I am rather familiar with St Gregory Palamas...they do get a lot of interest
from men who are interested in becoming monastics without really understanding
what that life is about....so I think pretty much anyone who hasn't visited will
be turned down initially, in order to save all parties unnecessary pain.

That doesn't mean they will be turned down after becoming established in the
faith in a parish and repeated visits...but I would guess (and it's only a
guess!  I'm not the superior, or even close to the superior) that's the only way
to do it at this monastery.

Meanwhile, wherever your pilgrimage will lead you, God will bless you beyond
your wildest imaginings.  I can tell you THAT with all certainty.

R.






________________________________
From: Dave Naess <dnaess@...>
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, June 15, 2010 10:34:27 PM
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] My monastic search


Howdy!

It's been a while so I thought that I would bring you up to date.

I got turned down by New Skete Monastery in NY after making my Formal
Application for Consideration.

St. Gregory Palamas in OH turned my down sight unseen about a week ago sight
unseen because I was too old and told me to expect more of the same.

The same day I sent a letter of introduction (well... an e-mail) to Igumen
Sergius of St. Tikhon's Monastery in PA. That same day I got a response inviting
me to go down to St. Tikhon's for "one or two weeks" and talk about my vocation.

So... I'm off to St. Tikhon's on Monday (June 21.)

In my experience to date, 3 days is the normal and 7 days was the maximum --
that was due to the fact that I was exploring a vocation.

St. Tikhon's has a new puppy, at least I learned how to clean out puppy kennels
while I was at New Skete!  ;->

Dave




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

Randall Hay wrote:
<<By the way, in my two years at Lutheran seminary I was also taught total
depravity. >>

Really? What Lutheran Seminary was that? I'm sure it's not possible that you
learned incorrectly?

The Lutheran confessions are quite clear that Original Sin, inherited from Adam,
is NOT part of mankind's very essence. Rather, sin is a very deep and thorough
corruption of our human nature. No one except Christ Jesus, our Lord, can
overcome this corruption for us and save us from it. Because of this sin,
*spiritually* we are utterly and completely dead. We cannot make any movement
towards Christ by reason or strength or believe in Him apart from the faith
creating work of the Holy Spirit. We are like Lazarus, unable to change our
*dead* condition of our own volition, reason, or strength, but the Gospel Word
calls men to faith and life in Jesus Christ.

This is NOT total depravity. On the doctrines of Original Sin and Justification
by faith in Christ alone the Lutheran Church and Her Confession stand alone. To
the left and to the right, in every other Christian denomination, you have
synergism and Pelagianism (semi, full, or otherwise).

What you *learned* in your two years at some Lutheran seminary is hardly
representative of orthodox Lutheran doctrine and confession -- and you know it!
Please, attack, critique Lutheran doctrine and Confession all you want, but
don't, either intentionally or in ignorance, smear and miscast it as some form
of the Calvinism it very clearly is NOT.

Jon

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not
the Church for his mother.” – St. Cyprian of Carthage

“O wondrous mystery! One is the Father of all, one also
the Word of all,and the Holy Spirit is one and the same
everywhere. And there is only one Virgin Mother;I love to
call her the Church.” – St. Clement of Alexandria

Rev. Jon M. Ellingworth

The Lutheran Church of Christ the King
14 Pine Drive    Pawling, NY    12564

Office  845.855.3169
Home  845.855.2616

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

Even with the caveat "that Original Sin, inherited from Adam, is NOT part of
mankind's very essence", it is the practical, everyday teaching of the
Lutheranism I grew up with.  It is part of the public teaching of the LCMS,
too, "that we are **by nature** sinful and unclean." (*Lutheran* *Service
Book*, the new hymnal for The Lutheran** Church - Missouri Synod).

This supposed mischaracterization of Lutheran theology is not due simply to
misunderstanding on the part of Orthodox, but at least also to a wrong
confession of faith in Lutheran worship itself, it seems.  I also found this
very same phrase on the website of an LCMS congregation and remember
learning it in various WELS congregations and schools.

It seems as if the distinction is nominal.  Original sin so inheres to
humankind that our nature is to all intents and purposes totally depraved,
i.e., Calvinism with the Lutheran footnote ignored outside of seminary.

Christopher


On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Rev. Jon M. Ellingworth <
didache@...> wrote:

>
>
> Randall Hay wrote:
> <<By the way, in my two years at Lutheran seminary I was also taught total
> depravity. >>
>
> Really? What Lutheran Seminary was that? I'm sure it's not possible that
> you learned incorrectly?
>
> The Lutheran confessions are quite clear that Original Sin, inherited from
> Adam, is NOT part of mankind's very essence. Rather, sin is a very deep and
> thorough corruption of our human nature. No one except Christ Jesus, our
> Lord, can overcome this corruption for us and save us from it. Because of
> this sin, *spiritually* we are utterly and completely dead. We cannot make
> any movement towards Christ by reason or strength or believe in Him apart
> from the faith creating work of the Holy Spirit. We are like Lazarus, unable
> to change our *dead* condition of our own volition, reason, or strength, but
> the Gospel Word calls men to faith and life in Jesus Christ.
>
> This is NOT total depravity. On the doctrines of Original Sin and
> Justification by faith in Christ alone the Lutheran Church and Her
> Confession stand alone. To the left and to the right, in every other
> Christian denomination, you have synergism and Pelagianism (semi, full, or
> otherwise).
>
> What you *learned* in your two years at some Lutheran seminary is hardly
> representative of orthodox Lutheran doctrine and confession -- and you know
> it! Please, attack, critique Lutheran doctrine and Confession all you want,
> but don't, either intentionally or in ignorance, smear and miscast it as
> some form of the Calvinism it very clearly is NOT.
>
> Jon
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> �He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not
> the Church for his mother.� � St. Cyprian of Carthage
>
> �O wondrous mystery! One is the Father of all, one also
> the Word of all,and the Holy Spirit is one and the same
> everywhere. And there is only one Virgin Mother;I love to
> call her the Church.� � St. Clement of Alexandria
>
> Rev. Jon M. Ellingworth
>
> The Lutheran Church of Christ the King
> 14 Pine Drive Pawling, NY 12564
>
> Office 845.855.3169
> Home 845.855.2616
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

One public example of an LCMS congregation teaching that we are **by
nature** sinful and unclean:

We believe, teach and confess that we are **by nature**, sinful (
> http://trinitylutheranortonville.org/OurConfession.dsp)
>

and

**

> *"Article 2 Concerning Sin -* *Furthermore, it is taught among us that
> since the fall of Adam, all human beings who are born in the natural way are
> conceived and born in sin. This means that from birth they are full of evil
> lust and inclination and cannot by nature possess true fear of God and true
> faith in God. Moreover, this same innate disease and original sin is truly
> sin and condemns to God�s eternal wrath all who are not in turn born anew
> through baptism and the Holy Spirit.*
>
> *Rejected, then, are the Pelagians and others who do not regard original
> sin as sin in order to make human nature righteous through natural powers,
> thus insulting the suffering and merit of Christ."*
>
> Sin, it is the next biggest topic after the Holy Trinity. Here we are shown
> that **�we are by nature, sinful and unclean.�** From birth, and truly from
> conception. Here it is stated clearly that we are born this way. This was to
> fight the group known as Pelagians who believed that man was deep down
> naturally good and could save himself aided by God�s grace. In other words,
> these believed that original sin was a falsehood. This could not be more
> false. We are told in Holy Scripture that man is indeed sinful from the womb
> (see Psalm 51). (http://trinitylutheranortonville.org/ThePastorsStudy.dsp
>
Remember, on this list Lutheran is self-defining.  We are not in the
business of determining which Lutheranism is the 'real Lutheranism' -
whether between or within a given Lutheran denomination.

Christopher



On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:

> Even with the caveat "that Original Sin, inherited from Adam, is NOT part
> of mankind's very essence", it is the practical, everyday teaching of the
> Lutheranism I grew up with.  It is part of the public teaching of the LCMS,
> too, "that we are **by nature** sinful and unclean." (*Lutheran* *Service
> Book*, the new hymnal for The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod).
>
> This supposed mischaracterization of Lutheran theology is not due simply to
> misunderstanding on the part of Orthodox, but at least also to a wrong
> confession of faith in Lutheran worship itself, it seems.  I also found this
> very same phrase on the website of an LCMS congregation and remember
> learning it in various WELS congregations and schools.
>
> It seems as if the distinction is nominal.  Original sin so inheres to
> humankind that our nature is to all intents and purposes totally depraved,
> i.e., Calvinism with the Lutheran footnote ignored outside of seminary.
>
> Christopher
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Rev. Jon M. Ellingworth <
> didache@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>  Randall Hay wrote:
>> <<By the way, in my two years at Lutheran seminary I was also taught total
>> depravity. >>
>>
>>  Really? What Lutheran Seminary was that? I'm sure it's not possible that
>> you learned incorrectly?
>>
>> The Lutheran confessions are quite clear that Original Sin, inherited from
>> Adam, is NOT part of mankind's very essence. Rather, sin is a very deep and
>> thorough corruption of our human nature. No one except Christ Jesus, our
>> Lord, can overcome this corruption for us and save us from it. Because of
>> this sin, *spiritually* we are utterly and completely dead. We cannot make
>> any movement towards Christ by reason or strength or believe in Him apart
>> from the faith creating work of the Holy Spirit. We are like Lazarus, unable
>> to change our *dead* condition of our own volition, reason, or strength, but
>> the Gospel Word calls men to faith and life in Jesus Christ.
>>
>> This is NOT total depravity. On the doctrines of Original Sin and
>> Justification by faith in Christ alone the Lutheran Church and Her
>> Confession stand alone. To the left and to the right, in every other
>> Christian denomination, you have synergism and Pelagianism (semi, full, or
>> otherwise).
>>
>> What you *learned* in your two years at some Lutheran seminary is hardly
>> representative of orthodox Lutheran doctrine and confession -- and you know
>> it! Please, attack, critique Lutheran doctrine and Confession all you want,
>> but don't, either intentionally or in ignorance, smear and miscast it as
>> some form of the Calvinism it very clearly is NOT.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++
>>
>> �He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not
>> the Church for his mother.� � St. Cyprian of Carthage
>>
>> �O wondrous mystery! One is the Father of all, one also
>> the Word of all,and the Holy Spirit is one and the same
>> everywhere. And there is only one Virgin Mother;I love to
>> call her the Church.� � St. Clement of Alexandria
>>
>> Rev. Jon M. Ellingworth
>>
>> The Lutheran Church of Christ the King
>> 14 Pine Drive Pawling, NY 12564
>>
>> Office 845.855.3169
>> Home 845.855.2616
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>


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

Ben, since you touched on this topic I'll direct it to you but anyone is free to
comment, of course.

What is a good resource then for understanding the EO point of view on the
Doctrine of Man and what man's problem is?

As a Lutheran I've always understood passages like Romans 6:23 "For the wages of
sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our LORD."
(NKJV) to mean that death, being the consequence (wage) of our sin is not THE
problem that man has to deal with, but sin is.  Death certainly isn't good by
any means but is a symptom of a greater problem, sin.  If I am reading this
thread correctly it seems like the two are being reversed and sin is now the
consequence death.

In Christ,
Timothy

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>
wrote:
>
> To add to what Christopher said:
>
> That humanity is different after the Incarnation is by healing and
> even spiritual maturity, but not in any ontological sense.  The
> incarnation doesn't establish a new kind of humanity, but a renewed
> humanity.
>
> Lutherans do not believe that sin is intrinsic to nature, at least not
> those Lutherans who subscribe to the Formula of Concord.  Christopher
> explained this very well.  Human nature remains good in Lutheran
> theology, but all that good is corrupted.  God's good creation stands
> as such, but due to man's fault the good creation is corrupted, made
> sinful.  However, man's ontology is not changed into sin.
>
> Lutherans, in confessing their sins, will say that they are sinful by
> nature, but a look at their confessional documents and history
> explains that this only means that sin corrupts human nature, not that
> sin is intrinsic (def: of the essence of a thing).  Lutheran theology
> in America has become quite a bit Calvin-ized, and concepts like Total
> Depravity have snuck in the gate.
>
> One of the stumbling blocks your Lutheran friends will have with this
> is that they will expect the Incarnation to be a stepping stone on the
> way to solving a different problem.  In Lutheran theology the problem
> to be solved is something outside of man, in a courtroom, and only
> after that are certain inner blessings given.  In Orthodox theology
> the problem to be solved is first inside of man - his bondage to
> mortality and the wreckage of his own sins - and only then is the
> forensic problem able to be resolved (especially on the Last Day).
>
> This, of course, comes back to the question of what is God most
> concerned about first: is it's His wrathful justice that needs to be
> satisfied, or is it the release of man from bondage and his healing?
> Is the problem that the Gospel addresses at the core an offense to the
> divine or man's enslavement and death?
>
> In Christ,
> Benjamin Harju
>
> On 6/14/10, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:
> > Officially, Lutheranism teaches that human nature remains as it was in the
> > beginning, "good".  However, at the same time it is seen as so encrusted
> > with sin that it is to all intents and purposes totally depraved.  That is
> > my reading of Mueller in his "Christian Dogmatics", Pieper, too, I think.
> >
> > Orthodoxy teaches that human nature remains as it was in the beginning,
> > sinless, but that it is now mortal and this makes us more prone to sin.
> > Christ assumed our mortality, but our nature has no sin inhering to it.
> > This mortality of the human nature in Christ allows for the temptation
> > without the automatic participation in sin via a doctrine of 'original sin'
> > whereby our nature is itself forensically guilty of Adam's sin.  In
> > addition, the doctrine of the divine energies then teaches that our single,
> > common, shared human nature is in some senses healed through its union in
> > Jesus Christ with the divine nature.  Humanity is different after the
> > Incarnation than it was before and that much more so following the
> > Resurrection to glory of our common human nature and its Ascension in Christ
> > to the right hand of the Father.
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi friends. At a recent pastor's retreat, we got into theological
> >> discussion about a variety of things (see the other post on the theology
> >> of
> >> glory). One of the other major things was Christ's incarnation and the
> >> assumption of humanity. I was trying to present the Orthodox approach with
> >> theosis & kenosis vs. Western penal atonement in the salvation paradigm.
> >> The
> >> main stumbling block here was Christ's assumption of humanity. I went with
> >> St. Gregory's "what isn't assumed isn't healed" to illustrate that Christ
> >> truly assumed humanity.
> >>
> >> To be clear, I wasn't trying to speak for Orthodoxy, as if I was teaching
> >> Orthodox theology or even somewhat qualified to do so. I was simply
> >> running
> >> theology past some bright Lutheran minds.
> >>
> >> My understanding is that Christ assumed humanity, the very same humanity
> >> that we have. The hang up here is that Lutheranism believes that sin is
> >> intrinsic to nature. So then Christ would be born sinful. But He's the
> >> sinless lamb of God. Uproar ensued, as well as ad hominem attack. It was
> >> less than edifying.
> >>
> >> The key to understanding the incarnation is then the difference in the
> >> Orthodox understanding of original guilt vs. original sin. How could
> >> Christ
> >> assume a humanity that isn't the same as everyone else's and yet be, as
> >> Hebrews 2:17 says, "like his brothers in every respect . . . to make
> >> propitiation for the sins of the people."?? If I am understanding the
> >> Orthodox stance here, it makes more sense because then Christ could be
> >> truly
> >> tempted. If He can't sin, then temptation is a bit of a sham. If someone
> >> could enlighten me further here, I would appreciate it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Christopher,

That we are "sinful by nature" (as in the confession used in some liturgies
in Lutheran churches) is NOT to say that human nature IS sin, but only that
it is so thoroughly corrupted by sin (concupisence) that it cannot do
anything of it's own volition that is not tainted by sin. I know you want to
characterize this as "Calvinism with the Lutheran footnote ignored outside
of seminary", but it is really not the same thing at all.

