> Does this approach mesh with Orthodoxy?
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'll have to echo Rosemarie. I was always taught one of the most simple ways to
discern between Law and Gospel is that Law is what God commands/man does or
ought to do; Gospel is what God does for us.  From my understanding, the purpose
of the Law/Gospel paradigm is anti-synergistic from it's core. The Law/Gospel
paradigm is a pastoral tool intended to help us see that we are incapable of
fulfilling the Law; that the Gospel is all God, and does not depend on anything
we do; thus all we can do is depend on God for salvation.

Yet, as Randy pointed out Scripture very clearly teaches synergy.  When we are
convicted by the Law, and especially when that conviction drives us to
repentance, isn't that the beginning of the Gospel? "Repent! For the Kingdom of
Heaven is at hand".  The Scriptures say that statement is Jesus proclaiming the
Gospel, but under the Law/Gospel paradigm, that statement is just as much Law as
it is Gospel.  Even within the Law/Gospel paradigm synergy is unavoidable.  The
Scriptures and the Gospel simply don't fit in an anti-synergystic Law/Gospel
paradigm.


Jeremy

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosemarie Lieffring <rose.lieffring@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:36:32
To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: "Third Function/Use" of the Law &
	 Orthodoxy

For me...the law / gospel paradigm was never very helpful--for the exact
reason you say on your blog, "Yes, but how do  I help my neighbor in
practical ways?" “Christ died for you.”

I think the problem is even present in your revised form of L/G.  Yes,
anything we do that is good is through Christ--absolutely no argument
there--but what about when you know there is good to do but you don't want
to do it?  Why won't Christ just do it through you?  At some point we have
to cooperate and I think that is what is missing from the L/G model...our
cooperation...synergia.-----R

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:

>
>
> I love the simple fusion presented by Orthodoxy vs. the ginormous chasm
> between justification and sanctification in Lutheranism.
>
> So, in Orthodoxy, good works done by the Christian are defined as "Gospel"
> and not "Law"? What Christ does through us?
>
> I have a new Law/Gospel Matrix. The Law exists as Curb (to control violent
> outbursts of sin and maintain order) & Mirror (to show us our sin & need of
> repentance) only. The Gospel consists of what Christ does for us
> (incarnation, life, death, resurrection, etc.), to us in the Sacramental
> life of the Church, in us (repentance & prayer) and through us (good works).
> Does this approach mesh with Orthodoxy?
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

I've thought about what you've come up with here, and I have to agree with
Rosemarie and Jeremy....I don't think there's any way to fit synergy into the
law-Gospel paradigm.  Scripture presents our part and what God does in His mercy
for us and in us side-by-side, to prevent imbalance.

That bit from Philippians exemplifies it:  on the one hand we need to work out
our salvation with fear and trembling (Paul leaves out "rejoice" when he quotes
this from Ps 2; he's emphasizing FEAR)....but to prevent us from
over-fearfulness and despondency or thinking our works amount to a hill of beans
adds  "for God is at work in you, both to will and to work."  Passages on His
free gift are intermingled with passages warning and instructing us.

St John Chrysostom's commentaries are wonderful in this regard, as he delves
into the words and phrases and verses carefully, drawing out how they fit into
into the context.

In Christ,

R.






________________________________
From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@...>
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:52:24 AM
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: "Third Function/Use" of the Law & Orthodoxy


I love the simple fusion presented by Orthodoxy vs. the ginormous chasm between
justification and sanctification in Lutheranism.

So, in Orthodoxy, good works done by the Christian are defined as "Gospel" and
not "Law"? What Christ does through us?

I have a new Law/Gospel Matrix.  The Law exists as Curb (to control violent
outbursts of sin and maintain order) & Mirror (to show us our sin & need of
repentance) only. The Gospel consists of what Christ does for us (incarnation,
life, death, resurrection, etc.), to us in the Sacramental life of the Church,
in us (repentance & prayer) and through us (good works). Does this approach mesh
with Orthodoxy?

--- In LutheransLookingEas t@yahoogroups. com, randall hay <stortford@. ..>
wrote:
>
> In retrospect I find the Lutheran discomfort with  synergy a bit odd.  St Paul
describes himself and other Christians  plain-as-day specifically as
'synergists' with God:  "theou gar esmen sunergoi," I Cor 3:9.  In Mark 16:20
Christ is described as divine Synergist, working with the Eleven.
>
> Christ is in us, and we are in Christ....the phrase occurs over 160 times in
the NT.  This is precisely what synergy is.  St Paul states that we should "work
out our salvation with fear and trembling;" for  God is "at work in you, both to
will and to work for His good pleasure."  (Phil 2:12-3).  God is in us helping
our will and our work, but NOT doing everything for us....we are synergists. 
The Bible never tells us we don't have to worry about living a Christian life.
>
> The Orthodox understanding of theosis puts things on an entirely different
plane than the Roman/Lutheran dichotomy.  Salvation is union with God, not
presence or absence of merits.  God freely gives us His grace and salvation; but
that does nothing if we don't make any effort.  No matter how hard we apply
ourselves we don't earn the tiniest bit of grace; but no matter how much grace
He gives us, it does nothing if we don't make an effort to live out our faith.  
Jesus tells us what will happen to those who cry out to Him "Lord, Lord," but
never tried to live out a Christian life, who never gave a cup of water to the
thirsty.
>
> How often do we see people who think of themselves as Christian--- I say this
with a heavy heart---who are immersed in a non-Christian lifestyle, and may even
label themselves by the damning sin of their lifestyle?
>
> Christ, St Paul and the whole NT present grace as a gift, and  the Christian
life as a glory and joy, our healing and life and participation in the "heavenly
places" and our calling.  In my Lutheran days I color-coded an entire NT....and
in the end there's nothing beyond this.
>
> Don't we all sense it?  Obviously, we earn and deserve nothing; and, just as
obviously, we have to put out an effort to follow Christ.
>
> ---I will be happy to give you some quotes from the Fathers, but this is it in
a nutshell.  What a wonderful quote Christopher dug up:  good works don't earn
salvation, they are salvation.
>
> R.
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@.. .>
> To: LutheransLookingEas t@yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:56:07 AM
> Subject: [LutheransLookingEa st] "Third Function/Use" of the Law & Orthodoxy
>
>
> I tried searching the forum for this but didn't come up with much, hence I
will post this now.
>
> As I have mentioned previously, the cardinal strength of Lutheranism is our
teaching on Law and Gospel. However, the so called "Third Function/Use" of the
Law has been and still is highly disputed and/or misunderstood.  It relates to
the keeping/following/ obeying of God's commandments in the regenerate
Christian's life. The debate (as far as I can tell) is: are good works law [Gal
2:16] or fruit of the Spirit [Gal 5:22-23] (FC VI)?  If they are defined as
"law" then the Christian is always guilty of not doing good works without sin,
and even good works are damnable acts under the law. If they are defined as
"gospel" then one must admit some level of synergism in co-working with Christ
in our sanctified life/salvation.
>
> The question I have for Orthodoxy is: how do the Orthodox understand
keeping/following/ obeying God's commandments in relation to Salvation/Theosis?
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I hear what you all are saying about Synergy. It is undeniably present in the
scriptures (as a Greek geek, I have looked it up). The key difference for
Lutheran theology is that it belongs solely in the realm of "sanctification" not
"justification." However, the more I study and read the church Fathers, this
tends to be more and more of an artificial distinction. Further, there is
becoming an enormous chasm between the two within current Lutheran theology to
de-emphasize any kind of participation or even involvement in the divine life in
Christ on the part of the Christian. We pretty much don't even have to be there,
let alone be involved in salvation!

That being said, I vehemently struggle with what the consequences of Orthodoxy's
fusion of "justification" and "sanctification" result in. Does Orthodoxy truly
balance the FOR YOU part of the Gospel with the works of the Christian? What
prevents Orthodoxy from becoming a completely self-centered/works-based piety
quest? This is my cardinal complaint with evangelicalism today is that the focus
is completely on the individual's works/praise/dedication/ for/to God. How is
Orthodoxy different than this?

