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

Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

Expand Messages
  • timothy_jackson87
    Gentlemen, I m interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura and
    Message 1 of 17 , Jun 25, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Gentlemen,

      I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura and the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance as to why I am still a Lutheran to this day.

      I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find anything.

      *Sola Scriptura*
      I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking about Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran understanding in with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a misrepresentation and I've been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot an inaccurate representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material I have read and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues Etc) deals with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the Roman Catholic complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are differences, what might they be?

      *Bondage of the Will*
      This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately to either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern Orthodox. Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that specifically addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?

      Thank you all for your time!

      Timothy
    • xcjorr@gmail.com
      My Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox Church for lutherans should help re the one question. It is available as a podcast on
      Message 2 of 17 , Jun 25, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox Church for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a podcast on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or links of this list, too.

        Christopher Orr

        Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

        -----Original Message-----
        From: "timothy_jackson87" <timothy.jackson87@...>
        Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
        To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com>
        Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

        Gentlemen,

        I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura and the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance as to why I am still a Lutheran to this day.

        I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find anything.

        *Sola Scriptura*
        I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking about Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran understanding in with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a misrepresentation and I've been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot an inaccurate representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material I have read and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues Etc) deals with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the Roman Catholic complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are differences, what might they be?

        *Bondage of the Will*
        This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately to either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern Orthodox. Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that specifically addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?

        Thank you all for your time!

        Timothy




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • xcjorr@gmail.com
        Will is proper to nature, which is why Lutherans and Orthodox both confess dyotheletism - that Chris has two wills. The Trinity has a single will because the
        Message 3 of 17 , Jun 25, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Will is proper to nature, which is why Lutherans and Orthodox both confess dyotheletism - that Chris has two wills. The Trinity has a single will because the Persons share a single nature. The same is true of humanity with its single human nature. The God-man, Jesus Christ, has a human will capable of good since he has two wills, not one and not a minimized human will.

          Christopher

          Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

          -----Original Message-----
          From: "timothy_jackson87" <timothy.jackson87@...>
          Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
          To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com>
          Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

          Gentlemen,

          I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura and the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance as to why I am still a Lutheran to this day.

          I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find anything.

          *Sola Scriptura*
          I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking about Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran understanding in with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a misrepresentation and I've been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot an inaccurate representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material I have read and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues Etc) deals with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the Roman Catholic complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are differences, what might they be?

          *Bondage of the Will*
          This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately to either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern Orthodox. Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that specifically addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?

          Thank you all for your time!

          Timothy




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Timothy Jackon
          I can t seem to locate the podcast. Did you have your own podcast or did you appear under one on the show of one of the other podcasters? ... [Non-text
          Message 4 of 17 , Jun 25, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            I can't seem to locate the podcast. Did you have your own podcast or did
            you appear under one on the show of one of the other podcasters?

            On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:16 PM, <xcjorr@...> wrote:

            >
            >
            > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox Church
            > for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a podcast
            > on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or links of
            > this list, too.
            >
            > Christopher Orr
            >
            > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: "timothy_jackson87" <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>
            >
            > Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
            > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
            > To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>
            >
            > Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
            > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
            >
            > Gentlemen,
            >
            > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox
            > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura and
            > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance as to
            > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.
            >
            > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it
            > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find
            > anything.
            >
            > *Sola Scriptura*
            > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking about
            > Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran understanding in
            > with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a misrepresentation and I've
            > been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot an inaccurate
            > representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material I have read
            > and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues Etc) deals
            > with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the Roman Catholic
            > complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are differences, what
            > might they be?
            >
            > *Bondage of the Will*
            > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately to
            > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern Orthodox.
            > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that specifically
            > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?
            >
            > Thank you all for your time!
            >
            > Timothy
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Timothy Jackon
            I found podcast ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 17 , Jun 25, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              I found podcast

              On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:16 PM, <xcjorr@...> wrote:

              >
              >
              > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox Church
              > for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a podcast
              > on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or links of
              > this list, too.
              >
              > Christopher Orr
              >
              > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: "timothy_jackson87" <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>
              >
              > Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
              > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
              > To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>
              >
              > Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
              > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
              >
              > Gentlemen,
              >
              > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox
              > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura and
              > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance as to
              > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.
              >
              > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it
              > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find
              > anything.
              >
              > *Sola Scriptura*
              > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking about
              > Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran understanding in
              > with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a misrepresentation and I've
              > been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot an inaccurate
              > representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material I have read
              > and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues Etc) deals
              > with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the Roman Catholic
              > complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are differences, what
              > might they be?
              >
              > *Bondage of the Will*
              > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately to
              > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern Orthodox.
              > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that specifically
              > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?
              >
              > Thank you all for your time!
              >
              > Timothy
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • xcjorr@gmail.com
              It is one of the Orthodox-Lutheran Colloquium podcasts. Christopher Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ... From: Timothy Jackon
              Message 6 of 17 , Jun 25, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                It is one of the Orthodox-Lutheran Colloquium podcasts.

                Christopher

                Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Timothy Jackon <timothy.jackson87@...>
                Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:34:43
                To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com>
                Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

                I can't seem to locate the podcast. Did you have your own podcast or did
                you appear under one on the show of one of the other podcasters?

                On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:16 PM, <xcjorr@...> wrote:

                >
                >
                > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox Church
                > for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a podcast
                > on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or links of
                > this list, too.
                >
                > Christopher Orr
                >
                > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: "timothy_jackson87" <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>
                >
                > Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
                > To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>
                >
                > Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                >
                > Gentlemen,
                >
                > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox
                > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura and
                > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance as to
                > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.
                >
                > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it
                > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find
                > anything.
                >
                > *Sola Scriptura*
                > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking about
                > Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran understanding in
                > with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a misrepresentation and I've
                > been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot an inaccurate
                > representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material I have read
                > and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues Etc) deals
                > with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the Roman Catholic
                > complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are differences, what
                > might they be?
                >
                > *Bondage of the Will*
                > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately to
                > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern Orthodox.
                > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that specifically
                > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?
                >
                > Thank you all for your time!
                >
                > Timothy
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >


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



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

                Yahoo! Groups Links
              • Jeremy Finck
                All podcasts on AFR regarding Sola Scriptura (Christopher s podcast is included in this list): http://ancientfaith.com/collections/sola_scriptura Direct Link
                Message 7 of 17 , Jun 25, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  All podcasts on AFR regarding Sola Scriptura (Christopher's podcast is
                  included in this list):
                  http://ancientfaith.com/collections/sola_scriptura

                  Direct Link to Christopher's podcast in the Lutheran Colloquium:
                  http://ancientfaith.com/specials/episodes/the_authority_of_scripture





                  On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM, <xcjorr@...> wrote:

                  >
                  >
                  > It is one of the Orthodox-Lutheran Colloquium podcasts.
                  >
                  > Christopher
                  >
                  > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Timothy Jackon <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>
                  >
                  > Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:34:43
                  > To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>
                  >
                  > Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                  >
                  > I can't seem to locate the podcast. Did you have your own podcast or did
                  > you appear under one on the show of one of the other podcasters?
                  >
                  > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:16 PM, <xcjorr@... <xcjorr%40gmail.com>>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox
                  > Church
                  > > for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a
                  > podcast
                  > > on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or links
                  > of
                  > > this list, too.
                  > >
                  > > Christopher Orr
                  > >
                  > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                  > >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: "timothy_jackson87" <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>
                  > <timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>
                  > >
                  > > Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
                  > > To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>
                  > >
                  > > Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                  > >
                  > > Gentlemen,
                  > >
                  > > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox
                  > > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura and
                  >
                  > > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance as
                  > to
                  > > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.
                  > >
                  > > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it
                  > > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find
                  > > anything.
                  > >
                  > > *Sola Scriptura*
                  > > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking
                  > about
                  > > Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran understanding
                  > in
                  > > with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a misrepresentation and
                  > I've
                  > > been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot an inaccurate
                  > > representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material I have
                  > read
                  > > and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues Etc) deals
                  >
                  > > with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the Roman
                  > Catholic
                  > > complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are differences,
                  > what
                  > > might they be?
                  > >
                  > > *Bondage of the Will*
                  > > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately to
                  >
                  > > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern
                  > Orthodox.
                  > > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that
                  > specifically
                  > > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?
                  > >
                  > > Thank you all for your time!
                  > >
                  > > Timothy
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Benjamin Harju
                  Timothy, Regarding bondage of the will: I do not personally know of an Orthodox work that treats Luther s Bondage of the Will. What I can recommend is a
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jun 26, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Timothy,

                    Regarding bondage of the will: I do not personally know of an
                    Orthodox work that treats Luther's Bondage of the Will.

                    What I can recommend is a process that helped me. The Lutheran
                    doctrine, in its systematized form, relies quite a bit on Romans
                    7:7-25 to make its case. The assumption of FC SD III is that Romans
                    7:7ff (esp. v.14-25) describes the condition of a baptized Christian -
                    view that comes from some of St. Augustine's later writings. However,
                    most of the Fathers read this as St. Paul describing the condition of
                    being under the Law, i.e. the unregenerate man's condition before
                    Grace. In this context, after discussing Baptism in Romans 6, Romans
                    7 returns to the problem of the unregenerate man under the law and
                    then builds up to "who will save me from this body of death? Thanks be
                    to Jesus Christ!," followed by a one-sentence summary of the problem
                    again to conclude the explanation. Romans 8 then shows what it means
                    to be a Christian and the nature of the struggle a Christian has, in
                    contrast to the struggle and domination experienced apart from Grace
                    in Romans 7.

                    Coincidentally, I posted something to this effect on my blog the other
                    day. http://paredwka.blogspot.com/2010/06/fathers-and-romans-714-25.html

                    It may be helpful to go back and review what you believe as a
                    Lutheran, paying attention to where in Scripture the weight of the
                    argument is placed, and compare it to the Orthodox reading of those
                    passages. When I was doing what you are doing right now I often found
                    it hard to read the Scriptures without importing the interpretation I
                    was so comfortable with as a Lutheran. However, by suspending my
                    conclusions until after I had given both the Lutheran reading and the
                    Orthodox reading a chance, I became convinced from the Scriptures that
                    Orthodoxy is just that - Orthodox.

                    I hope this helps.

                    In Christ,
                    Benjamin Harju

                    On 6/26/10, Jeremy Finck <AdonaiUplifts@...> wrote:
                    > All podcasts on AFR regarding Sola Scriptura (Christopher's podcast is
                    > included in this list):
                    > http://ancientfaith.com/collections/sola_scriptura
                    >
                    > Direct Link to Christopher's podcast in the Lutheran Colloquium:
                    > http://ancientfaith.com/specials/episodes/the_authority_of_scripture
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM, <xcjorr@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> It is one of the Orthodox-Lutheran Colloquium podcasts.
                    >>
                    >> Christopher
                    >>
                    >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                    >>
                    >> -----Original Message-----
                    >> From: Timothy Jackon
                    >> <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>
                    >>
                    >> Sender:
                    >> LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                    >> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:34:43
                    >> To:
                    >> <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>
                    >>
                    >> Reply-To:
                    >> LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                    >> Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                    >>
                    >> I can't seem to locate the podcast. Did you have your own podcast or did
                    >> you appear under one on the show of one of the other podcasters?
                    >>
                    >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:16 PM, <xcjorr@... <xcjorr%40gmail.com>>
                    >> wrote:
                    >>
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox
                    >> Church
                    >> > for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a
                    >> podcast
                    >> > on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or links
                    >> of
                    >> > this list, too.
                    >> >
                    >> > Christopher Orr
                    >> >
                    >> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                    >> >
                    >> > -----Original Message-----
                    >> > From: "timothy_jackson87"
                    >> > <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>
                    >> <timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>
                    >> >
                    >> > Sender:
                    >> > LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                    >> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                    >> > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
                    >> > To:
                    >> > <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                    >> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>
                    >> >
                    >> > Reply-To:
                    >> > LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                    >> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                    >> > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                    >> >
                    >> > Gentlemen,
                    >> >
                    >> > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox
                    >> > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura
                    >> > and
                    >>
                    >> > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance
                    >> > as
                    >> to
                    >> > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.
                    >> >
                    >> > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it
                    >> > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find
                    >> > anything.
                    >> >
                    >> > *Sola Scriptura*
                    >> > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking
                    >> about
                    >> > Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran understanding
                    >> in
                    >> > with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a misrepresentation and
                    >> I've
                    >> > been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot an inaccurate
                    >> > representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material I have
                    >> read
                    >> > and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues Etc)
                    >> > deals
                    >>
                    >> > with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the Roman
                    >> Catholic
                    >> > complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are differences,
                    >> what
                    >> > might they be?
                    >> >
                    >> > *Bondage of the Will*
                    >> > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately
                    >> > to
                    >>
                    >> > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern
                    >> Orthodox.
                    >> > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that
                    >> specifically
                    >> > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?
                    >> >
                    >> > Thank you all for your time!
                    >> >
                    >> > Timothy
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> ------------------------------------
                    >>
                    >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • matt reader
                    A book that I cannot recommend enough, although is it hard to find, is Free Choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor by Joseph Farrell. His final chapter is an
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jun 26, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      A book that I cannot recommend enough, although is it hard
                      to find, is "Free Choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor" by Joseph
                      Farrell. His final chapter is an overview of how St. Augustine got it wrong when it came to
                      the nature of the will (and the relationship between nature and will!) and how
                      this plays out in his theological children, Calvin and Luther.



                      Not sure if anyone had the chance to read the paper on Justification in Luther
                      and EO by Valerie Karras, but much of it has to do with our conversation about
                      the bondage of the will. What I always find so engaging about theology and
                      historical study is that everything hangs together. Every teaching in Orthodoxy
                      is neither too little or too much, but a part of an organic whole that is the
                      Tradition, the life of the Holy Spirit in our midst as animating  Christ's
                      Body, the Church. The frustrating, or at least time-consuming, aspect of this
                      is that no one theological teaching can be understood in isolation, so this
                      leads to great rabbit trails. Anyhow, parts or her paper that I found relevant
                      to the nature of will are:

                       

                      ON HUMAN NATURE AND ORIGINAL GUILT VS ORIGINAL SIN:



                      " The Christian East
                      espouses a different theological anthropology from most of Western Christianity
                      – both Catholic and Protestant – especially with respect to two elements of
                      fallen human nature: original guilt and free will.  The differences in
                      these two anthropological concepts, in turn, contribute to differing
                      soteriological understandings of, respectively, how Jesus Christ saves us (that
                      is, what salvation means) and how we appropriate the salvation offered in
                      Christ. Therefore, we must examine these key concepts in
                      Orthodox anthropology and soteriology, and their nexus in Christology,
                      vis-à-vis their counterparts in traditional Western Christian theology. 
                      This will necessarily involve comparing different traditions’ definitions and
                      understandings of some key theological terms:  sin, faith,
                      salvation.  Two contrasts recur:  1) the juridical approach of much
                      of the West regarding sin and redemption, or restoration, versus the more
                      existential and ontological approach of the East; and 2) the Western tendency
                      to define, differentiate, and compartmentalize, as opposed to the Eastern
                      tendency to theologize apophatically and, when cataphatically, primarily in a
                      holistic and organic fashion.”

                       

                      “This concept of original guilt, already visible in the
                      theology of the third-century North African Latin Fathers Cyprian of Carthage
                      and Tertullian, was developed in the early fifth century primarily by
                      Augustine, who reacted to Pelagius’ claim that infants need not be baptized
                      since they have committed no personal sins.  Augustine countered Pelagius by
                      arguing from common Church practice and mixing it with traducianism via Rom.
                      5:12:  “… sin came into the world through one man and death spread through
                      sin, and so death spread to all men because [literally, “in that” or “in
                      which”] all men sinned.”[14]  To briefly summarize Augustine’s
                      argument, which originated in Cyprian:  the Church universally baptized
                      infants; therefore, since baptism confers remission of sins, and since infants
                      have committed no personal sins, the Church baptizes infants obviously in order
                      to remit the original sin which they receive hereditarily from Adam because all
                      of humanity was seminally present in Adam.

                      While the Christian East consistently recognizes the effects
                      of the “ancestral sin” in terms of human mortality, corruption (phthora), and a
                      difficulty in maintaining an unwavering communion with God (the Eastern Fathers
                      don’t really speak in terms of “concupiscence”), it has never accepted Augustine’s
                      argument that all humanity inherits the guilt of Adam… John Chrysostom,
                      archbishop of Constantinople and a
                      contemporary of Augustine, in his Homilies on Romans, interprets Rom. 5:12
                      simply to explain human mortality: “having once fallen, even they that had not
                      eaten of the tree did from [Adam], all of them, become mortal.”[17]  In other words, the Greek Fathers
                      saw the relationship between Adam and his descendents as organic and
                      existential in nature without the notion of an inherited “guilt”.  We
                      inherit the same mortal and corrupt nature which Adam possessed because of the
                      Fall, but we do not inherit the guilt of that original sin which changed our
                      human nature.[18]”

                       

                      “As for Augustine, the contrast with Chrysostom is
                      sharp:  they are writing only a few years apart, and yet their
                      understandings of the purpose of infant baptism are light-years apart. 
                      This is why, from the Orthodox point of view, Augustine’s and Pelagius’
                      arguments are simply flip sides of the same coin.  Both operate under the
                      assumption that the primary purpose of baptism – in fact, virtually the sole
                      purpose as far as their debate is concerned – is the remission of sins. 
                      The Orthodox approach sees the death of the old man (the work of the Cross)
                      only through the lens of the rebirth of the new man (the life of the
                      Resurrection), an organic view..”