Lutherans are not in any way saying that God created sin or sinful
creatures. Before the Fall, corruption came extra nos; after the Fall,
corruption comes by means of descent from Adam. To say that "the nature is
corrupted" is a very different thing than "the nature IS corruption".
Further, we are not using words "nature", "essence", "substance", etc.
consistently in this discussion.

To confess "that we are by nature sinful and unclean" is NOT to say that
human nature IS sin or sinful in essence / substance, but that it is so
thoroughly corrupted by sin (which is not essential to the person)
that.......(see first sentence).  The force of this confession, rather, is
that inherited sin is SIN, that we are accountable for it. That is what is
being confessed, not some ontological statement about what our substance /
essence consists of.

Call it some quasi-Calvinism if you want. You're categorically wrong about
that. But, this doctrine is fundamental in the divide between Lutheran,
Orthodox, and, well, anybody else.

Jon

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not
the Church for his mother." - St. Cyprian of Carthage

"O wondrous mystery! One is the Father of all, one also
the Word of all,and the Holy Spirit is one and the same
everywhere. And there is only one Virgin Mother;I love to
call her the Church." - St. Clement of Alexandria

Rev. Jon M. Ellingworth

The Lutheran Church of Christ the King
14 Pine Drive    Pawling, NY    12564

Office  845.855.3169
Home  845.855.2616

One way to look at your question is to ask whether you are looking to be
freed from sin alone?  Of course, we are primarily interested in being saved
the result - the final, eternal result - of sin, i.e., death.

My understanding is that Adam and Eve's sin caused death and the mortality
of our nature, our weakness and proclivity to sin.  However, once death came
to be, it itself caused more and more sin.  This all led to the final death
- Sheol for all prior to the Resurrection, and the particular and final
judgments for those of us after the Resurrection.

Part of the difficulty in such a topic is in the confusion of pre- and
post-lapsarian contexts, and pre- and post-Paschal contexts.  The West has
tended to be far more systematic and organized in raising, addressing and
answering such questions than the East has been.  Part of this is due to the
maximalist nature of Orthodoxy, and the massive amount of resources
Orthodoxy draws upon, e.g., Scripture, patristics (ancient and modern), the
lex orandi, Lives of the saints, etc.  It's tough to systematize all of it.
Part of it has also been that dogma and doctrine in the East is not seen as
the primary way in which the Faith is practiced, preserved or protected.
Dogmatic definitions arise only when the normal vehicle of Faith - Holy
Tradition in the living Body of Christ - breaks down.  This is seen in the
rather minimal dogmatic pronouncements of the first millenium of the Church
when compared with the expansive dogmatic pronouncement of the second
millenium, especially since the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.

Christopher


On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:01 PM, timothy_jackson87 <
timothy.jackson87@...> wrote:

>
>
> Ben, since you touched on this topic I'll direct it to you but anyone is
> free to comment, of course.
>
> What is a good resource then for understanding the EO point of view on the
> Doctrine of Man and what man's problem is?
>
> As a Lutheran I've always understood passages like Romans 6:23 "For the
> wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus
> our LORD." (NKJV) to mean that death, being the consequence (wage) of our
> sin is not THE problem that man has to deal with, but sin is. Death
> certainly isn't good by any means but is a symptom of a greater problem,
> sin. If I am reading this thread correctly it seems like the two are being
> reversed and sin is now the consequence death.
>
> In Christ,
> Timothy
>
>
> --- In
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...> wrote:
> >
> > To add to what Christopher said:
> >
> > That humanity is different after the Incarnation is by healing and
> > even spiritual maturity, but not in any ontological sense. The
> > incarnation doesn't establish a new kind of humanity, but a renewed
> > humanity.
> >
> > Lutherans do not believe that sin is intrinsic to nature, at least not
> > those Lutherans who subscribe to the Formula of Concord. Christopher
> > explained this very well. Human nature remains good in Lutheran
> > theology, but all that good is corrupted. God's good creation stands
> > as such, but due to man's fault the good creation is corrupted, made
> > sinful. However, man's ontology is not changed into sin.
> >
> > Lutherans, in confessing their sins, will say that they are sinful by
> > nature, but a look at their confessional documents and history
> > explains that this only means that sin corrupts human nature, not that
> > sin is intrinsic (def: of the essence of a thing). Lutheran theology
> > in America has become quite a bit Calvin-ized, and concepts like Total
> > Depravity have snuck in the gate.
> >
> > One of the stumbling blocks your Lutheran friends will have with this
> > is that they will expect the Incarnation to be a stepping stone on the
> > way to solving a different problem. In Lutheran theology the problem
> > to be solved is something outside of man, in a courtroom, and only
> > after that are certain inner blessings given. In Orthodox theology
> > the problem to be solved is first inside of man - his bondage to
> > mortality and the wreckage of his own sins - and only then is the
> > forensic problem able to be resolved (especially on the Last Day).
> >
> > This, of course, comes back to the question of what is God most
> > concerned about first: is it's His wrathful justice that needs to be
> > satisfied, or is it the release of man from bondage and his healing?
> > Is the problem that the Gospel addresses at the core an offense to the
> > divine or man's enslavement and death?
> >
> > In Christ,
> > Benjamin Harju
> >
> > On 6/14/10, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:
> > > Officially, Lutheranism teaches that human nature remains as it was in
> the
> > > beginning, "good". However, at the same time it is seen as so encrusted
> > > with sin that it is to all intents and purposes totally depraved. That
> is
> > > my reading of Mueller in his "Christian Dogmatics", Pieper, too, I
> think.
> > >
> > > Orthodoxy teaches that human nature remains as it was in the beginning,
> > > sinless, but that it is now mortal and this makes us more prone to sin.
> > > Christ assumed our mortality, but our nature has no sin inhering to it.
> > > This mortality of the human nature in Christ allows for the temptation
> > > without the automatic participation in sin via a doctrine of 'original
> sin'
> > > whereby our nature is itself forensically guilty of Adam's sin. In
> > > addition, the doctrine of the divine energies then teaches that our
> single,
> > > common, shared human nature is in some senses healed through its union
> in
> > > Jesus Christ with the divine nature. Humanity is different after the
> > > Incarnation than it was before and that much more so following the
> > > Resurrection to glory of our common human nature and its Ascension in
> Christ
> > > to the right hand of the Father.
> > >
> > > Christopher
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hi friends. At a recent pastor's retreat, we got into theological
> > >> discussion about a variety of things (see the other post on the
> theology
> > >> of
> > >> glory). One of the other major things was Christ's incarnation and the
> > >> assumption of humanity. I was trying to present the Orthodox approach
> with
> > >> theosis & kenosis vs. Western penal atonement in the salvation
> paradigm.
> > >> The
> > >> main stumbling block here was Christ's assumption of humanity. I went
> with
> > >> St. Gregory's "what isn't assumed isn't healed" to illustrate that
> Christ
> > >> truly assumed humanity.
> > >>
> > >> To be clear, I wasn't trying to speak for Orthodoxy, as if I was
> teaching
> > >> Orthodox theology or even somewhat qualified to do so. I was simply
> > >> running
> > >> theology past some bright Lutheran minds.
> > >>
> > >> My understanding is that Christ assumed humanity, the very same
> humanity
> > >> that we have. The hang up here is that Lutheranism believes that sin
> is
> > >> intrinsic to nature. So then Christ would be born sinful. But He's the
> > >> sinless lamb of God. Uproar ensued, as well as ad hominem attack. It
> was
> > >> less than edifying.
> > >>
> > >> The key to understanding the incarnation is then the difference in the
> > >> Orthodox understanding of original guilt vs. original sin. How could
> > >> Christ
> > >> assume a humanity that isn't the same as everyone else's and yet be,
> as
> > >> Hebrews 2:17 says, "like his brothers in every respect . . . to make
> > >> propitiation for the sins of the people."?? If I am understanding the
> > >> Orthodox stance here, it makes more sense because then Christ could be
> > >> truly
> > >> tempted. If He can't sin, then temptation is a bit of a sham. If
> someone
> > >> could enlighten me further here, I would appreciate it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>


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

Pastor Ellingsworth, I'm the one who noted that the official teaching of the
Lutheran church is what you described.  However, this is far from the common
understanding of the phrase "by nature sinful" in even devout, pious,
learned confessional Lutherans.  Perhaps the phrase is more clear in Latin
or German, but in English your distinction appears to lack a difference.
While you, personally, and the seminary officially teaches that "sinful by
nature" means our nature is not sinful, but good, though corrupted it is
easy to see how Calvinism has accidentally snuck in.

I would also note that most would not say that God created sinful nature in
humanity, but that humanity corrupted its nature (in Adam) in such a way
that what had been good is now "by nature sinful".  This preserves God from
being the creator or author of evil, while still confessing humanity is "by
nature sinful".  I believe this is the context of all those Lutherans who
confess something slightly different on this score than either you or the
Book of Concord.

Christopher



On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Rev. Jon M. Ellingworth <
peredetroisfilles@...> wrote:

>
>
> Christopher,
>
> That we are "sinful by nature" (as in the confession used in some liturgies
>
> in Lutheran churches) is NOT to say that human nature IS sin, but only that
>
> it is so thoroughly corrupted by sin (concupisence) that it cannot do
> anything of it's own volition that is not tainted by sin. I know you want
> to
> characterize this as "Calvinism with the Lutheran footnote ignored outside
> of seminary", but it is really not the same thing at all.
>
> Lutherans are not in any way saying that God created sin or sinful
> creatures. Before the Fall, corruption came extra nos; after the Fall,
> corruption comes by means of descent from Adam. To say that "the nature is
> corrupted" is a very different thing than "the nature IS corruption".
> Further, we are not using words "nature", "essence", "substance", etc.
> consistently in this discussion.
>
> To confess "that we are by nature sinful and unclean" is NOT to say that
> human nature IS sin or sinful in essence / substance, but that it is so
> thoroughly corrupted by sin (which is not essential to the person)
> that.......(see first sentence). The force of this confession, rather, is
> that inherited sin is SIN, that we are accountable for it. That is what is
> being confessed, not some ontological statement about what our substance /
> essence consists of.
>
> Call it some quasi-Calvinism if you want. You're categorically wrong about
> that. But, this doctrine is fundamental in the divide between Lutheran,
> Orthodox, and, well, anybody else.
>
>
> Jon
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> "He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not
> the Church for his mother." - St. Cyprian of Carthage
>
> "O wondrous mystery! One is the Father of all, one also
> the Word of all,and the Holy Spirit is one and the same
> everywhere. And there is only one Virgin Mother;I love to
> call her the Church." - St. Clement of Alexandria
>
> Rev. Jon M. Ellingworth
>
> The Lutheran Church of Christ the King
> 14 Pine Drive Pawling, NY 12564
>
> Office 845.855.3169
> Home 845.855.2616
>
>
>


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

I would highly recommend to all the post by Ben Harju on this topic at:

http://paredwka.blogspot.com/2010/06/theology-of-what.html

A small taste: "Calling Orthodox ecclesiology a 'theology of glory' is like
saying the Real Presence in the Eucharist is a theology of glory."

Christopher


On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hi friends. At a recent pastor's retreat, we got into theological
> discussion about a variety of things (see the other post on the theology of
> glory). One of the other major things was Christ's incarnation and the
> assumption of humanity. I was trying to present the Orthodox approach with
> theosis & kenosis vs. Western penal atonement in the salvation paradigm. The
> main stumbling block here was Christ's assumption of humanity. I went with
> St. Gregory's "what isn't assumed isn't healed" to illustrate that Christ
> truly assumed humanity.
>
> To be clear, I wasn't trying to speak for Orthodoxy, as if I was teaching
> Orthodox theology or even somewhat qualified to do so. I was simply running
> theology past some bright Lutheran minds.
>
> My understanding is that Christ assumed humanity, the very same humanity
> that we have. The hang up here is that Lutheranism believes that sin is
> intrinsic to nature. So then Christ would be born sinful. But He's the
> sinless lamb of God. Uproar ensued, as well as ad hominem attack. It was
> less than edifying.
>
> The key to understanding the incarnation is then the difference in the
> Orthodox understanding of original guilt vs. original sin. How could Christ
> assume a humanity that isn't the same as everyone else's and yet be, as
> Hebrews 2:17 says, "like his brothers in every respect . . . to make
> propitiation for the sins of the people."?? If I am understanding the
> Orthodox stance here, it makes more sense because then Christ could be truly
> tempted. If He can't sin, then temptation is a bit of a sham. If someone
> could enlighten me further here, I would appreciate it.
>
>
>


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

Timothy - I cannot speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox church and won't try
to. But as a Lutheran Pastor looking East, studying and reading about her in
books for years, I can offer a glimpse of my limited understanding on this
"inverse" relationship of sin & death.

Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect" relationship of sin and
death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed with it. Seems clear
enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1 Corinthians 15:56 (ESV)
"The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."