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, randall hay <stortford@...> wrote:
>
> I've thought about what you've come up with here, and I have to agree with
Rosemarie and Jeremy....I don't think there's any way to fit synergy into the
law-Gospel paradigm.  Scripture presents our part and what God does in His mercy
for us and in us side-by-side, to prevent imbalance.
>
> That bit from Philippians exemplifies it:  on the one hand we need to work out
our salvation with fear and trembling (Paul leaves out "rejoice" when he quotes
this from Ps 2; he's emphasizing FEAR)....but to prevent us from
over-fearfulness and despondency or thinking our works amount to a hill of beans
adds  "for God is at work in you, both to will and to work."  Passages on His
free gift are intermingled with passages warning and instructing us.
>
> St John Chrysostom's commentaries are wonderful in this regard, as he delves
into the words and phrases and verses carefully, drawing out how they fit into
into the context.
>
> In Christ,
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@...>
> To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:52:24 AM
> Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: "Third Function/Use" of the Law &
Orthodoxy
>
>
> I love the simple fusion presented by Orthodoxy vs. the ginormous chasm
between justification and sanctification in Lutheranism.
>
> So, in Orthodoxy, good works done by the Christian are defined as "Gospel" and
not "Law"? What Christ does through us?
>
> I have a new Law/Gospel Matrix.  The Law exists as Curb (to control violent
outbursts of sin and maintain order) & Mirror (to show us our sin & need of
repentance) only. The Gospel consists of what Christ does for us (incarnation,
life, death, resurrection, etc.), to us in the Sacramental life of the Church,
in us (repentance & prayer) and through us (good works). Does this approach mesh
with Orthodoxy?
>
> --- In LutheransLookingEas t@yahoogroups. com, randall hay <stortford@ ..>
wrote:
> >
> > In retrospect I find the Lutheran discomfort with  synergy a bit odd.  St
Paul describes himself and other Christians  plain-as-day specifically as
'synergists' with God:  "theou gar esmen sunergoi," I Cor 3:9.  In Mark 16:20
Christ is described as divine Synergist, working with the Eleven.
> >
> > Christ is in us, and we are in Christ....the phrase occurs over 160 times in
the NT.  This is precisely what synergy is.  St Paul states that we should "work
out our salvation with fear and trembling;" for  God is "at work in you, both to
will and to work for His good pleasure."  (Phil 2:12-3).  God is in us helping
our will and our work, but NOT doing everything for us....we are synergists. 
The Bible never tells us we don't have to worry about living a Christian life.
> >
> > The Orthodox understanding of theosis puts things on an entirely different
plane than the Roman/Lutheran dichotomy.  Salvation is union with God, not
presence or absence of merits.  God freely gives us His grace and salvation; but
that does nothing if we don't make any effort.  No matter how hard we apply
ourselves we don't earn the tiniest bit of grace; but no matter how much grace
He gives us, it does nothing if we don't make an effort to live out our faith.  
Jesus tells us what will happen to those who cry out to Him "Lord, Lord," but
never tried to live out a Christian life, who never gave a cup of water to the
thirsty.
> >
> > How often do we see people who think of themselves as Christian--- I say
this with a heavy heart---who are immersed in a non-Christian lifestyle, and may
even label themselves by the damning sin of their lifestyle?
> >
> > Christ, St Paul and the whole NT present grace as a gift, and  the Christian
life as a glory and joy, our healing and life and participation in the "heavenly
places" and our calling.  In my Lutheran days I color-coded an entire NT....and
in the end there's nothing beyond this.
> >
> > Don't we all sense it?  Obviously, we earn and deserve nothing; and, just as
obviously, we have to put out an effort to follow Christ.
> >
> > ---I will be happy to give you some quotes from the Fathers, but this is it
in a nutshell.  What a wonderful quote Christopher dug up:  good works don't
earn salvation, they are salvation.
> >
> > R.
> >
> > R.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@ .>
> > To: LutheransLookingEas t@yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:56:07 AM
> > Subject: [LutheransLookingEa st] "Third Function/Use" of the Law & Orthodoxy
> >
> >
> > I tried searching the forum for this but didn't come up with much, hence I
will post this now.
> >
> > As I have mentioned previously, the cardinal strength of Lutheranism is our
teaching on Law and Gospel. However, the so called "Third Function/Use" of the
Law has been and still is highly disputed and/or misunderstood.  It relates to
the keeping/following/ obeying of God's commandments in the regenerate
Christian's life. The debate (as far as I can tell) is: are good works law [Gal
2:16] or fruit of the Spirit [Gal 5:22-23] (FC VI)?  If they are defined as
"law" then the Christian is always guilty of not doing good works without sin,
and even good works are damnable acts under the law. If they are defined as
"gospel" then one must admit some level of synergism in co-working with Christ
in our sanctified life/salvation.
> >
> > The question I have for Orthodoxy is: how do the Orthodox understand
keeping/following/ obeying God's commandments in relation to Salvation/Theosis?
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

The FOR YOU of the Gospel is not in balance in Orthodoxy...it is all over
Orthodoxy...but not in the sense that one can relax and kick back, Christ
did it all.  Rather, remember for the Orthodox salvation is not "getting to
heaven".  Salvation is theosis, union with Christ, the restoration of the
image of God in us, of which heaven is a consequence.  Christ doesn't just
get us passes in, He changes us such that we become like Him and He unites
Himself to us.  But ***He doesn't do that without our agreement, our
cooperation.***  I can't think of a more FOR YOU way to see things than this
union with Christ!  And...when we look at salvation in such a way...it is
impossible to separate justification from sanctification.

All that said, I understand the concern.  Lutherans are particularly
sensitive to theologies that could become "focus on self".  But that is not
what Orthodoxy is about...even if it looks that way from the outside. ----R

.

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:

>
>
> I hear what you all are saying about Synergy. It is undeniably present in
> the scriptures (as a Greek geek, I have looked it up). The key difference
> for Lutheran theology is that it belongs solely in the realm of
> "sanctification" not "justification." However, the more I study and read the
> church Fathers, this tends to be more and more of an artificial distinction.
> Further, there is becoming an enormous chasm between the two within current
> Lutheran theology to de-emphasize any kind of participation or even
> involvement in the divine life in Christ on the part of the Christian. We
> pretty much don't even have to be there, let alone be involved in salvation!
>
> That being said, I vehemently struggle with what the consequences of
> Orthodoxy's fusion of "justification" and "sanctification" result in. Does
> Orthodoxy truly balance the FOR YOU part of the Gospel with the works of the
> Christian? What prevents Orthodoxy from becoming a completely
> self-centered/works-based piety quest? This is my cardinal complaint with
> evangelicalism today is that the focus is completely on the individual's
> works/praise/dedication/ for/to God. How is Orthodoxy different than this?
>
>
> --- In
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,
> randall hay <stortford@...> wrote:
> >
> > I've thought about what you've come up with here, and I have to agree
> with Rosemarie and Jeremy....I don't think there's any way to fit synergy
> into the law-Gospel paradigm. Scripture presents our part and what God does
> in His mercy for us and in us side-by-side, to prevent imbalance.
> >
> > That bit from Philippians exemplifies it: on the one hand we need to work
> out our salvation with fear and trembling (Paul leaves out "rejoice" when he
> quotes this from Ps 2; he's emphasizing FEAR)....but to prevent us from
> over-fearfulness and despondency or thinking our works amount to a hill of
> beans adds "for God is at work in you, both to will and to work." Passages
> on His free gift are intermingled with passages warning and instructing us.
> >
> > St John Chrysostom's commentaries are wonderful in this regard, as he
> delves into the words and phrases and verses carefully, drawing out how they
> fit into into the context.
> >
> > In Christ,
> >
> > R.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@...>
>
> > To:
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:52:24 AM
> > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: "Third Function/Use" of the Law &
> Orthodoxy
> >
> >
> > I love the simple fusion presented by Orthodoxy vs. the ginormous chasm
> between justification and sanctification in Lutheranism.
> >
> > So, in Orthodoxy, good works done by the Christian are defined as
> "Gospel" and not "Law"? What Christ does through us?
> >
> > I have a new Law/Gospel Matrix. The Law exists as Curb (to control
> violent outbursts of sin and maintain order) & Mirror (to show us our sin &
> need of repentance) only. The Gospel consists of what Christ does for us
> (incarnation, life, death, resurrection, etc.), to us in the Sacramental
> life of the Church, in us (repentance & prayer) and through us (good works).
> Does this approach mesh with Orthodoxy?
> >
> > --- In LutheransLookingEas t@yahoogroups. com, randall hay <stortford@..>
wrote:
> > >
> > > In retrospect I find the Lutheran discomfort with synergy a bit odd. St
> Paul describes himself and other Christians plain-as-day specifically as
> 'synergists' with God: "theou gar esmen sunergoi," I Cor 3:9. In Mark 16:20
> Christ is described as divine Synergist, working with the Eleven.
> > >
> > > Christ is in us, and we are in Christ....the phrase occurs over 160
> times in the NT. This is precisely what synergy is. St Paul states that we
> should "work out our salvation with fear and trembling;" for God is "at work
> in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:12-3). God
> is in us helping our will and our work, but NOT doing everything for
> us....we are synergists. The Bible never tells us we don't have to worry
> about living a Christian life.
> > >
> > > The Orthodox understanding of theosis puts things on an entirely
> different plane than the Roman/Lutheran dichotomy. Salvation is union with
> God, not presence or absence of merits. God freely gives us His grace and
> salvation; but that does nothing if we don't make any effort. No matter how
> hard we apply ourselves we don't earn the tiniest bit of grace; but no
> matter how much grace He gives us, it does nothing if we don't make an
> effort to live out our faith. Jesus tells us what will happen to those who
> cry out to Him "Lord, Lord," but never tried to live out a Christian life,
> who never gave a cup of water to the thirsty.
> > >
> > > How often do we see people who think of themselves as Christian--- I
> say this with a heavy heart---who are immersed in a non-Christian lifestyle,
> and may even label themselves by the damning sin of their lifestyle?
> > >
> > > Christ, St Paul and the whole NT present grace as a gift, and the
> Christian life as a glory and joy, our healing and life and participation in
> the "heavenly places" and our calling. In my Lutheran days I color-coded an
> entire NT....and in the end there's nothing beyond this.
> > >
> > > Don't we all sense it? Obviously, we earn and deserve nothing; and,
> just as obviously, we have to put out an effort to follow Christ.
> > >
> > > ---I will be happy to give you some quotes from the Fathers, but this
> is it in a nutshell. What a wonderful quote Christopher dug up: good works
> don't earn salvation, they are salvation.
> > >
> > > R.
> > >
> > > R.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@ .>
> > > To: LutheransLookingEas t@yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:56:07 AM
> > > Subject: [LutheransLookingEa st] "Third Function/Use" of the Law &
> Orthodoxy
> > >
> > >
> > > I tried searching the forum for this but didn't come up with much,
> hence I will post this now.
> > >
> > > As I have mentioned previously, the cardinal strength of Lutheranism is
> our teaching on Law and Gospel. However, the so called "Third Function/Use"
> of the Law has been and still is highly disputed and/or misunderstood. It
> relates to the keeping/following/ obeying of God's commandments in the
> regenerate Christian's life. The debate (as far as I can tell) is: are good
> works law [Gal 2:16] or fruit of the Spirit [Gal 5:22-23] (FC VI)? If they
> are defined as "law" then the Christian is always guilty of not doing good
> works without sin, and even good works are damnable acts under the law. If
> they are defined as "gospel" then one must admit some level of synergism in
> co-working with Christ in our sanctified life/salvation.
> > >
> > > The question I have for Orthodoxy is: how do the Orthodox understand
> keeping/following/ obeying God's commandments in relation to
> Salvation/Theosis?
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Greetings:

    Please help me out here: what does "good works are salvation" even
mean?  I'm not being cheeky--I have no idea what that means.

    Does it mean good works are an expression of salvation?  If so,
great!  Does it mean good works are the living out of the faith?  If
so, great!  Does it mean good works are part of our particpation in
sanctification, as the Lutheran Confessions do say we participate in
our santification (all the while recognizing that we can do nothing
without Christ).  If so, great?

    But I have no idea what "good works are salvation" means.  Christ is
our salvation; that makes sense to me.  But I think you are using words
in a differing way and so I do not understand what that means and,
thus, I am not 'hearing' it properly.

RF



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*What prevents Orthodoxy from becoming a completely
self-centered/works-based piety quest?*

I would say it is that it is impossible to actually do all the things
required of an Orthodox Christian, if judging by akrivia (strictness).  In
fact, even the Typikon of the services (the rubrics or ordo) are impossible
to do in full, even in monasteries.  An attempt was made in the last century
to hold a daily cycle of services according the full letter of the Typikon
of the Great Church: it took more than 24 hours.  The Typikon is an icon
point beyond itself.

There is no way to earn salvation.

In addition, the saints are very clear that the closer the got to God, to
holiness, etc. the more their remaining sinfulness, the createdness, their
fleshiness, etc. became clear to them.  The greatest saints saw themselves
the greatest sinners.

How does one not end up in despair?  We take "courage from His compassion".
The prayers before Communion tell us:

O Lord my God, I know that I am not worthy or sufficient that Thou shouldest
> come under the roof of the house of my soul, for all is desolate and fallen,
> and Thou hast not with me a place fit to lay Thy head. But as from the
> highest heaven Thou didst humble Thyself for our sake, so now conform
> Thyself to my humility. And as Thou didst consent to lie in a cave and in a
> manger of dumb beasts, so also consent to lie in the manger of my
> unspiritual soul and to enter my defiled body. And as Thou didst not disdain
> to enter and dine with sinners in the house of Simon the Leper, so consent
> also to enter the house of my humble soul which is leprous and sinful. And
> as Thou didst not reject the woman, who was a harlot and a sinner like me,
> when she approached and touched Thee, so also be compassionate with me, a
> sinner, as I approach and touch Thee, and let the live coal of Thy most holy
> Body and precious Blood be for the sanctification and enlightenment and
> strengthening of my humble soul and body, for a relief from the burden of my
> many sins, for a protection from all diabolical practices, for a restraint
> and a check on my evil and wicked way of life, for the mortification of
> passions, for the keeping of Thy commandments, for an increase of Thy divine
> grace, and for the advancement of Thy Kingdom. For it is not insolently that
> I draw near to Thee, O Christ my God, but as taking courage from Thy
> unspeakable goodness, and that I may not by long abstaining from Thy
> communion become a prey to the spiritual wolf. Therefore, I pray Thee, O
> Lord, Who alone art holy, sanctify my soul and body, my mind and heart, my
> emotions and affections, and wholly renew me. Root the fear of Thee in my
> members, and make Thy sanctification indelible in me. Be also my helper and
> defender, guide my life in peace, and make me worthy to stand on Thy right
> hand with Thy Saints: through the prayers and intercessions of Thy
> immaculate Mother, of Thy ministering Angels, of the immaculate Powers and
> of all the Saints who have ever been pleasing to Thee. Amen.
>
> I know, O Lord, that I partake of Thy immaculate Body and precious Blood
> unworthily, and that I am guilty, and eat and drink judgment to myself by
> not discerning the Body and Blood of Thee my Christ and God. *But taking
> courage from Thy compassion *I approach Thee, for Thou hast said: "He who
> eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me and I in him." Therefore have
> compassion, O Lord, and do not make an example of me, a sinner, but deal
> with me according to Thy mercy; and let these Holy Things be for my healing
> and purification and enlightenment and protection and salvation and
> sanctification of body and soul, for the turning away of every phantasy and
> all evil practice and diabolical activity working subconsciously in my
> members, for confidence and love towards Thee, for reformation of life and
> security, for an increase of virtue and perfection, for fulfillment of the
> commandments, for communion with the Holy Spirit, as a provision for eternal
> life, and as an acceptable defense at Thy dread Tribunal, not for judgment
> or for condemnation.
>
> http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/prayerbook/main.htm
>

There are innumerable examples of this "I am a terrible sinner", BUT "I know
you are compassionate, long-suffering, you did not punish the prostitute,
the persecutor, Peter, the tax collector, even your executioners so I will
approach you".  We know we are in good hands because they are God's hands
and because He showed Himself as the lover of mankind, not its just,
impartial avenging Judge.