                       

                      ON FREE WILL AND THE IMAGE OF GOD”

                       

                      The question of original sin, or what humanity lost in the
                      Fall, is related to the question of what God gave humanity in the act of
                      creation and what humanity retains even in its fallen state.  For the
                      Greek Fathers, this spiritual capacity of human nature is encapsulated in the
                      language of Gen. 1:26-7:  God created humanity according to God’s own
                      “image”.  Furthermore, both the Eastern Church and the medieval Latin Church
                      distinguished between the “image of God” (Latin imago Dei) and the “likeness”
                      or similitude of God, based on the differences between Gen. 1:26 and
                      1:27.  The image designated the potential or capabilities inherent in all
                      human beings, i.e., qualities such as reason; the likeness meant true likeness
                      (at the level of human existence, of course) to God, the realization of human
                      potential as the perpetual fulfillment of a dynamic process between the human
                      person and God.  The Greek Fathers in particular developed a generous
                      anthropology around the concept of the imago Dei, even for postlapsarian human
                      nature; as Gregory of Nyssa states in his Sixth Homily on the Beatitudes, the
                      divine imprint may be obscured but it is still intact.[23]  The anthropology of the Roman
                      Church, influenced by Augustine, was less generous than that of the East, but
                      still accented human capacity.

                      By contrast, classical Lutheran thought presented a sharp
                      break with the general tenor of biblical interpretation of Gen. 1:26-7 in both
                      the Eastern and Western forms of early and medieval Christianity.  As
                      Robert Wilken has shown,[24] Luther, Melanchthon and others rejected
                      the distinction drawn by most early and medieval theologians, Latin and Greek
                      alike, between image and likeness.[25]  As we shall see later, this
                      rejection has consequences for (or, perhaps is itself a consequence of) the
                      reformers’ soteriology.  Moreover, Lutherans from Martin Luther himself to
                      later writers such as the eighteenth-century theologian John Gerhard have
                      interpreted the imago Dei largely in a negative sense:  it encapsulates
                      what humanity lost in the Fall.[26]  Wilken argues that Luther “did not
                      … abandon the image entirely and was willing to say that it remained after the
                      fall”,[27] and that “the Lutheran tradition stands
                      within the broad stream of patristic and medieval tradition that saw freedom of
                      the will, reason, human responsibility, … as marks of the divine image. 
                      This image was not lost, but only tarnished in the fall.”[28]  Nevertheless, he admits that
                      Luther describes the “marks of the image” (memory, will and mind) as “most
                      depraved and most seriously weakened, yes, to put it more clearly, they are
                      utterly leprous and unclean”,[29] and quotes Gerhard as asserting that “to
                      deny that the image of God has been lost is to deny original sin itself”.[30]

                      The question of the imago Dei is significant because it is
                      here that East and West disagree on a second important element of theological
                      anthropology:  free will.  While Orthodoxy maintains that free will
                      is a constitutive element of the imago Dei, both Roman Catholicism and
                      Lutheranism – sharing an Augustinian heritage – assert that one of the aspects
                      of original sin is the loss of free will with respect to humanity’s orientation
                      toward God.  Human freedom was one of the issues at the heart of the
                      fifth-century Western Christian debate over faith and works, i.e., over the
                      relative divine and human contributions to salvation.  The Western
                      Christian historical context has caused many theologians, particularly
                      evangelical Protestant theologians, to experience great difficulty thinking
                      “outside the box” of the Western either/or approach to this topic.  For
                      instance, at a 1999 conference sponsored by the Society for the Study of
                      Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy, J. I. Packer distributed a copy of some
                      course materials.  I noted that under the topic of faith and works he listed
                      the Orthodox as “semi-Pelagian”.  He was “semi-right”.  As Bishop
                      Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia proclaimed at the beginning of his address for the
                      1998 Bellarmine Lecture at Saint
                      Louis University,
                      “I suppose I should tell you straightaway that I am an Arminian.”  Ware’s
                      comment was amusing but also truthful because, in Eastern Christian
                      soteriology, human freedom plays an important role, but not as Pelagian foil to
                      Augustinian determinism.

                      At the heart of the Orthodox understanding of what
                      constitutes the imago Dei in the human person, even after the Fall, lies the
                      concept of free will.  This is perhaps best seen in the theology of
                      Gregory of Nyssa.  In his seminal work, On the Making of the Human Person,
                      Nyssa lists a variety of traits which characterize the divine image in
                      humanity, but asserts that

                      pre-eminent among all is the fact that we are free from
                      necessity, and not in bondage to any natural power, but have decision in our
                      own power as we please; for virtue is a voluntary thing, subject to no dominion:
                      that which is the result of compulsion and force cannot be virtue.[31]

                       

                      Over a thousand years later, Jeremias II, Patriarch of
                      Constantinople, would take up this refrain in his response to the Lutheran
                      theologians of Tübingen regarding the Augsburg Confession.  First,
                      Jeremias quotes at length from Chrysostom’s Twelfth Homily on the Epistle to
                      the Hebrews, where the Antiochene Father asserts that “All indeed depends on
                      God, but not so that our free-will is hindered  . . .  For we must
                      first choose the good; and then He leads us to His own.  He does not
                      anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged.  But when we
                      have chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us.”[32]  Linking the concepts of sin and
                      virtue to free will in a manner similar to Nyssa, Jeremias sets the stage for
                      his discussion of faith and works by averring:

                      I declare that everyone is
                      capable of virtue.  For whatever a person is not able to do, he is not
                      able to do even if forced.  But if a person is able when forced to do what
                      he is not doing, then it is by his own choice that he is not doing it.[33]

                       

                      Certainly, Eastern Christianity recognizes that humanity
                      has lost an element of its freedom in its subjection to the “passions”
                      (understood as spiritual as well as physical needs and desires).  This is
                      particularly emphasized in ascetic writings.  However, despite recognition
                      of the difficulty in consistently exercising one’s freedom properly, Eastern
                      Christian thought is virtually unanimous from the earliest centuries in
                      affirming humanity’s fundamental freedom to do good or ill, to turn toward God
                      or away from him.  By contrast, the Christian West, both Roman Catholic
                      and Protestant, has been strongly influenced by Augustine’s peculiarly negative
                      concept of free will.  Luther is a prime example:  “After the fall of
                      Adam, free-will is a mere expression; whenever it acts in character, it commits
                      mortal sin.”[34]  The classical Western view is
                      summed up in the very title of section 4.1 of the Joint Declaration – “Human
                      Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification”.  According to the
                      Lutheran signers, “human beings are incapable of cooperating in their
                      salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action
                      [emphasis added].”[35]  In the previous paragraph of the
                      Joint Declaration, the Roman Catholic position presents a more positive
                      assessment of the human response to God, yet it too undercuts the human will by
                      interpreting this human response as essentially divine, not human:  “When
                      Catholics say that persons ‘cooperate’ in preparing for an accepting
                      justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal
                      consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate
                      human abilities [emphasis added].”[36]   Catholics and Lutherans
                      together assert in the Joint Declaration that humans “are incapable of turning
                      by themselves to God to seek deliverance”.[37]  So, although certain bilateral
                      dialogues with the Orthodox have tried to present a stronger sense of free
                      human responsiveness, both positive and negative,[38] the understanding of faith for Lutherans
                      especially is not based on human freedom:

                      … [F]aith is the awareness worked by the Spirit that
                      salvation is not from us, but for us.  Faith is not the response of a
                      person’s free will to choose the grace of God.  The [Lutheran] Confessions
                      slam the door on free will to keep out every possible synergistic
                      intrusion.  They reject the statement used by some of the ancient Fathers
                      that God draws, but draws the person who is willing.  Instead, God makes
                      unwilling persons willing to do the will of Christ.[39]

                       Thus, neither the Lutheran nor the Roman Catholic
                      understanding of justification includes a truly human component.  The
                      negative anthropology of both negates human freedom because it excludes an
                      inherent desire for and ability to turn toward God in humanity’s fallen
                      condition.  Consequently, the Christian West, following Augustine,
                      developed the idea of prevenient grace:  a human being can only turn toward
                      God after God has first imparted to him or her a special grace which allows the
                      person to recognize and respond to God.[40]  If one also hypothesizes that God
                      may not choose to bestow this prevenient grace on all human beings, then one
                      comes naturally to the theory of election or predestination present in
                      Augustine’s later anti-Pelagian works and resurrected full force in the
                      Reformed Protestantism of Calvin as well
                      as in such branches of Lutheranism as the Missouri Synod.[41]  Happily, the Joint Declaration
                      affirms that “[a]ll people are called by God to salvation in Christ.”[42]

                      Eastern Christianity
                      counters this negative view of postlapsarian human nature with the positive
                      theological anthropology enshrined in the christology of the Sixth Ecumenical
                      Council, held in Constantinople in
                      680-681.  The council was convoked to deal with an attempt to underscore
                      the unity of the person of Jesus Christ by declaring that he had only one will,
                      his divine will; hence, the heresy was named monotheletism.  In rejecting
                      monotheletism, the council articulated a christology based on the theological
                      anthropology of the brilliant seventh-century Greek theologian Maximos the
                      Confessor.  Maximos distinguished between 1) the “natural” human will,
                      which is a characteristic of human nature; it is oriented toward God and
                      continues to exist and operate even after the Fall, and 2) the “gnomic” will, a
                      personal property, or personal mode of expressing the natural will which is
                      peculiar to fallen human beings and is characterized by opinion and
                      deliberation because the fallen human person lacks true knowledge of where the
                      Good lies.[43]

                      Maximos asserted that self-determination (literally, self-determined
                      movement – aujtexouvsio~ kivnhsi~) is a constitutive element of human nature,
                      but is not aimless; our natural free will is oriented toward God precisely
                      because humanity is created by God, in His image.  A special act of God’s grace (i.e., prevenient grace) is not required
                      for us to orient ourselves toward Him; orientation toward God is at the heart
                      of our human nature.  Thus, Maximos’ theological anthropology, based on
                      the conviction that the imago Dei is retained in postlapsarian human nature, assumes
                      that human beings retain a natural orientation toward God.[44]  In part, this is why human freedom plays such a central role in Eastern
                      Christian theology “without the problematic character that it ha[s] in Western
                      writers”.[45]  Interestingly, Western Christianity claims to affirm the christology of
                      the Sixth Ecumenical Council.  However, it is impossible to accept
                      Maximos’ christology without accepting equally the anthropology on which it is
                      based, namely his concept of the natural human will which Christ assumes as
                      part of his fallen human nature.

                      With respect, then, to the soteriological question of “What
                      is wrong with humanity in its fallen state?”, the problem of the human
                      condition is not, as it is conceived in Western Christianity, that human beings
                      have no natural orientation toward God.  The problem of our fallen condition
                      is that, because we have broken communion with God, our spiritual vision has
                      become “clouded” so that we fail to recognize clearly in what direction our
                      natural orientation lies and therefore fail to move consistently in that
                      direction, i.e., to restore communion with God.

                      Thus, Orthodoxy understands human sin primarily not as
                      deliberate and willful opposition to God, but rather as an inability to know
                      ourselves and God clearly.  It is as though God were calling out to us and
                      coming after us in a storm, but we thought we heard his voice in another
                      direction and kept moving away from him, either directly or obliquely.  It
                      is illuminating that the Greek word for sin, hamartia, means “to miss the
                      mark”.  Despite our orientation toward God, we “miss the mark” because,
                      not only does the clouded spiritual vision of our fallen condition make it
                      difficult for us to see God clearly, but we fail to understand even ourselves
                      truly; thus, we constantly do things which make us feel only incompletely and
                      unsatisfactorily good or happy because we don’t recognize that God is himself
                      the fulfillment of our innate desire and natural movement.  Explaining
                      Maximos’ theology, Andrew Louth offers, “… with fallen creatures, their own
                      nature has become opaque to them, they no longer know what they want, and
                      experience coercion in trying to love what cannot give fulfilment.”[46]  Ultimately, it is not our natural
                      human will that is deficient, but rather how we perceive it and the way, or
                      mode, by which we express it; as Louth sourly opines, “it is a frustrating and confusing
                      business.”[47]

                        “To sum up the previous sections:  Orthodoxy
                      sees human nature as fallen and mortal, but as retaining its fundamental
                      orientation toward God and not as inheriting some type of juridical guilt; we
                      are redeemed from this fallen human nature by the incarnation of the Son of
                      God, who assumes and shares this fallen, mortal nature in every aspect except
                      sin, even unto death, restoring it to its former potentiality (i.e.,
                      “justifying” us) through his resurrection, in which we share.  But restoration
                      to the potentiality of Adam and Eve is just a starting point in Orthodox
                      theology; we are called to communion with God, to grow and mature into the
                      likeness of God, to become “deified” by participation in God’s own life through
                      the Holy Spirit.”

                      ALSO, Chapter 2 of Ben Witherington’s “Problems with
                      Evangelical Theology” makes a very strong case that Augustine and Luther were
                      wrong about the bondage of the will when it comes to Christians (cf,1 Cor
                      10:13), but right about life in Adam. Following St John Chrysostom, he shows
                      that Romans 7 is not about Christians, as Luther thought, and much less about
                      Paul as a Christian.

                      Here is one of his lines, echoing Karras. “The theology of simul
                      Justus et peccator [justified and sinner at the same time] promulgated by
                      Luther amounts to a very inadequate view of Paul’s understanding of grace in the
                      believer’s life, and the power by that grace the believer has to resist
                      temptation…”

                      There’s much more, but my hands are tired. J

                       

                       

                       

                       

                       



                      --- On Sat, 6/26/10, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...> wrote:

                      From: Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>
                      Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                      To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 12:34 PM







                       









                      Timothy,



                      Regarding bondage of the will: I do not personally know of an

                      Orthodox work that treats Luther's Bondage of the Will.



                      What I can recommend is a process that helped me. The Lutheran

                      doctrine, in its systematized form, relies quite a bit on Romans

                      7:7-25 to make its case. The assumption of FC SD III is that Romans

                      7:7ff (esp. v.14-25) describes the condition of a baptized Christian -

                      view that comes from some of St. Augustine's later writings. However,

                      most of the Fathers read this as St. Paul describing the condition of

                      being under the Law, i.e. the unregenerate man's condition before

                      Grace. In this context, after discussing Baptism in Romans 6, Romans

                      7 returns to the problem of the unregenerate man under the law and

                      then builds up to "who will save me from this body of death? Thanks be

                      to Jesus Christ!," followed by a one-sentence summary of the problem

                      again to conclude the explanation. Romans 8 then shows what it means

                      to be a Christian and the nature of the struggle a Christian has, in

                      contrast to the struggle and domination experienced apart from Grace

                      in Romans 7.



                      Coincidentally, I posted something to this effect on my blog the other

                      day. http://paredwka.blogspot.com/2010/06/fathers-and-romans-714-25.html



                      It may be helpful to go back and review what you believe as a

                      Lutheran, paying attention to where in Scripture the weight of the

                      argument is placed, and compare it to the Orthodox reading of those

                      passages. When I was doing what you are doing right now I often found

                      it hard to read the Scriptures without importing the interpretation I

                      was so comfortable with as a Lutheran. However, by suspending my

                      conclusions until after I had given both the Lutheran reading and the

                      Orthodox reading a chance, I became convinced from the Scriptures that

                      Orthodoxy is just that - Orthodox.



                      I hope this helps.



                      In Christ,

                      Benjamin Harju



                      On 6/26/10, Jeremy Finck <AdonaiUplifts@...> wrote:

                      > All podcasts on AFR regarding Sola Scriptura (Christopher's podcast is

                      > included in this list):

                      > http://ancientfaith.com/collections/sola_scriptura

                      >

                      > Direct Link to Christopher's podcast in the Lutheran Colloquium:

                      > http://ancientfaith.com/specials/episodes/the_authority_of_scripture

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM, <xcjorr@...> wrote:

                      >

                      >>

                      >>

                      >> It is one of the Orthodox-Lutheran Colloquium podcasts.

                      >>

                      >> Christopher

                      >>

                      >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

                      >>

                      >> -----Original Message-----

                      >> From: Timothy Jackon

                      >> <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>

                      >>

                      >> Sender:

                      >> LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                      >> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:34:43

                      >> To:

                      >> <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>

                      >>

                      >> Reply-To:

                      >> LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                      >> Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

                      >>

                      >> I can't seem to locate the podcast. Did you have your own podcast or did

                      >> you appear under one on the show of one of the other podcasters?

                      >>

                      >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:16 PM, <xcjorr@... <xcjorr%40gmail.com>>

                      >> wrote:

                      >>

                      >> >

                      >> >

                      >> > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox

                      >> Church

                      >> > for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a

                      >> podcast

                      >> > on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or links

                      >> of

                      >> > this list, too.

                      >> >

                      >> > Christopher Orr

                      >> >

                      >> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

                      >> >

                      >> > -----Original Message-----

                      >> > From: "timothy_jackson87"

                      >> > <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>

                      >> <timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>

                      >> >

                      >> > Sender:

                      >> > LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                      >> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                      >> > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07

                      >> > To:

                      >> > <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                      >> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>

                      >> >

                      >> > Reply-To:

                      >> > LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                      >> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                      >> > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

                      >> >

                      >> > Gentlemen,

                      >> >

                      >> > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox

                      >> > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura

                      >> > and

                      >>

                      >> > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance

                      >> > as

                      >> to

                      >> > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.

                      >> >

                      >> > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it

                      >> > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find

                      >> > anything.

