Today, Tim Kimberley and I had the privilege of meeting with an Eastern Orthodox priest here at the Credo House in Edmond, OK. The meeting was called because there is a young man who desires to work as an “under-monk” (barista) at the Credo House. While we are a Protestant Evangelical organization, we often call ourselves Evangelical “on the last notch of the belt.” In other words, in the spirit of Evangelicalism, we don’t want to unnecessarily divide over non-essential issues. While devoted to his Eastern Orthodox church, this prospective employee loves the Credo House and what we stand for. As discussions went on behind the scenes about whether or not I wanted to deal with the PR of explaining to everyone why we had an Eastern Orthodox employee (along with all the charges of postmodern doctrinal relativism, etc.), as well as the laborious discovery of whether this guy was truly an Eastern Orthodox or an Evangelical attending an Eastern Orthodox church, Carrie set up a meeting between this young man, his priest, Tim, and me.
The following took place at approx. 2:15 CST at the Credo House, 109 NW 142nd St. Suite B, Edmond, OK.
We made cordial introductions and exchanged some background information The priest was a former Evangelical who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy during college.
The Credo House doctrinal statement was the subject of dispute, as the priest sought to distinguish the Eastern Orthodox position from that which is represented by our doctrinal statement. The potential employee sought both the permission and wisdom of his priest to see if working for Credo House was acceptable. I had already determined that, barring some unforeseen (and potentially delightful) complications, Credo House would not be willing to offer employment to a committed Eastern Orthodox.
There were not really any surprises.
Below is a point by point account of the dispute using our doctrinal statement as an outline:
Bible and Revelation: We confess that the Scriptures are verbally inspired and true in every respect. We also confess that the rightly interpreted Scriptures are the only infallible source of revelation.
It may surprise many to know that the issue of sola Scriptura (rightly defined) is not a major point of departure between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. The subject of church tradition was brought up. We both agreed that tradition stands guard beside the interpretation of Scripture but does not stand in front of it. We also agreed that tradition does not add anything to the Scripture, but is a tradition in which the Scripture is to be interpreted. Tim called this the regula fide (common terminology here at Credo). I was amused when the priest said he did not use the Latin terminology (i.e., it was in western theological language). But we both agreed that there was no living infallible interpreter of Scripture. Scripture is the final source, yet we look toward history to aid in our understanding.
He did ask what we meant by “verbally” inspired. I informed him that this means that the Bible is inspired down to the very words, not just the concepts. However, this does not mean that we believe in “mechanical dictation.” He agreed. He just wanted to clarify that we did not hold to a view of inspiration like the Muslims.
God: We confess that there is one God, creator of all things, invisible and visible, who eternally exists in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are equal in power and dignity. We also confess that God is all-knowing and is sovereign over all the affairs of His creation.
This was an interesting (and unexpected) discussion. He thought our confession here about God bordered on modalism. It was hard for me to process what was being disputed. Historically, it is true, the eastern church has accused the western church (Protestants and Roman Catholics included) of emphasizing the oneness of God to the neglect of his threeness (modalism). The western church has accused the eastern church of emphasizing the threeness of God at the expense of his oneness (tritheism). However, I had thought we got past this quite some time ago. Nevertheless, he would have preferred that we said “We confess that there is one God, the Father . . . ” He said that, “You cannot separate the oneness from the person.” In the end, he said it was a “minor” point of wording. I did not have much of a problem with what he said (although I can see where the western church would think this sounds somewhat tritheistic).
Christ: We confess that Jesus Christ is God’s eternal Son, the second member of the Trinity, who exists as one person in two natures, being both fully God and fully man. We further confess that He lived a sinless life and willingly died on a cross as a substitution for the sins of man. We confess that He rose bodily from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father; from there He makes intercession for man.
“Substitution for the sins of man.” This was one of the two major points of departure. Every time I have discussed the issue of the atonement with an Eastern Orthodox, this is where deep emotions turn into deep wrinkles on their face. There is quite a bit of passion involved here. The Eastern Orthodox church completely rejects vicarious penal substitution. They do not believe that Christ bore the wrath of the Father. According to him, Christ is our substitute only in the sense that he was the “substitute man” who did what Adam could not. I explained that Evangelical Protestants believe that Christ did indeed become the “second Adam” and that we often, sadly, fail to do justice to his sinless life as part of the atonement. However, I explained that Christ’s life prepared him for the apex of the atonement that took place on the cross. There was a foresaking where He who knew no sin became sin on our behalf and it pleased the Father to crush him. Therefore, the “transaction” between the Father and the Son on the cross, while incredibly mysterious, was real and essential. He disagreed and we moved on.