The sting of death is sin. If we recall what God's words were to Adam & Eve (Gen
2:17 ESV) they were: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you
shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

When you eat of it you will surely die. Life will cease and indeed it did as
people rejected the Creator for the created. Relationship with God is cut off.
This relationship must be healed and restored as mortality came and abundant sin
followed with it.

In our Lutheran understanding, that is tremendously legal/courtroom biased, we
understand the breaking of God's commandment "not to eat" in a juridical
context. The Orthodox view, (what I understand of it at least), starts out more
with the cessation of life vs. guilt and blame for breaking the law.

Both of these view points are the foundational starting points for all other
doctrines and how both East and West understand salvation. For the East, it
seems to be a return to life through the destruction of death and liberation
from the bondage to sin. For the West, it seems to be an appeasement of the
wrath of God and the demands of the law.

I find that how we understand the garden is really programmatic of our whole
"system" of theology. I hope this sheds some light on the differences.

Timothy,

What Oruaseht said is pretty much what I would say.  If you want a
good resource, I suggest reading Gustaf Wingren's "Man and the
Incarnation."  It is a good summary of St. Irenaeus' theology, and
also that of the early Church.  Of course, St. Irenaeus' chiliasm
isn't to be accepted but the rest is a good place to start.  Another
good resource is "Ancestral Sin" by Fr. Romanides.  Some Orthodox rely
on it heavily, some not heavily, but either way it is a good place to
begin.

If you have other passages that seem to suggest sin is the root
problem and death the result, please send them on out and we can talk
about them.

In Christ,
Benjamin Harju

On 6/16/10, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:
> Timothy - I cannot speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox church and won't
> try to. But as a Lutheran Pastor looking East, studying and reading about
> her in books for years, I can offer a glimpse of my limited understanding on
> this "inverse" relationship of sin & death.
>
> Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect" relationship of sin
> and death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed with it.
> Seems clear enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1 Corinthians
> 15:56 (ESV)
> "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
>
> The sting of death is sin. If we recall what God's words were to Adam & Eve
> (Gen 2:17 ESV) they were: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
> you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
>
> When you eat of it you will surely die. Life will cease and indeed it did as
> people rejected the Creator for the created. Relationship with God is cut
> off. This relationship must be healed and restored as mortality came and
> abundant sin followed with it.
>
> In our Lutheran understanding, that is tremendously legal/courtroom biased,
> we understand the breaking of God's commandment "not to eat" in a juridical
> context. The Orthodox view, (what I understand of it at least), starts out
> more with the cessation of life vs. guilt and blame for breaking the law.
>
> Both of these view points are the foundational starting points for all other
> doctrines and how both East and West understand salvation. For the East, it
> seems to be a return to life through the destruction of death and liberation
> from the bondage to sin. For the West, it seems to be an appeasement of the
> wrath of God and the demands of the law.
>
> I find that how we understand the garden is really programmatic of our whole
> "system" of theology. I hope this sheds some light on the differences.
>
>

Pastor Ellingworth's explanation of the confession of sins statement
that "we are sinful by nature" is absolutely accurate.  It does not
mean "total depravity" or that man's nature has become sin or that
nothing good remains in man.  Its intended meaning is that sin
corrupts nature, and from the corrupted nature man continues to sin.

Now, having said this, there seem to be quite a few Lutherans running
around out there that think just the opposite.  I myself, before my
conversion to Orthodoxy, participated in a protracted "discussion"
over this very thing.  I was shocked to find so many Lutherans - even
from my own seminary class! - defending the idea that Lutheran
theology holds to Total Depravity, even citing Luther's bondage of the
will to prove their point.  (I wish I had that reference, but here's
one in another of Luther's works: "<a
href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/11/discussion-of-confession\
-confitendi.html">A
Discussion of Confession</a>," seventh part (1520).)  For instance,
please refer to the following article that features the Issues, Etc.
logo at the top.  <a
href="http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar89.htm">http://www.mtio.com/articles/ai\
ssar89.htm</a>.
  In this article Calvin's doctrine of Total Depravity is identified,
and Luther (and the author) are both linked to this doctrine as being
in agreement.  Also, just try doing a Google search and you will see
that the public opinion is that Luther and Calvin are in agreement:
Total Depravity.  So it is not without merit that this opinion should
be discussed here as a Lutheran doctrine, whether or not you agree it
is properly a Lutheran doctrine. Pr. Ellingworth, we pointed out the
correct doctrine here; it sounds like your problem is with your fellow
Lutherans.

The problem at hand, Pr. Ellingworth, is that more and more the
Lutherans in America are unable to distinguish between the theology of
the Lutheran Symbols from the confessors of that era and the Calvinism
that has subtly crept in lately.  This makes it really hard for
outsiders to fairly determine what theology they are dealing with or
should be dealing with.  The Total Depravity issue is a case in point.
  Another issue, which was pointed out to me by a good friend, is the
misconception among Lutherans - even those who assembled the LSB -
that Christ's Incarnation in and of itself is part of His humiliation.
  Clearly His Incarnation is not part of His humiliation in Lutheran
theology, but that He took upon Himself "the full misery and
wretchedness which sin had brought upon fallen man" [Mueller, p.292].

I believe I was the one that claimed modern Lutheran theology trends
toward Calvinism.  I stand by that statement, and with more reasons
than what I give here.  It is not inappropriate to point out the move
of Lutheran theology away from its confessional roots into Calvinism.
I agree there is a definite Lutheran doctrine and confession, but I
also assert that said doctrine was not maintained past the time in
which the Confessions were written.  That was my conviction as a
Lutheran.  Having since left Lutheranism for Orthodoxy I can only
reiterate that conclusion as the fairest one left to give.

On 6/16/10, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...> wrote:
> Timothy,
>
> What Oruaseht said is pretty much what I would say.  If you want a
> good resource, I suggest reading Gustaf Wingren's "Man and the
> Incarnation."  It is a good summary of St. Irenaeus' theology, and
> also that of the early Church.  Of course, St. Irenaeus' chiliasm
> isn't to be accepted but the rest is a good place to start.  Another
> good resource is "Ancestral Sin" by Fr. Romanides.  Some Orthodox rely
> on it heavily, some not heavily, but either way it is a good place to
> begin.
>
> If you have other passages that seem to suggest sin is the root
> problem and death the result, please send them on out and we can talk
> about them.
>
> In Christ,
> Benjamin Harju
>
> On 6/16/10, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:
>> Timothy - I cannot speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox church and
>> won't
>> try to. But as a Lutheran Pastor looking East, studying and reading about
>> her in books for years, I can offer a glimpse of my limited understanding
>> on
>> this "inverse" relationship of sin & death.
>>
>> Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect" relationship of sin
>> and death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed with it.
>> Seems clear enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1 Corinthians
>> 15:56 (ESV)
>> "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
>>
>> The sting of death is sin. If we recall what God's words were to Adam &
>> Eve
>> (Gen 2:17 ESV) they were: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and
>> evil
>> you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely
>> die."
>>
>> When you eat of it you will surely die. Life will cease and indeed it did
>> as
>> people rejected the Creator for the created. Relationship with God is cut
>> off. This relationship must be healed and restored as mortality came and
>> abundant sin followed with it.
>>
>> In our Lutheran understanding, that is tremendously legal/courtroom
>> biased,
>> we understand the breaking of God's commandment "not to eat" in a
>> juridical
>> context. The Orthodox view, (what I understand of it at least), starts
>> out
>> more with the cessation of life vs. guilt and blame for breaking the law.
>>
>> Both of these view points are the foundational starting points for all
>> other
>> doctrines and how both East and West understand salvation. For the East,
>> it
>> seems to be a return to life through the destruction of death and
>> liberation
>> from the bondage to sin. For the West, it seems to be an appeasement of
>> the
>> wrath of God and the demands of the law.
>>
>> I find that how we understand the garden is really programmatic of our
>> whole
>> "system" of theology. I hope this sheds some light on the differences.
>>
>>
>

I wonder that phrase came from.  I wonder if it is an American Lutheranism
or if it is found in the Book of Concord.  I remember it word for word, so I
wonder if it was in the old Catechism book common to WELS and LCMS.  It was
in quotes on that congregation page, so it must have been common from
somewhere.

Pastor Ellingworth's explanation of the confession of sins statement
> that "we are sinful by nature" is absolutely accurate. It does not
> mean "total depravity" or that man's nature has become sin or that
> nothing good remains in man. Its intended meaning is that sin
> corrupts nature, and from the corrupted nature man continues to sin.
>

I know the explanation you and Pastor E give represents the teaching in the
Book of Concord and Lutheran dogmatics, in general, but I wonder if your
explanation is a corrective to a phrase that was intended to say something
else.  The words quoted simply don't bear the meaning on their own unless
'nature' and 'sinful' are defined in very particular (and stretched) ways.

By analogy, could we say that Jesus was "by nature" God and man, but that
this doesn't mean he was naturally divine and human?  Maybe it's a
translation issue from wherever the phrase originated from.

Regardless, since we aren't in the business of defining 'real Lutheranism'
or in focusing on Lutheranism and its errors (except insofar as they relate
to explaining Orthodoxy), we simply need to underline the fact that
Lutheranism today (even within confessional Lutheranism) teaches both
things.

Christopher




On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>wrote:

>
>
> Pastor Ellingworth's explanation of the confession of sins statement
> that "we are sinful by nature" is absolutely accurate. It does not
> mean "total depravity" or that man's nature has become sin or that
> nothing good remains in man. Its intended meaning is that sin
> corrupts nature, and from the corrupted nature man continues to sin.
>
> Now, having said this, there seem to be quite a few Lutherans running
> around out there that think just the opposite. I myself, before my
> conversion to Orthodoxy, participated in a protracted "discussion"
> over this very thing. I was shocked to find so many Lutherans - even
> from my own seminary class! - defending the idea that Lutheran
> theology holds to Total Depravity, even citing Luther's bondage of the
> will to prove their point. (I wish I had that reference, but here's
> one in another of Luther's works: "<a
> href="
>
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/11/discussion-of-confession-confi\
tendi.html
> ">A
> Discussion of Confession</a>," seventh part (1520).) For instance,
> please refer to the following article that features the Issues, Etc.
> logo at the top. <a
> href="http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar89.htm">
> http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar89.htm</a>.
> In this article Calvin's doctrine of Total Depravity is identified,
> and Luther (and the author) are both linked to this doctrine as being
> in agreement. Also, just try doing a Google search and you will see
> that the public opinion is that Luther and Calvin are in agreement:
> Total Depravity. So it is not without merit that this opinion should
> be discussed here as a Lutheran doctrine, whether or not you agree it
> is properly a Lutheran doctrine. Pr. Ellingworth, we pointed out the
> correct doctrine here; it sounds like your problem is with your fellow
> Lutherans.
>
> The problem at hand, Pr. Ellingworth, is that more and more the
> Lutherans in America are unable to distinguish between the theology of
> the Lutheran Symbols from the confessors of that era and the Calvinism
> that has subtly crept in lately. This makes it really hard for
> outsiders to fairly determine what theology they are dealing with or
> should be dealing with. The Total Depravity issue is a case in point.
> Another issue, which was pointed out to me by a good friend, is the
> misconception among Lutherans - even those who assembled the LSB -
> that Christ's Incarnation in and of itself is part of His humiliation.
> Clearly His Incarnation is not part of His humiliation in Lutheran
> theology, but that He took upon Himself "the full misery and
> wretchedness which sin had brought upon fallen man" [Mueller, p.292].
>
> I believe I was the one that claimed modern Lutheran theology trends
> toward Calvinism. I stand by that statement, and with more reasons
> than what I give here. It is not inappropriate to point out the move
> of Lutheran theology away from its confessional roots into Calvinism.
> I agree there is a definite Lutheran doctrine and confession, but I
> also assert that said doctrine was not maintained past the time in
> which the Confessions were written. That was my conviction as a
> Lutheran. Having since left Lutheranism for Orthodoxy I can only
> reiterate that conclusion as the fairest one left to give.
>
>
> On 6/16/10, Benjamin Harju
<benjamin.harju@...<benjamin.harju%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > Timothy,
> >
> > What Oruaseht said is pretty much what I would say. If you want a
> > good resource, I suggest reading Gustaf Wingren's "Man and the
> > Incarnation." It is a good summary of St. Irenaeus' theology, and
> > also that of the early Church. Of course, St. Irenaeus' chiliasm
> > isn't to be accepted but the rest is a good place to start. Another
> > good resource is "Ancestral Sin" by Fr. Romanides. Some Orthodox rely
> > on it heavily, some not heavily, but either way it is a good place to
> > begin.
> >
> > If you have other passages that seem to suggest sin is the root
> > problem and death the result, please send them on out and we can talk
> > about them.
> >
> > In Christ,
> > Benjamin Harju
> >
> > On 6/16/10, Oruaseht <oruaseht@... <oruaseht%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >> Timothy - I cannot speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox church and
> >> won't
> >> try to. But as a Lutheran Pastor looking East, studying and reading
> about
> >> her in books for years, I can offer a glimpse of my limited
> understanding
> >> on
> >> this "inverse" relationship of sin & death.
> >>
> >> Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect" relationship of
> sin
> >> and death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed with it.
> >> Seems clear enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1
> Corinthians
> >> 15:56 (ESV)
> >> "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
> >>
> >> The sting of death is sin. If we recall what God's words were to Adam &
> >> Eve
> >> (Gen 2:17 ESV) they were: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and
> >> evil
> >> you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely
> >> die."
> >>
> >> When you eat of it you will surely die. Life will cease and indeed it
> did
> >> as
> >> people rejected the Creator for the created. Relationship with God is
> cut
> >> off. This relationship must be healed and restored as mortality came and
> >> abundant sin followed with it.
> >>
> >> In our Lutheran understanding, that is tremendously legal/courtroom
> >> biased,
> >> we understand the breaking of God's commandment "not to eat" in a
> >> juridical
> >> context. The Orthodox view, (what I understand of it at least), starts
> >> out
> >> more with the cessation of life vs. guilt and blame for breaking the
> law.
> >>
> >> Both of these view points are the foundational starting points for all
> >> other
> >> doctrines and how both East and West understand salvation. For the East,
> >> it
> >> seems to be a return to life through the destruction of death and
> >> liberation
> >> from the bondage to sin. For the West, it seems to be an appeasement of
> >> the
> >> wrath of God and the demands of the law.
> >>
> >> I find that how we understand the garden is really programmatic of our
> >> whole
> >> "system" of theology. I hope this sheds some light on the differences.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>


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

I have wondered if, at least in some small part, it isn't a
translation issue, though I've not taken the time to research it.
Here's my working theory (so take it for what little it may be worth!):

In the Latin we have two words that look quite similar:
"natura" (nature) and "natus" (born, birth). We see and hear "by
*nature* sinful and unclean" and quite naturally (pun intended)
presume "natura." However, I wonder if somewhere, way back in the days
of the Latin version of the confession of sins, the word might
actually have been "natus," that is, "by *birth* sinful and unclean,"
or some such statement (i.e. born with this sinful condition). The
latter would certainly fit with the proper distinction in the Formula
of Concord, which I presume has roots that go even farther back in
history.