                      >> >

                      >> > *Sola Scriptura*

                      >> > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking

                      >> about

                      >> > Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran understanding

                      >> in

                      >> > with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a misrepresentation and

                      >> I've

                      >> > been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot an inaccurate

                      >> > representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material I have

                      >> read

                      >> > and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues Etc)

                      >> > deals

                      >>

                      >> > with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the Roman

                      >> Catholic

                      >> > complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are differences,

                      >> what

                      >> > might they be?

                      >> >

                      >> > *Bondage of the Will*

                      >> > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately

                      >> > to

                      >>

                      >> > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern

                      >> Orthodox.

                      >> > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that

                      >> specifically

                      >> > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?

                      >> >

                      >> > Thank you all for your time!

                      >> >

                      >> > Timothy

                      >> >

                      >> >

                      >> >

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

                      >> >

                      >> >

                      >> >

                      >>

                      >>

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

                      >>

                      >>

                      >>

                      >> ------------------------------------

                      >>

                      >> Yahoo! Groups Links

                      >>

                      >>

                      >>

                      >>

                      >>

                      >

                      >

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

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      > ------------------------------------

                      >

                      > Yahoo! Groups Links

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >























                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • David Tinker
                      Amazon has it for $450 used.
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jun 26, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Amazon has it for $450 used.

                        matt reader <mattyreader@...> wrote:

                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >A book that I cannot recommend enough, although is it hard
                        >to find, is "Free Choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor" by Joseph
                        >Farrell. His final chapter is an overview of how St. Augustine got it wrong when it came to
                        >the nature of the will (and the relationship between nature and will!) and how
                        >this plays out in his theological children, Calvin and Luther.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >Not sure if anyone had the chance to read the paper on Justification in Luther
                        >and EO by Valerie Karras, but much of it has to do with our conversation about
                        >the bondage of the will. What I always find so engaging about theology and
                        >historical study is that everything hangs together. Every teaching in Orthodoxy
                        >is neither too little or too much, but a part of an organic whole that is the
                        >Tradition, the life of the Holy Spirit in our midst as animating  Christ's
                        >Body, the Church. The frustrating, or at least time-consuming, aspect of this
                        >is that no one theological teaching can be understood in isolation, so this
                        >leads to great rabbit trails. Anyhow, parts or her paper that I found relevant
                        >to the nature of will are:
                        >

                        >
                        >ON HUMAN NATURE AND ORIGINAL GUILT VS ORIGINAL SIN:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >" The Christian East
                        >espouses a different theological anthropology from most of Western Christianity
                        >– both Catholic and Protestant – especially with respect to two elements of
                        >fallen human nature: original guilt and free will.  The differences in
                        >these two anthropological concepts, in turn, contribute to differing
                        >soteriological understandings of, respectively, how Jesus Christ saves us (that
                        >is, what salvation means) and how we appropriate the salvation offered in
                        >Christ. Therefore, we must examine these key concepts in
                        >Orthodox anthropology and soteriology, and their nexus in Christology,
                        >vis-à-vis their counterparts in traditional Western Christian theology. 
                        >This will necessarily involve comparing different traditions’ definitions and
                        >understandings of some key theological terms:  sin, faith,
                        >salvation.  Two contrasts recur:  1) the juridical approach of much
                        >of the West regarding sin and redemption, or restoration, versus the more
                        >existential and ontological approach of the East; and 2) the Western tendency
                        >to define, differentiate, and compartmentalize, as opposed to the Eastern
                        >tendency to theologize apophatically and, when cataphatically, primarily in a
                        >holistic and organic fashion.”
                        >

                        >
                        >“This concept of original guilt, already visible in the
                        >theology of the third-century North African Latin Fathers Cyprian of Carthage
                        >and Tertullian, was developed in the early fifth century primarily by
                        >Augustine, who reacted to Pelagius’ claim that infants need not be baptized
                        >since they have committed no personal sins.  Augustine countered Pelagius by
                        >arguing from common Church practice and mixing it with traducianism via Rom.
                        >5:12:  “… sin came into the world through one man and death spread through
                        >sin, and so death spread to all men because [literally, “in that” or “in
                        >which”] all men sinned.”[14]  To briefly summarize Augustine’s
                        >argument, which originated in Cyprian:  the Church universally baptized
                        >infants; therefore, since baptism confers remission of sins, and since infants
                        >have committed no personal sins, the Church baptizes infants obviously in order
                        >to remit the original sin which they receive hereditarily from Adam because all
                        >of humanity was seminally present in Adam.
                        >
                        >While the Christian East consistently recognizes the effects
                        >of the “ancestral sin” in terms of human mortality, corruption (phthora), and a
                        >difficulty in maintaining an unwavering communion with God (the Eastern Fathers
                        >don’t really speak in terms of “concupiscence”), it has never accepted Augustine’s
                        >argument that all humanity inherits the guilt of Adam… John Chrysostom,
                        >archbishop of Constantinople and a
                        >contemporary of Augustine, in his Homilies on Romans, interprets Rom. 5:12
                        >simply to explain human mortality: “having once fallen, even they that had not
                        >eaten of the tree did from [Adam], all of them, become mortal.”[17]  In other words, the Greek Fathers
                        >saw the relationship between Adam and his descendents as organic and
                        >existential in nature without the notion of an inherited “guilt”.  We
                        >inherit the same mortal and corrupt nature which Adam possessed because of the
                        >Fall, but we do not inherit the guilt of that original sin which changed our
                        >human nature.[18]”
                        >

                        >
                        >“As for Augustine, the contrast with Chrysostom is
                        >sharp:  they are writing only a few years apart, and yet their
                        >understandings of the purpose of infant baptism are light-years apart. 
                        >This is why, from the Orthodox point of view, Augustine’s and Pelagius’
                        >arguments are simply flip sides of the same coin.  Both operate under the
                        >assumption that the primary purpose of baptism – in fact, virtually the sole
                        >purpose as far as their debate is concerned – is the remission of sins. 
                        >The Orthodox approach sees the death of the old man (the work of the Cross)
                        >only through the lens of the rebirth of the new man (the life of the
                        >Resurrection), an organic view..”
                        >

                        >
                        >ON FREE WILL AND THE IMAGE OF GOD”
                        >

                        >
                        >The question of original sin, or what humanity lost in the
                        >Fall, is related to the question of what God gave humanity in the act of
                        >creation and what humanity retains even in its fallen state.  For the
                        >Greek Fathers, this spiritual capacity of human nature is encapsulated in the
                        >language of Gen. 1:26-7:  God created humanity according to God’s own
                        >“image”.  Furthermore, both the Eastern Church and the medieval Latin Church
                        >distinguished between the “image of God” (Latin imago Dei) and the “likeness”
                        >or similitude of God, based on the differences between Gen. 1:26 and
                        >1:27.  The image designated the potential or capabilities inherent in all
                        >human beings, i.e., qualities such as reason; the likeness meant true likeness
                        >(at the level of human existence, of course) to God, the realization of human
                        >potential as the perpetual fulfillment of a dynamic process between the human
                        >person and God.  The Greek Fathers in particular developed a generous
                        >anthropology around the concept of the imago Dei, even for postlapsarian human
                        >nature; as Gregory of Nyssa states in his Sixth Homily on the Beatitudes, the
                        >divine imprint may be obscured but it is still intact.[23]  The anthropology of the Roman
                        >Church, influenced by Augustine, was less generous than that of the East, but
                        >still accented human capacity.
                        >
                        >By contrast, classical Lutheran thought presented a sharp
                        >break with the general tenor of biblical interpretation of Gen. 1:26-7 in both
                        >the Eastern and Western forms of early and medieval Christianity.  As
                        >Robert Wilken has shown,[24] Luther, Melanchthon and others rejected
                        >the distinction drawn by most early and medieval theologians, Latin and Greek
                        >alike, between image and likeness.[25]  As we shall see later, this
                        >rejection has consequences for (or, perhaps is itself a consequence of) the
                        >reformers’ soteriology.  Moreover, Lutherans from Martin Luther himself to
                        >later writers such as the eighteenth-century theologian John Gerhard have
                        >interpreted the imago Dei largely in a negative sense:  it encapsulates
                        >what humanity lost in the Fall.[26]  Wilken argues that Luther “did not
                        >… abandon the image entirely and was willing to say that it remained after the
                        >fall”,[27] and that “the Lutheran tradition stands
                        >within the broad stream of patristic and medieval tradition that saw freedom of
                        >the will, reason, human responsibility, … as marks of the divine image. 
                        >This image was not lost, but only tarnished in the fall.”[28]  Nevertheless, he admits that
                        >Luther describes the “marks of the image” (memory, will and mind) as “most
                        >depraved and most seriously weakened, yes, to put it more clearly, they are
                        >utterly leprous and unclean”,[29] and quotes Gerhard as asserting that “to
                        >deny that the image of God has been lost is to deny original sin itself”.[30]
                        >
                        >The question of the imago Dei is significant because it is
                        >here that East and West disagree on a second important element of theological
                        >anthropology:  free will.  While Orthodoxy maintains that free will
                        >is a constitutive element of the imago Dei, both Roman Catholicism and
                        >Lutheranism – sharing an Augustinian heritage – assert that one of the aspects
                        >of original sin is the loss of free will with respect to humanity’s orientation
                        >toward God.  Human freedom was one of the issues at the heart of the
                        >fifth-century Western Christian debate over faith and works, i.e., over the
                        >relative divine and human contributions to salvation.  The Western
                        >Christian historical context has caused many theologians, particularly
                        >evangelical Protestant theologians, to experience great difficulty thinking
                        >“outside the box” of the Western either/or approach to this topic.  For
                        >instance, at a 1999 conference sponsored by the Society for the Study of
                        >Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy, J. I. Packer distributed a copy of some
                        >course materials.  I noted that under the topic of faith and works he listed
                        >the Orthodox as “semi-Pelagian”.  He was “semi-right”.  As Bishop
                        >Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia proclaimed at the beginning of his address for the
                        >1998 Bellarmine Lecture at Saint
                        > Louis University,
                        >“I suppose I should tell you straightaway that I am an Arminian.”  Ware’s
                        >comment was amusing but also truthful because, in Eastern Christian
                        >soteriology, human freedom plays an important role, but not as Pelagian foil to
                        >Augustinian determinism.
                        >
                        >At the heart of the Orthodox understanding of what
                        >constitutes the imago Dei in the human person, even after the Fall, lies the
                        >concept of free will.  This is perhaps best seen in the theology of
                        >Gregory of Nyssa.  In his seminal work, On the Making of the Human Person,
                        >Nyssa lists a variety of traits which characterize the divine image in
                        >humanity, but asserts that
                        >
                        >pre-eminent among all is the fact that we are free from
                        >necessity, and not in bondage to any natural power, but have decision in our
                        >own power as we please; for virtue is a voluntary thing, subject to no dominion:
                        >that which is the result of compulsion and force cannot be virtue.[31]
                        >

                        >
                        >Over a thousand years later, Jeremias II, Patriarch of
                        >Constantinople, would take up this refrain in his response to the Lutheran
                        >theologians of Tübingen regarding the Augsburg Confession.  First,
                        >Jeremias quotes at length from Chrysostom’s Twelfth Homily on the Epistle to
                        >the Hebrews, where the Antiochene Father asserts that “All indeed depends on
                        >God, but not so that our free-will is hindered  . . .  For we must
                        >first choose the good; and then He leads us to His own.  He does not
                        >anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged.  But when we
                        >have chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us.”[32]  Linking the concepts of sin and
                        >virtue to free will in a manner similar to Nyssa, Jeremias sets the stage for
                        >his discussion of faith and works by averring:
                        >
                        >I declare that everyone is
                        >capable of virtue.  For whatever a person is not able to do, he is not
                        >able to do even if forced.  But if a person is able when forced to do what
                        >he is not doing, then it is by his own choice that he is not doing it.[33]
                        >

                        >
                        >Certainly, Eastern Christianity recognizes that humanity
                        >has lost an element of its freedom in its subjection to the “passions”
                        >(understood as spiritual as well as physical needs and desires).  This is
                        >particularly emphasized in ascetic writings.  However, despite recognition
                        >of the difficulty in consistently exercising one’s freedom properly, Eastern
                        >Christian thought is virtually unanimous from the earliest centuries in
                        >affirming humanity’s fundamental freedom to do good or ill, to turn toward God
                        >or away from him.  By contrast, the Christian West, both Roman Catholic
                        >and Protestant, has been strongly influenced by Augustine’s peculiarly negative
                        >concept of free will.  Luther is a prime example:  “After the fall of
                        >Adam, free-will is a mere expression; whenever it acts in character, it commits
                        >mortal sin.”[34]  The classical Western view is
                        >summed up in the very title of section 4.1 of the Joint Declaration – “Human
                        >Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification”.  According to the
                        >Lutheran signers, “human beings are incapable of cooperating in their
                        >salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action
                        >[emphasis added].”[35]  In the previous paragraph of the
                        >Joint Declaration, the Roman Catholic position presents a more positive
                        >assessment of the human response to God, yet it too undercuts the human will by
                        >interpreting this human response as essentially divine, not human:  “When
                        >Catholics say that persons ‘cooperate’ in preparing for an accepting
                        >justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal
                        >consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate
                        >human abilities [emphasis added].”[36]   Catholics and Lutherans
                        >together assert in the Joint Declaration that humans “are incapable of turning
                        >by themselves to God to seek deliverance”.[37]  So, although certain bilateral
                        >dialogues with the Orthodox have tried to present a stronger sense of free
                        >human responsiveness, both positive and negative,[38] the understanding of faith for Lutherans
                        >especially is not based on human freedom:
                        >
                        >… [F]aith is the awareness worked by the Spirit that
                        >salvation is not from us, but for us.  Faith is not the response of a
                        >person’s free will to choose the grace of God.  The [Lutheran] Confessions
                        >slam the door on free will to keep out every possible synergistic
                        >intrusion.  They reject the statement used by some of the ancient Fathers
                        >that God draws, but draws the person who is willing.  Instead, God makes
                        >unwilling persons willing to do the will of Christ.[39]
                        >
                        > Thus, neither the Lutheran nor the Roman Catholic
                        >understanding of justification includes a truly human component.  The
                        >negative anthropology of both negates human freedom because it excludes an
                        >inherent desire for and ability to turn toward God in humanity’s fallen
                        >condition.  Consequently, the Christian West, following Augustine,
                        >developed the idea of prevenient grace:  a human being can only turn toward
                        >God after God has first imparted to him or her a special grace which allows the
                        >person to recognize and respond to God.[40]  If one also hypothesizes that God
                        >may not choose to bestow this prevenient grace on all human beings, then one
                        >comes naturally to the theory of election or predestination present in
                        >Augustine’s later anti-Pelagian works and resurrected full force in the
                        >Reformed Protestantism of Calvin as well
                        >as in such branches of Lutheranism as the Missouri Synod.[41]  Happily, the Joint Declaration
                        >affirms that “[a]ll people are called by God to salvation in Christ.”[42]
                        >
                        >Eastern Christianity
                        >counters this negative view of postlapsarian human nature with the positive
                        >theological anthropology enshrined in the christology of the Sixth Ecumenical
                        >Council, held in Constantinople in
                        >680-681.  The council was convoked to deal with an attempt to underscore
                        >the unity of the person of Jesus Christ by declaring that he had only one will,
                        >his divine will; hence, the heresy was named monotheletism.  In rejecting
                        >monotheletism, the council articulated a christology based on the theological
                        >anthropology of the brilliant seventh-century Greek theologian Maximos the
                        >Confessor.  Maximos distinguished between 1) the “natural” human will,
                        >which is a characteristic of human nature; it is oriented toward God and
                        >continues to exist and operate even after the Fall, and 2) the “gnomic” will, a
                        >personal property, or personal mode of expressing the natural will which is
                        >peculiar to fallen human beings and is characterized by opinion and
                        >deliberation because the fallen human person lacks true knowledge of where the
                        >Good lies.[43]
                        >
                        >Maximos asserted that self-determination (literally, self-determined
                        >movement – aujtexouvsio~ kivnhsi~) is a constitutive element of human nature,
                        >but is not aimless; our natural free will is oriented toward God precisely
                        >because humanity is created by God, in His image.  A special act of God’s grace (i.e., prevenient grace) is not required
                        >for us to orient ourselves toward Him; orientation toward God is at the heart
                        >of our human nature.  Thus, Maximos’ theological anthropology, based on
                        >the conviction that the imago Dei is retained in postlapsarian human nature, assumes
                        >that human beings retain a natural orientation toward God.[44]  In part, this is why human freedom plays such a central role in Eastern
                        >Christian theology “without the problematic character that it ha[s] in Western
                        >writers”.[45]  Interestingly, Western Christianity claims to affirm the christology of
                        >the Sixth Ecumenical Council.  However, it is impossible to accept
                        >Maximos’ christology without accepting equally the anthropology on which it is
                        >based, namely his concept of the natural human will which Christ assumes as
                        >part of his fallen human nature.
                        >
                        >With respect, then, to the soteriological question of “What
                        >is wrong with humanity in its fallen state?”, the problem of the human
                        >condition is not, as it is conceived in Western Christianity, that human beings
                        >have no natural orientation toward God.  The problem of our fallen condition
                        >is that, because we have broken communion with God, our spiritual vision has
                        >become “clouded” so that we fail to recognize clearly in what direction our
                        >natural orientation lies and therefore fail to move consistently in that
                        >direction, i.e., to restore communion with God.
                        >
                        >Thus, Orthodoxy understands human sin primarily not as
                        >deliberate and willful opposition to God, but rather as an inability to know
                        >ourselves and God clearly.  It is as though God were calling out to us and
                        >coming after us in a storm, but we thought we heard his voice in another
                        >direction and kept moving away from him, either directly or obliquely.  It
                        >is illuminating that the Greek word for sin, hamartia, means “to miss the
                        >mark”.  Despite our orientation toward God, we “miss the mark” because,
                        >not only does the clouded spiritual vision of our fallen condition make it
                        >difficult for us to see God clearly, but we fail to understand even ourselves
                        >truly; thus, we constantly do things which make us feel only incompletely and
                        >unsatisfactorily good or happy because we don’t recognize that God is himself
                        >the fulfillment of our innate desire and natural movement.  Explaining
                        >Maximos’ theology, Andrew Louth offers, “… with fallen creatures, their own
                        >nature has become opaque to them, they no longer know what they want, and
                        >experience coercion in trying to love what cannot give fulfilment.”[46]  Ultimately, it is not our natural
                        >human will that is deficient, but rather how we perceive it and the way, or
                        >mode, by which we express it; as Louth sourly opines, “it is a frustrating and confusing
                        >business.”[47]
                        >
                        >  “To sum up the previous sections:  Orthodoxy
                        >sees human nature as fallen and mortal, but as retaining its fundamental
                        >orientation toward God and not as inheriting some type of juridical guilt; we
                        >are redeemed from this fallen human nature by the incarnation of the Son of
                        >God, who assumes and shares this fallen, mortal nature in every aspect except
                        >sin, even unto death, restoring it to its former potentiality (i.e.,
                        >“justifying” us) through his resurrection, in which we share.  But restoration
                        >to the potentiality of Adam and Eve is just a starting point in Orthodox
                        >theology; we are called to communion with God, to grow and mature into the
                        >likeness of God, to become “deified” by participation in God’s own life through
                        >the Holy Spirit.”
                        >
                        >ALSO, Chapter 2 of Ben Witherington’s “Problems with
                        >Evangelical Theology” makes a very strong case that Augustine and Luther were
                        >wrong about the bondage of the will when it comes to Christians (cf,1 Cor
                        >10:13), but right about life in Adam. Following St John Chrysostom, he shows
                        >that Romans 7 is not about Christians, as Luther thought, and much less about
                        >Paul as a Christian.
                        >
                        >Here is one of his lines, echoing Karras. “The theology of simul
                        >Justus et peccator [justified and sinner at the same time] promulgated by
                        >Luther amounts to a very inadequate view of Paul’s understanding of grace in the
                        >believer’s life, and the power by that grace the believer has to resist
                        >temptation…”
                        >
                        >There’s much more, but my hands are tired. J
                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >--- On Sat, 6/26/10, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >From: Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>
                        >Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                        >To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
                        >Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 12:34 PM
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >

                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Timothy,
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >Regarding bondage of the will: I do not personally know of an
                        >
                        >Orthodox work that treats Luther's Bondage of the Will.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >What I can recommend is a process that helped me. The Lutheran
                        >
                        >doctrine, in its systematized form, relies quite a bit on Romans
                        >
                        >7:7-25 to make its case. The assumption of FC SD III is that Romans
                        >
                        >7:7ff (esp. v.14-25) describes the condition of a baptized Christian -
                        >
                        >view that comes from some of St. Augustine's later writings. However,
                        >
                        >most of the Fathers read this as St. Paul describing the condition of
                        >
                        >being under the Law, i.e. the unregenerate man's condition before
                        >
                        >Grace. In this context, after discussing Baptism in Romans 6, Romans
                        >
                        >7 returns to the problem of the unregenerate man under the law and
                        >
                        >then builds up to "who will save me from this body of death? Thanks be
                        >
                        >to Jesus Christ!," followed by a one-sentence summary of the problem
                        >
                        >again to conclude the explanation. Romans 8 then shows what it means
                        >
                        >to be a Christian and the nature of the struggle a Christian has, in
                        >
                        >contrast to the struggle and domination experienced apart from Grace
                        >
                        >in Romans 7.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >Coincidentally, I posted something to this effect on my blog the other
                        >
                        >day. http://paredwka.blogspot.com/2010/06/fathers-and-romans-714-25.html
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >It may be helpful to go back and review what you believe as a
                        >
                        >Lutheran, paying attention to where in Scripture the weight of the
                        >
                        >argument is placed, and compare it to the Orthodox reading of those
                        >
                        >passages. When I was doing what you are doing right now I often found
                        >
                        >it hard to read the Scriptures without importing the interpretation I
                        >
                        >was so comfortable with as a Lutheran. However, by suspending my
                        >
                        >conclusions until after I had given both the Lutheran reading and the
                        >
                        >Orthodox reading a chance, I became convinced from the Scriptures that
                        >
                        >Orthodoxy is just that - Orthodox.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >I hope this helps.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >In Christ,
                        >
                        >Benjamin Harju
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >On 6/26/10, Jeremy Finck <AdonaiUplifts@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >> All podcasts on AFR regarding Sola Scriptura (Christopher's podcast is
                        >
                        >> included in this list):
                        >
                        >> http://ancientfaith.com/collections/sola_scriptura
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >> Direct Link to Christopher's podcast in the Lutheran Colloquium:
                        >
                        >> http://ancientfaith.com/specials/episodes/the_authority_of_scripture
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM, <xcjorr@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> It is one of the Orthodox-Lutheran Colloquium podcasts.
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> Christopher
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> -----Original Message-----
                        >
                        >>> From: Timothy Jackon
                        >
                        >>> <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> Sender:
                        >
                        >>> LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                        >
                        >>> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:34:43
                        >
                        >>> To:
                        >
                        >>> <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> Reply-To:
                        >
                        >>> LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                        >
                        >>> Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> I can't seem to locate the podcast. Did you have your own podcast or did
                        >
                        >>> you appear under one on the show of one of the other podcasters?
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:16 PM, <xcjorr@... <xcjorr%40gmail.com>>
                        >
                        >>> wrote:
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox
                        >
                        >>> Church
                        >
                        >>> > for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a
                        >
                        >>> podcast
                        >
                        >>> > on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or links
                        >
                        >>> of
                        >
                        >>> > this list, too.
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > Christopher Orr
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > -----Original Message-----
                        >
                        >>> > From: "timothy_jackson87"
                        >
                        >>> > <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>
                        >
                        >>> <timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > Sender:
                        >
                        >>> > LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                        >
                        >>> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                        >
                        >>> > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
                        >
                        >>> > To:
                        >
                        >>> > <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                        >
                        >>> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > Reply-To:
                        >
                        >>> > LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                        >
                        >>> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                        >
                        >>> > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > Gentlemen,
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox
                        >
                        >>> > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura
                        >
                        >>> > and
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance
                        >
                        >>> > as
                        >
                        >>> to
                        >
                        >>> > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it
                        >
                        >>> > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find
                        >
                        >>> > anything.
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > *Sola Scriptura*
                        >
                        >>> > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking
                        >
                        >>> about
                        >
                        >>> > Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran understanding
                        >
                        >>> in
                        >
                        >>> > with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a misrepresentation and
                        >
                        >>> I've
                        >
                        >>> > been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot an inaccurate
                        >
                        >>> > representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material I have
                        >
                        >>> read
                        >
                        >>> > and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues Etc)
                        >
                        >>> > deals
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> > with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the Roman
                        >
                        >>> Catholic
                        >
                        >>> > complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are differences,
                        >
                        >>> what
                        >
                        >>> > might they be?
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > *Bondage of the Will*
                        >
                        >>> > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately
                        >
                        >>> > to
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern
                        >
                        >>> Orthodox.
                        >
                        >>> > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that
                        >
                        >>> specifically
                        >
                        >>> > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > Thank you all for your time!
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > Timothy
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>> >
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> ------------------------------------
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>>
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >> ------------------------------------
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >>
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • matt reader
                        Yes, I saw that. I remember getting it from St. Tikhon s for 12 bucks in 97! Should have bought 10. I know that you could once get it through some inter
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jun 26, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Yes, I saw that. I remember getting it from St. Tikhon's for 12 bucks in '97! Should have bought 10. I know that you could once get it through some inter library loan systems. Perhpas you still can. It is a very difficult text in that it enters into some of the most complex theological writing I have read, but it is very much worth the effort and, as Kallistos Ware says of his student (Ferrell), he has the strange ability to make complex issues clear. Maybe for Ware!

                          Also, if you haven't seen it, Ferrel has some good resources online.  http://www.anthonyflood.com/farrell.htm

                          Matt

                          --- On Sat, 6/26/10, David Tinker <davidtinker@...> wrote:

                          From: David Tinker <davidtinker@...>
                          Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                          To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 4:32 PM







                           









                          Amazon has it for $450 used.



                          matt reader <mattyreader@...> wrote:



                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >A book that I cannot recommend enough, although is it hard

                          >to find, is "Free Choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor" by Joseph

                          >Farrell. His final chapter is an overview of how St. Augustine got it wrong when it came to

                          >the nature of the will (and the relationship between nature and will!) and how

                          >this plays out in his theological children, Calvin and Luther.

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >Not sure if anyone had the chance to read the paper on Justification in Luther

                          >and EO by Valerie Karras, but much of it has to do with our conversation about

                          >the bondage of the will. What I always find so engaging about theology and

                          >historical study is that everything hangs together. Every teaching in Orthodoxy

                          >is neither too little or too much, but a part of an organic whole that is the

                          >Tradition, the life of the Holy Spirit in our midst as animating  Christ's

                          >Body, the Church. The frustrating, or at least time-consuming, aspect of this

                          >is that no one theological teaching can be understood in isolation, so this

                          >leads to great rabbit trails. Anyhow, parts or her paper that I found relevant

                          >to the nature of will are:

                          >



                          >

                          >ON HUMAN NATURE AND ORIGINAL GUILT VS ORIGINAL SIN:

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >" The Christian East

                          >espouses a different theological anthropology from most of Western Christianity

                          >– both Catholic and Protestant – especially with respect to two elements of

                          >fallen human nature: original guilt and free will.  The differences in

                          >these two anthropological concepts, in turn, contribute to differing

                          >soteriological understandings of, respectively, how Jesus Christ saves us (that

                          >is, what salvation means) and how we appropriate the salvation offered in

                          >Christ. Therefore, we must examine these key concepts in

                          >Orthodox anthropology and soteriology, and their nexus in Christology,

                          >vis-à-vis their counterparts in traditional Western Christian theology. 

                          >This will necessarily involve comparing different traditions’ definitions and

                          >understandings of some key theological terms:  sin, faith,

                          >salvation.  Two contrasts recur:  1) the juridical approach of much

                          >of the West regarding sin and redemption, or restoration, versus the more

                          >existential and ontological approach of the East; and 2) the Western tendency

                          >to define, differentiate, and compartmentalize, as opposed to the Eastern

                          >tendency to theologize apophatically and, when cataphatically, primarily in a

                          >holistic and organic fashion.”

                          >



                          >

                          >“This concept of original guilt, already visible in the

                          >theology of the third-century North African Latin Fathers Cyprian of Carthage

                          >and Tertullian, was developed in the early fifth century primarily by

                          >Augustine, who reacted to Pelagius’ claim that infants need not be baptized

                          >since they have committed no personal sins.  Augustine countered Pelagius by

                          >arguing from common Church practice and mixing it with traducianism via Rom.

                          >5:12:  “… sin came into the world through one man and death spread through

                          >sin, and so death spread to all men because [literally, “in that” or “in

                          >which”] all men sinned.”[14]  To briefly summarize Augustine’s

                          >argument, which originated in Cyprian:  the Church universally baptized

                          >infants; therefore, since baptism confers remission of sins, and since infants

                          >have committed no personal sins, the Church baptizes infants obviously in order

                          >to remit the original sin which they receive hereditarily from Adam because all

                          >of humanity was seminally present in Adam.

                          >

                          >While the Christian East consistently recognizes the effects

                          >of the “ancestral sin” in terms of human mortality, corruption (phthora), and a

                          >difficulty in maintaining an unwavering communion with God (the Eastern Fathers

                          >don’t really speak in terms of “concupiscence”), it has never accepted Augustine’s

                          >argument that all humanity inherits the guilt of Adam… John Chrysostom,

                          >archbishop of Constantinople and a

                          >contemporary of Augustine, in his Homilies on Romans, interprets Rom. 5:12

                          >simply to explain human mortality: “having once fallen, even they that had not

                          >eaten of the tree did from [Adam], all of them, become mortal.”[17]  In other words, the Greek Fathers

                          >saw the relationship between Adam and his descendents as organic and

                          >existential in nature without the notion of an inherited “guilt”.  We

                          >inherit the same mortal and corrupt nature which Adam possessed because of the

                          >Fall, but we do not inherit the guilt of that original sin which changed our

                          >human nature.[18]”

                          >



                          >

                          >“As for Augustine, the contrast with Chrysostom is

                          >sharp:  they are writing only a few years apart, and yet their

                          >understandings of the purpose of infant baptism are light-years apart. 

                          >This is why, from the Orthodox point of view, Augustine’s and Pelagius’

                          >arguments are simply flip sides of the same coin.  Both operate under the

                          >assumption that the primary purpose of baptism – in fact, virtually the sole

                          >purpose as far as their debate is concerned – is the remission of sins. 

                          >The Orthodox approach sees the death of the old man (the work of the Cross)

                          >only through the lens of the rebirth of the new man (the life of the

                          >Resurrection), an organic view..”

                          >



                          >

                          >ON FREE WILL AND THE IMAGE OF GOD”

                          >



                          >

                          >The question of original sin, or what humanity lost in the

                          >Fall, is related to the question of what God gave humanity in the act of

                          >creation and what humanity retains even in its fallen state.  For the

                          >Greek Fathers, this spiritual capacity of human nature is encapsulated in the

                          >language of Gen. 1:26-7:  God created humanity according to God’s own

                          >“image”.  Furthermore, both the Eastern Church and the medieval Latin Church

                          >distinguished between the “image of God” (Latin imago Dei) and the “likeness”

                          >or similitude of God, based on the differences between Gen. 1:26 and

                          >1:27.  The image designated the potential or capabilities inherent in all

                          >human beings, i.e., qualities such as reason; the likeness meant true likeness

                          >(at the level of human existence, of course) to God, the realization of human

                          >potential as the perpetual fulfillment of a dynamic process between the human

                          >person and God.  The Greek Fathers in particular developed a generous

                          >anthropology around the concept of the imago Dei, even for postlapsarian human

                          >nature; as Gregory of Nyssa states in his Sixth Homily on the Beatitudes, the

                          >divine imprint may be obscured but it is still intact.[23]  The anthropology of the Roman

                          >Church, influenced by Augustine, was less generous than that of the East, but

                          >still accented human capacity.

                          >

                          >By contrast, classical Lutheran thought presented a sharp

                          >break with the general tenor of biblical interpretation of Gen. 1:26-7 in both

                          >the Eastern and Western forms of early and medieval Christianity.  As

                          >Robert Wilken has shown,[24] Luther, Melanchthon and others rejected

                          >the distinction drawn by most early and medieval theologians, Latin and Greek

                          >alike, between image and likeness.[25]  As we shall see later, this

                          >rejection has consequences for (or, perhaps is itself a consequence of) the

                          >reformers’ soteriology.  Moreover, Lutherans from Martin Luther himself to

                          >later writers such as the eighteenth-century theologian John Gerhard have

                          >interpreted the imago Dei largely in a negative sense:  it encapsulates

                          >what humanity lost in the Fall.[26]  Wilken argues that Luther “did not

                          >… abandon the image entirely and was willing to say that it remained after the

                          >fall”,[27] and that “the Lutheran tradition stands

                          >within the broad stream of patristic and medieval tradition that saw freedom of

                          >the will, reason, human responsibility, … as marks of the divine image. 

                          >This image was not lost, but only tarnished in the fall.”[28]  Nevertheless, he admits that

                          >Luther describes the “marks of the image” (memory, will and mind) as “most

                          >depraved and most seriously weakened, yes, to put it more clearly, they are

                          >utterly leprous and unclean”,[29] and quotes Gerhard as asserting that “to

                          >deny that the image of God has been lost is to deny original sin itself”.[30]

                          >

                          >The question of the imago Dei is significant because it is

                          >here that East and West disagree on a second important element of theological

                          >anthropology:  free will.  While Orthodoxy maintains that free will

                          >is a constitutive element of the imago Dei, both Roman Catholicism and

                          >Lutheranism – sharing an Augustinian heritage – assert that one of the aspects

                          >of original sin is the loss of free will with respect to humanity’s orientation

                          >toward God.  Human freedom was one of the issues at the heart of the

                          >fifth-century Western Christian debate over faith and works, i.e., over the

                          >relative divine and human contributions to salvation.  The Western

                          >Christian historical context has caused many theologians, particularly

                          >evangelical Protestant theologians, to experience great difficulty thinking

                          >“outside the box” of the Western either/or approach to this topic.  For

                          >instance, at a 1999 conference sponsored by the Society for the Study of

                          >Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy, J. I. Packer distributed a copy of some

                          >course materials.  I noted that under the topic of faith and works he listed

                          >the Orthodox as “semi-Pelagian”.  He was “semi-right”.  As Bishop

                          >Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia proclaimed at the beginning of his address for the

                          >1998 Bellarmine Lecture at Saint

                          > Louis University,

                          >“I suppose I should tell you straightaway that I am an Arminian.”  Ware’s

                          >comment was amusing but also truthful because, in Eastern Christian

                          >soteriology, human freedom plays an important role, but not as Pelagian foil to

                          >Augustinian determinism.