Holy Spirit: We confess that the Holy Spirit is the third member of the Trinity, equal to the Father and the Son in power, authority, and dignity, deserving worship. We further confess that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to point to Christ by enabling and empowering all believers to serve God and to grow in Christ likeness.
There were no notes here. We were good.
Man and sin: We confess that man was created by God, for God, and in God’s image so that man can joyously live in communion with God. We believe that Adam and Eve, the father and mother of all mankind, disobeyed God in Eden thereby causing all people to become like them in guilt and nature. Therefore, we confess that all people are born separated from God and in their natural state are at enmity with God, unable to make any move toward God on their own. We confess that the image of God, while distorted, remains in all men. We confess that when a person dies, the immaterial part of that person consciously goes to either be with Christ or to a place to await judgment.
Here we encountered a second major point of departure. He made it clear that the Eastern Orthodox could not accept any idea of imputed guilt. While they believe that we have inherited corruption, we are not held guilty for the sin of another. He rightly pointed out that Protestants and Roman Catholics both believe that we are held guilty for the sin of another. His argument against inherited guilt was very practical. “How could God hold a baby guilty for a sin he did not take part in?” was his question. I told him that we may be two boats passing in the night here. I explained that all of humanity fell “in and with” Adam. Therefore, when Adam was condemned, the entire human race was condemned with him. God did not necessarily strike the gavel for every baby conceived individually, but he struck the gavel with Adam, our federal head. God could have chose not to redeem humanity and “walked away.” Had he done so, we would be “condemned” to a life without God.
Interestingly, he objected to the statement that man is “unable to make any move toward God on their own.” He said that humanity retains some ability to choose God even if we don’t use it. I informed him that his wording was not, in my opinion, in the best traditions of his own church. The idea that we can make moves on our own toward God without his initiation was either Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. All the magisterial Christian traditions (Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics) see the need for God to, motivated by his grace, initiate salvation. We ended up agreeing here.
Salvation: We confess that God had every right to leave man in his depraved and helpless condition, but, by His own gracious and loving volition, He chose to intercede on behalf of man. We further confess that salvation is only possible through faith alone in Christ alone because of God’s grace alone. We reject that any works of righteousness contribute in any way to man’s salvation. We confess that when a person places their faith in Christ they are at that instant declared righteous through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as a gift of God.
He did not like the word “intercede,” instead preferring “intervene.” This came down to his distinction in the persons of the Trinity. I told him I did not have much of a problem with that.
“Through faith alone in Christ alone.” You may be interested to know there was not much dispute about this. He said that as long as we said that true faith would always produce works, he was good with the “faith alone” thing. But he did not like the wording of, “We reject that any works of righteousness contribute in any way to man’s salvation.” I did not like that he did not like this! He said that we cannot distinguish between faith and works. I said you can insofar as the works themselves do not “contribute” to our justification. I gave an illustration about a gift which we don’t pay for. Any attempt to pay for this gift (i.e., believing our works contribute to the acquisition of said gift) would not only be superfluous, but insulting to the gift-giver. We do good works because of a changed nature (rebirth, justification, adoption), not so that we can have a changed nature.
Last Things: We confess that Christ will come again to judge and reward all people. We confess the bodily resurrection of all believers. We confess the eternal blessedness of those who have trusted in Christ and the eternal damnation of all who have rejected God.
He wanted to make sure we did not believe only in the resurrection of all “believers.” He said unbelievers would be raised as well. I agreed.
It was a wonderful dispute. Again, no real surprises. I do appreciate the Eastern Orthodox church very much. In the end, however, we all determined that it would not be in the best interest of either party to continue to pursue employment at the Credo House. As Tim said, “We don’t want you to be untrue to yourself and we can’t be untrue to who we are.” The priest agreed, saying, “As an Eastern Orthodox priest, I could not sign this due to the two main issues: imputed guilt and substitutionary atonement.”
178 replies to "Credo House Dispute – Our Discussions Today with an Eastern Orthodox Priest"
Thank you for letting us listen in.
That’s good. Thanks. Obviously I need to read up on the Eastern Orthodox Church. I thought they were into traditions on an equal level with the Bible.
They are. These are the beliefs of the disciples, the apostles, the early church fathers and so on. Protestants follow Luther who came along 1,000+ years later and rewrote doctrine.
The EO or Orthodoxy believe in the infallible sense of their Orthodox tradition & history.