Christopher



On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:

>
>
> I hear what you all are saying about Synergy. It is undeniably present in
> the scriptures (as a Greek geek, I have looked it up). The key difference
> for Lutheran theology is that it belongs solely in the realm of
> "sanctification" not "justification." However, the more I study and read the
> church Fathers, this tends to be more and more of an artificial distinction.
> Further, there is becoming an enormous chasm between the two within current
> Lutheran theology to de-emphasize any kind of participation or even
> involvement in the divine life in Christ on the part of the Christian. We
> pretty much don't even have to be there, let alone be involved in salvation!
>
> That being said, I vehemently struggle with what the consequences of
> Orthodoxy's fusion of "justification" and "sanctification" result in. Does
> Orthodoxy truly balance the FOR YOU part of the Gospel with the works of the
> Christian? What prevents Orthodoxy from becoming a completely
> self-centered/works-based piety quest? This is my cardinal complaint with
> evangelicalism today is that the focus is completely on the individual's
> works/praise/dedication/ for/to God. How is Orthodoxy different than this?
>
>
> --- In
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,
> randall hay <stortford@...> wrote:
> >
> > I've thought about what you've come up with here, and I have to agree
> with Rosemarie and Jeremy....I don't think there's any way to fit synergy
> into the law-Gospel paradigm. Scripture presents our part and what God does
> in His mercy for us and in us side-by-side, to prevent imbalance.
> >
> > That bit from Philippians exemplifies it: on the one hand we need to work
> out our salvation with fear and trembling (Paul leaves out "rejoice" when he
> quotes this from Ps 2; he's emphasizing FEAR)....but to prevent us from
> over-fearfulness and despondency or thinking our works amount to a hill of
> beans adds "for God is at work in you, both to will and to work." Passages
> on His free gift are intermingled with passages warning and instructing us.
> >
> > St John Chrysostom's commentaries are wonderful in this regard, as he
> delves into the words and phrases and verses carefully, drawing out how they
> fit into into the context.
> >
> > In Christ,
> >
> > R.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@...>
>
> > To:
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:52:24 AM
> > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: "Third Function/Use" of the Law &
> Orthodoxy
> >
> >
> > I love the simple fusion presented by Orthodoxy vs. the ginormous chasm
> between justification and sanctification in Lutheranism.
> >
> > So, in Orthodoxy, good works done by the Christian are defined as
> "Gospel" and not "Law"? What Christ does through us?
> >
> > I have a new Law/Gospel Matrix. The Law exists as Curb (to control
> violent outbursts of sin and maintain order) & Mirror (to show us our sin &
> need of repentance) only. The Gospel consists of what Christ does for us
> (incarnation, life, death, resurrection, etc.), to us in the Sacramental
> life of the Church, in us (repentance & prayer) and through us (good works).
> Does this approach mesh with Orthodoxy?
> >
> > --- In LutheransLookingEas t@yahoogroups. com, randall hay <stortford@..>
wrote:
> > >
> > > In retrospect I find the Lutheran discomfort with synergy a bit odd. St
> Paul describes himself and other Christians plain-as-day specifically as
> 'synergists' with God: "theou gar esmen sunergoi," I Cor 3:9. In Mark 16:20
> Christ is described as divine Synergist, working with the Eleven.
> > >
> > > Christ is in us, and we are in Christ....the phrase occurs over 160
> times in the NT. This is precisely what synergy is. St Paul states that we
> should "work out our salvation with fear and trembling;" for God is "at work
> in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:12-3). God
> is in us helping our will and our work, but NOT doing everything for
> us....we are synergists. The Bible never tells us we don't have to worry
> about living a Christian life.
> > >
> > > The Orthodox understanding of theosis puts things on an entirely
> different plane than the Roman/Lutheran dichotomy. Salvation is union with
> God, not presence or absence of merits. God freely gives us His grace and
> salvation; but that does nothing if we don't make any effort. No matter how
> hard we apply ourselves we don't earn the tiniest bit of grace; but no
> matter how much grace He gives us, it does nothing if we don't make an
> effort to live out our faith. Jesus tells us what will happen to those who
> cry out to Him "Lord, Lord," but never tried to live out a Christian life,
> who never gave a cup of water to the thirsty.
> > >
> > > How often do we see people who think of themselves as Christian--- I
> say this with a heavy heart---who are immersed in a non-Christian lifestyle,
> and may even label themselves by the damning sin of their lifestyle?
> > >
> > > Christ, St Paul and the whole NT present grace as a gift, and the
> Christian life as a glory and joy, our healing and life and participation in
> the "heavenly places" and our calling. In my Lutheran days I color-coded an
> entire NT....and in the end there's nothing beyond this.
> > >
> > > Don't we all sense it? Obviously, we earn and deserve nothing; and,
> just as obviously, we have to put out an effort to follow Christ.
> > >
> > > ---I will be happy to give you some quotes from the Fathers, but this
> is it in a nutshell. What a wonderful quote Christopher dug up: good works
> don't earn salvation, they are salvation.
> > >
> > > R.
> > >
> > > R.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@ .>
> > > To: LutheransLookingEas t@yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:56:07 AM
> > > Subject: [LutheransLookingEa st] "Third Function/Use" of the Law &
> Orthodoxy
> > >
> > >
> > > I tried searching the forum for this but didn't come up with much,
> hence I will post this now.
> > >
> > > As I have mentioned previously, the cardinal strength of Lutheranism is
> our teaching on Law and Gospel. However, the so called "Third Function/Use"
> of the Law has been and still is highly disputed and/or misunderstood. It
> relates to the keeping/following/ obeying of God's commandments in the
> regenerate Christian's life. The debate (as far as I can tell) is: are good
> works law [Gal 2:16] or fruit of the Spirit [Gal 5:22-23] (FC VI)? If they
> are defined as "law" then the Christian is always guilty of not doing good
> works without sin, and even good works are damnable acts under the law. If
> they are defined as "gospel" then one must admit some level of synergism in
> co-working with Christ in our sanctified life/salvation.
> > >
> > > The question I have for Orthodoxy is: how do the Orthodox understand
> keeping/following/ obeying God's commandments in relation to
> Salvation/Theosis?
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What I took Anastasia to mean was that salvation isn't getting past the
doorman into heaven, salvation is becoming like Christ, united to him,
theosis, divinization, deification: "For He was made man that we might be
made God" (St. Athanasius the Great (+373), "On the Incarnation of the
Word", 54:3).

A line from St. Anthony the Great (+356) has always been elucidating to me:

> "We remain good through resembling
God"<http://orrologion.blogspot.com/2007/04/turning-to-god-we-have-cured-our.htm\
l> "God
> is good, dispassionate and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable
> and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how in that case,
> it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and
> showing mercy to those who honor Him, while turning away from the wicked
> and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither
> rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions;
> nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would
> mean He is swayed by pleasure . . . He is good, and He only bestows
> blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on theother
hand, if
> we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him; but if we become
> evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in
> holiness, we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy.It is
not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own
> sins that prevent God from shining within us, and expose us to the demons
> who punish us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain
> release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and
> made Him change, but that through our actions and our turning to God we
> have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness.
> Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that thesun
hides itself from
> the blind."
>
> [Excerpt from The Philokalia, Vol. 1, Text 150; Engl. tr. by
> Palmer-Sherrard-Ware, p. 352. Quoted in Orthodox Dogmatic
Theology<http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/dogmatics_pomazansky.ht\
m>by Protopresbyter
> Michael Pomazansky [+1988]; tr. and ed. by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose [+1982]
> (Platina, CA: St. Herman Press, 1997), p.350-351.]
>

Christopher


On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Richard K. Futrell <
PastorFutrell@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Greetings:
>
> Please help me out here: what does "good works are salvation" even
> mean? I'm not being cheeky--I have no idea what that means.
>
> Does it mean good works are an expression of salvation? If so,
> great! Does it mean good works are the living out of the faith? If
> so, great! Does it mean good works are part of our particpation in
> sanctification, as the Lutheran Confessions do say we participate in
> our santification (all the while recognizing that we can do nothing
> without Christ). If so, great?
>
> But I have no idea what "good works are salvation" means. Christ is
> our salvation; that makes sense to me. But I think you are using words
> in a differing way and so I do not understand what that means and,
> thus, I am not 'hearing' it properly.
>
> RF
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello all,

Please note I have not had time to read the last 5 posts (I get the digest every
morning and composed my response before coming online here).

Here it is:

Oruaseht:

"The Gospel consists of what Christ does for us (incarnation, life, death,
resurrection, etc.), to us in the Sacramental life of the Church, in us
(repentance & prayer) and through us (good works). Does this approach mesh with
Orthodoxy?"

Well, I think it works with Lutheranism just fine.  :  )

Rosemarie Lieffring:

"At some point we have to cooperate and I think that is what is missing from the
L/G model...our cooperation...synergia."

I think why persons don't cooperate has to do with the mystery of iniquity (it
seems to me that we might even reject the cooperation God creates in us!). 
Further, I'd submit that all of us stand condemned for not cooperating like we
could/should.