                          >

                          >At the heart of the Orthodox understanding of what

                          >constitutes the imago Dei in the human person, even after the Fall, lies the

                          >concept of free will.  This is perhaps best seen in the theology of

                          >Gregory of Nyssa.  In his seminal work, On the Making of the Human Person,

                          >Nyssa lists a variety of traits which characterize the divine image in

                          >humanity, but asserts that

                          >

                          >pre-eminent among all is the fact that we are free from

                          >necessity, and not in bondage to any natural power, but have decision in our

                          >own power as we please; for virtue is a voluntary thing, subject to no dominion:

                          >that which is the result of compulsion and force cannot be virtue.[31]

                          >



                          >

                          >Over a thousand years later, Jeremias II, Patriarch of

                          >Constantinople, would take up this refrain in his response to the Lutheran

                          >theologians of Tübingen regarding the Augsburg Confession.  First,

                          >Jeremias quotes at length from Chrysostom’s Twelfth Homily on the Epistle to

                          >the Hebrews, where the Antiochene Father asserts that “All indeed depends on

                          >God, but not so that our free-will is hindered  . . .  For we must

                          >first choose the good; and then He leads us to His own.  He does not

                          >anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged.  But when we

                          >have chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us.”[32]  Linking the concepts of sin and

                          >virtue to free will in a manner similar to Nyssa, Jeremias sets the stage for

                          >his discussion of faith and works by averring:

                          >

                          >I declare that everyone is

                          >capable of virtue.  For whatever a person is not able to do, he is not

                          >able to do even if forced.  But if a person is able when forced to do what

                          >he is not doing, then it is by his own choice that he is not doing it.[33]

                          >



                          >

                          >Certainly, Eastern Christianity recognizes that humanity

                          >has lost an element of its freedom in its subjection to the “passions”

                          >(understood as spiritual as well as physical needs and desires).  This is

                          >particularly emphasized in ascetic writings.  However, despite recognition

                          >of the difficulty in consistently exercising one’s freedom properly, Eastern

                          >Christian thought is virtually unanimous from the earliest centuries in

                          >affirming humanity’s fundamental freedom to do good or ill, to turn toward God

                          >or away from him.  By contrast, the Christian West, both Roman Catholic

                          >and Protestant, has been strongly influenced by Augustine’s peculiarly negative

                          >concept of free will.  Luther is a prime example:  “After the fall of

                          >Adam, free-will is a mere expression; whenever it acts in character, it commits

                          >mortal sin.”[34]  The classical Western view is

                          >summed up in the very title of section 4.1 of the Joint Declaration – “Human

                          >Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification”.  According to the

                          >Lutheran signers, “human beings are incapable of cooperating in their

                          >salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action

                          >[emphasis added].”[35]  In the previous paragraph of the

                          >Joint Declaration, the Roman Catholic position presents a more positive

                          >assessment of the human response to God, yet it too undercuts the human will by

                          >interpreting this human response as essentially divine, not human:  “When

                          >Catholics say that persons ‘cooperate’ in preparing for an accepting

                          >justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal

                          >consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate

                          >human abilities [emphasis added].”[36]   Catholics and Lutherans

                          >together assert in the Joint Declaration that humans “are incapable of turning

                          >by themselves to God to seek deliverance”.[37]  So, although certain bilateral

                          >dialogues with the Orthodox have tried to present a stronger sense of free

                          >human responsiveness, both positive and negative,[38] the understanding of faith for Lutherans

                          >especially is not based on human freedom:

                          >

                          >… [F]aith is the awareness worked by the Spirit that

                          >salvation is not from us, but for us.  Faith is not the response of a

                          >person’s free will to choose the grace of God.  The [Lutheran] Confessions

                          >slam the door on free will to keep out every possible synergistic

                          >intrusion.  They reject the statement used by some of the ancient Fathers

                          >that God draws, but draws the person who is willing.  Instead, God makes

                          >unwilling persons willing to do the will of Christ.[39]

                          >

                          > Thus, neither the Lutheran nor the Roman Catholic

                          >understanding of justification includes a truly human component.  The

                          >negative anthropology of both negates human freedom because it excludes an

                          >inherent desire for and ability to turn toward God in humanity’s fallen

                          >condition.  Consequently, the Christian West, following Augustine,

                          >developed the idea of prevenient grace:  a human being can only turn toward

                          >God after God has first imparted to him or her a special grace which allows the

                          >person to recognize and respond to God.[40]  If one also hypothesizes that God

                          >may not choose to bestow this prevenient grace on all human beings, then one

                          >comes naturally to the theory of election or predestination present in

                          >Augustine’s later anti-Pelagian works and resurrected full force in the

                          >Reformed Protestantism of Calvin as well

                          >as in such branches of Lutheranism as the Missouri Synod.[41]  Happily, the Joint Declaration

                          >affirms that “[a]ll people are called by God to salvation in Christ.”[42]

                          >

                          >Eastern Christianity

                          >counters this negative view of postlapsarian human nature with the positive

                          >theological anthropology enshrined in the christology of the Sixth Ecumenical

                          >Council, held in Constantinople in

                          >680-681.  The council was convoked to deal with an attempt to underscore

                          >the unity of the person of Jesus Christ by declaring that he had only one will,

                          >his divine will; hence, the heresy was named monotheletism.  In rejecting

                          >monotheletism, the council articulated a christology based on the theological

                          >anthropology of the brilliant seventh-century Greek theologian Maximos the

                          >Confessor.  Maximos distinguished between 1) the “natural” human will,

                          >which is a characteristic of human nature; it is oriented toward God and

                          >continues to exist and operate even after the Fall, and 2) the “gnomic” will, a

                          >personal property, or personal mode of expressing the natural will which is

                          >peculiar to fallen human beings and is characterized by opinion and

                          >deliberation because the fallen human person lacks true knowledge of where the

                          >Good lies.[43]

                          >

                          >Maximos asserted that self-determination (literally, self-determined

                          >movement – aujtexouvsio~ kivnhsi~) is a constitutive element of human nature,

                          >but is not aimless; our natural free will is oriented toward God precisely

                          >because humanity is created by God, in His image.  A special act of God’s grace (i.e., prevenient grace) is not required

                          >for us to orient ourselves toward Him; orientation toward God is at the heart

                          >of our human nature.  Thus, Maximos’ theological anthropology, based on

                          >the conviction that the imago Dei is retained in postlapsarian human nature, assumes

                          >that human beings retain a natural orientation toward God.[44]  In part, this is why human freedom plays such a central role in Eastern

                          >Christian theology “without the problematic character that it ha[s] in Western

                          >writers”.[45]  Interestingly, Western Christianity claims to affirm the christology of

                          >the Sixth Ecumenical Council.  However, it is impossible to accept

                          >Maximos’ christology without accepting equally the anthropology on which it is

                          >based, namely his concept of the natural human will which Christ assumes as

                          >part of his fallen human nature.

                          >

                          >With respect, then, to the soteriological question of “What

                          >is wrong with humanity in its fallen state?”, the problem of the human

                          >condition is not, as it is conceived in Western Christianity, that human beings

                          >have no natural orientation toward God.  The problem of our fallen condition

                          >is that, because we have broken communion with God, our spiritual vision has

                          >become “clouded” so that we fail to recognize clearly in what direction our

                          >natural orientation lies and therefore fail to move consistently in that

                          >direction, i.e., to restore communion with God.

                          >

                          >Thus, Orthodoxy understands human sin primarily not as

                          >deliberate and willful opposition to God, but rather as an inability to know

                          >ourselves and God clearly.  It is as though God were calling out to us and

                          >coming after us in a storm, but we thought we heard his voice in another

                          >direction and kept moving away from him, either directly or obliquely.  It

                          >is illuminating that the Greek word for sin, hamartia, means “to miss the

                          >mark”.  Despite our orientation toward God, we “miss the mark” because,

                          >not only does the clouded spiritual vision of our fallen condition make it

                          >difficult for us to see God clearly, but we fail to understand even ourselves

                          >truly; thus, we constantly do things which make us feel only incompletely and

                          >unsatisfactorily good or happy because we don’t recognize that God is himself

                          >the fulfillment of our innate desire and natural movement.  Explaining

                          >Maximos’ theology, Andrew Louth offers, “… with fallen creatures, their own

                          >nature has become opaque to them, they no longer know what they want, and

                          >experience coercion in trying to love what cannot give fulfilment.”[46]  Ultimately, it is not our natural

                          >human will that is deficient, but rather how we perceive it and the way, or

                          >mode, by which we express it; as Louth sourly opines, “it is a frustrating and confusing

                          >business.”[47]

                          >

                          >  “To sum up the previous sections:  Orthodoxy

                          >sees human nature as fallen and mortal, but as retaining its fundamental

                          >orientation toward God and not as inheriting some type of juridical guilt; we

                          >are redeemed from this fallen human nature by the incarnation of the Son of

                          >God, who assumes and shares this fallen, mortal nature in every aspect except

                          >sin, even unto death, restoring it to its former potentiality (i.e.,

                          >“justifying” us) through his resurrection, in which we share.  But restoration

                          >to the potentiality of Adam and Eve is just a starting point in Orthodox

                          >theology; we are called to communion with God, to grow and mature into the

                          >likeness of God, to become “deified” by participation in God’s own life through

                          >the Holy Spirit.”

                          >

                          >ALSO, Chapter 2 of Ben Witherington’s “Problems with

                          >Evangelical Theology” makes a very strong case that Augustine and Luther were

                          >wrong about the bondage of the will when it comes to Christians (cf,1 Cor

                          >10:13), but right about life in Adam. Following St John Chrysostom, he shows

                          >that Romans 7 is not about Christians, as Luther thought, and much less about

                          >Paul as a Christian.

                          >

                          >Here is one of his lines, echoing Karras. “The theology of simul

                          >Justus et peccator [justified and sinner at the same time] promulgated by

                          >Luther amounts to a very inadequate view of Paul’s understanding of grace in the

                          >believer’s life, and the power by that grace the believer has to resist

                          >temptation…”

                          >

                          >There’s much more, but my hands are tired. J

                          >



                          >



                          >



                          >



                          >



                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >--- On Sat, 6/26/10, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...> wrote:

                          >

                          >From: Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>

                          >Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

                          >To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com

                          >Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 12:34 PM

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >



                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          > Timothy,

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >Regarding bondage of the will: I do not personally know of an

                          >

                          >Orthodox work that treats Luther's Bondage of the Will.

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >What I can recommend is a process that helped me. The Lutheran

                          >

                          >doctrine, in its systematized form, relies quite a bit on Romans

                          >

                          >7:7-25 to make its case. The assumption of FC SD III is that Romans

                          >

                          >7:7ff (esp. v.14-25) describes the condition of a baptized Christian -

                          >

                          >view that comes from some of St. Augustine's later writings. However,

                          >

                          >most of the Fathers read this as St. Paul describing the condition of

                          >

                          >being under the Law, i.e. the unregenerate man's condition before

                          >

                          >Grace. In this context, after discussing Baptism in Romans 6, Romans

                          >

                          >7 returns to the problem of the unregenerate man under the law and

                          >

                          >then builds up to "who will save me from this body of death? Thanks be

                          >

                          >to Jesus Christ!," followed by a one-sentence summary of the problem

                          >

                          >again to conclude the explanation. Romans 8 then shows what it means

                          >

                          >to be a Christian and the nature of the struggle a Christian has, in

                          >

                          >contrast to the struggle and domination experienced apart from Grace

                          >

                          >in Romans 7.

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >Coincidentally, I posted something to this effect on my blog the other

                          >

                          >day. http://paredwka.blogspot.com/2010/06/fathers-and-romans-714-25.html

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >It may be helpful to go back and review what you believe as a

                          >

                          >Lutheran, paying attention to where in Scripture the weight of the

                          >

                          >argument is placed, and compare it to the Orthodox reading of those

                          >

                          >passages. When I was doing what you are doing right now I often found

                          >

                          >it hard to read the Scriptures without importing the interpretation I

                          >

                          >was so comfortable with as a Lutheran. However, by suspending my

                          >

                          >conclusions until after I had given both the Lutheran reading and the

                          >

                          >Orthodox reading a chance, I became convinced from the Scriptures that

                          >

                          >Orthodoxy is just that - Orthodox.

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >I hope this helps.

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >In Christ,

                          >

                          >Benjamin Harju

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >On 6/26/10, Jeremy Finck <AdonaiUplifts@...> wrote:

                          >

                          >> All podcasts on AFR regarding Sola Scriptura (Christopher's podcast is

                          >

                          >> included in this list):

                          >

                          >> http://ancientfaith.com/collections/sola_scriptura

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >> Direct Link to Christopher's podcast in the Lutheran Colloquium:

                          >

                          >> http://ancientfaith.com/specials/episodes/the_authority_of_scripture

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM, <xcjorr@...> wrote:

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> It is one of the Orthodox-Lutheran Colloquium podcasts.

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> Christopher

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> -----Original Message-----

                          >

                          >>> From: Timothy Jackon

                          >

                          >>> <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> Sender:

                          >

                          >>> LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                          >

                          >>> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:34:43

                          >

                          >>> To:

                          >

                          >>> <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> Reply-To:

                          >

                          >>> LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                          >

                          >>> Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> I can't seem to locate the podcast. Did you have your own podcast or did

                          >

                          >>> you appear under one on the show of one of the other podcasters?

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:16 PM, <xcjorr@... <xcjorr%40gmail.com>>

                          >

                          >>> wrote:

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox

                          >

                          >>> Church

                          >

                          >>> > for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a

                          >

                          >>> podcast

                          >

                          >>> > on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or links

                          >

                          >>> of

                          >

                          >>> > this list, too.

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> > Christopher Orr

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> > -----Original Message-----

                          >

                          >>> > From: "timothy_jackson87"

                          >

                          >>> > <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>

                          >

                          >>> <timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> > Sender:

                          >

                          >>> > LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                          >

                          >>> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                          >

                          >>> > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07

                          >

                          >>> > To:

                          >

                          >>> > <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                          >

                          >>> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> > Reply-To:

                          >

                          >>> > LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                          >

                          >>> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                          >

                          >>> > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> > Gentlemen,

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox

                          >

                          >>> > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura

                          >

                          >>> > and

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance

                          >

                          >>> > as

                          >

                          >>> to

                          >

                          >>> > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it

                          >

                          >>> > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find

                          >

                          >>> > anything.

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> > *Sola Scriptura*

                          >

                          >>> > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking

                          >

                          >>> about

                          >

                          >>> > Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran understanding

                          >

                          >>> in

                          >

                          >>> > with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a misrepresentation and

                          >

                          >>> I've

                          >

                          >>> > been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot an inaccurate

                          >

                          >>> > representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material I have

                          >

                          >>> read

                          >

                          >>> > and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues Etc)

                          >

                          >>> > deals

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> > with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the Roman

                          >

                          >>> Catholic

                          >

                          >>> > complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are differences,

                          >

                          >>> what

                          >

                          >>> > might they be?

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> > *Bondage of the Will*

                          >

                          >>> > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately

                          >

                          >>> > to

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern

                          >

                          >>> Orthodox.

                          >

                          >>> > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that

                          >

                          >>> specifically

                          >

                          >>> > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> > Thank you all for your time!

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> > Timothy

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

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

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>> >

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

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

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> ------------------------------------

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>> Yahoo! Groups Links

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>>

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >>

                          >

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

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >> ------------------------------------

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >> Yahoo! Groups Links

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >>

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

                          >

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

                          >























                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • randall hay
                          I know it s hard for some people to listen to podcasts (I never did till I took a job with lots of driving, and joined a gym where they blare loud nasty music
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jun 27, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I know it's hard for some people to listen to podcasts (I never did till I took a job with lots of driving, and joined a gym where they blare loud nasty music at you all the time)...but for those who have time, this podcast covers a lot of what Ferrell does, in a much simpler and more understandable form.

                            This is part of something like a 6-part series on essence/energies...I would recommend them all quite highly (and in fact all the OUR LIFE IN CHRIST podcasts). I really think the series on essence/energies is all you'll need to know to understand what the NT is talking about in regard to "energeia."

                            R.



                            http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/essence_and_energy_relics_part_5




                            ________________________________
                            From: matt reader <mattyreader@...>
                            To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Sat, June 26, 2010 10:13:41 PM
                            Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will


                            Yes, I saw that. I remember getting it from St. Tikhon's for 12 bucks in '97! Should have bought 10. I know that you could once get it through some inter library loan systems. Perhpas you still can. It is a very difficult text in that it enters into some of the most complex theological writing I have read, but it is very much worth the effort and, as Kallistos Ware says of his student (Ferrell), he has the strange ability to make complex issues clear. Maybe for Ware!

                            Also, if you haven't seen it, Ferrel has some good resources online. http://www.anthonyflood.com/farrell.htm

                            Matt

                            --- On Sat, 6/26/10, David Tinker <davidtinker@...> wrote:

                            From: David Tinker <davidtinker@...>
                            Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                            To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 4:32 PM



                            Amazon has it for $450 used.

                            matt reader <mattyreader@...> wrote:

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >A book that I cannot recommend enough, although is it hard

                            >to find, is "Free Choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor" by Joseph

                            >Farrell. His final chapter is an overview of how St. Augustine got it wrong when it came to

                            >the nature of the will (and the relationship between nature and will!) and how

                            >this plays out in his theological children, Calvin and Luther.