And note indeed that this Orthodox priest could not sign on due to, as he wrote.. “imputed guilt and substitutionary atonement.” Very big loses for or in the Reformational and Reformed faith!
CMP,
It’s sad to think that someone whose Eastern Orthodox faith has so much in common with your own brand of evangelicalism cannot work at the Credo House. If it is true that the Spirit of Christ is not divided then there can be no good excuse for this state of affairs.
By the way, the Eastern Orthodox are right to deny the imputation of Adam’s guilt as well as substitutionary atonement, both are fictions invented by the Western church. Particularly in the case of the former, how anyone could believe in the imputation of Adam’s guilt in light of such passages as Rom 5:12 and Rom 7:9 is beyond me.
As it is beyond me, how any biblical & theological thinking Christian could miss the guilt of Adam’s sin being “imputed” to us! (Romans 5 ; / 1 Cor. 15:22, etc. / 1 Peter 3:18…”the just for the unjust”.) I will always go with Augustine here!
Note, Traducianism here!
Sounds like that was a fun discussion. A bit surprising on what the issues ended up being. I would have not expected those ones and would have thought it to be others.
sadly, there are evangelicals that would take issue with the same things. But be less cordial about it.
Greetings brother Robert,
1 Cor 15:22 says “For just all die with Adam so also all will be made alive with Christ.” Sorry, I’m not seeing anything about the imputation of Adam’s guilt here, but I am seeing a nice affirmation of universal salvation. On the other hand, Rom 7:9 clearly seems to teach that Paul was “alive” until the moment of his first sin at which point he “died,” not sure how that can be squared with a doctrine that teaches that all of Adam’s offspring are born “dead.”
No worries though, I don’t think our Lord and God cares that much about these disagreements.
@NW: Indeed, Romans chapters 1 thru 3, with 4-5 and 6, and of course Romans 7, the Law of God, with Romans 8, and the mercy, grace & predestinating love of God! All move together! And it is ‘Law & Gospel’, as both Luther and Calvin, our Magisterial Reformers! It is here that we must understand our Saul/Paul! The whole reality of the Law of God is simply foundational for the true doctrine of Grace & God.
I like much of the EO on both Christology and the Trinity of God, in fact I would stand closer there as to the Monarchy of the Father in the Godhead! But, again, they simply miss the judicial character of the Law of God! But, hey, I am “Reformed” on the Doctrines of Grace! 😉
Btw, its really the whole aspect to the theology of God In Christ in 1 Cor. 15, noting, verses 45-49, the doctrine of the First and Last Adam!
Best In Christ!
Fr. Robert 🙂
It is rather interesting that these are the two biggest issues I have with Protestantism (as a Protestant) and I would say I lean towards the arguments of the Eastern Orthodox on these matters. On Penal Substitution it takes some bending over backwards to find even the slightest hints of it in the Early Christian writings. It didn’t even really take proto form until Anselm and didn’t reach full fruition until Calvin (yes I know there have been a few books which claim otherwise and there were some quotes from Tertullian – but as far as I’m aware most scholars scoff at the idea that any of the Early Church Fathers had the conception of the atonement that Western Protestants do). At the end of the day I’m inclined to go with C.S. Lewis’ comments in Mere Christianity when it comes to the atonement.
As far as imputed guilt and it seems to me that the idea of imputed guilt didn’t come along in full form till Augustine. The idea seems to go against Ezekiel 18:20, “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.” Furthermore it seems really hard to separate Augustine’s conception of imputed guilt from the need to baptize infants and the corruption being passed on through sex. The first idea – that God would sentence infants to eternal hell simply because their parents neglected to have them baptized or they died before their was a chance – seems repugnant to the character of God. The second idea seems to make something that clearly existed prior to the fall, and thus was good, evil. It seems to me to be a case of Augustine projecting his negative experiences in his youth.
To help people understand Eastern Orthodoxy better, you should re-post the wonderful dialogue you had with Bradley Nassif a few years back.
@ Fr. Robert, a clarification on Pelagianism: The controversy between Augustine and Pelagius resulted in the condemnation of Pelagianism; however, at no time did the early church condemn a semi-Pelagian position (the term “semi-Pelagian” was not used in the early church. According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology the term was 1st used in the Lutheran Formula of Concord -1527).
The fundamental assumption here that drives your paradigm is the extreme Augustinian view of the Fall, i.e., that as a result of the Fall man’s capacity to respond to God’s grace was destroyed. This is the Augustinian interpretation of the Fall. It is the opinion of one western church father, but it was not part of the universal patristic consensus.