What makes me wonder and ponder in this way? Just the fact that many
of our theological terms in the West do tend to be more
transliterations than fuller translations. So - again, just a working
theory, or at least a curiosity - I wonder if a faulty translation
crept in some time ago, and now we're somewhat "stuck with it," at
least among us Lutherans.

+  +  +  +  +
Rev. Randy Asburry
Pastor
Hope Lutheran Church & School
5218 Neosho St., St. Louis, MO 63109
St. Louis, MO
Church: 314-352-0014
Mobile: 314-853-4714

mailto:r.asburry@...
http://rasburrysres.blogspot.com
www.hopelutheranstl.org

Divine Services:
Sundays: 8:00 & 10:30 AM
Wednesdays: 7:00 PM

On Jun 17, 2010, at 7:57 AM, Christopher Orr wrote:

> I wonder that phrase came from.  I wonder if it is an American
> Lutheranism
> or if it is found in the Book of Concord.  I remember it word for
> word, so I
> wonder if it was in the old Catechism book common to WELS and LCMS.
> It was
> in quotes on that congregation page, so it must have been common from
> somewhere.
>
> Pastor Ellingworth's explanation of the confession of sins statement
>> that "we are sinful by nature" is absolutely accurate. It does not
>> mean "total depravity" or that man's nature has become sin or that
>> nothing good remains in man. Its intended meaning is that sin
>> corrupts nature, and from the corrupted nature man continues to sin.
>>
>
> I know the explanation you and Pastor E give represents the teaching
> in the
> Book of Concord and Lutheran dogmatics, in general, but I wonder if
> your
> explanation is a corrective to a phrase that was intended to say
> something
> else.  The words quoted simply don't bear the meaning on their own
> unless
> 'nature' and 'sinful' are defined in very particular (and stretched)
> ways.
>
> By analogy, could we say that Jesus was "by nature" God and man, but
> that
> this doesn't mean he was naturally divine and human?  Maybe it's a
> translation issue from wherever the phrase originated from.
>
> Regardless, since we aren't in the business of defining 'real
> Lutheranism'
> or in focusing on Lutheranism and its errors (except insofar as they
> relate
> to explaining Orthodoxy), we simply need to underline the fact that
> Lutheranism today (even within confessional Lutheranism) teaches both
> things.
>
> Christopher
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...
> >wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Pastor Ellingworth's explanation of the confession of sins statement
>> that "we are sinful by nature" is absolutely accurate. It does not
>> mean "total depravity" or that man's nature has become sin or that
>> nothing good remains in man. Its intended meaning is that sin
>> corrupts nature, and from the corrupted nature man continues to sin.
>>
>> Now, having said this, there seem to be quite a few Lutherans running
>> around out there that think just the opposite. I myself, before my
>> conversion to Orthodoxy, participated in a protracted "discussion"
>> over this very thing. I was shocked to find so many Lutherans - even
>> from my own seminary class! - defending the idea that Lutheran
>> theology holds to Total Depravity, even citing Luther's bondage of
>> the
>> will to prove their point. (I wish I had that reference, but here's
>> one in another of Luther's works: "<a
>> href="
>>
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/11/discussion-of-confession-confi\
tendi.html
>> ">A
>> Discussion of Confession</a>," seventh part (1520).) For instance,
>> please refer to the following article that features the Issues, Etc.
>> logo at the top. <a
>> href="http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar89.htm">
>> http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar89.htm</a>.
>> In this article Calvin's doctrine of Total Depravity is identified,
>> and Luther (and the author) are both linked to this doctrine as being
>> in agreement. Also, just try doing a Google search and you will see
>> that the public opinion is that Luther and Calvin are in agreement:
>> Total Depravity. So it is not without merit that this opinion should
>> be discussed here as a Lutheran doctrine, whether or not you agree it
>> is properly a Lutheran doctrine. Pr. Ellingworth, we pointed out the
>> correct doctrine here; it sounds like your problem is with your
>> fellow
>> Lutherans.
>>
>> The problem at hand, Pr. Ellingworth, is that more and more the
>> Lutherans in America are unable to distinguish between the theology
>> of
>> the Lutheran Symbols from the confessors of that era and the
>> Calvinism
>> that has subtly crept in lately. This makes it really hard for
>> outsiders to fairly determine what theology they are dealing with or
>> should be dealing with. The Total Depravity issue is a case in point.
>> Another issue, which was pointed out to me by a good friend, is the
>> misconception among Lutherans - even those who assembled the LSB -
>> that Christ's Incarnation in and of itself is part of His
>> humiliation.
>> Clearly His Incarnation is not part of His humiliation in Lutheran
>> theology, but that He took upon Himself "the full misery and
>> wretchedness which sin had brought upon fallen man" [Mueller, p.292].
>>
>> I believe I was the one that claimed modern Lutheran theology trends
>> toward Calvinism. I stand by that statement, and with more reasons
>> than what I give here. It is not inappropriate to point out the move
>> of Lutheran theology away from its confessional roots into Calvinism.
>> I agree there is a definite Lutheran doctrine and confession, but I
>> also assert that said doctrine was not maintained past the time in
>> which the Confessions were written. That was my conviction as a
>> Lutheran. Having since left Lutheranism for Orthodoxy I can only
>> reiterate that conclusion as the fairest one left to give.
>>
>>
>> On 6/16/10, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...<benjamin.harju
>> %40gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>> Timothy,
>>>
>>> What Oruaseht said is pretty much what I would say. If you want a
>>> good resource, I suggest reading Gustaf Wingren's "Man and the
>>> Incarnation." It is a good summary of St. Irenaeus' theology, and
>>> also that of the early Church. Of course, St. Irenaeus' chiliasm
>>> isn't to be accepted but the rest is a good place to start. Another
>>> good resource is "Ancestral Sin" by Fr. Romanides. Some Orthodox
>>> rely
>>> on it heavily, some not heavily, but either way it is a good place
>>> to
>>> begin.
>>>
>>> If you have other passages that seem to suggest sin is the root
>>> problem and death the result, please send them on out and we can
>>> talk
>>> about them.
>>>
>>> In Christ,
>>> Benjamin Harju
>>>
>>> On 6/16/10, Oruaseht <oruaseht@... <oruaseht%40yahoo.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Timothy - I cannot speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox church
>>>> and
>>>> won't
>>>> try to. But as a Lutheran Pastor looking East, studying and reading
>> about
>>>> her in books for years, I can offer a glimpse of my limited
>> understanding
>>>> on
>>>> this "inverse" relationship of sin & death.
>>>>
>>>> Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect"
>>>> relationship of
>> sin
>>>> and death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed
>>>> with it.
>>>> Seems clear enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1
>> Corinthians
>>>> 15:56 (ESV)
>>>> "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
>>>>
>>>> The sting of death is sin. If we recall what God's words were to
>>>> Adam &
>>>> Eve
>>>> (Gen 2:17 ESV) they were: "but of the tree of the knowledge of
>>>> good and
>>>> evil
>>>> you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall
>>>> surely
>>>> die."
>>>>
>>>> When you eat of it you will surely die. Life will cease and
>>>> indeed it
>> did
>>>> as
>>>> people rejected the Creator for the created. Relationship with
>>>> God is
>> cut
>>>> off. This relationship must be healed and restored as mortality
>>>> came and
>>>> abundant sin followed with it.
>>>>
>>>> In our Lutheran understanding, that is tremendously legal/courtroom
>>>> biased,
>>>> we understand the breaking of God's commandment "not to eat" in a
>>>> juridical
>>>> context. The Orthodox view, (what I understand of it at least),
>>>> starts
>>>> out
>>>> more with the cessation of life vs. guilt and blame for breaking
>>>> the
>> law.
>>>>
>>>> Both of these view points are the foundational starting points
>>>> for all
>>>> other
>>>> doctrines and how both East and West understand salvation. For
>>>> the East,
>>>> it
>>>> seems to be a return to life through the destruction of death and
>>>> liberation
>>>> from the bondage to sin. For the West, it seems to be an
>>>> appeasement of
>>>> the
>>>> wrath of God and the demands of the law.
>>>>
>>>> I find that how we understand the garden is really programmatic
>>>> of our
>>>> whole
>>>> "system" of theology. I hope this sheds some light on the
>>>> differences.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Very good, "by *birth* sinful and unclean" definitely says what Pastor E
said the phrase "by nature sinful and unclean" means while preserving the
official dogmatic position regarding the nature (ousia) of humanity.

Christopher


On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Randy Asburry <r.asburry@...>wrote:

>
>
> I have wondered if, at least in some small part, it isn't a
> translation issue, though I've not taken the time to research it.
> Here's my working theory (so take it for what little it may be worth!):
>
> In the Latin we have two words that look quite similar:
> "natura" (nature) and "natus" (born, birth). We see and hear "by
> *nature* sinful and unclean" and quite naturally (pun intended)
> presume "natura." However, I wonder if somewhere, way back in the days
> of the Latin version of the confession of sins, the word might
> actually have been "natus," that is, "by *birth* sinful and unclean,"
> or some such statement (i.e. born with this sinful condition). The
> latter would certainly fit with the proper distinction in the Formula
> of Concord, which I presume has roots that go even farther back in
> history.
>
> What makes me wonder and ponder in this way? Just the fact that many
> of our theological terms in the West do tend to be more
> transliterations than fuller translations. So - again, just a working
> theory, or at least a curiosity - I wonder if a faulty translation
> crept in some time ago, and now we're somewhat "stuck with it," at
> least among us Lutherans.
>
> + + + + +
> Rev. Randy Asburry
> Pastor
> Hope Lutheran Church & School
> 5218 Neosho St., St. Louis, MO 63109
> St. Louis, MO
> Church: 314-352-0014
> Mobile: 314-853-4714
>
> mailto:r.asburry@... <r.asburry%40sbcglobal.net>
> http://rasburrysres.blogspot.com
> www.hopelutheranstl.org
>
> Divine Services:
> Sundays: 8:00 & 10:30 AM
> Wednesdays: 7:00 PM
>
>
> On Jun 17, 2010, at 7:57 AM, Christopher Orr wrote:
>
> > I wonder that phrase came from. I wonder if it is an American
> > Lutheranism
> > or if it is found in the Book of Concord. I remember it word for
> > word, so I
> > wonder if it was in the old Catechism book common to WELS and LCMS.
> > It was
> > in quotes on that congregation page, so it must have been common from
> > somewhere.
> >
> > Pastor Ellingworth's explanation of the confession of sins statement
> >> that "we are sinful by nature" is absolutely accurate. It does not
> >> mean "total depravity" or that man's nature has become sin or that
> >> nothing good remains in man. Its intended meaning is that sin
> >> corrupts nature, and from the corrupted nature man continues to sin.
> >>
> >
> > I know the explanation you and Pastor E give represents the teaching
> > in the
> > Book of Concord and Lutheran dogmatics, in general, but I wonder if
> > your
> > explanation is a corrective to a phrase that was intended to say
> > something
> > else. The words quoted simply don't bear the meaning on their own
> > unless
> > 'nature' and 'sinful' are defined in very particular (and stretched)
> > ways.
> >
> > By analogy, could we say that Jesus was "by nature" God and man, but
> > that
> > this doesn't mean he was naturally divine and human? Maybe it's a
> > translation issue from wherever the phrase originated from.
> >
> > Regardless, since we aren't in the business of defining 'real
> > Lutheranism'
> > or in focusing on Lutheranism and its errors (except insofar as they
> > relate
> > to explaining Orthodoxy), we simply need to underline the fact that
> > Lutheranism today (even within confessional Lutheranism) teaches both
> > things.
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Benjamin Harju <
> benjamin.harju@... <benjamin.harju%40gmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Pastor Ellingworth's explanation of the confession of sins statement
> >> that "we are sinful by nature" is absolutely accurate. It does not
> >> mean "total depravity" or that man's nature has become sin or that
> >> nothing good remains in man. Its intended meaning is that sin
> >> corrupts nature, and from the corrupted nature man continues to sin.
> >>
> >> Now, having said this, there seem to be quite a few Lutherans running
> >> around out there that think just the opposite. I myself, before my
> >> conversion to Orthodoxy, participated in a protracted "discussion"
> >> over this very thing. I was shocked to find so many Lutherans - even
> >> from my own seminary class! - defending the idea that Lutheran
> >> theology holds to Total Depravity, even citing Luther's bondage of
> >> the
> >> will to prove their point. (I wish I had that reference, but here's
> >> one in another of Luther's works: "<a
> >> href="
> >>
>
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/11/discussion-of-confession-confi\
tendi.html
> >> ">A
> >> Discussion of Confession</a>," seventh part (1520).) For instance,
> >> please refer to the following article that features the Issues, Etc.
> >> logo at the top. <a
> >> href="http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar89.htm">
> >> http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar89.htm</a>.
> >> In this article Calvin's doctrine of Total Depravity is identified,
> >> and Luther (and the author) are both linked to this doctrine as being
> >> in agreement. Also, just try doing a Google search and you will see
> >> that the public opinion is that Luther and Calvin are in agreement:
> >> Total Depravity. So it is not without merit that this opinion should
> >> be discussed here as a Lutheran doctrine, whether or not you agree it
> >> is properly a Lutheran doctrine. Pr. Ellingworth, we pointed out the
> >> correct doctrine here; it sounds like your problem is with your
> >> fellow
> >> Lutherans.
> >>
> >> The problem at hand, Pr. Ellingworth, is that more and more the
> >> Lutherans in America are unable to distinguish between the theology
> >> of
> >> the Lutheran Symbols from the confessors of that era and the
> >> Calvinism
> >> that has subtly crept in lately. This makes it really hard for
> >> outsiders to fairly determine what theology they are dealing with or
> >> should be dealing with. The Total Depravity issue is a case in point.
> >> Another issue, which was pointed out to me by a good friend, is the
> >> misconception among Lutherans - even those who assembled the LSB -
> >> that Christ's Incarnation in and of itself is part of His
> >> humiliation.
> >> Clearly His Incarnation is not part of His humiliation in Lutheran
> >> theology, but that He took upon Himself "the full misery and
> >> wretchedness which sin had brought upon fallen man" [Mueller, p.292].
> >>
> >> I believe I was the one that claimed modern Lutheran theology trends
> >> toward Calvinism. I stand by that statement, and with more reasons
> >> than what I give here. It is not inappropriate to point out the move
> >> of Lutheran theology away from its confessional roots into Calvinism.
> >> I agree there is a definite Lutheran doctrine and confession, but I
> >> also assert that said doctrine was not maintained past the time in
> >> which the Confessions were written. That was my conviction as a
> >> Lutheran. Having since left Lutheranism for Orthodoxy I can only
> >> reiterate that conclusion as the fairest one left to give.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/16/10, Benjamin Harju
<benjamin.harju@...<benjamin.harju%40gmail.com><benjamin.harju
>
> >> %40gmail.com>>
>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Timothy,
> >>>
> >>> What Oruaseht said is pretty much what I would say. If you want a
> >>> good resource, I suggest reading Gustaf Wingren's "Man and the
> >>> Incarnation." It is a good summary of St. Irenaeus' theology, and
> >>> also that of the early Church. Of course, St. Irenaeus' chiliasm
> >>> isn't to be accepted but the rest is a good place to start. Another
> >>> good resource is "Ancestral Sin" by Fr. Romanides. Some Orthodox
> >>> rely
> >>> on it heavily, some not heavily, but either way it is a good place
> >>> to
> >>> begin.
> >>>
> >>> If you have other passages that seem to suggest sin is the root
> >>> problem and death the result, please send them on out and we can
> >>> talk
> >>> about them.
> >>>
> >>> In Christ,
> >>> Benjamin Harju
> >>>
> >>> On 6/16/10, Oruaseht <oruaseht@... <oruaseht%40yahoo.com><oruaseht%
> 40yahoo.com>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Timothy - I cannot speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox church
> >>>> and
> >>>> won't
> >>>> try to. But as a Lutheran Pastor looking East, studying and reading
> >> about
> >>>> her in books for years, I can offer a glimpse of my limited
> >> understanding
> >>>> on
> >>>> this "inverse" relationship of sin & death.
> >>>>
> >>>> Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect"
> >>>> relationship of
> >> sin
> >>>> and death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed
> >>>> with it.
> >>>> Seems clear enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1
> >> Corinthians
> >>>> 15:56 (ESV)
> >>>> "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
> >>>>
> >>>> The sting of death is sin. If we recall what God's words were to
> >>>> Adam &
> >>>> Eve
> >>>> (Gen 2:17 ESV) they were: "but of the tree of the knowledge of
> >>>> good and
> >>>> evil
> >>>> you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall
> >>>> surely
> >>>> die."
> >>>>
> >>>> When you eat of it you will surely die. Life will cease and
> >>>> indeed it
> >> did
> >>>> as
> >>>> people rejected the Creator for the created. Relationship with
> >>>> God is
> >> cut
> >>>> off. This relationship must be healed and restored as mortality
> >>>> came and
> >>>> abundant sin followed with it.
> >>>>
> >>>> In our Lutheran understanding, that is tremendously legal/courtroom
> >>>> biased,
> >>>> we understand the breaking of God's commandment "not to eat" in a
> >>>> juridical
> >>>> context. The Orthodox view, (what I understand of it at least),
> >>>> starts
> >>>> out
> >>>> more with the cessation of life vs. guilt and blame for breaking
> >>>> the
> >> law.
> >>>>
> >>>> Both of these view points are the foundational starting points
> >>>> for all
> >>>> other
> >>>> doctrines and how both East and West understand salvation. For
> >>>> the East,
> >>>> it
> >>>> seems to be a return to life through the destruction of death and
> >>>> liberation
> >>>> from the bondage to sin. For the West, it seems to be an
> >>>> appeasement of
> >>>> the
> >>>> wrath of God and the demands of the law.
> >>>>
> >>>> I find that how we understand the garden is really programmatic
> >>>> of our
> >>>> whole
> >>>> "system" of theology. I hope this sheds some light on the
> >>>> differences.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