Adonaiuplifts:

"From my understanding, the purpose of the Law/Gospel paradigm is
anti-synergistic from it's core.  The Law/Gospel paradigm is a pastoral tool
intended to help us see that we are incapable of fulfilling the Law; that the
Gospel is all God, and does not depend on anything we do; thus all we can do is
depend on God for salvation."
Yes, I'd say that's right – but only if we are saying that "synergy"  (i.e.  the
strength of our faith, and our corresponding love – and doings – which Paul
explicitly contrasts with faith in Galatians) is ultimately what makes us
acceptable in God's presence.  That's why I wrote this recent post:
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/a-child-of-the-reformation/ (see
the comments to, particularly #7, which is more important than the original
posting)

Lutherans should be all for synergy.  Indeed, as Randall says: "Scripture
presents our part and what God does in His mercy for us and in us side-by-side,
to prevent imbalance."  Further Oruaseht: "the more I study and read the church
Fathers, [the distinction between sanctification and justification] tends to be
more and more… artificial."  Fair enough.  (see this recent post:
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/walking-with-babies-law-and-gospe\
l/).  But I think ultimately, a lot of this has to do with the point of our good
works – who they are primarily for (us, or our neighbor?)?  Not for us, I
submit.

Oruaseht:

"Does Orthodoxy truly balance the FOR YOU part of the Gospel with the works of
the Christian? What prevents Orthodoxy from becoming a completely
self-centered/works-based piety quest?"

Exactly my question.  Again, see the first post I alluded to.
Not sure when I'll be able to make time to talk again.  Best to all.

~Nathan


--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Oruaseht" <oruaseht@...> wrote:
>
> I hear what you all are saying about Synergy. It is undeniably present in the
scriptures (as a Greek geek, I have looked it up). The key difference for
Lutheran theology is that it belongs solely in the realm of "sanctification" not
"justification." However, the more I study and read the church Fathers, this
tends to be more and more of an artificial distinction. Further, there is
becoming an enormous chasm between the two within current Lutheran theology to
de-emphasize any kind of participation or even involvement in the divine life in
Christ on the part of the Christian. We pretty much don't even have to be there,
let alone be involved in salvation!
>
> That being said, I vehemently struggle with what the consequences of
Orthodoxy's fusion of "justification" and "sanctification" result in. Does
Orthodoxy truly balance the FOR YOU part of the Gospel with the works of the
Christian? What prevents Orthodoxy from becoming a completely
self-centered/works-based piety quest? This is my cardinal complaint with
evangelicalism today is that the focus is completely on the individual's
works/praise/dedication/ for/to God. How is Orthodoxy different than this?
>
> --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, randall hay <stortford@> wrote:
> >
> > I've thought about what you've come up with here, and I have to agree with
Rosemarie and Jeremy....I don't think there's any way to fit synergy into the
law-Gospel paradigm.  Scripture presents our part and what God does in His mercy
for us and in us side-by-side, to prevent imbalance.
> >
> > That bit from Philippians exemplifies it:  on the one hand we need to work
out our salvation with fear and trembling (Paul leaves out "rejoice" when he
quotes this from Ps 2; he's emphasizing FEAR)....but to prevent us from
over-fearfulness and despondency or thinking our works amount to a hill of beans
adds  "for God is at work in you, both to will and to work."  Passages on His
free gift are intermingled with passages warning and instructing us.
> >
> > St John Chrysostom's commentaries are wonderful in this regard, as he delves
into the words and phrases and verses carefully, drawing out how they fit into
into the context.
> >
> > In Christ,
> >
> > R.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@>
> > To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:52:24 AM
> > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: "Third Function/Use" of the Law &
Orthodoxy
> >
> >
> > I love the simple fusion presented by Orthodoxy vs. the ginormous chasm
between justification and sanctification in Lutheranism.
> >
> > So, in Orthodoxy, good works done by the Christian are defined as "Gospel"
and not "Law"? What Christ does through us?
> >
> > I have a new Law/Gospel Matrix.  The Law exists as Curb (to control violent
outbursts of sin and maintain order) & Mirror (to show us our sin & need of
repentance) only. The Gospel consists of what Christ does for us (incarnation,
life, death, resurrection, etc.), to us in the Sacramental life of the Church,
in us (repentance & prayer) and through us (good works). Does this approach mesh
with Orthodoxy?
> >
> > --- In LutheransLookingEas t@yahoogroups. com, randall hay <stortford@ ..>
wrote:
> > >
> > > In retrospect I find the Lutheran discomfort with  synergy a bit odd.  St
Paul describes himself and other Christians  plain-as-day specifically as
'synergists' with God:  "theou gar esmen sunergoi," I Cor 3:9.  In Mark 16:20
Christ is described as divine Synergist, working with the Eleven.
> > >
> > > Christ is in us, and we are in Christ....the phrase occurs over 160 times
in the NT.  This is precisely what synergy is.  St Paul states that we should
"work out our salvation with fear and trembling;" for  God is "at work in you,
both to will and to work for His good pleasure."  (Phil 2:12-3).  God is in us
helping our will and our work, but NOT doing everything for us....we are
synergists.  The Bible never tells us we don't have to worry about living a
Christian life.
> > >
> > > The Orthodox understanding of theosis puts things on an entirely different
plane than the Roman/Lutheran dichotomy.  Salvation is union with God, not
presence or absence of merits.  God freely gives us His grace and salvation; but
that does nothing if we don't make any effort.  No matter how hard we apply
ourselves we don't earn the tiniest bit of grace; but no matter how much grace
He gives us, it does nothing if we don't make an effort to live out our faith.  
Jesus tells us what will happen to those who cry out to Him "Lord, Lord," but
never tried to live out a Christian life, who never gave a cup of water to the
thirsty.
> > >
> > > How often do we see people who think of themselves as Christian--- I say
this with a heavy heart---who are immersed in a non-Christian lifestyle, and may
even label themselves by the damning sin of their lifestyle?
> > >
> > > Christ, St Paul and the whole NT present grace as a gift, and  the
Christian life as a glory and joy, our healing and life and participation in the
"heavenly places" and our calling.  In my Lutheran days I color-coded an entire
NT....and in the end there's nothing beyond this.
> > >
> > > Don't we all sense it?  Obviously, we earn and deserve nothing; and, just
as obviously, we have to put out an effort to follow Christ.
> > >
> > > ---I will be happy to give you some quotes from the Fathers, but this is
it in a nutshell.  What a wonderful quote Christopher dug up:  good works don't
earn salvation, they are salvation.
> > >
> > > R.
> > >
> > > R.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > From: Oruaseht <oruaseht@ .>
> > > To: LutheransLookingEas t@yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:56:07 AM
> > > Subject: [LutheransLookingEa st] "Third Function/Use" of the Law &
Orthodoxy
> > >
> > >
> > > I tried searching the forum for this but didn't come up with much, hence I
will post this now.
> > >
> > > As I have mentioned previously, the cardinal strength of Lutheranism is
our teaching on Law and Gospel. However, the so called "Third Function/Use" of
the Law has been and still is highly disputed and/or misunderstood.  It relates
to the keeping/following/ obeying of God's commandments in the regenerate
Christian's life. The debate (as far as I can tell) is: are good works law [Gal
2:16] or fruit of the Spirit [Gal 5:22-23] (FC VI)?  If they are defined as
"law" then the Christian is always guilty of not doing good works without sin,
and even good works are damnable acts under the law. If they are defined as
"gospel" then one must admit some level of synergism in co-working with Christ
in our sanctified life/salvation.
> > >
> > > The question I have for Orthodoxy is: how do the Orthodox understand
keeping/following/ obeying God's commandments in relation to Salvation/Theosis?
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

"Good works are salvation" is that we are created to do good works in Christ
Jesus; union with God is doing what God does: God is patient, we are
patient; God is longsuffering, we are longsuffering; God is generous, we are
generous; God feeds and cares for all, we feed and care for all; etc.

The doorman is a forensic, external metaphor.  Lutheran theology seems to
need so much to have this external guarantee.  Personally, I have always
thought it the psychological need to know God loves you regardless of sin -
Luther's "how can I get a loving God", whether apocryphal or not.  Orthodoxy
assumes this, we know this, we experience this, the Gospels are replete with
demonstrations of this and the prayers of the Church (as I showed) refer to
them as the proofs that God loves us, is merciful to us, is longsuffering,
patient, 'unjust' with us in that our sins are simply forgiven (rather than
Him picking up our tab for us; this isn't forgiveness, it's payment by a
third party).  The sheep were led into the Kingdom because they were united
with Christ - they did what he does.

