Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Theology of Glory

Expand Messages
  • Oruaseht
    Hi friends. I was recently at a Pastor s retreat and I started bringing up Orthodox stuff for discussion around the wobbly pops in the evening. I was ridiculed
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 14, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi friends. I was recently at a Pastor's retreat and I started bringing up Orthodox stuff for discussion around the wobbly pops in the evening. I was ridiculed to say the least. Got ourselves some top notch Lutheran scholars, that's for sure. However, we got talking about a couple of major issues, one of them being the church. I was asking why Christ would pray for one-ness in the John 17 prayer if it is completely and utterly impossible to have on this side of earth. The main response from one of the pastors was that a unified church is "a vain hope at a theology of glory." So, Orthodoxy is in delusion and steeped in a theology of glory. He went on further to say that Rev. John Nunes, a previous speaker at this retreat, said "there are only two kinds of churches: f*cked up churches and really f*cked up churches." Apparently, the LCMS (and by synodical fellowship, LC-C) is a f*cked up church - but at least it's not a really f*cked up church! [I apologize for this profane description, but it is what was brought before me at this retreat.]

      The over arching concept here was that Lutheranism, with all of its faults, heterodox theology and practice, is at least not as bad as other church bodies. But I thought that the Lutheran Church was supposed to be *the* church. But now it seems like we are the less "messed" up of the bunch.

      Any thoughts on Orthodox Ecclesiology and the theology of glory?
    • Christopher Orr
      Here s a pertinent post on ecclesiology by Fr. Stephen Freeman: http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/ecclesiology-of-the-cross/ Anyone with a passing familiarity
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 14, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Here's a pertinent post on ecclesiology by Fr. Stephen Freeman:

        http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/ecclesiology-of-the-cross/

        Anyone with a passing familiarity with 'united' Church history prior to
        either 1054 or the Reformation should not assume 'united' = 'theology of
        glory'. A united, visible Church isn't a choice for 'glory', it's simply
        what the Lord instituted. The sacrament of the Church cannot be without
        material, it cannot simply be invisible.

        The more important question is why the Lord would pray for us all to be one
        IF the Church is, by definition, nothing more than the sum total of all true
        believers regardless of outward affiliation.

        Christopher



        On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        > Hi friends. I was recently at a Pastor's retreat and I started bringing up
        > Orthodox stuff for discussion around the wobbly pops in the evening. I was
        > ridiculed to say the least. Got ourselves some top notch Lutheran scholars,
        > that's for sure. However, we got talking about a couple of major issues, one
        > of them being the church. I was asking why Christ would pray for one-ness in
        > the John 17 prayer if it is completely and utterly impossible to have on
        > this side of earth. The main response from one of the pastors was that a
        > unified church is "a vain hope at a theology of glory." So, Orthodoxy is in
        > delusion and steeped in a theology of glory. He went on further to say that
        > Rev. John Nunes, a previous speaker at this retreat, said "there are only
        > two kinds of churches: f*cked up churches and really f*cked up churches."
        > Apparently, the LCMS (and by synodical fellowship, LC-C) is a f*cked up
        > church - but at least it's not a really f*cked up church! [I apologize for
        > this profane description, but it is what was brought before me at this
        > retreat.]
        >
        > The over arching concept here was that Lutheranism, with all of its faults,
        > heterodox theology and practice, is at least not as bad as other church
        > bodies. But I thought that the Lutheran Church was supposed to be *the*
        > church. But now it seems like we are the less "messed" up of the bunch.
        >
        > Any thoughts on Orthodox Ecclesiology and the theology of glory?
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Benjamin Harju
        I have heard the same answer from Lutherans about Orthodox theology: it s a theology of glory. First, this statement comes from unbelief, specifically in the
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 14, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I have heard the same answer from Lutherans about Orthodox theology:
          it's a theology of glory. First, this statement comes from unbelief,
          specifically in the area of what God gives and what God can do. Such
          people simply do not believe that such a Church that is entirely a
          sacrament of the kingdom can exist. They have determined among
          themselves that the decomposed ecclesiology they see around them is
          the best that anyone can do, and this is because they think an
          ecclesiology with any visible aspects outside one's own particular
          congregation is man's work. They don't believe, and they wrongly
          attribute to their own efforts what God Himself has promised to build.
          And in attributing it to their own efforts they have accounted it
          only possible of being flawed, imperfect, disturbed, and not to be
          dwelled upon if one can help it. Because if you dwell on it from the
          Lutheran point of view you get depressed. If you dwell on it from the
          Orthodox point of view you are likely to grow in faith in God. If
          anything in Orthodox theology is glorious, that is.