Just so there is no confusion: Orthodoxy teaches synergism, not semi-Pelagianism. The real issue between classical Protestantism and Orthodoxy is monergism versus synergism. Historical Orthodoxy unabashedly affirms the synergistic understanding of salvation in Christ: God in his grace reaches out to us and we respond to God’s initiative.
Gregory of Nyssa: “For He who holds sovereignty over the universe permitted something to be subject to our own control, over which each of us alone is master. Now this is the will: a thing that cannot be enslaved, being the power of self-determination.”
John Chrysostom: “God never draws anyone to Himself by force and violence. He wishes all to be saved, but forces no one.”
As for your Calvinist monergism: the mono-energist dogma was the exact scheme used by the monothelite heretics, who said that the human will of Christ (and by extension, our human nature) is not denied but simply overridden by the divine will. Monergism is not only a soteriological scheme, but a Christological heresy.
@Pete: First, indeed this is a great theological and really biblical issue, and we will not solve it here! The issue really is the doctrine of God and Sin! Indeed too one area, in my opinion where the EO certainly lacks (profoundly) is in the Jewish doctrine of the Law of God! With in fact, many of the once pagan Church Fathers, who lacked here also, i.e. the Jewish Law of God. This in fact too was the great place and person of our Saul/Paul! HE certainly really, with the Book of Hebrews, gives us the proper balance here. This was one of the great issues of the Magisterial Reformers, i.e. Law & Gospel!
Btw, I am with Augustine, note his early and later change on Romans 7: 13-25. There is simply no way I see the man here as unregenerate! YOUR position simply must! This is another major hermeneutical difference. As I have noted and suggested people read, David Steinmetz’s book: Calvin in Context, especially chapter 8: ‘Calvin and the Divided Self’. This chapter is very good, also historical, and shows too, that some Roman Catholic theolog’s also held the position of the later Augustine on Romans 7. Indeed we must do our homework here!
Finally, we can see too Augustine’s well defined doctrine of Prevenient Grace (De natura et gratia). And here this shows that we need not be pressed into the so-called issues of monergism verses a synergism! Augustine held a well defined doctrine of synergism, himself.
Closing, I would not gloss over Tertullian here, he simply had one of the finest theological statements concerning the doctrine of Antitheses in God! Here too I would recommend Eric Osborn’s book: Tertullian, First Theologian of the West.
Michael,
If the barista and his priest had no significant qualms about Credo House’s statement of faith, would you have employed the barista without first discussing his statement of faith to see if you significantly disagree with any of his fundamental beliefs? I’m thinking that reviewing only your own SoF with the barista may not have revealed all the potential fundamental doctrinal differences. The EO church may regard certain doctrines as central and non-negotiable which your Protestant SoF may not even mention.
Regarding the question of imputed guilt, if that is a heretical innovation rather than something intrinsic to the gospel, then surely the idea of Christ’s imputed righteousness must also be a heretical innovation? But I have staked my eternity on the fact that Christ’s righteousness has been imputed to me through faith. He is my representative, so that on the day of judgement God will accept me despite my sinfulness because I am in solidarity with Christ and so his perfect obedience is reckoned to my account as if I had obeyed God’s law perfectly myself.
Regarding vicarious penal substitution, I had thought Leon Morris’ research into the use of the word propitiation in the LXX had proven that vicarious penal substitution is intrinsically biblical and not merely an artificial framework constructed by the western church to explain the atonement. Am I confused about that?
@Phil McCheddar: Well said as to the EO and Reformational and Reformed major theological differences, i.e. at least in soteriology: salvation. Justification and Imputation are first “forensic” (formal argumentation), again the Law of God met by and ‘In Christ’! (And yes, this is Protestant, and even Barth was here!)
Btw, I would agree too, that having an EO on staff at Credo would be problematic, at least if one has to sign-on to the full Creedal statement? And note btw, I am in agreement with the EO on both Christology and the Trinity of God, myself! But of course we differ most profoundly on the Doctrines of Grace!
And the doctrine of the Atonement can hold many ideas and views, but the reality of the vicarious nature of the Death of Christ…”the just for the unjust” (1 Peter 3:18 ; see too, 1 Pet. 2:24 / Rom. 15: 3 / Gal. 3: 10-13), is certainly central! And indeed Reformational and Reformed, as to the Atonement!
“For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, ‘The Reproaches Of Those Who Reproached Thee Fell Upon Me.” (Rom. 15: 3 / Ps. 69:9)
Finally, I would not follow Morris on the idea of “propitiation” (Latin word really), but would see as the LXX, the meaning of “Expiation” (RSV)…i.e. “Christ” is the ‘mercy-seat’, Rom. 3:25). But still again the “Vicarious” Atonement…’taking the place of another’ in both the Law & Death! Indeed, the Law of GOD must be met!