At most the doorman is a metaphor.  Really, just a metaphor, not the How of
salvation and its mechanisms of payment sufficient to meet Divine Justice
and get a loving God for us, or to allow God and his honor or justice to
tolerate we sinners (who he also loves).  If any door was opened, it was
opened not in the payment on the Cross but in the Incarnation of the Word
and His entire work - from Incarnation through Ascension and including his
Second Coming (the Anaphora of the Orthodox Liturgies 'remember' this future
event).  Pinpointing Golgatha as THE moment of our salvation is like
pinpointing the exact moment the Eucharist is completed, or like defining
the Eucharist as transubstantiation rather than as a simple 'change'.  The
whole thing is the whole thing.

It is also useful to understand the patristic concept of heaven and hell as
being essentially the same place, but vastly different states divided by a
chasm.  God's very presence is experience, truly, as fire and brimstone and
gnashing of teeth and the undying worm by the unrepentant; the same presence
is experienced as heaven, paradise, by the repentant faithful.  The image to
use is that of the coal in Isaiah.  It took away the sins of the Prophet,
but it would be struck dead and burned another; the cross is death to one,
life for a Christian.  The doorman is a metaphor; our own state determines
our experience of God as heaven or hell, our likeness to God, our union with
him is like a circuit that has been prepared to handle divine voltage - and
improperly prepared circuit will burn up, short out, blow, be destroyed.  It
is a more organic rather than abstract and forensic understanding of the
relations between Persons and persons.

Post-incarnation, we have the divine energies (God Himself, though not in
essence [ousia]) can flow through us.  This happens in a universal and
'external' way for all creation and all men, it happens in an interior way
through the Sacraments, in the Church.  That is, there was a difference
between early Christian catechumens that heard the readings and believed and
those same persons after Baptism, Chrismation and Communion.

Christopher



On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Richard K. Futrell <
PastorFutrell@...> wrote:

>
>
> Chris,
>
> Thank you. Athnasius was correct: we do become god, not is essence or
> being (I'm not even sure if I know how to describe this with my
> vocabulary) but because God give us His divinity by grace through Jesus
> Christ.
>
> But we also have to get past "the doorman" as well, do we not? This
> also is because of Christ. The Christ for us gets us "past the
> doorman" and also because of Christ through the Spirit He has sent
> (which is also scriptural) that point back to Christ, we have His
> divine nature in us. Is not the divine nature in us a result od Christ
> for us instead of salvation itself? For if it were not for Chirst for
> us, there would be not Christ in us?
>
> I'm just thinking back to the cause of our 'divinization' as it is called.
>
> But I'm still not exactly sure what "good works are salvation" means.
>
> --
> RF
>
>
> Quoting Christopher Orr <xcjorr@... <xcjorr%40gmail.com>>:
> > What I took Anastasia to mean was that salvation isn't getting past the
> > doorman into heaven, salvation is becoming like Christ, united to him,
> > theosis, divinization, deification: "For He was made man that we might be
> > made God" (St. Athanasius the Great (+373), "On the Incarnation of the
> > Word", 54:3).
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I just came out of a Skype Pastor's circuit meeting where I posed the problem of
the third use of the Law to the other pastors. Specifically, "how do I love my
neighbor?" No matter what the Lutheran responds, it is condemning law to the
asking person's detriment, for the demands of "how to love my neighbor" will
never be reached to 100% perfection that the law demands. One of the pastors,
who got exceedingly upset at any notion of synergy, said that by giving the
asking person "examples" of how to love thy neighbor, you aren't giving law or
gospel. Just information. -_- This simply doesn't make any sense! The whole
law/gospel scheme falls apart on this third use/function idea, and simply cannot
be what Jesus means and that countless scriptures testify to.

The scripture we looked at was Romans 8:16-17: "The Spirit himself bears witness
with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then
heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in
order that we may also be glorified with him."

*Provided we suffer with Him* - these kinds of scriptures are unsettling for me,
in that it introduces a human work/component that is ultimately sinful, flawed
and imperfect. How does Orthodoxy understand/process that people are ultimately
both "sinner & saint at the same time?" Ex: We will never be able to stop
sinning until life in the Resurrection, hence our working out our salvation is
sinful and flawed?

This is why the great prayer of the Orthodox is "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of
God, have mercy upon me a sinner".  Repentance is the key, constant,
unceasing repentance and humility.  There is never a point where we can say
"I am sinless" with the implication that we have therefore been given
salvation.  Abject, complete humility without any doubt in the goodness,
loving-kindness, patience, forbearance, mercy, understanding, etc. of God.
There is never the oh-so-desired resolution of "You are saved" - until
death, until Judgement - we live in unceasing humility and repentance before
God.

We are sure of the love of God and his desire we be saved, we are not sure
of our own salvation.  To me, that's where surety is properly placed.  God
is not loving based on whether I get what I want (salvation) and am sure I
'have' it.  I am sure of Him, not where I end up.  He won't let me or anyone
go to hell that doesn't belong there, and He's clear (not only from his
declarations in Scripture but from the facts of His incarnation, life,
death, resurrection, ascension and continuing in His Body the Church) that
He wants us all to be saved.  That, I am sure of.

Christopher



On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:

>
>
> I just came out of a Skype Pastor's circuit meeting where I posed the
> problem of the third use of the Law to the other pastors. Specifically, "how
> do I love my neighbor?" No matter what the Lutheran responds, it is
> condemning law to the asking person's detriment, for the demands of "how to
> love my neighbor" will never be reached to 100% perfection that the law
> demands. One of the pastors, who got exceedingly upset at any notion of
> synergy, said that by giving the asking person "examples" of how to love thy
> neighbor, you aren't giving law or gospel. Just information. -_- This simply
> doesn't make any sense! The whole law/gospel scheme falls apart on this
> third use/function idea, and simply cannot be what Jesus means and that
> countless scriptures testify to.
>
> The scripture we looked at was Romans 8:16-17: "The Spirit himself bears
> witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children,
> then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer
> with him in order that we may also be glorified with him."
>
> *Provided we suffer with Him* - these kinds of scriptures are unsettling
> for me, in that it introduces a human work/component that is ultimately
> sinful, flawed and imperfect. How does Orthodoxy understand/process that
> people are ultimately both "sinner & saint at the same time?" Ex: We will
> never be able to stop sinning until life in the Resurrection, hence our
> working out our salvation is sinful and flawed?
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

**Provided we suffer with Him* - these kinds of scriptures are unsettling
for me...**

Rereading the Bible as a part of my discernment regarding Orthodoxy, it was
exactly passages like this that demonstrated to me that the Lutheran
(Waltherian?) Law/Gospel and justification/sanctification distinctions were
mere overlays to the Apostolic faith.  This was even more clear in reading
the works of ante- and post-Nicene Fathers (especially those during the ages
of the great trinitarian and christological councils).  The system broke
down, the assumptions behind them broke down, they worked only when a very
specific (and arbitrary) set up definitions and relations were put in place
based on the primacy of certain sorts of passage over other passages.

A really awe-inspiring attempt to purify the Apostolic faith based on the
only authoritative foundation they knew of after the obvious corruptions of
Rome and without any experience of the non-Papal churches of Tradition cut
off by RC Poland and Austria, the Turk and the steppe.  Without such a
comparison, it was easy to assume all sort of things were recent papal
innovations rather than ancient, unquestioned Traditions of the Universal
Church.  By the time the Tubingen theologians got to Istanbul, the
Reformation paradigm had already dug in believing itself unquestionably
right and assuming that the non-Papal East would be revealed as agreeing
with them.  This was obviously not the case, but positions had already been
taken and would not be moved.

Christopher




On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:

>
>
> I just came out of a Skype Pastor's circuit meeting where I posed the
> problem of the third use of the Law to the other pastors. Specifically, "how
> do I love my neighbor?" No matter what the Lutheran responds, it is
> condemning law to the asking person's detriment, for the demands of "how to
> love my neighbor" will never be reached to 100% perfection that the law
> demands. One of the pastors, who got exceedingly upset at any notion of
> synergy, said that by giving the asking person "examples" of how to love thy
> neighbor, you aren't giving law or gospel. Just information. -_- This simply
> doesn't make any sense! The whole law/gospel scheme falls apart on this
> third use/function idea, and simply cannot be what Jesus means and that
> countless scriptures testify to.
>
> The scripture we looked at was Romans 8:16-17: "The Spirit himself bears
> witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children,
> then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer
> with him in order that we may also be glorified with him."
>
> *Provided we suffer with Him* - these kinds of scriptures are unsettling
> for me, in that it introduces a human work/component that is ultimately
> sinful, flawed and imperfect. How does Orthodoxy understand/process that
> people are ultimately both "sinner & saint at the same time?" Ex: We will
> never be able to stop sinning until life in the Resurrection, hence our
> working out our salvation is sinful and flawed?
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello all,

Christopher Orr: "Personally, I have always
thought it the psychological need to know God loves you regardless of sin -
Luther's "how can I get a loving God", whether apocryphal or not."