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

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:


> Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect" relationship of sin
> and death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed with it.
> Seems clear enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1 Corinthians
> 15:56 (ESV)
> "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
>

This reminded me of the two men traveling with Jesus on the road to Emmaus.
Can you imagine what went through their minds as Jesus opened up the
Scriptures to them.  "So what we have understood the Scriptures to mean as
this, it really means that?"  It affirms for me the need for a common
patristic witness to ensure the right understanding of the Holy Scriptures
and why Holy Tradition can not be severed from the Scriptures.

Until you wrote I never realized how our understanding of what happened in
the Garden shapes everything else.  And I have to believe that was part of
the discussion that took place on that road to Emmaus and that discussion
has made its way into the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church.  Quite
inspiring.-----R (aka Dixie)


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

Ben and Oruaseht,

Thank you for your replies. Oruaseht, I particularly appreciated the
reference to 1st Corinthians 15.  I have read those verses before of course
but hadn't caught what looks like now, in my mind, to be Paul contradicting
himself.  I'm curious, how have you reconciled this apparent contradiction
in Paul's own writings about the relationship between sin and death?

Ben, I appreciate the invite for further conversation.  What shall be done,
from the EO perspective about Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one
man sin entered the world, and death *through* sin, and thus death spread to
all men, *because* all sinned"?

Additionally, I stumbled across a verse that addresses a question you asked
earlier when you wrote: is it's His wrathful justice that needs to be
satisfied, or is it the release of man from bondage and his healing?  Romans
5:9 "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be
saved from wrath through Him." (NKJV)

It's pretty clear from this and other threads that the so called
courtroom/juridical p.o.v. of Western theology doesn't sit well in the
Eastern p.o.v.  But it seems to me, just from a short look at Romans, that
there is support for it, namely the juridical perspective.  Maybe it's the
fault of my NKJV Bible and it's translation, maybe it isn't.  Do English
speaking Orthodox Christians use a particular translation that doesn't word
these verses in a juridical manner, if so what is this translation called?

Looking forward to the replies.

In Christ,
Timothy

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>wrote:

>
>
> Timothy,
>
> What Oruaseht said is pretty much what I would say. If you want a
> good resource, I suggest reading Gustaf Wingren's "Man and the
> Incarnation." It is a good summary of St. Irenaeus' theology, and
> also that of the early Church. Of course, St. Irenaeus' chiliasm
> isn't to be accepted but the rest is a good place to start. Another
> good resource is "Ancestral Sin" by Fr. Romanides. Some Orthodox rely
> on it heavily, some not heavily, but either way it is a good place to
> begin.
>
> If you have other passages that seem to suggest sin is the root
> problem and death the result, please send them on out and we can talk
> about them.
>
> In Christ,
> Benjamin Harju
>
>
> On 6/16/10, Oruaseht <oruaseht@... <oruaseht%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > Timothy - I cannot speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox church and
> won't
> > try to. But as a Lutheran Pastor looking East, studying and reading about
> > her in books for years, I can offer a glimpse of my limited understanding
> on
> > this "inverse" relationship of sin & death.
> >
> > Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect" relationship of sin
> > and death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed with it.
> > Seems clear enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1 Corinthians
> > 15:56 (ESV)
> > "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
> >
> > The sting of death is sin. If we recall what God's words were to Adam &
> Eve
> > (Gen 2:17 ESV) they were: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and
> evil
> > you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely
> die."
> >
> > When you eat of it you will surely die. Life will cease and indeed it did
> as
> > people rejected the Creator for the created. Relationship with God is cut
> > off. This relationship must be healed and restored as mortality came and
> > abundant sin followed with it.
> >
> > In our Lutheran understanding, that is tremendously legal/courtroom
> biased,
> > we understand the breaking of God's commandment "not to eat" in a
> juridical
> > context. The Orthodox view, (what I understand of it at least), starts
> out
> > more with the cessation of life vs. guilt and blame for breaking the law.
> >
> > Both of these view points are the foundational starting points for all
> other
> > doctrines and how both East and West understand salvation. For the East,
> it
> > seems to be a return to life through the destruction of death and
> liberation
> > from the bondage to sin. For the West, it seems to be an appeasement of
> the
> > wrath of God and the demands of the law.
> >
> > I find that how we understand the garden is really programmatic of our
> whole
> > "system" of theology. I hope this sheds some light on the differences.
> >
> >
>
>
>


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

Timothy,

Today I can only have time to write something short, but I do wish to
speak to the questions you've raised (and there are plenty qualified
people on this list).  The courtroom scene is something all will enter
into on the Last Day.  That is the day of wrath and judgment for sins.
  So when St. Paul says we *shall be* saved (future) he is referring to
the Last Day.

Regarding Romans 5:12, the best place to go to treat this subject is
Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology," which I have read but do not own.
If someone else on the list owns it, it might be helpful to dig out
his account of the mistranslation of this passage by Western
theologians.

However, working with the translation we have:
1) Adam sinned first.
2) this sin is how sin first entered the world
3) this sin is also how death (i.e. mortality) entered the world
4) death spread to all men ...
5) in which "death" all men sinned

The Greek Fathers, from which this interpretation springs, dealt with
this text in the original Greek as their own language.  In the West
this text is understood by means of translation, which has led to a
different understanding, namely that men have inherited Adam's guilt
and share in Adam's punishment.

Read a little further in Romans 5 and you will see that St. Paul's own
words uphold the Greek reading: sin is not counted, but death reigns
from Adam to Moses; by one man's offense many died; vs.17 "For if by
the one man�s offense *death reigned* through the one, much more those
who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will
reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."; sin reigned *in* death
*after* the law was introduced - which goes back to 1 Cor. 15, where
death is the last enemy, sin is death's sting, and the law is the
power of sin.  Condemnation refers to a death-sentence and
death-situation.  I'm writing quickly, so I apologize for not taking
my time here.

Here's a good article that speaks to the subject matter:
http://www.oca.org/CHRIST-life-article.asp?SID=6&ID=114&MONTH=September&YEAR=200\
6

I will point out that the word understood as forensic justification by
Lutherans carries with it no native juridical context.  There is a
separate word for that, which St. Paul uses when he speaks about the
coming judgment of all men by their works in Romans 2.

I have to go, but good luck.  Today is my 10th wedding anniversary, so
I have plans.

In Christ,
Benjamin Harju

On 6/17/10, Timothy Jackon <timothy.jackson87@...> wrote:
> Ben and Oruaseht,
>
> Thank you for your replies. Oruaseht, I particularly appreciated the
> reference to 1st Corinthians 15.  I have read those verses before of course
> but hadn't caught what looks like now, in my mind, to be Paul contradicting
> himself.  I'm curious, how have you reconciled this apparent contradiction
> in Paul's own writings about the relationship between sin and death?
>
> Ben, I appreciate the invite for further conversation.  What shall be done,
> from the EO perspective about Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one
> man sin entered the world, and death *through* sin, and thus death spread to
> all men, *because* all sinned"?
>
> Additionally, I stumbled across a verse that addresses a question you asked
> earlier when you wrote: is it's His wrathful justice that needs to be
> satisfied, or is it the release of man from bondage and his healing?  Romans
> 5:9 "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be
> saved from wrath through Him." (NKJV)
>
> It's pretty clear from this and other threads that the so called
> courtroom/juridical p.o.v. of Western theology doesn't sit well in the
> Eastern p.o.v.  But it seems to me, just from a short look at Romans, that
> there is support for it, namely the juridical perspective.  Maybe it's the
> fault of my NKJV Bible and it's translation, maybe it isn't.  Do English
> speaking Orthodox Christians use a particular translation that doesn't word
> these verses in a juridical manner, if so what is this translation called?
>
> Looking forward to the replies.
>
> In Christ,
> Timothy
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Harju
> <benjamin.harju@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Timothy,
>>
>> What Oruaseht said is pretty much what I would say. If you want a
>> good resource, I suggest reading Gustaf Wingren's "Man and the
>> Incarnation." It is a good summary of St. Irenaeus' theology, and
>> also that of the early Church. Of course, St. Irenaeus' chiliasm
>> isn't to be accepted but the rest is a good place to start. Another
>> good resource is "Ancestral Sin" by Fr. Romanides. Some Orthodox rely
>> on it heavily, some not heavily, but either way it is a good place to
>> begin.
>>
>> If you have other passages that seem to suggest sin is the root
>> problem and death the result, please send them on out and we can talk
>> about them.
>>
>> In Christ,
>> Benjamin Harju
>>
>>
>> On 6/16/10, Oruaseht <oruaseht@... <oruaseht%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>> > Timothy - I cannot speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox church and
>> won't
>> > try to. But as a Lutheran Pastor looking East, studying and reading
>> > about
>> > her in books for years, I can offer a glimpse of my limited
>> > understanding
>> on
>> > this "inverse" relationship of sin & death.
>> >
>> > Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect" relationship of
>> > sin
>> > and death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed with it.
>> > Seems clear enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1
>> > Corinthians
>> > 15:56 (ESV)
>> > "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
>> >
>> > The sting of death is sin. If we recall what God's words were to Adam &
>> Eve
>> > (Gen 2:17 ESV) they were: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and
>> evil
>> > you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely
>> die."
>> >
>> > When you eat of it you will surely die. Life will cease and indeed it
>> > did
>> as
>> > people rejected the Creator for the created. Relationship with God is
>> > cut
>> > off. This relationship must be healed and restored as mortality came and
>> > abundant sin followed with it.
>> >
>> > In our Lutheran understanding, that is tremendously legal/courtroom
>> biased,
>> > we understand the breaking of God's commandment "not to eat" in a
>> juridical
>> > context. The Orthodox view, (what I understand of it at least), starts
>> out
>> > more with the cessation of life vs. guilt and blame for breaking the
>> > law.
>> >
>> > Both of these view points are the foundational starting points for all
>> other
>> > doctrines and how both East and West understand salvation. For the East,
>> it
>> > seems to be a return to life through the destruction of death and
>> liberation
>> > from the bondage to sin. For the West, it seems to be an appeasement of
>> the
>> > wrath of God and the demands of the law.
>> >
>> > I find that how we understand the garden is really programmatic of our
>> whole
>> > "system" of theology. I hope this sheds some light on the differences.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

"Justified by His blood" can also refer to the Eucharist and the fulness of
His incarnation and kenosis, even to the point of death - not necessarily as
part of a forensic scheme of Atonement.