@Phil: See, the LXX or Septuagint in Lev. 25:9 ; Num. 5:8, the covering of sin by means of sacrifice, i.e. expiation and conciliation, again “Christ” is this place Himself in sacrfice and death…”the name of a place” – Mercy-seat, Christ Himself, HE is the saving seat of God’s presence and gracious revelations! This to my mind anyway is the essence of Rom. 3:25…”Whom God displayed or set forth, as an expiation, through faith in His blood, for a display of the Righteousness of HIM, and in His divine forbearance..”
Here we have both “Law & Gospel/Grace”!
Here’s a useful and historical link on Semipelagianism, from a Catholic source…
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13703a.htm
@Fr. Robert, I agree that we will not solve all of the issues here. But, I don’t think that is the point if this blog. The motto is “reclaim the mind” which I take to mean “discover and understand what is the truth”.
I agree with your statement that “Augustine held a well-defined doctrine of synergism”. That is truth. In fact, the entire Church of his time did too! Calvinist monergism was developed 1,000 years later.
As the Credo House teaches Church history, it needs to be honest and say that their Calvinist soteriology is based upon monergism, which was a view not held by the united orthodox Christian Church of the first 1,000 years.
And Credo House is certainly free to hire who they want, based upon the applicant’s beliefs (unless Obama gets re-elected!). But the rejected Orthodox applicant believes in exactly the same soteriological dogma – salvation through synergism – as every 1st millennia church father that I can find.
Tertullian? He was no monergist or Calvinist:
“Grace with the Lord, when once learned and undertaken by us, should never afterward be cancelled by repetition of sin”.
“No one is a Christian but he who perserveres even to the end”.
@Pete: I am not a Monergist either, nor was Luther or Calvin, to my mind and understanding! Btw, one of the nice things about being an Anglican, and I hope I am a classic Anglican? but surely both “catholic” and “reformed”. 😉
Yes, Tertullian is simply a Church Father, to my mind! A must read man of God! Perhaps a first-read book about him, would be Geoffrey Dunn’s book: Tertullian. And btw both Dunn and Osborn are Aussies, Dunn a Catholic, and Osborn an Anglican I believe?
I cannot speak for the Credo House myself. But hey, I am myself an Anglican conservative eclectic! I know CMP has a bit of the latter, too. Note, I tend toward the FV or Federal Vision, or I am at least friendly there, but not uncritical.
Here’s a worthy quote…
“Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love (11/2).” (Westminster Assembly, Westminster Confession of Faith, 58.)
And btw Pete, let me reommend too, Karl Barth’s book on Anselm: Fides Quarens Intellectum, Anselm’s Proof of the Existence of God in the context of His Theological Scheme.
“‘There is no way from us to God – not even a ‘via negativa’ – not even a ‘via dialectica’ nor ‘paradoxa’. The god who stood at the end of some human way . . . would not be God.’ This assertation, which would seem to discourage all theology, is by Karl Barth, the most prominent, prolific, and (it seems to me) persuasive of the twentieth-century theologians…. As a critical theologian, Barth ranks with Kierkegaard; as a constructive one, with Aquinas and Calvin.” (John Updike)
The point here is always the Mystery but Revelation of God in Christ. As important as God’s sovereignty, is that of His “Mystery”! These always run together!
I do hope Michael, that you acknowledge that the theory of vicarious substitutionary atonement is but one of many theories of how the atonement works.
None of the Authors of Scripture actually write in detail as to how it works, and in many ways, all of the theories of the atonement have many elements of truth.
@Craig: Wow, this is certainly not a “theory” for those of us that see and believe this in the Holy Scripture! We would call it biblical theology, mate! The question is always whether we can maintain a proper theological construct. And this is certain to my mind, in the biblical reality, on this the “vicarious” atonement of Christ, for His people! Again, 1 Peter 3:18!
Just because you are the loudest voice in the room does not mean your opinion is correct.
Btw Michael: I think one of my posts to Pete might have got caught in your spam, perhaps?
Fr. Robert,
I don’t think anyone disputes that there are certainly substitutionary components of the atonement. The question is whether or not this is the only or even the primary component of the atonement, much less the only component thereof. The fact that the Early Church Father’s did not see the atonement in this manner makes me have serious reservations about the amount of emphasis we place on penal substitution.