          In Christ,
          Benjamin Harju

          On 6/14/10, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:
          > Here's a pertinent post on ecclesiology by Fr. Stephen Freeman:
          >
          > http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/ecclesiology-of-the-cross/
          >
          > Anyone with a passing familiarity with 'united' Church history prior to
          > either 1054 or the Reformation should not assume 'united' = 'theology of
          > glory'. A united, visible Church isn't a choice for 'glory', it's simply
          > what the Lord instituted. The sacrament of the Church cannot be without
          > material, it cannot simply be invisible.
          >
          > The more important question is why the Lord would pray for us all to be one
          > IF the Church is, by definition, nothing more than the sum total of all true
          > believers regardless of outward affiliation.
          >
          > Christopher
          >
          >
          >
          > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:
          >
          >>
          >>
          >> Hi friends. I was recently at a Pastor's retreat and I started bringing up
          >> Orthodox stuff for discussion around the wobbly pops in the evening. I was
          >> ridiculed to say the least. Got ourselves some top notch Lutheran
          >> scholars,
          >> that's for sure. However, we got talking about a couple of major issues,
          >> one
          >> of them being the church. I was asking why Christ would pray for one-ness
          >> in
          >> the John 17 prayer if it is completely and utterly impossible to have on
          >> this side of earth. The main response from one of the pastors was that a
          >> unified church is "a vain hope at a theology of glory." So, Orthodoxy is
          >> in
          >> delusion and steeped in a theology of glory. He went on further to say
          >> that
          >> Rev. John Nunes, a previous speaker at this retreat, said "there are only
          >> two kinds of churches: f*cked up churches and really f*cked up churches."
          >> Apparently, the LCMS (and by synodical fellowship, LC-C) is a f*cked up
          >> church - but at least it's not a really f*cked up church! [I apologize for
          >> this profane description, but it is what was brought before me at this
          >> retreat.]
          >>
          >> The over arching concept here was that Lutheranism, with all of its
          >> faults,
          >> heterodox theology and practice, is at least not as bad as other church
          >> bodies. But I thought that the Lutheran Church was supposed to be *the*
          >> church. But now it seems like we are the less "messed" up of the bunch.
          >>
          >> Any thoughts on Orthodox Ecclesiology and the theology of glory?
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Oruaseht
          Thank you for the insights. I read Fr. Stephen s article and found it to be pure awesome. I tried bringing these themes up at the retreat and was immediately
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 15, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Thank you for the insights. I read Fr. Stephen's article and found it to be pure awesome. I tried bringing these themes up at the retreat and was immediately shot down because it was outside of *the* [penal] atonement. I was able to stump them for a short while with the parable of the prodigal son not requiring the outpouring of wrath and then followed that with why God needs double payment: first from Christ then from the sinner who won't believe.

            I think the comment from Benjamin about "not knowing any other way" than a decomposed ecclesiology is telling. It seems to me that Lutheranism has settled on the whole "chief of sinners though I be, the ELCA is worse than me" idea. Insert whatever church body you want. I don't see a theology of glory in Orthodoxy. I think what has happened is that when Orthodoxy confronts the entrenched Lutheran scholar, he digs his heels in and grasps for something, anything to justify his position. Much like the homosexual's discussion stopper of "you're homophobic!" the Lutheran grasps for the "it's a theology of glory!" card.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.