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >Not sure if anyone had the chance to read the paper on Justification in Luther

                            >and EO by Valerie Karras, but much of it has to do with our conversation about

                            >the bondage of the will. What I always find so engaging about theology and

                            >historical study is that everything hangs together. Every teaching in Orthodoxy

                            >is neither too little or too much, but a part of an organic whole that is the

                            >Tradition, the life of the Holy Spirit in our midst as animating Christ's

                            >Body, the Church. The frustrating, or at least time-consuming, aspect of this

                            >is that no one theological teaching can be understood in isolation, so this

                            >leads to great rabbit trails. Anyhow, parts or her paper that I found relevant

                            >to the nature of will are:

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >ON HUMAN NATURE AND ORIGINAL GUILT VS ORIGINAL SIN:

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >" The Christian East

                            >espouses a different theological anthropology from most of Western Christianity

                            >– both Catholic and Protestant – especially with respect to two elements of

                            >fallen human nature: original guilt and free will. The differences in

                            >these two anthropological concepts, in turn, contribute to differing

                            >soteriological understandings of, respectively, how Jesus Christ saves us (that

                            >is, what salvation means) and how we appropriate the salvation offered in

                            >Christ. Therefore, we must examine these key concepts in

                            >Orthodox anthropology and soteriology, and their nexus in Christology,

                            >vis-à-vis their counterparts in traditional Western Christian theology.

                            >This will necessarily involve comparing different traditions’ definitions and

                            >understandings of some key theological terms: sin, faith,

                            >salvation. Two contrasts recur: 1) the juridical approach of much

                            >of the West regarding sin and redemption, or restoration, versus the more

                            >existential and ontological approach of the East; and 2) the Western tendency

                            >to define, differentiate, and compartmentalize, as opposed to the Eastern

                            >tendency to theologize apophatically and, when cataphatically, primarily in a

                            >holistic and organic fashion.”

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >“This concept of original guilt, already visible in the

                            >theology of the third-century North African Latin Fathers Cyprian of Carthage

                            >and Tertullian, was developed in the early fifth century primarily by

                            >Augustine, who reacted to Pelagius’ claim that infants need not be baptized

                            >since they have committed no personal sins. Augustine countered Pelagius by

                            >arguing from common Church practice and mixing it with traducianism via Rom.

                            >5:12: “… sin came into the world through one man and death spread through

                            >sin, and so death spread to all men because [literally, “in that” or “in

                            >which”] all men sinned.”[14] To briefly summarize Augustine’s

                            >argument, which originated in Cyprian: the Church universally baptized

                            >infants; therefore, since baptism confers remission of sins, and since infants

                            >have committed no personal sins, the Church baptizes infants obviously in order

                            >to remit the original sin which they receive hereditarily from Adam because all

                            >of humanity was seminally present in Adam.

                            >

                            >While the Christian East consistently recognizes the effects

                            >of the “ancestral sin” in terms of human mortality, corruption (phthora), and a

                            >difficulty in maintaining an unwavering communion with God (the Eastern Fathers

                            >don’t really speak in terms of “concupiscence”), it has never accepted Augustine’s

                            >argument that all humanity inherits the guilt of Adam… John Chrysostom,

                            >archbishop of Constantinople and a

                            >contemporary of Augustine, in his Homilies on Romans, interprets Rom. 5:12

                            >simply to explain human mortality: “having once fallen, even they that had not

                            >eaten of the tree did from [Adam], all of them, become mortal.”[17] In other words, the Greek Fathers

                            >saw the relationship between Adam and his descendents as organic and

                            >existential in nature without the notion of an inherited “guilt”. We

                            >inherit the same mortal and corrupt nature which Adam possessed because of the

                            >Fall, but we do not inherit the guilt of that original sin which changed our

                            >human nature.[18]”

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >“As for Augustine, the contrast with Chrysostom is

                            >sharp: they are writing only a few years apart, and yet their

                            >understandings of the purpose of infant baptism are light-years apart.

                            >This is why, from the Orthodox point of view, Augustine’s and Pelagius’

                            >arguments are simply flip sides of the same coin. Both operate under the

                            >assumption that the primary purpose of baptism – in fact, virtually the sole

                            >purpose as far as their debate is concerned – is the remission of sins.

                            >The Orthodox approach sees the death of the old man (the work of the Cross)

                            >only through the lens of the rebirth of the new man (the life of the

                            >Resurrection), an organic view..”

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >ON FREE WILL AND THE IMAGE OF GOD”

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >The question of original sin, or what humanity lost in the

                            >Fall, is related to the question of what God gave humanity in the act of

                            >creation and what humanity retains even in its fallen state. For the

                            >Greek Fathers, this spiritual capacity of human nature is encapsulated in the

                            >language of Gen. 1:26-7: God created humanity according to God’s own

                            >“image”. Furthermore, both the Eastern Church and the medieval Latin Church

                            >distinguished between the “image of God” (Latin imago Dei) and the “likeness”

                            >or similitude of God, based on the differences between Gen. 1:26 and

                            >1:27. The image designated the potential or capabilities inherent in all

                            >human beings, i.e., qualities such as reason; the likeness meant true likeness

                            >(at the level of human existence, of course) to God, the realization of human

                            >potential as the perpetual fulfillment of a dynamic process between the human

                            >person and God. The Greek Fathers in particular developed a generous

                            >anthropology around the concept of the imago Dei, even for postlapsarian human

                            >nature; as Gregory of Nyssa states in his Sixth Homily on the Beatitudes, the

                            >divine imprint may be obscured but it is still intact.[23] The anthropology of the Roman

                            >Church, influenced by Augustine, was less generous than that of the East, but

                            >still accented human capacity.

                            >

                            >By contrast, classical Lutheran thought presented a sharp

                            >break with the general tenor of biblical interpretation of Gen. 1:26-7 in both

                            >the Eastern and Western forms of early and medieval Christianity. As

                            >Robert Wilken has shown,[24] Luther, Melanchthon and others rejected

                            >the distinction drawn by most early and medieval theologians, Latin and Greek

                            >alike, between image and likeness.[25] As we shall see later, this

                            >rejection has consequences for (or, perhaps is itself a consequence of) the

                            >reformers’ soteriology. Moreover, Lutherans from Martin Luther himself to

                            >later writers such as the eighteenth-century theologian John Gerhard have

                            >interpreted the imago Dei largely in a negative sense: it encapsulates

                            >what humanity lost in the Fall.[26] Wilken argues that Luther “did not

                            >… abandon the image entirely and was willing to say that it remained after the

                            >fall”,[27] and that “the Lutheran tradition stands

                            >within the broad stream of patristic and medieval tradition that saw freedom of

                            >the will, reason, human responsibility, … as marks of the divine image.

                            >This image was not lost, but only tarnished in the fall.”[28] Nevertheless, he admits that

                            >Luther describes the “marks of the image” (memory, will and mind) as “most

                            >depraved and most seriously weakened, yes, to put it more clearly, they are

                            >utterly leprous and unclean”,[29] and quotes Gerhard as asserting that “to

                            >deny that the image of God has been lost is to deny original sin itself”.[30]

                            >

                            >The question of the imago Dei is significant because it is

                            >here that East and West disagree on a second important element of theological

                            >anthropology: free will. While Orthodoxy maintains that free will

                            >is a constitutive element of the imago Dei, both Roman Catholicism and

                            >Lutheranism – sharing an Augustinian heritage – assert that one of the aspects

                            >of original sin is the loss of free will with respect to humanity’s orientation

                            >toward God. Human freedom was one of the issues at the heart of the

                            >fifth-century Western Christian debate over faith and works, i.e., over the

                            >relative divine and human contributions to salvation. The Western

                            >Christian historical context has caused many theologians, particularly

                            >evangelical Protestant theologians, to experience great difficulty thinking

                            >“outside the box” of the Western either/or approach to this topic. For

                            >instance, at a 1999 conference sponsored by the Society for the Study of

                            >Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy, J. I. Packer distributed a copy of some

                            >course materials. I noted that under the topic of faith and works he listed

                            >the Orthodox as “semi-Pelagian”. He was “semi-right”. As Bishop

                            >Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia proclaimed at the beginning of his address for the

                            >1998 Bellarmine Lecture at Saint

                            > Louis University,

                            >“I suppose I should tell you straightaway that I am an Arminian.” Ware’s

                            >comment was amusing but also truthful because, in Eastern Christian

                            >soteriology, human freedom plays an important role, but not as Pelagian foil to

                            >Augustinian determinism.

                            >

                            >At the heart of the Orthodox understanding of what

                            >constitutes the imago Dei in the human person, even after the Fall, lies the

                            >concept of free will. This is perhaps best seen in the theology of

                            >Gregory of Nyssa. In his seminal work, On the Making of the Human Person,

                            >Nyssa lists a variety of traits which characterize the divine image in

                            >humanity, but asserts that

                            >

                            >pre-eminent among all is the fact that we are free from

                            >necessity, and not in bondage to any natural power, but have decision in our

                            >own power as we please; for virtue is a voluntary thing, subject to no dominion:

                            >that which is the result of compulsion and force cannot be virtue.[31]

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >Over a thousand years later, Jeremias II, Patriarch of

                            >Constantinople, would take up this refrain in his response to the Lutheran

                            >theologians of Tübingen regarding the Augsburg Confession. First,

                            >Jeremias quotes at length from Chrysostom’s Twelfth Homily on the Epistle to

                            >the Hebrews, where the Antiochene Father asserts that “All indeed depends on

                            >God, but not so that our free-will is hindered . . . For we must

                            >first choose the good; and then He leads us to His own. He does not

                            >anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged. But when we

                            >have chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us.”[32] Linking the concepts of sin and

                            >virtue to free will in a manner similar to Nyssa, Jeremias sets the stage for

                            >his discussion of faith and works by averring:

                            >

                            >I declare that everyone is

                            >capable of virtue. For whatever a person is not able to do, he is not

                            >able to do even if forced. But if a person is able when forced to do what

                            >he is not doing, then it is by his own choice that he is not doing it.[33]

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >Certainly, Eastern Christianity recognizes that humanity

                            >has lost an element of its freedom in its subjection to the “passions”

                            >(understood as spiritual as well as physical needs and desires). This is

                            >particularly emphasized in ascetic writings. However, despite recognition

                            >of the difficulty in consistently exercising one’s freedom properly, Eastern

                            >Christian thought is virtually unanimous from the earliest centuries in

                            >affirming humanity’s fundamental freedom to do good or ill, to turn toward God

                            >or away from him. By contrast, the Christian West, both Roman Catholic

                            >and Protestant, has been strongly influenced by Augustine’s peculiarly negative

                            >concept of free will. Luther is a prime example: “After the fall of

                            >Adam, free-will is a mere expression; whenever it acts in character, it commits

                            >mortal sin.”[34] The classical Western view is

                            >summed up in the very title of section 4.1 of the Joint Declaration – “Human

                            >Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification”. According to the

                            >Lutheran signers, “human beings are incapable of cooperating in their

                            >salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action

                            >[emphasis added].”[35] In the previous paragraph of the

                            >Joint Declaration, the Roman Catholic position presents a more positive

                            >assessment of the human response to God, yet it too undercuts the human will by

                            >interpreting this human response as essentially divine, not human: “When

                            >Catholics say that persons ‘cooperate’ in preparing for an accepting

                            >justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal

                            >consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate

                            >human abilities [emphasis added].”[36] Catholics and Lutherans

                            >together assert in the Joint Declaration that humans “are incapable of turning

                            >by themselves to God to seek deliverance”.[37] So, although certain bilateral

                            >dialogues with the Orthodox have tried to present a stronger sense of free

                            >human responsiveness, both positive and negative,[38] the understanding of faith for Lutherans

                            >especially is not based on human freedom:

                            >

                            >… [F]aith is the awareness worked by the Spirit that

                            >salvation is not from us, but for us. Faith is not the response of a

                            >person’s free will to choose the grace of God. The [Lutheran] Confessions

                            >slam the door on free will to keep out every possible synergistic

                            >intrusion. They reject the statement used by some of the ancient Fathers

                            >that God draws, but draws the person who is willing. Instead, God makes

                            >unwilling persons willing to do the will of Christ.[39]

                            >

                            > Thus, neither the Lutheran nor the Roman Catholic

                            >understanding of justification includes a truly human component. The

                            >negative anthropology of both negates human freedom because it excludes an

                            >inherent desire for and ability to turn toward God in humanity’s fallen

                            >condition. Consequently, the Christian West, following Augustine,

                            >developed the idea of prevenient grace: a human being can only turn toward

                            >God after God has first imparted to him or her a special grace which allows the

                            >person to recognize and respond to God.[40] If one also hypothesizes that God

                            >may not choose to bestow this prevenient grace on all human beings, then one

                            >comes naturally to the theory of election or predestination present in

                            >Augustine’s later anti-Pelagian works and resurrected full force in the

                            >Reformed Protestantism of Calvin as well

                            >as in such branches of Lutheranism as the Missouri Synod.[41] Happily, the Joint Declaration

                            >affirms that “[a]ll people are called by God to salvation in Christ.”[42]

                            >

                            >Eastern Christianity

                            >counters this negative view of postlapsarian human nature with the positive

                            >theological anthropology enshrined in the christology of the Sixth Ecumenical

                            >Council, held in Constantinople in

                            >680-681. The council was convoked to deal with an attempt to underscore

                            >the unity of the person of Jesus Christ by declaring that he had only one will,

                            >his divine will; hence, the heresy was named monotheletism. In rejecting

                            >monotheletism, the council articulated a christology based on the theological

                            >anthropology of the brilliant seventh-century Greek theologian Maximos the

                            >Confessor. Maximos distinguished between 1) the “natural” human will,

                            >which is a characteristic of human nature; it is oriented toward God and

                            >continues to exist and operate even after the Fall, and 2) the “gnomic” will, a

                            >personal property, or personal mode of expressing the natural will which is

                            >peculiar to fallen human beings and is characterized by opinion and

                            >deliberation because the fallen human person lacks true knowledge of where the

                            >Good lies.[43]

                            >

                            >Maximos asserted that self-determination (literally, self-determined

                            >movement – aujtexouvsio~ kivnhsi~) is a constitutive element of human nature,

                            >but is not aimless; our natural free will is oriented toward God precisely

                            >because humanity is created by God, in His image. A special act of God’s grace (i.e., prevenient grace) is not required

                            >for us to orient ourselves toward Him; orientation toward God is at the heart

                            >of our human nature. Thus, Maximos’ theological anthropology, based on

                            >the conviction that the imago Dei is retained in postlapsarian human nature, assumes

                            >that human beings retain a natural orientation toward God.[44] In part, this is why human freedom plays such a central role in Eastern

                            >Christian theology “without the problematic character that it ha[s] in Western

                            >writers”.[45] Interestingly, Western Christianity claims to affirm the christology of

                            >the Sixth Ecumenical Council. However, it is impossible to accept

                            >Maximos’ christology without accepting equally the anthropology on which it is

                            >based, namely his concept of the natural human will which Christ assumes as

                            >part of his fallen human nature.

                            >

                            >With respect, then, to the soteriological question of “What

                            >is wrong with humanity in its fallen state?”, the problem of the human

                            >condition is not, as it is conceived in Western Christianity, that human beings

                            >have no natural orientation toward God. The problem of our fallen condition

                            >is that, because we have broken communion with God, our spiritual vision has

                            >become “clouded” so that we fail to recognize clearly in what direction our

                            >natural orientation lies and therefore fail to move consistently in that

                            >direction, i.e., to restore communion with God.

                            >

                            >Thus, Orthodoxy understands human sin primarily not as

                            >deliberate and willful opposition to God, but rather as an inability to know

                            >ourselves and God clearly. It is as though God were calling out to us and

                            >coming after us in a storm, but we thought we heard his voice in another

                            >direction and kept moving away from him, either directly or obliquely. It

                            >is illuminating that the Greek word for sin, hamartia, means “to miss the

                            >mark”. Despite our orientation toward God, we “miss the mark” because,

                            >not only does the clouded spiritual vision of our fallen condition make it

                            >difficult for us to see God clearly, but we fail to understand even ourselves

                            >truly; thus, we constantly do things which make us feel only incompletely and

                            >unsatisfactorily good or happy because we don’t recognize that God is himself

                            >the fulfillment of our innate desire and natural movement. Explaining

                            >Maximos’ theology, Andrew Louth offers, “… with fallen creatures, their own

                            >nature has become opaque to them, they no longer know what they want, and

                            >experience coercion in trying to love what cannot give fulfilment.”[46] Ultimately, it is not our natural

                            >human will that is deficient, but rather how we perceive it and the way, or

                            >mode, by which we express it; as Louth sourly opines, “it is a frustrating and confusing

                            >business.”[47]

                            >

                            > “To sum up the previous sections: Orthodoxy

                            >sees human nature as fallen and mortal, but as retaining its fundamental

                            >orientation toward God and not as inheriting some type of juridical guilt; we

                            >are redeemed from this fallen human nature by the incarnation of the Son of

                            >God, who assumes and shares this fallen, mortal nature in every aspect except

                            >sin, even unto death, restoring it to its former potentiality (i.e.,

                            >“justifying” us) through his resurrection, in which we share. But restoration

                            >to the potentiality of Adam and Eve is just a starting point in Orthodox

                            >theology; we are called to communion with God, to grow and mature into the

                            >likeness of God, to become “deified” by participation in God’s own life through

                            >the Holy Spirit.”

                            >

                            >ALSO, Chapter 2 of Ben Witherington’s “Problems with

                            >Evangelical Theology” makes a very strong case that Augustine and Luther were

                            >wrong about the bondage of the will when it comes to Christians (cf,1 Cor

                            >10:13), but right about life in Adam. Following St John Chrysostom, he shows

                            >that Romans 7 is not about Christians, as Luther thought, and much less about

                            >Paul as a Christian.

                            >

                            >Here is one of his lines, echoing Karras. “The theology of simul

                            >Justus et peccator [justified and sinner at the same time] promulgated by

                            >Luther amounts to a very inadequate view of Paul’s understanding of grace in the

                            >believer’s life, and the power by that grace the believer has to resist

                            >temptation…”

                            >

                            >There’s much more, but my hands are tired. J

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >--- On Sat, 6/26/10, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...> wrote:

                            >

                            >From: Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>

                            >Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

                            >To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com

                            >Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 12:34 PM

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            > Timothy,

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >Regarding bondage of the will: I do not personally know of an

                            >

                            >Orthodox work that treats Luther's Bondage of the Will.