Good evening Fr. Robert,
“The EO or Orthodoxy believe in the infallible sense of their Orthodox tradition & history.” Well…suppose that the Church that you belong to could trace it’s bishops directly back to the Apostles in an unbroken chain; that at every point in time you could look back and see unchanged doctrine on every major point in your Church; that the Scriptures exhorted you personally to “hand down the traditions just like you have received them”, no matter which direction the ways of the world were blowing. Now, if that was you, wouldn’t you take the greatest care of “this Pearl of Great Price”?
I appreciate the Karl Barth recommendation. I am sure he is a genius. Orthodoxy has its share of intelligent theologians over the past 2,000 years (although quite obviously I am not one of them!). Arius, Nestorius, Darwin and Nietzsche were also some of the smartest men ever born; however, Jesus Christ said that the pure of heart will see God, not the smart of brain.
Thanks for the New Advent link…but I’ve found that I can’t trust the accuracy of the info at that site.
Finally, I’m truly mystified as to why the Credo House would spend the time and resources to educate fellow Protestants on the honor, importance, unity, wisdom, and rich theological doctrines and sacraments of the historical apostolic Church; and then when a young, sincere member of this very same historical apostolic Church miraculously applies for a job at the Credo House, he is told that he cannot work there because of his Christian beliefs. It’s a head-shaker for sure.
Take care,
@Pete: I wrote a blog for you, that Michael or Credo has yet to moderate? And btw, Karl Barth (pronounced Bart btw), is not just some liberal, but a real modern Church Father to my mind! But, I am not a Barthian myself.
Note, I am not impressed with only Apostolic “genealogy”, Roman Catholicism has that, and they have errored.
@Michael T.
I would see the Christus Victor Atonement model (Gustav Aulen), as Incarnational, but not without Christ as also Himself, the vicarious God-Man for others too.
Got it Fr. Sorry. I don’t know why it got caught other than all the cursing that I deleted out. 😉
Father Robert. If you call the doctrine anything else but a theory, then intellectual dishonesty occurs.
Leon Morris wrote a great paper on this very subject – http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/atonementmorris2.html
He was a committed evangelical Anglican, author of many commentaries by reputable evangelical publishers. What he says has a lot to say in this situation.
@Craig: So is the Atonement of Christ now a “theory”? And note too, in Morris article, vicarious covers both the satisfaction and penal “theological” statements! And as the Bible itself states, Christ’s death was an expiatory sacrifice! (Rom. 3:25)
Even the profound Dr. J.K. Mozley could write: ‘No other word except “substitution” can adequately express the relation of the work of Christ to what I can recognize as my salvation. Christ was crucified for me. . . . He stood in our place and so became our substitute. (Gal. 2:19)’
The problem with these kinds of discussions is that they focus on things that are of great interest to western Christianity, but ignore what is central to Orthodoxy. It reminds me of that scene in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy whe they are trying to invent the wheel and arguing about what colour it should be, but they haven’t even thought about discussing what shape is good for a wheel. So they’ve got triangular and square wheels and arguing about the color. Since they’re arguing about the color of a wheel which is the wrong shape to begin with, the discussion is less than enlightening.
Now how on earh can the scriptures be the only infallible source of revelation? Wasn’t God talking directly to Moses infallible? Surely that needs some qualifiers. Once you start diving into those qualifiers, you are in the realm of arguing what colour a wheel should be.
Solution? Concede that what westerners believe is important is not really so? I hope this is not how you deal with a marraige! I think that the road goes both ways here. Such statements of arrogence and grandure need not represent any conversation. In gact, it is just such conversation stoppers that have typlified the East/West divide for centuries.
However, you must understand that this conversation was not instigated nor facillitated by me.
Just saying Michael, that it would have been better if the conversation went both ways. I.e., also start from an Orthodox list of concerns, and discuss from that direction. I realise you are job interviewing, so there was no particular impetus for that, but still.
Of course, what you discussed was not what westerners believe. Rather it is what Protestants believe, and what westerners argue about. That’s kind of the point, that Protestant priorities are based on the history of their arguments with Rome. You don’t see these arguments in the church fathers so much, because they are not a natural set of priorities. They are priorities seated in a particular place and time of the medieval west. Again, arguing about the colours of the wheel and ignoring the shape.
@ John
I know very little about Orthodox Christianity. In a nutshell, what is central to Orthodoxy that Protestantism ignores?
I am not sure you are right to regard the priorities of the church fathers as necessarily more natural than those of Protestantism. It is true that “Protestant priorities are based on the history of their arguments with Rome”, but the church fathers themselves were not living in a cultural vacuum. They were products of their own generation and were forced to combat the particular heresies put forward by whatever schools of philosophy happened to oppose Christianity at the time.