Christopher



On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>wrote:

> Timothy,
>
> Today I can only have time to write something short, but I do wish to
> speak to the questions you've raised (and there are plenty qualified
> people on this list).  The courtroom scene is something all will enter
> into on the Last Day.  That is the day of wrath and judgment for sins.
>  So when St. Paul says we *shall be* saved (future) he is referring to
> the Last Day.
>
> Regarding Romans 5:12, the best place to go to treat this subject is
> Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology," which I have read but do not own.
> If someone else on the list owns it, it might be helpful to dig out
> his account of the mistranslation of this passage by Western
> theologians.
>
> However, working with the translation we have:
> 1) Adam sinned first.
> 2) this sin is how sin first entered the world
> 3) this sin is also how death (i.e. mortality) entered the world
> 4) death spread to all men ...
> 5) in which "death" all men sinned
>
> The Greek Fathers, from which this interpretation springs, dealt with
> this text in the original Greek as their own language.  In the West
> this text is understood by means of translation, which has led to a
> different understanding, namely that men have inherited Adam's guilt
> and share in Adam's punishment.
>
> Read a little further in Romans 5 and you will see that St. Paul's own
> words uphold the Greek reading: sin is not counted, but death reigns
> from Adam to Moses; by one man's offense many died; vs.17 "For if by
> the one man�s offense *death reigned* through the one, much more those
> who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will
> reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."; sin reigned *in* death
> *after* the law was introduced - which goes back to 1 Cor. 15, where
> death is the last enemy, sin is death's sting, and the law is the
> power of sin.  Condemnation refers to a death-sentence and
> death-situation.  I'm writing quickly, so I apologize for not taking
> my time here.
>
> Here's a good article that speaks to the subject matter:
>
>
http://www.oca.org/CHRIST-life-article.asp?SID=6&ID=114&MONTH=September&YEAR=200\
6
>
> I will point out that the word understood as forensic justification by
> Lutherans carries with it no native juridical context.  There is a
> separate word for that, which St. Paul uses when he speaks about the
> coming judgment of all men by their works in Romans 2.
>
> I have to go, but good luck.  Today is my 10th wedding anniversary, so
> I have plans.
>
> In Christ,
> Benjamin Harju
>
> On 6/17/10, Timothy Jackon <timothy.jackson87@...> wrote:
> > Ben and Oruaseht,
> >
> > Thank you for your replies. Oruaseht, I particularly appreciated the
> > reference to 1st Corinthians 15.  I have read those verses before of
> course
> > but hadn't caught what looks like now, in my mind, to be Paul
> contradicting
> > himself.  I'm curious, how have you reconciled this apparent
> contradiction
> > in Paul's own writings about the relationship between sin and death?
> >
> > Ben, I appreciate the invite for further conversation.  What shall be
> done,
> > from the EO perspective about Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one
> > man sin entered the world, and death *through* sin, and thus death spread
> to
> > all men, *because* all sinned"?
> >
> > Additionally, I stumbled across a verse that addresses a question you
> asked
> > earlier when you wrote: is it's His wrathful justice that needs to be
> > satisfied, or is it the release of man from bondage and his healing?
>  Romans
> > 5:9 "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be
> > saved from wrath through Him." (NKJV)
> >
> > It's pretty clear from this and other threads that the so called
> > courtroom/juridical p.o.v. of Western theology doesn't sit well in the
> > Eastern p.o.v.  But it seems to me, just from a short look at Romans,
> that
> > there is support for it, namely the juridical perspective.  Maybe it's
> the
> > fault of my NKJV Bible and it's translation, maybe it isn't.  Do English
> > speaking Orthodox Christians use a particular translation that doesn't
> word
> > these verses in a juridical manner, if so what is this translation
> called?
> >
> > Looking forward to the replies.
> >
> > In Christ,
> > Timothy
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Harju
> > <benjamin.harju@...>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Timothy,
> >>
> >> What Oruaseht said is pretty much what I would say. If you want a
> >> good resource, I suggest reading Gustaf Wingren's "Man and the
> >> Incarnation." It is a good summary of St. Irenaeus' theology, and
> >> also that of the early Church. Of course, St. Irenaeus' chiliasm
> >> isn't to be accepted but the rest is a good place to start. Another
> >> good resource is "Ancestral Sin" by Fr. Romanides. Some Orthodox rely
> >> on it heavily, some not heavily, but either way it is a good place to
> >> begin.
> >>
> >> If you have other passages that seem to suggest sin is the root
> >> problem and death the result, please send them on out and we can talk
> >> about them.
> >>
> >> In Christ,
> >> Benjamin Harju
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/16/10, Oruaseht <oruaseht@... <oruaseht%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >> > Timothy - I cannot speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox church and
> >> won't
> >> > try to. But as a Lutheran Pastor looking East, studying and reading
> >> > about
> >> > her in books for years, I can offer a glimpse of my limited
> >> > understanding
> >> on
> >> > this "inverse" relationship of sin & death.
> >> >
> >> > Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect" relationship of
> >> > sin
> >> > and death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed with
> it.
> >> > Seems clear enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1
> >> > Corinthians
> >> > 15:56 (ESV)
> >> > "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
> >> >
> >> > The sting of death is sin. If we recall what God's words were to Adam
> &
> >> Eve
> >> > (Gen 2:17 ESV) they were: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good
> and
> >> evil
> >> > you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely
> >> die."
> >> >
> >> > When you eat of it you will surely die. Life will cease and indeed it
> >> > did
> >> as
> >> > people rejected the Creator for the created. Relationship with God is
> >> > cut
> >> > off. This relationship must be healed and restored as mortality came
> and
> >> > abundant sin followed with it.
> >> >
> >> > In our Lutheran understanding, that is tremendously legal/courtroom
> >> biased,
> >> > we understand the breaking of God's commandment "not to eat" in a
> >> juridical
> >> > context. The Orthodox view, (what I understand of it at least), starts
> >> out
> >> > more with the cessation of life vs. guilt and blame for breaking the
> >> > law.
> >> >
> >> > Both of these view points are the foundational starting points for all
> >> other
> >> > doctrines and how both East and West understand salvation. For the
> East,
> >> it
> >> > seems to be a return to life through the destruction of death and
> >> liberation
> >> > from the bondage to sin. For the West, it seems to be an appeasement
> of
> >> the
> >> > wrath of God and the demands of the law.
> >> >
> >> > I find that how we understand the garden is really programmatic of our
> >> whole
> >> > "system" of theology. I hope this sheds some light on the differences.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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

Regarding the term "wrath", which can find itself a loaded word in
theological circles in the same way "pray" and "save" can:

Wrath's archaic definition is "wroth", which can mean simply "stormy;
violent; turbulent" as well as the more popular Angry God definition of
"angry" or "strong,stern, or fierce anger; deeply resentful indignation; ire"
and "vengeance orpunishment as the consequence of anger".  Given Ben's note
that the day of wrath and judgment for sins when we *shall be* saved
(future) is the Last Day, "stormy; violent; turbulent" is a good explanation
of Hell (understood in either a punitive way or as the unrepentant sinner's
experience of the goodness of God, i.e., heaven and hell being the same
place experienced differently as distinct states between which there is a
great [metaphorical] chasm fixed.)

Derivation of terms:

wroth
>
> O.E. wra�,  "angry" (lit. "tormented, twisted), from P.Gmc. *wraithaz
> (cf. O.Fris. wreth  "evil," O.S. wred , M.Du. wret , Du. wreed  "cruel,"
> O.H.G. reid , O.N. rei�r  "angry, offended"), from PIE *wreit-  "to turn"
> (see wreath <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wreath>). Rare or obs.
> from early 16c. to mid-19c., but somewhat revived since...
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wroth
>
> wrath
>
> O.E. wr���u  "anger," from wra�  "angry" (see
wroth<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wroth>)
> + -�u , from P.Gmc. -itho  (as in
strength<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strength>,
> width <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/width> etc.).
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wrath?r=65
>

Note the subtle differences.  I'd be curious as to the Greek understanding
of the term, especially in the Fathers.

See St. John Cassian on this point: *The Twelve Books on the Institutes of
the Coenobia; *Book VIII, Of the Spirit of Anger; Chapter I.

Christopher




On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>wrote:

> Timothy,
>
> Today I can only have time to write something short, but I do wish to
> speak to the questions you've raised (and there are plenty qualified
> people on this list).  The courtroom scene is something all will enter
> into on the Last Day.  That is the day of wrath and judgment for sins.
>  So when St. Paul says we *shall be* saved (future) he is referring to
> the Last Day.
>
> Regarding Romans 5:12, the best place to go to treat this subject is
> Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology," which I have read but do not own.
> If someone else on the list owns it, it might be helpful to dig out
> his account of the mistranslation of this passage by Western
> theologians.
>
> However, working with the translation we have:
> 1) Adam sinned first.
> 2) this sin is how sin first entered the world
> 3) this sin is also how death (i.e. mortality) entered the world
> 4) death spread to all men ...
> 5) in which "death" all men sinned
>
> The Greek Fathers, from which this interpretation springs, dealt with
> this text in the original Greek as their own language.  In the West
> this text is understood by means of translation, which has led to a
> different understanding, namely that men have inherited Adam's guilt
> and share in Adam's punishment.
>
> Read a little further in Romans 5 and you will see that St. Paul's own
> words uphold the Greek reading: sin is not counted, but death reigns
> from Adam to Moses; by one man's offense many died; vs.17 "For if by
> the one man�s offense *death reigned* through the one, much more those
> who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will
> reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."; sin reigned *in* death
> *after* the law was introduced - which goes back to 1 Cor. 15, where
> death is the last enemy, sin is death's sting, and the law is the
> power of sin.  Condemnation refers to a death-sentence and
> death-situation.  I'm writing quickly, so I apologize for not taking
> my time here.
>
> Here's a good article that speaks to the subject matter:
>
>
http://www.oca.org/CHRIST-life-article.asp?SID=6&ID=114&MONTH=September&YEAR=200\
6
>
> I will point out that the word understood as forensic justification by
> Lutherans carries with it no native juridical context.  There is a
> separate word for that, which St. Paul uses when he speaks about the
> coming judgment of all men by their works in Romans 2.
>
> I have to go, but good luck.  Today is my 10th wedding anniversary, so
> I have plans.
>
> In Christ,
> Benjamin Harju
>
> On 6/17/10, Timothy Jackon <timothy.jackson87@...> wrote:
> > Ben and Oruaseht,
> >
> > Thank you for your replies. Oruaseht, I particularly appreciated the
> > reference to 1st Corinthians 15.  I have read those verses before of
> course
> > but hadn't caught what looks like now, in my mind, to be Paul
> contradicting
> > himself.  I'm curious, how have you reconciled this apparent
> contradiction
> > in Paul's own writings about the relationship between sin and death?
> >
> > Ben, I appreciate the invite for further conversation.  What shall be
> done,
> > from the EO perspective about Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one
> > man sin entered the world, and death *through* sin, and thus death spread
> to
> > all men, *because* all sinned"?
> >
> > Additionally, I stumbled across a verse that addresses a question you
> asked
> > earlier when you wrote: is it's His wrathful justice that needs to be
> > satisfied, or is it the release of man from bondage and his healing?
>  Romans
> > 5:9 "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be
> > saved from wrath through Him." (NKJV)
> >
> > It's pretty clear from this and other threads that the so called
> > courtroom/juridical p.o.v. of Western theology doesn't sit well in the
> > Eastern p.o.v.  But it seems to me, just from a short look at Romans,
> that
> > there is support for it, namely the juridical perspective.  Maybe it's
> the
> > fault of my NKJV Bible and it's translation, maybe it isn't.  Do English
> > speaking Orthodox Christians use a particular translation that doesn't
> word
> > these verses in a juridical manner, if so what is this translation
> called?
> >
> > Looking forward to the replies.
> >
> > In Christ,
> > Timothy
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Harju
> > <benjamin.harju@...>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Timothy,
> >>
> >> What Oruaseht said is pretty much what I would say. If you want a
> >> good resource, I suggest reading Gustaf Wingren's "Man and the
> >> Incarnation." It is a good summary of St. Irenaeus' theology, and
> >> also that of the early Church. Of course, St. Irenaeus' chiliasm
> >> isn't to be accepted but the rest is a good place to start. Another
> >> good resource is "Ancestral Sin" by Fr. Romanides. Some Orthodox rely
> >> on it heavily, some not heavily, but either way it is a good place to
> >> begin.
> >>
> >> If you have other passages that seem to suggest sin is the root
> >> problem and death the result, please send them on out and we can talk
> >> about them.
> >>
> >> In Christ,
> >> Benjamin Harju
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/16/10, Oruaseht <oruaseht@... <oruaseht%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >> > Timothy - I cannot speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox church and
> >> won't
> >> > try to. But as a Lutheran Pastor looking East, studying and reading
> >> > about
> >> > her in books for years, I can offer a glimpse of my limited
> >> > understanding
> >> on
> >> > this "inverse" relationship of sin & death.
> >> >
> >> > Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect" relationship of
> >> > sin
> >> > and death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed with
> it.
> >> > Seems clear enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1
> >> > Corinthians
> >> > 15:56 (ESV)
> >> > "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
> >> >
> >> > The sting of death is sin. If we recall what God's words were to Adam
> &
> >> Eve
> >> > (Gen 2:17 ESV) they were: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good
> and
> >> evil
> >> > you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely
> >> die."
> >> >
> >> > When you eat of it you will surely die. Life will cease and indeed it
> >> > did
> >> as
> >> > people rejected the Creator for the created. Relationship with God is
> >> > cut
> >> > off. This relationship must be healed and restored as mortality came
> and
> >> > abundant sin followed with it.
> >> >
> >> > In our Lutheran understanding, that is tremendously legal/courtroom
> >> biased,
> >> > we understand the breaking of God's commandment "not to eat" in a
> >> juridical
> >> > context. The Orthodox view, (what I understand of it at least), starts
> >> out
> >> > more with the cessation of life vs. guilt and blame for breaking the
> >> > law.
> >> >
> >> > Both of these view points are the foundational starting points for all
> >> other
> >> > doctrines and how both East and West understand salvation. For the
> East,
> >> it
> >> > seems to be a return to life through the destruction of death and
> >> liberation
> >> > from the bondage to sin. For the West, it seems to be an appeasement
> of
> >> the
> >> > wrath of God and the demands of the law.
> >> >
> >> > I find that how we understand the garden is really programmatic of our
> >> whole
> >> > "system" of theology. I hope this sheds some light on the differences.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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

RE Romans 5:12 and onward, Ben Witherington's "Problems with Evangelical
Theology" has some useful material that supports the Orthodox p.o.v., and backed
by the patristic sources (and along the Meyendorff lines). I am really under the
gun with some other activities, so if I can I will post his writing later, but
if you have the book, it's pages 11-20.
 