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >What I can recommend is a process that helped me. The Lutheran

                            >

                            >doctrine, in its systematized form, relies quite a bit on Romans

                            >

                            >7:7-25 to make its case. The assumption of FC SD III is that Romans

                            >

                            >7:7ff (esp. v.14-25) describes the condition of a baptized Christian -

                            >

                            >view that comes from some of St. Augustine's later writings. However,

                            >

                            >most of the Fathers read this as St. Paul describing the condition of

                            >

                            >being under the Law, i.e. the unregenerate man's condition before

                            >

                            >Grace. In this context, after discussing Baptism in Romans 6, Romans

                            >

                            >7 returns to the problem of the unregenerate man under the law and

                            >

                            >then builds up to "who will save me from this body of death? Thanks be

                            >

                            >to Jesus Christ!," followed by a one-sentence summary of the problem

                            >

                            >again to conclude the explanation. Romans 8 then shows what it means

                            >

                            >to be a Christian and the nature of the struggle a Christian has, in

                            >

                            >contrast to the struggle and domination experienced apart from Grace

                            >

                            >in Romans 7.

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >Coincidentally, I posted something to this effect on my blog the other

                            >

                            >day. http://paredwka.blogspot.com/2010/06/fathers-and-romans-714-25.html

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >It may be helpful to go back and review what you believe as a

                            >

                            >Lutheran, paying attention to where in Scripture the weight of the

                            >

                            >argument is placed, and compare it to the Orthodox reading of those

                            >

                            >passages. When I was doing what you are doing right now I often found

                            >

                            >it hard to read the Scriptures without importing the interpretation I

                            >

                            >was so comfortable with as a Lutheran. However, by suspending my

                            >

                            >conclusions until after I had given both the Lutheran reading and the

                            >

                            >Orthodox reading a chance, I became convinced from the Scriptures that

                            >

                            >Orthodoxy is just that - Orthodox.

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >I hope this helps.

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >In Christ,

                            >

                            >Benjamin Harju

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >On 6/26/10, Jeremy Finck <AdonaiUplifts@...> wrote:

                            >

                            >> All podcasts on AFR regarding Sola Scriptura (Christopher's podcast is

                            >

                            >> included in this list):

                            >

                            >> http://ancientfaith.com/collections/sola_scriptura

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >> Direct Link to Christopher's podcast in the Lutheran Colloquium:

                            >

                            >> http://ancientfaith.com/specials/episodes/the_authority_of_scripture

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM, <xcjorr@...> wrote:

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> It is one of the Orthodox-Lutheran Colloquium podcasts.

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> Christopher

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> -----Original Message-----

                            >

                            >>> From: Timothy Jackon

                            >

                            >>> <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> Sender:

                            >

                            >>> LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                            >

                            >>> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:34:43

                            >

                            >>> To:

                            >

                            >>> <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> Reply-To:

                            >

                            >>> LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                            >

                            >>> Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> I can't seem to locate the podcast. Did you have your own podcast or did

                            >

                            >>> you appear under one on the show of one of the other podcasters?

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:16 PM, <xcjorr@... <xcjorr%40gmail.com>>

                            >

                            >>> wrote:

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox

                            >

                            >>> Church

                            >

                            >>> > for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a

                            >

                            >>> podcast

                            >

                            >>> > on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or links

                            >

                            >>> of

                            >

                            >>> > this list, too.

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> > Christopher Orr

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> > -----Original Message-----

                            >

                            >>> > From: "timothy_jackson87"

                            >

                            >>> > <timothy.jackson87@...<timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>

                            >

                            >>> <timothy.jackson87%40gmail.com>>

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> > Sender:

                            >

                            >>> > LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                            >

                            >>> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                            >

                            >>> > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07

                            >

                            >>> > To:

                            >

                            >>> > <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                            >

                            >>> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>>

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> > Reply-To:

                            >

                            >>> > LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                            >

                            >>> <LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>

                            >

                            >>> > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> > Gentlemen,

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox

                            >

                            >>> > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura

                            >

                            >>> > and

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance

                            >

                            >>> > as

                            >

                            >>> to

                            >

                            >>> > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it

                            >

                            >>> > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find

                            >

                            >>> > anything.

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> > *Sola Scriptura*

                            >

                            >>> > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking

                            >

                            >>> about

                            >

                            >>> > Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran understanding

                            >

                            >>> in

                            >

                            >>> > with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a misrepresentation and

                            >

                            >>> I've

                            >

                            >>> > been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot an inaccurate

                            >

                            >>> > representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material I have

                            >

                            >>> read

                            >

                            >>> > and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues Etc)

                            >

                            >>> > deals

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> > with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the Roman

                            >

                            >>> Catholic

                            >

                            >>> > complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are differences,

                            >

                            >>> what

                            >

                            >>> > might they be?

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> > *Bondage of the Will*

                            >

                            >>> > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately

                            >

                            >>> > to

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern

                            >

                            >>> Orthodox.

                            >

                            >>> > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that

                            >

                            >>> specifically

                            >

                            >>> > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> > Thank you all for your time!

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> > Timothy

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

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

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>> >

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

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

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> ------------------------------------

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>> Yahoo! Groups Links

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>>

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >>

                            >

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

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >> ------------------------------------

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >> Yahoo! Groups Links

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >>

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            >

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

                            >

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




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • timothy_jackson87
                            Christopher, Thank you for sending me Solum corpus Christi document. I ve also listened to the podcast, which has been helpful for understanding the Orthodox
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jun 30, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Christopher,

                              Thank you for sending me Solum corpus Christi document. I've also listened to the podcast, which has been helpful for understanding the Orthodox position.

                              I just had some questions come to me concerning the question of authority in all this. Isn't the Roman Catholic Church (RC) founded on the same Apostolic authority as the other patriarchates of the Eastern Church? If yes, then how can their (RC) obvious and well documented errors be explained? The Reformation was trying to correct the abuses of tradition in the RC after all.

                              My thought is that the very existence of the Roman Church and its many abuses seems to me to be a major dent in the idea that the Church has authority over the Scriptures, b/c if the Roman Church comes from the same seeds as that of the Orthodox Churches how is the heterodoxy of the RC accounted for? Conceivably couldn't the Orthodox Churches fall into the same sort of gross error that could only be corrected by something like Sola Scriptura? Does that make sense?

                              I hope my questions and thoughts are coherent enough. Looking forward to any replies from any and all who care to weigh in.

                              Timothy

                              --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, xcjorr@... wrote:
                              >
                              > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox Church for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a podcast on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or links of this list, too.
                              >
                              > Christopher Orr
                              >
                              > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: "timothy_jackson87" <timothy.jackson87@...>
                              > Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
                              > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
                              > To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com>
                              > Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                              >
                              > Gentlemen,
                              >
                              > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura and the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance as to why I am still a Lutheran to this day.
                              >
                              > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find anything.
                              >
                              > *Sola Scriptura*
                              > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking about Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran understanding in with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a misrepresentation and I've been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot an inaccurate representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material I have read and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues Etc) deals with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the Roman Catholic complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are differences, what might they be?
                              >
                              > *Bondage of the Will*
                              > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately to either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern Orthodox. Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that specifically addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?
                              >
                              > Thank you all for your time!
                              >
                              > Timothy
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • Christopher Orr
                              The primary error of the Roman Church is papalism, which sees the Bishop of Rome as the infallible and necessary voice in determining every aspect of Church
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jun 30, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                The primary error of the Roman Church is papalism, which sees the Bishop of
                                Rome as the infallible and necessary voice in determining every aspect of
                                Church life, universally. This is not the Orthodox understanding of
                                ecclesiology.

                                The Orthodox believe no individual is infallible, not even a Patriarch or
                                Bishop. No one is preserved from error. Thus, the example of the so called
                                Council of Jerusalem is followed. The bishops gather in Council to
                                understand what seems good to them and the Holy Spirit. This is called
                                conciliarity. Those churches that broke away from the consensus of the
                                Universal Church did so often unilaterally and along cultural lines. Rome
                                broke away based on its own understanding of its own authority thus denying
                                any real or necessary input from the Universal Church - this allowed Rome to
                                continue innovating. There is often highly charged, less than PC language
                                in Orthodoxy against Papalism and its innovations. The Copts did the same.
                                I see much the same in the way that Lutheranism is a very northern European
                                teaching; Anglicanism was very much an English teaching - both having spread
                                beyond those bounds in more modern times due to immigration and/or
                                colonialism, as well as some missionary work. Orthodoxy from the beginning
                                cut across numerous cultural, political, linguistic and even intellectual
                                boundaries (Rome and the Latin West with the Orthodox for the first
                                millenium, as well).

                                All that being said, numbers alone (even in a diversity) are not proof of
                                the Church's view. All of the disciples fled the Lord in the Garden, but
                                that didn't make Him less God when all he had were his mother and St. John
                                (his young cousin). Same, too, with the times when (almost) all the world's
                                leading bishops stood against Orthodoxy, e.g., Athanasius (supported by Rome
                                and other bishops, but not the leading eastern bishops), Maximus Confessor
                                (who had Rome and/or Jerusalem [Sophronios] and others on his side, though
                                not the other leading bishops in the east.)

                                One error cannot be solved by another (sola Scriptura). Christianity isn't
                                balanced out by a pendulum swing to the opposite extreme. The Reformers did
                                the best they could with the only unquestionable source they had: the
                                Bible. They had no access to the churches of the East suffering under the
                                Turks or across the Ukrainian steppe under the Mongols; Tradition to them
                                was limited to an appeal to the authority of the Pope and florilegia
                                compiled by Western theologians already cut off from the conciliar fulness
                                of the Church by the pretenstions of Rome (and the Carolingians) and a
                                centuries long decline in contact with the ancient, apostolic Churches
                                (plural! the West had but one apostolic foundation: Rome) and the loss of
                                facility in Greek (easterners also lost fluency in Latin at a pretty early
                                stage).

                                Not sure if that helps.

                                Christopher


                                On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:48 PM, timothy_jackson87 <
                                timothy.jackson87@...> wrote:

                                >
                                >
                                > Christopher,
                                >
                                > Thank you for sending me Solum corpus Christi document. I've also listened
                                > to the podcast, which has been helpful for understanding the Orthodox
                                > position.
                                >
                                > I just had some questions come to me concerning the question of authority
                                > in all this. Isn't the Roman Catholic Church (RC) founded on the same
                                > Apostolic authority as the other patriarchates of the Eastern Church? If
                                > yes, then how can their (RC) obvious and well documented errors be
                                > explained? The Reformation was trying to correct the abuses of tradition in
                                > the RC after all.
                                >
                                > My thought is that the very existence of the Roman Church and its many
                                > abuses seems to me to be a major dent in the idea that the Church has
                                > authority over the Scriptures, b/c if the Roman Church comes from the same
                                > seeds as that of the Orthodox Churches how is the heterodoxy of the RC
                                > accounted for? Conceivably couldn't the Orthodox Churches fall into the same
                                > sort of gross error that could only be corrected by something like Sola
                                > Scriptura? Does that make sense?
                                >
                                > I hope my questions and thoughts are coherent enough. Looking forward to
                                > any replies from any and all who care to weigh in.
                                >
                                > Timothy
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,
                                > xcjorr@... wrote:
                                > >
                                > > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox
                                > Church for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a
                                > podcast on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or
                                > links of this list, too.
                                > >
                                > > Christopher Orr
                                > >
                                > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                                > >
                                > > -----Original Message-----
                                > > From: "timothy_jackson87" <timothy.jackson87@...>
                                > > Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                                > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
                                > > To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                                > >
                                > > Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                                > > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                                > >
                                > > Gentlemen,
                                > >
                                > > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox
                                > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura and
                                > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance as to
                                > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.
                                > >
                                > > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it
                                > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find
                                > anything.
                                > >
                                > > *Sola Scriptura*
                                > > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking
                                > about Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran
                                > understanding in with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a
                                > misrepresentation and I've been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot
                                > an inaccurate representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material
                                > I have read and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues
                                > Etc) deals with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the
                                > Roman Catholic complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are
                                > differences, what might they be?
                                > >
                                > > *Bondage of the Will*
                                > > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately to
                                > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern Orthodox.
                                > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that specifically
                                > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?
                                > >
                                > > Thank you all for your time!
                                > >
                                > > Timothy
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Jeremy Finck
                                The Scriptures are essential, central, and pivotal to the faith of the Orthodox Church. However, the Scriptures are not rightly understood apart from the
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jul 1, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  The Scriptures are essential, central, and pivotal to the faith of the
                                  Orthodox Church. However, the Scriptures are not rightly understood apart
                                  from the Church. Think of it this way: we know that the Scriptures claim
                                  that they they are not given to any individual's interpretation. Even a
                                  Lutheran knows that while an atheist may get an interpretation of some
                                  verses correct, the atheist's understanding and teaching is far from
                                  authoritative; similarly any cult, whether it is like that cult that ended
                                  itself in Waco, TX or whether it's the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.
                                  Every individual group has their own take. Jesus Christ Himself
                                  appointed His Body the Church as "the pillar and ground of truth", through
                                  His bestowing that authority on the Apostles and their successors by the
                                  power and operation of the Holy Spirit. A careful reading of Scripture
                                  supports this much more strongly than any Lutheran or Protestant teaching on
                                  Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is definitely an unScriptural teaching.
                                  Many very conservative, Confessional, and Historically-wise Lutherans even
                                  understand this, and that Sola Scriptura is not even a Confessional
                                  teaching, strictly speaking. (My college History teacher is a VERY devout
                                  LC-MS Lutheran, and he was emphatic about this, when we went through a VERY
                                  long series of Adult Sunday School classes on the Book of Concord). If one
                                  reads the Book of Concord carefully, especially placed within its historical
                                  context, one will fine the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or some
                                  variant of it) has been super-imposed upon the Confessions by later
                                  generations. Scripture itself points to the authority of the Church, both in
                                  word (in the Gospel and Epistles) and in practice (as demonstrated in the
                                  book of Acts).

                                  I went through the Scriptures and History books with the assistance of some
                                  classes and partially on my own to discover this. I would challenge you to
                                  do the same, Timothy. You may be very surprised at what you find.

                                  It has been a long time since I did that research, and I didn't keep track
                                  of my resources at the time. Perhaps some others can point to good resources
                                  on these topics?


                                  Jeremy





                                  On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:

                                  > The primary error of the Roman Church is papalism, which sees the Bishop of
                                  > Rome as the infallible and necessary voice in determining every aspect of
                                  > Church life, universally. This is not the Orthodox understanding of
                                  > ecclesiology.
                                  >
                                  > The Orthodox believe no individual is infallible, not even a Patriarch or
                                  > Bishop. No one is preserved from error. Thus, the example of the so
                                  > called
                                  > Council of Jerusalem is followed. The bishops gather in Council to
                                  > understand what seems good to them and the Holy Spirit. This is called
                                  > conciliarity. Those churches that broke away from the consensus of the
                                  > Universal Church did so often unilaterally and along cultural lines. Rome
                                  > broke away based on its own understanding of its own authority thus denying
                                  > any real or necessary input from the Universal Church - this allowed Rome
                                  > to
                                  > continue innovating. There is often highly charged, less than PC language
                                  > in Orthodoxy against Papalism and its innovations. The Copts did the same.
                                  > I see much the same in the way that Lutheranism is a very northern European
                                  > teaching; Anglicanism was very much an English teaching - both having
                                  > spread
                                  > beyond those bounds in more modern times due to immigration and/or
                                  > colonialism, as well as some missionary work. Orthodoxy from the beginning
                                  > cut across numerous cultural, political, linguistic and even intellectual
                                  > boundaries (Rome and the Latin West with the Orthodox for the first
                                  > millenium, as well).
                                  >
                                  > All that being said, numbers alone (even in a diversity) are not proof of
                                  > the Church's view. All of the disciples fled the Lord in the Garden, but
                                  > that didn't make Him less God when all he had were his mother and St. John
                                  > (his young cousin). Same, too, with the times when (almost) all the
                                  > world's
                                  > leading bishops stood against Orthodoxy, e.g., Athanasius (supported by
                                  > Rome
                                  > and other bishops, but not the leading eastern bishops), Maximus Confessor
                                  > (who had Rome and/or Jerusalem [Sophronios] and others on his side, though
                                  > not the other leading bishops in the east.)
                                  >
                                  > One error cannot be solved by another (sola Scriptura). Christianity isn't
                                  > balanced out by a pendulum swing to the opposite extreme. The Reformers
                                  > did
                                  > the best they could with the only unquestionable source they had: the
                                  > Bible. They had no access to the churches of the East suffering under the
                                  > Turks or across the Ukrainian steppe under the Mongols; Tradition to them
                                  > was limited to an appeal to the authority of the Pope and florilegia
                                  > compiled by Western theologians already cut off from the conciliar fulness
                                  > of the Church by the pretenstions of Rome (and the Carolingians) and a
                                  > centuries long decline in contact with the ancient, apostolic Churches
                                  > (plural! the West had but one apostolic foundation: Rome) and the loss of
                                  > facility in Greek (easterners also lost fluency in Latin at a pretty early
                                  > stage).
                                  >
                                  > Not sure if that helps.
                                  >
                                  > Christopher
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:48 PM, timothy_jackson87 <
                                  > timothy.jackson87@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Christopher,
                                  > >
                                  > > Thank you for sending me Solum corpus Christi document. I've also
                                  > listened
                                  > > to the podcast, which has been helpful for understanding the Orthodox
                                  > > position.
                                  > >
                                  > > I just had some questions come to me concerning the question of authority
                                  > > in all this. Isn't the Roman Catholic Church (RC) founded on the same
                                  > > Apostolic authority as the other patriarchates of the Eastern Church? If
                                  > > yes, then how can their (RC) obvious and well documented errors be
                                  > > explained? The Reformation was trying to correct the abuses of tradition
                                  > in
                                  > > the RC after all.
                                  > >
                                  > > My thought is that the very existence of the Roman Church and its many
                                  > > abuses seems to me to be a major dent in the idea that the Church has
                                  > > authority over the Scriptures, b/c if the Roman Church comes from the
                                  > same
                                  > > seeds as that of the Orthodox Churches how is the heterodoxy of the RC
                                  > > accounted for? Conceivably couldn't the Orthodox Churches fall into the
                                  > same
                                  > > sort of gross error that could only be corrected by something like Sola
                                  > > Scriptura? Does that make sense?
                                  > >
                                  > > I hope my questions and thoughts are coherent enough. Looking forward to
                                  > > any replies from any and all who care to weigh in.
                                  > >
                                  > > Timothy
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%
                                  > 40yahoogroups.com>,
                                  > > xcjorr@... wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox
                                  > > Church for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as
                                  > a
                                  > > podcast on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files
                                  > or
                                  > > links of this list, too.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Christopher Orr
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                                  > > >
                                  > > > -----Original Message-----
                                  > > > From: "timothy_jackson87" <timothy.jackson87@...>
                                  > > > Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%
                                  > 40yahoogroups.com>
                                  > > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
                                  > > > To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%
                                  > 40yahoogroups.com>
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%
                                  > 40yahoogroups.com>
                                  > > > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Gentlemen,
                                  > > >
                                  > > > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an
                                  > Orthodox
                                  > > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura and
                                  > > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance as
                                  > to
                                  > > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it
                                  > > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find
                                  > > anything.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > *Sola Scriptura*
                                  > > > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking
                                  > > about Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran
                                  > > understanding in with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a
                                  > > misrepresentation and I've been taught Lutheran theology well enough to
                                  > spot
                                  > > an inaccurate representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic
                                  > material
                                  > > I have read and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via
                                  > Issues
                                  > > Etc) deals with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the
                                  > > Roman Catholic complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are
                                  > > differences, what might they be?
                                  > > >
                                  > > > *Bondage of the Will*
                                  > > > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately
                                  > to
                                  > > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern
                                  > Orthodox.
                                  > > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that
                                  > specifically
                                  > > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Thank you all for your time!
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Timothy
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ------------------------------------
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Jeremy Finck
                                  Oh.... and I realized I neglected to mention this. When I m speaking of Christ s Body the Church I implicitly meant the Orthodox Church. ... [Non-text
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jul 1, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Oh.... and I realized I neglected to mention this. When I'm speaking of
                                    "Christ's Body the Church" I implicitly meant the Orthodox Church.