@ Michael T
You wrote: “The fact that the Early Church Fathers did not see the atonement in this manner makes me have serious reservations about the amount of emphasis we place on penal substitution.”
But isn’t it possible that the doctrine of penal substitution is like the trinity inasmuch that all the raw data was present from the beginning but it took several hundred years of analysis and meditation to crystallise it into a formal, finely-honed statement of faith? It’s relative absence from the writings of the ECFs doesn’t necessarily imply it isn’t the central basis of the atonement mechanism.
So by that reasoning, what other doctrinal statements or ideas are yet to be crystallized into formal statements of faith? By what means to we vet these? Possibly a new one will spontaneously crystallize that is contradictory? This reasoning is why we have 20,000 + protestant sects acting with no authority yet all claiming it within themselves.
Way Phil said. Good stuff.
@Phil: what is central to Orthodoxy that Protestantism ignores? Well, that’s a pretty big topic to put on this thread. But Orthodoxy is more mystical in emphasis. That means that all technicalities tend to be outside its emphasis, not just the ones Protestantism is obsessed with.
Are the church fathers just as much influenced by the heresies of the time as Protestants? Well, you can argue it, but I think not. The Church fathers are not on the defensive as much as the Protestants. The Protestants had to reinvent the wheel and go against all prevailing wisdom. The Church fathers just had to defend prevailing wisdom. That made them less reactionary, generally speaking. Furthermore, they weren’t all obsessed with just one heresy or one enemy.
@Phil: “I know very little about Orthodox Christianity”.
Here you go:
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith
Some tidbits:
* The Christian Church of the 4th century, which today we call “the Orthodox Church”, assembled the canon of the New Testament that you use today.
* A 4th century Orthodox bishop of Antioch & Constantinople, John Chrysostom, was the first to coin the phrase “Bible” when referring to the Holy Scriptures.
This blog has labeled Orthodoxy as being “semi-Pelatiagianist”, which is false. I’ve had some time to do some research and legwork on Church history:
“Semi-Pelagianism” is associated with the rulings of the second Synod of Orange (AD 529). This local council of the is generally seen in our day as a vindication of both St. Augustine’s debates against Pelagius and the soteriological distinctives of Calvinism. However, even this synod’s conclusions differ markedly from the viewpoints of Calvinists. For example, the council (like St. Augustine) emphatically declares both the necessity of infant baptism and the reality of baptism’s efficacious qualities: “According to the catholic faith we also believe that… grace has been received through baptism.”
Furthermore, and in a denial of monergism (and vindication of synergism), the synod continues: “… all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.” Calvinists deny any insinuation that man’s labors are essential for the salvation of a person’s soul, not to mention the idea that grace is received through baptism.
In a final blow to Calvinism—and not a semi-invented “Semi-Pelagianism”—this Church council also concludes: “We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.” That eliminates most of the “five points” of Calvinism with one, simple statement.
Glory to God for all Things
Pete, do you have a reference for this?
@Craig Bennett
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html
Mike P,
As an Orthodox Christian and friend of Credo House, I just want to say I appreciate your honest and fair approach to looking at the Orthodox Church. Thank you.
On the subject of monergism vs synergism, Norm Geisler’s book “Chosen but Free” makes a compelling argument for synergism that fits well with Orthodox thinking on the subject.
Concerning supposed semi-Pelagianism in Orthodoxy…it is easy to get that impression because Orthodoxy upholds both sides of the paradox of free will and grace, and so statements taken out of context can seem to indicate a semi-Pelagian approach. Also, in my experience, converts to Orthodoxy from Calvinist schools of thought sometimes swing the pendulum to far in the opposite direction. In my reading of Patristic and monastic literature, however, there is a clear acknowledgement that our salvation and sanctification is from the Grace of God, which we are of course free to resist or cooperate with. As said by Lev Gillet, “The incorporation of man into Christ and his union with God require cooperation of two unequal, but equally necessary forces: divine grace and human will”
@Pete: And note too, “Calvinism” is layered and historical, as I have said, I don’t really believe or think Calvin himself was a Monergist. You might want to read Emil Brunner (himself a moderate Calvinist and a infralapsarian – as I am myself), and his points on Calvin and natural theology.
Beware of beating on a straw-man here! And Augustine himself is the best so-called Western defense. A Church Father himself! And it is no secert that many of the EO try to diminish the man and his theology! I would recommend the book by the late Fr. Seraphim Rose (1934-1982, himself an Orthodox priest). ‘The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church’, (1983, Revised Ed, 1996).