Great discussion, and sorry I can't give the details just now.
 
Matt

--- On Thu, 6/17/10, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...> wrote:


From: Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>
Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: Incarnation
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 17, 2010, 12:52 PM


Timothy,

Today I can only have time to write something short, but I do wish to
speak to the questions you've raised (and there are plenty qualified
people on this list).  The courtroom scene is something all will enter
into on the Last Day.  That is the day of wrath and judgment for sins.
So when St. Paul says we *shall be* saved (future) he is referring to
the Last Day.

Regarding Romans 5:12, the best place to go to treat this subject is
Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology," which I have read but do not own.
If someone else on the list owns it, it might be helpful to dig out
his account of the mistranslation of this passage by Western
theologians.

However, working with the translation we have:
1) Adam sinned first.
2) this sin is how sin first entered the world
3) this sin is also how death (i.e. mortality) entered the world
4) death spread to all men ...
5) in which "death" all men sinned

The Greek Fathers, from which this interpretation springs, dealt with
this text in the original Greek as their own language.  In the West
this text is understood by means of translation, which has led to a
different understanding, namely that men have inherited Adam's guilt
and share in Adam's punishment.

Read a little further in Romans 5 and you will see that St. Paul's own
words uphold the Greek reading: sin is not counted, but death reigns
from Adam to Moses; by one man's offense many died; vs.17 "For if by
the one man’s offense *death reigned* through the one, much more those
who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will
reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."; sin reigned *in* death
*after* the law was introduced - which goes back to 1 Cor. 15, where
death is the last enemy, sin is death's sting, and the law is the
power of sin.  Condemnation refers to a death-sentence and
death-situation.  I'm writing quickly, so I apologize for not taking
my time here.

Here's a good article that speaks to the subject matter:
http://www.oca.org/CHRIST-life-article.asp?SID=6&ID=114&MONTH=September&YEAR=200\
6

I will point out that the word understood as forensic justification by
Lutherans carries with it no native juridical context.  There is a
separate word for that, which St. Paul uses when he speaks about the
coming judgment of all men by their works in Romans 2.

I have to go, but good luck.  Today is my 10th wedding anniversary, so
I have plans.

In Christ,
Benjamin Harju

On 6/17/10, Timothy Jackon <timothy.jackson87@...> wrote:
> Ben and Oruaseht,
>
> Thank you for your replies. Oruaseht, I particularly appreciated the
> reference to 1st Corinthians 15.  I have read those verses before of course
> but hadn't caught what looks like now, in my mind, to be Paul contradicting
> himself.  I'm curious, how have you reconciled this apparent contradiction
> in Paul's own writings about the relationship between sin and death?
>
> Ben, I appreciate the invite for further conversation.  What shall be done,
> from the EO perspective about Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one
> man sin entered the world, and death *through* sin, and thus death spread to
> all men, *because* all sinned"?
>
> Additionally, I stumbled across a verse that addresses a question you asked
> earlier when you wrote: is it's His wrathful justice that needs to be
> satisfied, or is it the release of man from bondage and his healing?  Romans
> 5:9 "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be
> saved from wrath through Him." (NKJV)
>
> It's pretty clear from this and other threads that the so called
> courtroom/juridical p.o.v. of Western theology doesn't sit well in the
> Eastern p.o.v.  But it seems to me, just from a short look at Romans, that
> there is support for it, namely the juridical perspective.  Maybe it's the
> fault of my NKJV Bible and it's translation, maybe it isn't.  Do English
> speaking Orthodox Christians use a particular translation that doesn't word
> these verses in a juridical manner, if so what is this translation called?
>
> Looking forward to the replies.
>
> In Christ,
> Timothy
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Harju
> <benjamin.harju@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Timothy,
>>
>> What Oruaseht said is pretty much what I would say. If you want a
>> good resource, I suggest reading Gustaf Wingren's "Man and the
>> Incarnation." It is a good summary of St. Irenaeus' theology, and
>> also that of the early Church. Of course, St. Irenaeus' chiliasm
>> isn't to be accepted but the rest is a good place to start. Another
>> good resource is "Ancestral Sin" by Fr. Romanides. Some Orthodox rely
>> on it heavily, some not heavily, but either way it is a good place to
>> begin.
>>
>> If you have other passages that seem to suggest sin is the root
>> problem and death the result, please send them on out and we can talk
>> about them.
>>
>> In Christ,
>> Benjamin Harju
>>
>>
>> On 6/16/10, Oruaseht <oruaseht@... <oruaseht%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>> > Timothy - I cannot speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox church and
>> won't
>> > try to. But as a Lutheran Pastor looking East, studying and reading
>> > about
>> > her in books for years, I can offer a glimpse of my limited
>> > understanding
>> on
>> > this "inverse" relationship of sin & death.
>> >
>> > Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect" relationship of
>> > sin
>> > and death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed with it.
>> > Seems clear enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1
>> > Corinthians
>> > 15:56 (ESV)
>> > "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
>> >
>> > The sting of death is sin. If we recall what God's words were to Adam &
>> Eve
>> > (Gen 2:17 ESV) they were: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and
>> evil
>> > you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely
>> die."
>> >
>> > When you eat of it you will surely die. Life will cease and indeed it
>> > did
>> as
>> > people rejected the Creator for the created. Relationship with God is
>> > cut
>> > off. This relationship must be healed and restored as mortality came and
>> > abundant sin followed with it.
>> >
>> > In our Lutheran understanding, that is tremendously legal/courtroom
>> biased,
>> > we understand the breaking of God's commandment "not to eat" in a
>> juridical
>> > context. The Orthodox view, (what I understand of it at least), starts
>> out
>> > more with the cessation of life vs. guilt and blame for breaking the
>> > law.
>> >
>> > Both of these view points are the foundational starting points for all
>> other
>> > doctrines and how both East and West understand salvation. For the East,
>> it
>> > seems to be a return to life through the destruction of death and
>> liberation
>> > from the bondage to sin. For the West, it seems to be an appeasement of
>> the
>> > wrath of God and the demands of the law.
>> >
>> > I find that how we understand the garden is really programmatic of our
>> whole
>> > "system" of theology. I hope this sheds some light on the differences.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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

Yahoo! Groups Links








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

This is also a very useful lecture series on the themes of wrath and salvation.
The fellow there will send you a copy of his book if you ask him.
http://www.youtube.com/user/HanyMinaMikhail#p/a/f/0/D28MWNYGYAU
 
Matt

--- On Thu, 6/17/10, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:


From: Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...>
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Wrath
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 17, 2010, 1:32 PM


Regarding the term "wrath", which can find itself a loaded word in
theological circles in the same way "pray" and "save" can:

Wrath's archaic definition is "wroth", which can mean simply "stormy;
violent; turbulent" as well as the more popular Angry God definition of
"angry" or "strong,stern, or fierce anger; deeply resentful indignation; ire"
and "vengeance orpunishment as the consequence of anger".  Given Ben's note
that the day of wrath and judgment for sins when we *shall be* saved
(future) is the Last Day, "stormy; violent; turbulent" is a good explanation
of Hell (understood in either a punitive way or as the unrepentant sinner's
experience of the goodness of God, i.e., heaven and hell being the same
place experienced differently as distinct states between which there is a
great [metaphorical] chasm fixed.)

Derivation of terms:

wroth
>
> O.E. wrað,  "angry" (lit. "tormented, twisted), from P.Gmc. *wraithaz
> (cf. O.Fris. wreth  "evil," O.S. wred , M.Du. wret , Du. wreed  "cruel,"
> O.H.G. reid , O.N. reiðr  "angry, offended"), from PIE *wreit-  "to turn"
> (see wreath <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wreath>). Rare or obs.
> from early 16c. to mid-19c., but somewhat revived since...
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wroth
>
> wrath
>
> O.E. wræððu  "anger," from wrað  "angry" (see
wroth<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wroth>)
> + -þu , from P.Gmc. -itho  (as in
strength<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strength>,
> width <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/width> etc.).
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wrath?r=65
>

Note the subtle differences.  I'd be curious as to the Greek understanding
of the term, especially in the Fathers.

See St. John Cassian on this point: *The Twelve Books on the Institutes of
the Coenobia; *Book VIII, Of the Spirit of Anger; Chapter I.

Christopher




On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>wrote:

> Timothy,
>
> Today I can only have time to write something short, but I do wish to
> speak to the questions you've raised (and there are plenty qualified
> people on this list).  The courtroom scene is something all will enter
> into on the Last Day.  That is the day of wrath and judgment for sins.
>  So when St. Paul says we *shall be* saved (future) he is referring to
> the Last Day.
>
> Regarding Romans 5:12, the best place to go to treat this subject is
> Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology," which I have read but do not own.
> If someone else on the list owns it, it might be helpful to dig out
> his account of the mistranslation of this passage by Western
> theologians.
>
> However, working with the translation we have:
> 1) Adam sinned first.
> 2) this sin is how sin first entered the world
> 3) this sin is also how death (i.e. mortality) entered the world
> 4) death spread to all men ...
> 5) in which "death" all men sinned
>
> The Greek Fathers, from which this interpretation springs, dealt with
> this text in the original Greek as their own language.  In the West
> this text is understood by means of translation, which has led to a
> different understanding, namely that men have inherited Adam's guilt
> and share in Adam's punishment.
>
> Read a little further in Romans 5 and you will see that St. Paul's own
> words uphold the Greek reading: sin is not counted, but death reigns
> from Adam to Moses; by one man's offense many died; vs.17 "For if by
> the one man’s offense *death reigned* through the one, much more those
> who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will
> reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."; sin reigned *in* death
> *after* the law was introduced - which goes back to 1 Cor. 15, where
> death is the last enemy, sin is death's sting, and the law is the
> power of sin.  Condemnation refers to a death-sentence and
> death-situation.  I'm writing quickly, so I apologize for not taking
> my time here.
>
> Here's a good article that speaks to the subject matter:
>
>
http://www.oca.org/CHRIST-life-article.asp?SID=6&ID=114&MONTH=September&YEAR=200\
6
>
> I will point out that the word understood as forensic justification by
> Lutherans carries with it no native juridical context.  There is a
> separate word for that, which St. Paul uses when he speaks about the
> coming judgment of all men by their works in Romans 2.
>
> I have to go, but good luck.  Today is my 10th wedding anniversary, so
> I have plans.
>
> In Christ,
> Benjamin Harju
>
> On 6/17/10, Timothy Jackon <timothy.jackson87@...> wrote:
> > Ben and Oruaseht,
> >
> > Thank you for your replies. Oruaseht, I particularly appreciated the
> > reference to 1st Corinthians 15.  I have read those verses before of
> course
> > but hadn't caught what looks like now, in my mind, to be Paul
> contradicting
> > himself.  I'm curious, how have you reconciled this apparent
> contradiction
> > in Paul's own writings about the relationship between sin and death?
> >
> > Ben, I appreciate the invite for further conversation.  What shall be
> done,
> > from the EO perspective about Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one
> > man sin entered the world, and death *through* sin, and thus death spread
> to
> > all men, *because* all sinned"?
> >
> > Additionally, I stumbled across a verse that addresses a question you
> asked
> > earlier when you wrote: is it's His wrathful justice that needs to be
> > satisfied, or is it the release of man from bondage and his healing?
>  Romans
> > 5:9 "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be
> > saved from wrath through Him." (NKJV)
> >
> > It's pretty clear from this and other threads that the so called
> > courtroom/juridical p.o.v. of Western theology doesn't sit well in the
> > Eastern p.o.v.  But it seems to me, just from a short look at Romans,
> that
> > there is support for it, namely the juridical perspective.  Maybe it's
> the
> > fault of my NKJV Bible and it's translation, maybe it isn't.  Do English
> > speaking Orthodox Christians use a particular translation that doesn't
> word
> > these verses in a juridical manner, if so what is this translation
> called?
> >
> > Looking forward to the replies.
> >
> > In Christ,
> > Timothy
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Harju
> > <benjamin.harju@...>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Timothy,
> >>
> >> What Oruaseht said is pretty much what I would say. If you want a
> >> good resource, I suggest reading Gustaf Wingren's "Man and the
> >> Incarnation." It is a good summary of St. Irenaeus' theology, and
> >> also that of the early Church. Of course, St. Irenaeus' chiliasm
> >> isn't to be accepted but the rest is a good place to start. Another
> >> good resource is "Ancestral Sin" by Fr. Romanides. Some Orthodox rely
> >> on it heavily, some not heavily, but either way it is a good place to
> >> begin.
> >>
> >> If you have other passages that seem to suggest sin is the root
> >> problem and death the result, please send them on out and we can talk
> >> about them.
> >>
> >> In Christ,
> >> Benjamin Harju
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/16/10, Oruaseht <oruaseht@... <oruaseht%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >> > Timothy - I cannot speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox church and
> >> won't
> >> > try to. But as a Lutheran Pastor looking East, studying and reading
> >> > about
> >> > her in books for years, I can offer a glimpse of my limited
> >> > understanding
> >> on
> >> > this "inverse" relationship of sin & death.
> >> >
> >> > Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect" relationship of
> >> > sin
> >> > and death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed with
> it.
> >> > Seems clear enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1
> >> > Corinthians
> >> > 15:56 (ESV)
> >> > "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
> >> >
> >> > The sting of death is sin. If we recall what God's words were to Adam
> &
> >> Eve
> >> > (Gen 2:17 ESV) they were: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good
> and
> >> evil
> >> > you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely
> >> die."
> >> >
> >> > When you eat of it you will surely die. Life will cease and indeed it
> >> > did
> >> as
> >> > people rejected the Creator for the created. Relationship with God is
> >> > cut
> >> > off. This relationship must be healed and restored as mortality came
> and
> >> > abundant sin followed with it.
> >> >
> >> > In our Lutheran understanding, that is tremendously legal/courtroom
> >> biased,
> >> > we understand the breaking of God's commandment "not to eat" in a
> >> juridical
> >> > context. The Orthodox view, (what I understand of it at least), starts
> >> out
> >> > more with the cessation of life vs. guilt and blame for breaking the
> >> > law.
> >> >
> >> > Both of these view points are the foundational starting points for all
> >> other
> >> > doctrines and how both East and West understand salvation. For the
> East,
> >> it
> >> > seems to be a return to life through the destruction of death and
> >> liberation
> >> > from the bondage to sin. For the West, it seems to be an appeasement
> of
> >> the
> >> > wrath of God and the demands of the law.
> >> >
> >> > I find that how we understand the garden is really programmatic of our
> >> whole
> >> > "system" of theology. I hope this sheds some light on the differences.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links








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

Greetings:

As a Lutheran pastor with no desire to swim the Bosphorus, but a huge desire to
learn from other the help overcome "blindspots," I am wondering this.  Are we
fixated on our own redemption motifs to the degradation of the eintire biblical
witness?