                                    On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Jeremy Finck <adonaiuplifts@...>wrote:

                                    > The Scriptures are essential, central, and pivotal to the faith of the
                                    > Orthodox Church. However, the Scriptures are not rightly understood apart
                                    > from the Church. Think of it this way: we know that the Scriptures claim
                                    > that they they are not given to any individual's interpretation. Even a
                                    > Lutheran knows that while an atheist may get an interpretation of some
                                    > verses correct, the atheist's understanding and teaching is far from
                                    > authoritative; similarly any cult, whether it is like that cult that ended
                                    > itself in Waco, TX or whether it's the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.
                                    > Every individual group has their own take. Jesus Christ Himself
                                    > appointed His Body the Church as "the pillar and ground of truth", through
                                    > His bestowing that authority on the Apostles and their successors by the
                                    > power and operation of the Holy Spirit. A careful reading of Scripture
                                    > supports this much more strongly than any Lutheran or Protestant teaching on
                                    > Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is definitely an unScriptural teaching.
                                    > Many very conservative, Confessional, and Historically-wise Lutherans even
                                    > understand this, and that Sola Scriptura is not even a Confessional
                                    > teaching, strictly speaking. (My college History teacher is a VERY devout
                                    > LC-MS Lutheran, and he was emphatic about this, when we went through a VERY
                                    > long series of Adult Sunday School classes on the Book of Concord). If one
                                    > reads the Book of Concord carefully, especially placed within its historical
                                    > context, one will fine the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or some
                                    > variant of it) has been super-imposed upon the Confessions by later
                                    > generations. Scripture itself points to the authority of the Church, both in
                                    > word (in the Gospel and Epistles) and in practice (as demonstrated in the
                                    > book of Acts).
                                    >
                                    > I went through the Scriptures and History books with the assistance of some
                                    > classes and partially on my own to discover this. I would challenge you to
                                    > do the same, Timothy. You may be very surprised at what you find.
                                    >
                                    > It has been a long time since I did that research, and I didn't keep track
                                    > of my resources at the time. Perhaps some others can point to good resources
                                    > on these topics?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Jeremy
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...>wrote:
                                    >
                                    >> The primary error of the Roman Church is papalism, which sees the Bishop
                                    >> of
                                    >> Rome as the infallible and necessary voice in determining every aspect of
                                    >> Church life, universally. This is not the Orthodox understanding of
                                    >> ecclesiology.
                                    >>
                                    >> The Orthodox believe no individual is infallible, not even a Patriarch or
                                    >> Bishop. No one is preserved from error. Thus, the example of the so
                                    >> called
                                    >> Council of Jerusalem is followed. The bishops gather in Council to
                                    >> understand what seems good to them and the Holy Spirit. This is called
                                    >> conciliarity. Those churches that broke away from the consensus of the
                                    >> Universal Church did so often unilaterally and along cultural lines. Rome
                                    >> broke away based on its own understanding of its own authority thus
                                    >> denying
                                    >> any real or necessary input from the Universal Church - this allowed Rome
                                    >> to
                                    >> continue innovating. There is often highly charged, less than PC language
                                    >> in Orthodoxy against Papalism and its innovations. The Copts did the
                                    >> same.
                                    >> I see much the same in the way that Lutheranism is a very northern
                                    >> European
                                    >> teaching; Anglicanism was very much an English teaching - both having
                                    >> spread
                                    >> beyond those bounds in more modern times due to immigration and/or
                                    >> colonialism, as well as some missionary work. Orthodoxy from the
                                    >> beginning
                                    >> cut across numerous cultural, political, linguistic and even intellectual
                                    >> boundaries (Rome and the Latin West with the Orthodox for the first
                                    >> millenium, as well).
                                    >>
                                    >> All that being said, numbers alone (even in a diversity) are not proof of
                                    >> the Church's view. All of the disciples fled the Lord in the Garden, but
                                    >> that didn't make Him less God when all he had were his mother and St. John
                                    >> (his young cousin). Same, too, with the times when (almost) all the
                                    >> world's
                                    >> leading bishops stood against Orthodoxy, e.g., Athanasius (supported by
                                    >> Rome
                                    >> and other bishops, but not the leading eastern bishops), Maximus Confessor
                                    >> (who had Rome and/or Jerusalem [Sophronios] and others on his side, though
                                    >> not the other leading bishops in the east.)
                                    >>
                                    >> One error cannot be solved by another (sola Scriptura). Christianity
                                    >> isn't
                                    >> balanced out by a pendulum swing to the opposite extreme. The Reformers
                                    >> did
                                    >> the best they could with the only unquestionable source they had: the
                                    >> Bible. They had no access to the churches of the East suffering under the
                                    >> Turks or across the Ukrainian steppe under the Mongols; Tradition to them
                                    >> was limited to an appeal to the authority of the Pope and florilegia
                                    >> compiled by Western theologians already cut off from the conciliar fulness
                                    >> of the Church by the pretenstions of Rome (and the Carolingians) and a
                                    >> centuries long decline in contact with the ancient, apostolic Churches
                                    >> (plural! the West had but one apostolic foundation: Rome) and the loss of
                                    >> facility in Greek (easterners also lost fluency in Latin at a pretty early
                                    >> stage).
                                    >>
                                    >> Not sure if that helps.
                                    >>
                                    >> Christopher
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:48 PM, timothy_jackson87 <
                                    >> timothy.jackson87@...> wrote:
                                    >>
                                    >> >
                                    >> >
                                    >> > Christopher,
                                    >> >
                                    >> > Thank you for sending me Solum corpus Christi document. I've also
                                    >> listened
                                    >> > to the podcast, which has been helpful for understanding the Orthodox
                                    >> > position.
                                    >> >
                                    >> > I just had some questions come to me concerning the question of
                                    >> authority
                                    >> > in all this. Isn't the Roman Catholic Church (RC) founded on the same
                                    >> > Apostolic authority as the other patriarchates of the Eastern Church? If
                                    >> > yes, then how can their (RC) obvious and well documented errors be
                                    >> > explained? The Reformation was trying to correct the abuses of tradition
                                    >> in
                                    >> > the RC after all.
                                    >> >
                                    >> > My thought is that the very existence of the Roman Church and its many
                                    >> > abuses seems to me to be a major dent in the idea that the Church has
                                    >> > authority over the Scriptures, b/c if the Roman Church comes from the
                                    >> same
                                    >> > seeds as that of the Orthodox Churches how is the heterodoxy of the RC
                                    >> > accounted for? Conceivably couldn't the Orthodox Churches fall into the
                                    >> same
                                    >> > sort of gross error that could only be corrected by something like Sola
                                    >> > Scriptura? Does that make sense?
                                    >> >
                                    >> > I hope my questions and thoughts are coherent enough. Looking forward to
                                    >> > any replies from any and all who care to weigh in.
                                    >> >
                                    >> > Timothy
                                    >> >
                                    >> >
                                    >> > --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%
                                    >> 40yahoogroups.com>,
                                    >> > xcjorr@... wrote:
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox
                                    >> > Church for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available
                                    >> as a
                                    >> > podcast on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files
                                    >> or
                                    >> > links of this list, too.
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > > Christopher Orr
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > > -----Original Message-----
                                    >> > > From: "timothy_jackson87" <timothy.jackson87@...>
                                    >> > > Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%
                                    >> 40yahoogroups.com>
                                    >> > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
                                    >> > > To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%
                                    >> 40yahoogroups.com>
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > > Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%
                                    >> 40yahoogroups.com>
                                    >> > > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > > Gentlemen,
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an
                                    >> Orthodox
                                    >> > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura
                                    >> and
                                    >> > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance
                                    >> as to
                                    >> > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it
                                    >> > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find
                                    >> > anything.
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > > *Sola Scriptura*
                                    >> > > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking
                                    >> > about Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran
                                    >> > understanding in with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a
                                    >> > misrepresentation and I've been taught Lutheran theology well enough to
                                    >> spot
                                    >> > an inaccurate representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic
                                    >> material
                                    >> > I have read and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via
                                    >> Issues
                                    >> > Etc) deals with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the
                                    >> > Roman Catholic complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there
                                    >> are
                                    >> > differences, what might they be?
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > > *Bondage of the Will*
                                    >> > > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately
                                    >> to
                                    >> > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern
                                    >> Orthodox.
                                    >> > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that
                                    >> specifically
                                    >> > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > > Thank you all for your time!
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > > Timothy
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > >
                                    >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >> > >
                                    >> >
                                    >> >
                                    >> >
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >> ------------------------------------
                                    >>
                                    >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Oruaseht
                                    Excellent post Christopher! The Lutherans/Reformers chief complaint with the church of Rome (besides the selling of salvation) was the Papacy. Luther called
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Jul 1, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Excellent post Christopher!

                                      The Lutherans/Reformers chief complaint with the church of Rome (besides the selling of salvation) was the Papacy. Luther called the Pope the Anti-Christ after all. What I see completely disintegrated in the Western church(es) is the lack of conciliarity. (So foreign is it that even my spell checker in my web browser is showing it as a misspelled word with no suggestions!) When I started looking back into the history of the church, it was always the West who broke fellowship: excommunication of the East, changing the universally/conciliar Nicene Creed, claiming more authority than the other patriarchs and then the ultimate infallibility of the Pope himself.

                                      I honestly believe that the heinous fragmentation, division, schism, decomposed ecclesiology of the west (Rome & her Protestant children) is directly because of the aforementioned reasons. Then, one looks at Orthodoxy's long standing tradition, one-ness and on-going conciliar behaviour [http://www.antiochian.org/node/23226%5d and it is compelling as a witness to the one, true catholic and apostolic church.

                                      --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > The primary error of the Roman Church is papalism, which sees the Bishop of
                                      > Rome as the infallible and necessary voice in determining every aspect of
                                      > Church life, universally. This is not the Orthodox understanding of
                                      > ecclesiology.
                                      >
                                      > The Orthodox believe no individual is infallible, not even a Patriarch or
                                      > Bishop. No one is preserved from error. Thus, the example of the so called
                                      > Council of Jerusalem is followed. The bishops gather in Council to
                                      > understand what seems good to them and the Holy Spirit. This is called
                                      > conciliarity. Those churches that broke away from the consensus of the
                                      > Universal Church did so often unilaterally and along cultural lines. Rome
                                      > broke away based on its own understanding of its own authority thus denying
                                      > any real or necessary input from the Universal Church - this allowed Rome to
                                      > continue innovating. There is often highly charged, less than PC language
                                      > in Orthodoxy against Papalism and its innovations. The Copts did the same.
                                      > I see much the same in the way that Lutheranism is a very northern European
                                      > teaching; Anglicanism was very much an English teaching - both having spread
                                      > beyond those bounds in more modern times due to immigration and/or
                                      > colonialism, as well as some missionary work. Orthodoxy from the beginning
                                      > cut across numerous cultural, political, linguistic and even intellectual
                                      > boundaries (Rome and the Latin West with the Orthodox for the first
                                      > millenium, as well).
                                      >
                                      > All that being said, numbers alone (even in a diversity) are not proof of
                                      > the Church's view. All of the disciples fled the Lord in the Garden, but
                                      > that didn't make Him less God when all he had were his mother and St. John
                                      > (his young cousin). Same, too, with the times when (almost) all the world's
                                      > leading bishops stood against Orthodoxy, e.g., Athanasius (supported by Rome
                                      > and other bishops, but not the leading eastern bishops), Maximus Confessor
                                      > (who had Rome and/or Jerusalem [Sophronios] and others on his side, though
                                      > not the other leading bishops in the east.)
                                      >
                                      > One error cannot be solved by another (sola Scriptura). Christianity isn't
                                      > balanced out by a pendulum swing to the opposite extreme. The Reformers did
                                      > the best they could with the only unquestionable source they had: the
                                      > Bible. They had no access to the churches of the East suffering under the
                                      > Turks or across the Ukrainian steppe under the Mongols; Tradition to them
                                      > was limited to an appeal to the authority of the Pope and florilegia
                                      > compiled by Western theologians already cut off from the conciliar fulness
                                      > of the Church by the pretenstions of Rome (and the Carolingians) and a
                                      > centuries long decline in contact with the ancient, apostolic Churches
                                      > (plural! the West had but one apostolic foundation: Rome) and the loss of
                                      > facility in Greek (easterners also lost fluency in Latin at a pretty early
                                      > stage).
                                      >
                                      > Not sure if that helps.
                                      >
                                      > Christopher
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:48 PM, timothy_jackson87 <
                                      > timothy.jackson87@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Christopher,
                                      > >
                                      > > Thank you for sending me Solum corpus Christi document. I've also listened
                                      > > to the podcast, which has been helpful for understanding the Orthodox
                                      > > position.
                                      > >
                                      > > I just had some questions come to me concerning the question of authority
                                      > > in all this. Isn't the Roman Catholic Church (RC) founded on the same
                                      > > Apostolic authority as the other patriarchates of the Eastern Church? If
                                      > > yes, then how can their (RC) obvious and well documented errors be
                                      > > explained? The Reformation was trying to correct the abuses of tradition in
                                      > > the RC after all.
                                      > >
                                      > > My thought is that the very existence of the Roman Church and its many
                                      > > abuses seems to me to be a major dent in the idea that the Church has
                                      > > authority over the Scriptures, b/c if the Roman Church comes from the same
                                      > > seeds as that of the Orthodox Churches how is the heterodoxy of the RC
                                      > > accounted for? Conceivably couldn't the Orthodox Churches fall into the same
                                      > > sort of gross error that could only be corrected by something like Sola
                                      > > Scriptura? Does that make sense?
                                      > >
                                      > > I hope my questions and thoughts are coherent enough. Looking forward to
                                      > > any replies from any and all who care to weigh in.
                                      > >
                                      > > Timothy
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,
                                      > > xcjorr@ wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox
                                      > > Church for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a
                                      > > podcast on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or
                                      > > links of this list, too.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Christopher Orr
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
                                      > > >
                                      > > > -----Original Message-----
                                      > > > From: "timothy_jackson87" <timothy.jackson87@>
                                      > > > Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                                      > > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
                                      > > > To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
                                      > > > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Gentlemen,
                                      > > >
                                      > > > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox
                                      > > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura and
                                      > > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance as to
                                      > > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it
                                      > > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find
                                      > > anything.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > *Sola Scriptura*
                                      > > > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking
                                      > > about Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran
                                      > > understanding in with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a
                                      > > misrepresentation and I've been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot
                                      > > an inaccurate representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material
                                      > > I have read and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues
                                      > > Etc) deals with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the
                                      > > Roman Catholic complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are
                                      > > differences, what might they be?
                                      > > >
                                      > > > *Bondage of the Will*
                                      > > > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately to
                                      > > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern Orthodox.
                                      > > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that specifically
                                      > > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Thank you all for your time!
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Timothy
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.