Btw, I like to think of myself as someone who has been close to the EO. In a dialogue group many years past as an Anglican with some EO. Heck, I even came close some years back to going with the Antiochain Orthodox. And as I have written, I am close to their Christology and the Trinity of God (no filioque for me).
I am weary of hearing people assert “well the early fathers didn’t write on this….”
Just because the early church believed or practiced certain things or did not believe or not practice certain things, does not set the standard of what we are to do today.
I mean, you actually think that because they were “closer to the time of the apostles” meant they didn’t have error? My goodness, we see where error was cropping up in the churches Paul planted within a matter of years of his planting them. That is why he had to write his letters.
At the end of the day, regardless of what we see in history, when we see history depart from Scripture, we have to side with the latter.
Scripture is our bar for what is authentically Christian. History only serves to show it as either being adhered to or neglected.
“At the end of the day, regardless of what we see in history, when we see history depart from Scripture, we have to side with the latter.” Which scripture? The scripture as interpreted by Luther and the reformers? By your reasoning during the protestant reformation we should have signed with scripture. Luther imposed his own ideas. He even wanted to throw out the book of James. He ad antibaptists murdered etc. I would like nothing to do with that. You understand scripture is the bar sure, but is maintained as such through the preservation of the Church. Your reasoning is backwards. God gave us a standard to preserve the scripture. That being the Early Church. You deny that and as a result claim authority lies within ones interpretation. Interpretation outside of this is heretical and leads to the 20,000+ Protestant sects we see today. I
Pete: thanks for those quotes. You are right that semi-pelagian is a massively abused term within protestantism, and I’ve long noticed that no Protestants have a clue what it means.
Fr Robert: you’re right that Augustine is often disparaged in Orthodoxy, but having read a bit of him myself, I struggle to see how he supports a Protestant cause.
Carrie: There’s a difference between errors in individual churches, and errors in all the churches. On a purely logical level, how would you explain completely separate churches coming to the exact same error? These are churches with bishops more versed in the scriptures than you will ever be. Once you’ve come up with a suitable explanation, now tell us how you know for sure that this same problem does not also apply to all the Protestant churches.
Furthermore, I’ve never come across any evidence that any Protestant church ever changed its practices because of scripture. Did you eve hear of a Presbyterian church that decided to become baptist because they were convicted by a scriptural argument, or a baptist church that decided to become paedobaptist? Or a church that changed its polity because they looked hard at scripture? Or a church that changed from Calvinist to Arminian or vice versa? If you know of one, it’s got to be so so rare. All Protestant churches do exactly what orthodox churches do, which is to hold to their own traditions. The difference is we at least have a plausible claim that our traditions date from the beginning.
Fantastic repsonse
@John: On your last paragraph #42, check out some of the American Presbyterian Churches who are within the now ‘Federal Vision’. They have radically changed on Covenant & Sacrament! As I have stated myself, I am FV “friendly”!
And as to “Carrie’s” point, I think (as John Paul II wrote), that the Church is always a “Pilgrim” body on earth! (I have that John Paul quote if ya want?)
Have they changed? Because my understanding is that the FV folks claim to be the true inheritors of Reformed theology. From what I can see, the Presbyterians woke up one day and realised they didn’t agree on something, and some fell one way, and some the other. Because they only just woke up to the issue even existing at all, it’s a bit hard to say where they stood before.
Yes the church is a pilgrim. One hopes the pilgrim is continually making spiritual progress, and not on a pilgrimage directly to hell.
@John: Indeed the FV is not really a full-blown Reformed Theology, as I have come to understand it, but a “Federal Vision” within Reformed theology, itself. But then, I am only “friendly” here, as an Anglican. I am somewhat “Reformed” on soteriology or salvation myself, but again the Federal Vision is more toward the Covenant and Sacramental life, itself. And as I see it, has some of the “Catholic” beauty in theology… as the Federal Vision of the Doctrine of God! 🙂 My take anyway, for as an Anglican, I am or see both the “catholic” & “reformed” reality!
Of course as you Orthodox believe, in “theosis”, but only at the end, before the Bema-Seat of Christ!
We only believe in Theosis at the end? That’s an odd thing to say.
I should say, that what I believe “theosis” will be, in the presence of Christ, at ‘the Bema-Seat! 🙂
‘Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life, Lord Jesus, Come In Glory!’
Sounds like there might be an interesting discussion lurking there, but for now you’ve lost me.