Well, we need to get more specific: God loves His whole creation, including
those who do not believe, for He has reconciled Himself the the world in Christ.
We are talking here about the psychological need to know not just that God loves
us, but that we are in a secure and stable relationship with Jesus right now
(such that if I were to keel over right now from a heart attack, I know I could
be received into his loving arms) - in other Words, that we are in true union
with Him (not that I have "it").  I want to concede that a lot of this may
indeed have to do with personality – meaning that this question, though very
important (I submit that soteriology is like one part of a 3-legged stool for
the faith delivered to all the saints: the others being Christology and the
Trinity [Christopher: I confess I think I did not fully understand the word
Triadology when you used it the other day, thinking it only had to do with the
Trinity and not the threefold office) is more pressing for some of us than
others.  For example, evidently when I was a child and I had done something
wrong, my parents came to believe that they needed to be very sensitive about
how they disciplined me.  My dad has told me: "All I had to do was look at you
wrong and you would cry and cry" (evidently not to manipulate, but because I
genuinely knew that what I had done was wrong, and my father's acceptance was so
important to me).  Whereas, with my children, that is definitely not the case! 
(perhaps that says something about my parenting).

Orr:

"We are sure of the love of God and his desire we be saved, we are not sure
of our own salvation. To me, that's where surety is properly placed. God
is not loving based on whether I get what I want (salvation) and am sure I
'have' it. I am sure of Him, not where I end up. He won't let me or anyone
go to hell that doesn't belong there, and He's clear (not only from his
declarations in Scripture but from the facts of His incarnation, life,
death, resurrection, ascension and continuing in His Body the Church) that
He wants us all to be saved. That, I am sure of."

I have great trouble with words like this.  This takes me back to the first post
I linked to above re: the Reformation in the Western Church.  Why should we not
preach both?: God desires all to be saved, and John 5:13 / Rom. 5:1?  And I must
say with sadness again that I feel there is a lot of "straw men" stuff going on
here!  Who is saying that "God is loving based on whether I get what I want
(salvation) and am sure I 'have' it."?  We proclaim what we proclaim to be
faithful to God as He has revealed Himself through His prophets, apostles,
pastors – in the words of the Scriptures that the Church has universally
recognized from the beginning! - and these Scriptures tell us we have peace with
God and that we can know we have eternal life.  These Scriptures are going to be
very hard to dislodge in my heart, I think.  In any case, hopefully the more
thoughtful stuff (taking into greater and careful consideration the wisdom of
those in EO and the Ancient Fathers) coming out of Lutheran theologians these
days (like this:
http://weedon.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-lutheran-quote-of-day.html ) will make it
harder to say these kinds of things without looking foolish.  If only every
LC-MS pastor would read and digest Kleining...

And also, I don't think that "provided we suffer with Him" should create any
great problem for the L/G paradigm, for does it not simply mean that we stay
with Him, like sheep sticking to their Shepherd?  Will you leave to?  Lord to
whom shall we go?...   Where Jesus and His message is, there is persecution, and
there we are right with Him.  When we fall down, we confess and get back up
again, clinging to Him, for He revives us again!

Orr:

"Pinpointing Golgatha as THE moment of our salvation…"

Concerns understood here.  But let's keep in mind the N.T. (Jesus, the Gospel
writers, and Paul) all seem to give the cross a very special place.  As Richard
Futrell so nicely put it.

Best to all again,
Nathan


--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Richard K. Futrell"
<PastorFutrell@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>    Chris,
>
>    You're right: the "doorman" is a metaphor.  I think a good one if
> understood rightly.  Your explanation of "Good works are salvation"
> are, for me, quite, roundabout but OK.  In your explanation it is fine.
>   With my vocabulary, it's heretical.  But I don't think I could even
> explain to another Lutheran so he would even see where you are coming
> from.  I'll have to work on that!
>
>    A united vocabulary would be nice, if it's even possible.  I think
> our differing vocabulary springs from our theological worldviews--and
> since they differ, so do our vocabularies.
>
>    Christ on the cross is the apex of Christ's mission on earth and
> even history.  The incarnation was to bring about this reality.  The
> incarnation and the cross are connected.  Thus to bow during the
> incarnation statement in the Creed is to recognize that the incarnation
> made our salvation, not only possible, but a reality.
>
>    Can one not hold to the cross and forensic justification without
> denying the salvific benefits of the incarnation?  I do.  But I do so
> in a way that does not deny "Christ and Him crucified," which was the
> entire foci of Paul's preaching.  Jesus statement in Luke 24:47 was
> that preaching into the repentance of sins is to be done in His name.
> That's Law and Gospel, that's law pointing to the cross.
>
>    Do we not even say the incarnation if for the sake of the cross?  If
> not, then why preach as Paul did and preach repentance into the
> forgiveness of sins?
>
>    As I begin to see it (and may very well be wrong!), justification by
> faith is in Eastern Orthodoxy, but it is a side doctrine.  Is that
> correct?  Justification by faith in Lutheranism is the central doctrine.
>
>    Here is what I ask as a Lutheran.  How can we in Lutheranism
> celebrate justificaion by faith without losing or denigrating the other
> salvation motifs, including theosis?  How can Eastern Orthodoxy
> celebrate theosis without denigrating justification? They both are
> biblical and both are correct.  I suppose we've ordered them
> differently.
>
>    I'll have to stop here as I have other matters to attend to.  But
> Chris, thank you so much.  I think I understand more (but only a little
> bit more).
>
>    I think our differences with Eastern Orthodoxy are real.  But I
> think many, many of them are differences in emphases, obscured by our
> differing vocabularies, traditions, etc.
>
>    RF
>
> --
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi....here are a few thoughts on the recent exchange---wasn't able to respond
sooner--

"Good works are our salvation."  Salvation isn't a one-time event....it's life
in Christ, moment-by-moment, to all eternity.  Works don't earn a bit of it; but
they are what the life of the new man consist of.  "We were bapitzed into His
resurrection so that we might walk in newness of life," Rom 6:4.  Newness of
life doesn't mean wallowing in the same sins and depravity we always did; it
means living a resurrected life.

Of course, no matter how many times we fail, He will forgive us...that's why
confession is so important in Orthodox life....and in spite of our falls He 
grants us Himself again and again and again: the Eucharist is celebrated every
week till the eschaton.

St Paul describes the Christian life a number of times as a foot race and
wrestling match and a battle.  The Greek verb "gumnazo" (and its noun) occur 5
times in the NT; "athleo" and its noun 3 times; "run/race" 13 times.  The first
two,  obviously, are where we derive our words "gymnasium" and "athletics."  I
haven't counted the references to  warfare in the NT.

We shouldn't overlook the obvious.   Races, wrestling and combat aren't over in
a moment; they  take sustained
effort; and you can lose at the last minute if you're not on your guard.  You
need to prepare yourself by exercise. (Our word "ascesis" is Greek for
'exercise'...it appears in Acts 24:16.)  That's why Paul uses this language.

Every moment of every day the demons are trying to bring us to damnation.  They
don't eat or sleep, and they've been practicing lies for thousands of years. 
They want us to be overconfident so we slacken a bit.

What can happen if we get overconfident in our salvation?

     I Cor. 10:12  ...Let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he
fall.
     Heb 3:12  Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil,
unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.
     Heb 4:11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the
same sort of disobedience.
      II Jn 8  Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked
for, but may win a full reward.
     I Pet. 4:18 “If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the
impious and sinner appear?”
     Luke 11:35 ...Be careful lest the light in you be darkness.
     I Cor. 9:24  Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but
only one receives the  prize? So run that you may obtain it. 25 Every athlete
exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath,
but we an imperishable. 26 Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one
beating the air; 27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to
others I myself should be disqualified.
                                                         +
According to Scripture, we don't believe we're damned...but we don't believe
we've made it to the finish line,  either.  We work out our salvation, which has
been freely given to us, in fear and trembling.

Martin Luther developed his theology in a world in which Roman errors
had led many people to think they were damned.  That was back in the
1500's. Today our spiritual situation is completely opposite.  It's
hard to find a single person these days who thinks he's damned.  The last I can
remember was a friend-of-a-friend I heard about in 1989.   Other than that, I
can't name a single person
who believes he's damned.