For example, theosis is biblical.  So is the vicarious atonement.  So is
accepting God's grace.  What God has done to save us is such a "mystery" that
many redemption motifs must be used to help bring out the fullness of it all,
which human language cannot do justice to any way (like trying to describe
eternal life in God's presence!).

When we only run with one redemption motif--or one predominates to the detriment
of the others--then we end with a distorted and flawed theology.  Arminian
theology is the result of the acceptance-redemption motif riding roughshod over
all the others.  Forensic justification recognizes the Christ for you, but sadly
minimizes the Christ in you.  Does theosis lose the vicarious satisfaction
aspect of redemption that the Christ in you becomes so prominent that the Christ
for you is lost?

Is it not Christ for you, Christ in You, and Christ through you? Is it not all?
If we are to be catholic, then we must confess and beleive the fullness of all
redemption motifs.  Using Lutheran language, anything less is being sectarian.

Just my 2-cents worth.



  --
Rich Futrell, Pastor

The Orthodox position is that we are to accept only that which has been
received, not any new (1500s is new) 'motif' that claims itself as biblical or
acceptable.

Christopher

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Richard K. Futrell" <PastorFutrell@...>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:56:07
To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Is it either/or?

Greetings:

As a Lutheran pastor with no desire to swim the Bosphorus, but a huge desire to
learn from other the help overcome "blindspots," I am wondering this.  Are we
fixated on our own redemption motifs to the degradation of the eintire biblical
witness?

For example, theosis is biblical.  So is the vicarious atonement.  So is
accepting God's grace.  What God has done to save us is such a "mystery" that
many redemption motifs must be used to help bring out the fullness of it all,
which human language cannot do justice to any way (like trying to describe
eternal life in God's presence!).

When we only run with one redemption motif--or one predominates to the detriment
of the others--then we end with a distorted and flawed theology.  Arminian
theology is the result of the acceptance-redemption motif riding roughshod over
all the others.  Forensic justification recognizes the Christ for you, but sadly
minimizes the Christ in you.  Does theosis lose the vicarious satisfaction
aspect of redemption that the Christ in you becomes so prominent that the Christ
for you is lost?

Is it not Christ for you, Christ in You, and Christ through you? Is it not all?
If we are to be catholic, then we must confess and beleive the fullness of all
redemption motifs.  Using Lutheran language, anything less is being sectarian.

Just my 2-cents worth.



  --
Rich Futrell, Pastor



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

Chris,

    Fair enough based on your tradition. But that of which you have
received, how does it give answer to what I earlier posted.  In other
words, I'd like a fuller EO answer for me to further contemplate.

--
Rich Futrell



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

Nothing that Pr. Futrell cited originated in the 16th century.

Mike Bennett

On Jun 18, 2010, at 9:18 AM, xcjorr@... wrote:

The Orthodox position is that we are to accept only that which has been
received, not any new (1500s is new) 'motif' that claims itself as biblical or
acceptable.

Christopher

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Richard K. Futrell" <PastorFutrell@...>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:56:07
To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Is it either/or?

Greetings:

As a Lutheran pastor with no desire to swim the Bosphorus, but a huge desire to
learn from other the help overcome "blindspots," I am wondering this. Are we
fixated on our own redemption motifs to the degradation of the eintire biblical
witness?

For example, theosis is biblical. So is the vicarious atonement. So is accepting
God's grace. What God has done to save us is such a "mystery" that many
redemption motifs must be used to help bring out the fullness of it all, which
human language cannot do justice to any way (like trying to describe eternal
life in God's presence!).

When we only run with one redemption motif--or one predominates to the detriment
of the others--then we end with a distorted and flawed theology.  Arminian
theology is the result of the acceptance-redemption motif riding roughshod over
all the others. Forensic justification recognizes the Christ for you, but sadly
minimizes the Christ in you. Does theosis lose the vicarious satisfaction aspect
of redemption that the Christ in you becomes so prominent that the Christ for
you is lost?

Is it not Christ for you, Christ in You, and Christ through you? Is it not all?
If we are to be catholic, then we must confess and beleive the fullness of all
redemption motifs. Using Lutheran language, anything less is being sectarian.

Just my 2-cents worth.



--
Rich Futrell, Pastor


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







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

Cipher me this, theologians. I just posed this question of the FC 1 on Original
Sin to a stalwart Confessional Lutheran who is steeped in the Fathers and Church
History. After some back and forth comments he posed me this:
-------------------
I just peeked at FC I (Epitome) to double check what it is that you are getting
snagged on. I think I see what it is - Article I of the FC deals with an
important distinction that emerged because of philosophical terminology. In no
way does the article deny the depravity of humanity (ie: that we are somehow
born sinless) but tries to distinguish between the Aristotelian categories of
'substance' (aka 'nature') and 'accidens' (ie: properties) as it relates to the
integrity of God's good creation & the equally present corruption due to
original sin. The point of the article is not to divide the two as though
humanity could be diced into parts to point out that crumb A is sinful and crumb
B is not. The point is to distinguish between the goodness of creation & the
very real corruption of original sin into which we are all born. We are
emphatically NOT born sinless (affirmative thesis 3 & the negative theses as
well) - but rather - we are born caught within a contradictory state of being
(by substance/nature) a good creation of God - yet at the same time thoroughly
corrupted (in accidens & powers) by original sin.

The distinction is a philosophical one that should not (as the confessors write)
be imposed upon the consciences of the lait y - at the same time, when we look
at the general confession of sins - the terminology there is not intended to be
understood within these philosophical categories - rather it is to reflect the
reality that we are thoroughly tainted by sin & therefore cannot free ourselves
- which is true - as difficult a pill it is to swallow.

The doctrine of depravity/original sin - is really also a corrolaray of the
totality of the incarnation too - for accorining to Gregory Nazianzus' statement
"that which is not assumed is likewise not healed" really points to the depth of
our fallenness - for there is nothing within us that weas not assumed by Christ
in the incarnation - therefore, the totality of our human nature was impacted by
original sin and therefore needed redemption.

The Confessions thus teach that creation IS good - but also thoroughly corrupted
on account of the Fall. Thus we need a real saviour -
-----------

Any Orthodox comments would be appreciated on this message. I don't get how the
FC can say what it "seems" to say (humanity still is born pure, holy, sinless,
etc.) and we still believe *basically* Calvin's total depravity as alluded to in
this post.

Howdy R!

I had been going to New Skete for about a year before I made a Formal
Application for Consideration, so I have had a fairly good chance to find out
what the monastic life is all about.

It seems as if I am being lead away from the Greek monasteries. St. Tikhon's is
the second OCA monastery that I am considering. The Ephriamite monasteries are
out as far as I am concerned (after a visit to St. Nektarios.) Next on my list
after St. Tikhon's is Holy Trinity in Jordanville, NY -- a ROCOR monastary
associated with the ROCOR Seminary.

Ever forward!

Dave

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, randall hay <stortford@...> wrote:
>
> I am rather familiar with St Gregory Palamas...they do get a lot of interest
from men who are interested in becoming monastics without really understanding
what that life is about....so I think pretty much anyone who hasn't visited will
be turned down initially, in order to save all parties unnecessary pain.
>
> That doesn't mean they will be turned down after becoming established in the
faith in a parish and repeated visits...but I would guess (and it's only a
guess!  I'm not the superior, or even close to the superior) that's the only way
to do it at this monastery.
>
> Meanwhile, wherever your pilgrimage will lead you, God will bless you beyond
your wildest imaginings.  I can tell you THAT with all certainty.
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dave Naess <dnaess@...>
> To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, June 15, 2010 10:34:27 PM
> Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] My monastic search
>
>
> Howdy!
>
> It's been a while so I thought that I would bring you up to date.
>
> I got turned down by New Skete Monastery in NY after making my Formal
Application for Consideration.
>
> St. Gregory Palamas in OH turned my down sight unseen about a week ago sight
unseen because I was too old and told me to expect more of the same.
>
> The same day I sent a letter of introduction (well... an e-mail) to Igumen
Sergius of St. Tikhon's Monastery in PA. That same day I got a response inviting
me to go down to St. Tikhon's for "one or two weeks" and talk about my vocation.
>
> So... I'm off to St. Tikhon's on Monday (June 21.)
>
> In my experience to date, 3 days is the normal and 7 days was the maximum --
that was due to the fact that I was exploring a vocation.
>
> St. Tikhon's has a new puppy, at least I learned how to clean out puppy
kennels while I was at New Skete!  ;->
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Yes, I realize you've spent time looking into monasticism and understand the
life...but St Gregory Palamas has had a number of fellows who have never visited
a monastery show up at the bus station ready to become novices...and so my guess
is that they treat all potential postulants with great caution.

St John Cassian relates that people who were interested in becoming postulants
in the monasteries of Egypt (circa 400) had to lie outside the monastery doors
for days just to show their commitment.

I heard a long-time nun tell a fellow like you who was firmly nixed by one
monastery to try another monastery, as you're doing....

But I can hardly give advice.  Even if I were single and young I wouldn't choose
to voluntarily take on the asceticism and labor of a monk.

I have read and heard that discerning one's calling isn't always easy...Elder
Paisios of Mt Athos, who was extremely clairvoyant, couldn't tell a young man
whether God wanted him to be a monk or not.  (THE GURUS, THE YOUNG MAN AND ELDER
PAISIOS, the biggest page-turner I've ever opened.)  When God doesn't
immediately reveal our path in a case like yours, I think, it's because the
process of discerning which path is full of blessings itself.

BTW, I'll be on a pilgrimage to St Tikhon's July 4th, if you happen to still be
there--

In Christ,

R.






________________________________
From: Dave Naess <dnaess@...>
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, June 19, 2010 11:00:12 AM
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: My monastic search




Howdy R!

I had been going to New Skete for about a year before I made a Formal
Application for Consideration, so I have had a fairly good chance to find out
what the monastic life is all about.

It seems as if I am being lead away from the Greek monasteries. St. Tikhon's is
the second OCA monastery that I am considering. The Ephriamite monasteries are
out as far as I am concerned (after a visit to St. Nektarios.) Next on my list
after St. Tikhon's is Holy Trinity in Jordanville, NY -- a ROCOR monastary
associated with the ROCOR Seminary.

Ever forward!

Dave

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, randall hay <stortford@...> wrote:
>
> I am rather familiar with St Gregory Palamas...they do get a lot of interest
from men who are interested in becoming monastics without really understanding
what that life is about....so I think pretty much anyone who hasn't visited will
be turned down initially, in order to save all parties unnecessary pain.
>
> That doesn't mean they will be turned down after becoming established in the
faith in a parish and repeated visits...but I would guess (and it's only a
guess!  I'm not the superior, or even close to the superior) that's the only way
to do it at this monastery.
>
> Meanwhile, wherever your pilgrimage will lead you, God will bless you beyond
your wildest imaginings.  I can tell you THAT with all certainty.
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dave Naess <dnaess@...>
> To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, June 15, 2010 10:34:27 PM
> Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] My monastic search
>
>
> Howdy!
>
> It's been a while so I thought that I would bring you up to date.
>
> I got turned down by New Skete Monastery in NY after making my Formal
Application for Consideration.
>
> St. Gregory Palamas in OH turned my down sight unseen about a week ago sight
unseen because I was too old and told me to expect more of the same.
>
> The same day I sent a letter of introduction (well... an e-mail) to Igumen
Sergius of St. Tikhon's Monastery in PA. That same day I got a response inviting
me to go down to St. Tikhon's for "one or two weeks" and talk about my vocation.
>
> So... I'm off to St. Tikhon's on Monday (June 21.)
>
> In my experience to date, 3 days is the normal and 7 days was the maximum --
that was due to the fact that I was exploring a vocation.
>
> St. Tikhon's has a new puppy, at least I learned how to clean out puppy
kennels while I was at New Skete!  ;->
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




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

It is my understanding that Orthodox are not focused on the works vs. faith
paradigm,  which is largely irrelevant to Orthodox. The question was raised in
the West and would have to be answered in that sphere.

Christ 'for' you is seen in the life of the Church, which must be experienced in
the liturgy called life.

The Church receiving the fullness of the Truth is an unashamed conviction that
is measured on the whole and not on one person's opinion.


--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Richard
<PastorFutrell@..> wrote:
>
> Greetings:
>
> As a Lutheran pastor with no desire to swim the Bosphorus, but a huge desire
to learn from other the help overcome "blindspots," I am wondering this.  Are we
fixated on our own redemption motifs to the degradation of the eintire biblical
witness?
>
> For example, theosis is biblical.  So is the vicarious atonement.  So is
accepting God's grace.  What God has done to save us is such a "mystery" that
many redemption motifs must be used to help bring out the fullness of it all,
which human language cannot do justice to any way (like trying to describe
eternal life in God's presence!).
>
> When we only run with one redemption motif--or one predominates to the
detriment of the others--then we end with a distorted and flawed theology. 
Arminian theology is the result of the acceptance-redemption motif riding
roughshod over all the others.  Forensic justification recognizes the Christ for
you, but sadly minimizes the Christ in you.  Does theosis lose the vicarious
satisfaction aspect of redemption that the Christ in you becomes so prominent
that the Christ for you is lost?
>
> Is it not Christ for you, Christ in You, and Christ through you? Is it not
all? If we are to be catholic, then we must confess and beleive the fullness of
all redemption motifs.  Using Lutheran language, anything less is being
sectarian.
>
> Just my 2-cents worth.
>
>
>
>  --
> Rich Futrell, Pastor
>