We Orthodox  do believe we're saved; but only by the grace of God...because of
our own evil, and countless examples from Scripture and our own lives, we know
we can easily lose our salvation if we slack off.  "If the righteous are
scarcely saved, where will the wicked and impious appear?"

I think it's easy to overlook the fact that re-birth is just that; it's
re-birth.  It's not spiritual adulthood.  Paul
chides the readers of Hebrews for being infants, still needing
milk....there are numerous allusions to spiritual growth in the NT.

Growth doesn't happen by complacency.  From the very day of our baptism we
engage in trampling the heavenly gifts of re-birth; we need to struggle to live
in that "newness of life," that salvation.

I'll close here with a longish quote from one of our pre-Communion prayers
(written by St Basil the Great in the 4th century), which gives a good feel for
the Orthodox ethos on salvation.  I don't normally include long quotes, but if
anyone is interested here it is.

In Christ,

R.



I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and I am
not worthy to lift up my eyes to the majesty of thy glory, for I have affronted
thy goodness, and broken thy commandments, and disobeyed thy laws. But thou, O
Lord most loving, long-suffering and merciful, hast not given me over to perish
in my sin, but dost ever await my return. For, O Thou who lovest mankind, thou
hast said, by thy Prophet, that thou hast no pleasure in the death of a sinner,
but rather that he should turn from his wickedness and live. Thou dost not
desire, O Master, to destroy the works of thy hands or that they should perish,
but willest that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth.
Wherefore I, although unworthy both of heaven and of earth and of this temporary
life, even I, a wretched sinner who had given myself over to every evil desire,
despair not of salvation, though I have been wholly subject to sin, a slave to
passion, and
  have defiled thine image within me, who am thy creation and thy work; but
trusting in thine infinite compassion, draw nigh unto thee. Receive me, O Lord,
thou that lovest mankind, as thou didst receive the sinful woman, the thief, the
publican and the prodigal son. Take away the heavy burden of my sins, O Thou
that takest away the sins of the world, and healest the infirmities of men, and
callest all that are weary and heavy laden to thyself and givest them rest; thou
that camest not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance, cleanse thou me
from all stain of body and soul and teach me to fulfill holiness in thy fear,
that with the witness of my conscience pure, I may receive a portion of thy Holy
Gifts, and be united to thy Holy Body and Precious Blood, and may have thee,
with thy Father and Holy Spirit, dwelling and abiding in me.
                                                  +










________________________________
From: nrinne <Nrinne@...>
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:32:43 AM
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: "Third Function/Use" of the Law & Orthodoxy


Hello all,

Christopher Orr: "Personally, I have always
thought it the psychological need to know God loves you regardless of sin -
Luther's "how can I get a loving God", whether apocryphal or not."

Well, we need to get more specific: God loves His whole creation, including
those who do not believe, for He has reconciled Himself the the world in Christ.
We are talking here about the psychological need to know not just that God loves
us, but that we are in a secure and stable relationship with Jesus right now
(such that if I were to keel over right now from a heart attack, I know I could
be received into his loving arms) - in other Words, that we are in true union
with Him (not that I have "it").  I want to concede that a lot of this may
indeed have to do with personality – meaning that this question, though very
important (I submit that soteriology is like one part of a 3-legged stool for
the faith delivered to all the saints: the others being Christology and the
Trinity [Christopher: I confess I think I did not fully understand the word
Triadology when you used it the other day, thinking it only had to do with the
Trinity and not the threefold
  office) is more pressing for some of us than others.  For example, evidently
when I was a child and I had done something wrong, my parents came to believe
that they needed to be very sensitive about how they disciplined me.  My dad has
told me: "All I had to do was look at you wrong and you would cry and cry"
(evidently not to manipulate, but because I genuinely knew that what I had done
was wrong, and my father's acceptance was so important to me).  Whereas, with my
children, that is definitely not the case!  (perhaps that says something about
my parenting).

Orr:

"We are sure of the love of God and his desire we be saved, we are not sure
of our own salvation. To me, that's where surety is properly placed. God
is not loving based on whether I get what I want (salvation) and am sure I
'have' it. I am sure of Him, not where I end up. He won't let me or anyone
go to hell that doesn't belong there, and He's clear (not only from his
declarations in Scripture but from the facts of His incarnation, life,
death, resurrection, ascension and continuing in His Body the Church) that
He wants us all to be saved. That, I am sure of."

I have great trouble with words like this.  This takes me back to the first post
I linked to above re: the Reformation in the Western Church.  Why should we not
preach both?: God desires all to be saved, and John 5:13 / Rom. 5:1?  And I must
say with sadness again that I feel there is a lot of "straw men" stuff going on
here!  Who is saying that "God is loving based on whether I get what I want
(salvation) and am sure I 'have' it."?  We proclaim what we proclaim to be
faithful to God as He has revealed Himself through His prophets, apostles,
pastors – in the words of the Scriptures that the Church has universally
recognized from the beginning! - and these Scriptures tell us we have peace with
God and that we can know we have eternal life.  These Scriptures are going to be
very hard to dislodge in my heart, I think.  In any case, hopefully the more
thoughtful stuff (taking into greater and careful consideration the wisdom of
those in EO and the Ancient
  Fathers) coming out of Lutheran theologians these days (like this:
http://weedon. blogspot. com/2009/ 05/new-lutheran- quote-of- day.html ) will
make it harder to say these kinds of things without looking foolish.  If only
every LC-MS pastor would read and digest Kleining...

And also, I don't think that "provided we suffer with Him" should create any
great problem for the L/G paradigm, for does it not simply mean that we stay
with Him, like sheep sticking to their Shepherd?  Will you leave to?  Lord to
whom shall we go?...   Where Jesus and His message is, there is persecution, and
there we are right with Him.  When we fall down, we confess and get back up
again, clinging to Him, for He revives us again!

Orr:

"Pinpointing Golgatha as THE moment of our salvation…"

Concerns understood here.  But let's keep in mind the N.T. (Jesus, the Gospel
writers, and Paul) all seem to give the cross a very special place.  As Richard
Futrell so nicely put it.

Best to all again,
Nathan

--- In LutheransLookingEas t@yahoogroups. com, "Richard K. Futrell"
<PastorFutrell@ ...> wrote:
>
>
>
>    Chris,
>
>    You're right: the "doorman" is a metaphor.  I think a good one if
> understood rightly.  Your explanation of "Good works are salvation"
> are, for me, quite, roundabout but OK.  In your explanation it is fine.
>   With my vocabulary, it's heretical.  But I don't think I could even
> explain to another Lutheran so he would even see where you are coming
> from.  I'll have to work on that!
>
>    A united vocabulary would be nice, if it's even possible.  I think
> our differing vocabulary springs from our theological worldviews-- and
> since they differ, so do our vocabularies.
>
>    Christ on the cross is the apex of Christ's mission on earth and
> even history.  The incarnation was to bring about this reality.  The
> incarnation and the cross are connected.  Thus to bow during the
> incarnation statement in the Creed is to recognize that the incarnation
> made our salvation, not only possible, but a reality.
>
>    Can one not hold to the cross and forensic justification without
> denying the salvific benefits of the incarnation?  I do.  But I do so
> in a way that does not deny "Christ and Him crucified," which was the
> entire foci of Paul's preaching.  Jesus statement in Luke 24:47 was
> that preaching into the repentance of sins is to be done in His name.
> That's Law and Gospel, that's law pointing to the cross.
>
>    Do we not even say the incarnation if for the sake of the cross?  If
> not, then why preach as Paul did and preach repentance into the
> forgiveness of sins?
>
>    As I begin to see it (and may very well be wrong!), justification by
> faith is in Eastern Orthodoxy, but it is a side doctrine.  Is that
> correct?  Justification by faith in Lutheranism is the central doctrine.
>
>    Here is what I ask as a Lutheran.  How can we in Lutheranism
> celebrate justificaion by faith without losing or denigrating the other
> salvation motifs, including theosis?  How can Eastern Orthodoxy
> celebrate theosis without denigrating justification? They both are
> biblical and both are correct.  I suppose we've ordered them
> differently.
>
>    I'll have to stop here as I have other matters to attend to.  But
> Chris, thank you so much.  I think I understand more (but only a little
> bit more).
>
>    I think our differences with Eastern Orthodoxy are real.  But I
> think many, many of them are differences in emphases, obscured by our
> differing vocabularies, traditions, etc.
>
>    RF
>
> --
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]