Love Wins - an Orthodox view.

Onesimus · 02-01-2012 02:03AM #1

but of course it's the Catholic view too. I came across this video and found it interesting. I've never seen anything like it using just chairs as part of the demonstration. First he gives the protestant view of salvation. He then gives the Orthodox/Catholic view of salvation.

After that tell me which sounds a lot better to you? This poll and post and video is for all peoples, not just Christians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8

philologos · 02-01-2012 10:34AM

Onesimus wrote: »

but of course it's the Catholic view too. I came across this video and found it interesting. I've never seen anything like it using just chairs as part of the demonstration. First he gives the protestant view of salvation. He then gives the Orthodox/Catholic view of salvation.

After that tell me which sounds a lot better to you? This poll and post and video is for all peoples, not just Christians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8

It is because God cannot bear to see man live apart from Him any more that He came into the world in the Reformed view of atonement.

It's not a direct comparison because he hasn't included the same depth of detail in the first and the second. The reason that Jesus meets with people is to show them His compassion, and to bring them to Him so that they might be saved. The second contains no mention of Jesus on the cross. Much of what he said in the second concerning Jesus' contact with others is true for the first also. That's why I feel the comparison is lacking.

I like the Reformed version because it is Biblically sound. There are passages that are clearly left out of the second that deserve consideration.

alex73 · 02-01-2012 11:54AM

philologos wrote: »

It's not a direct comparison because he hasn't included the same depth of detail in the first and the second.

Hope this Thread does not become another Catholic V Protestant one.

I like the Orthodox imagery is very good. God is always with us, always there, always willing to love us, It is us that separate ourselves from him, be never leaves us.

I know is past threads this topic has come up time and again. Faith and Works v Faith alone. God did give us a free will, So that we could use it to do good, so that we could use it to accept his love and follow it.

philologos · 02-01-2012 02:15PM

alex73 wrote: »

Hope this Thread does not become another Catholic V Protestant one.

I like the Orthodox imagery is very good. God is always with us, always there, always willing to love us, It is us that separate ourselves from him, be never leaves us.

I know is past threads this topic has come up time and again. Faith and Works v Faith alone. God did give us a free will, So that we could use it to do good, so that we could use it to accept his love and follow it.

Firstly - The thread is phrased as a Catholic vs Protestant one, that's what it is unfortunately.

Secondly - I don't believe the video actually presents the Orthodox view as being all that different than the Reformed one. I wouldn't disagree with the second, but if it leaves out the first explanation I don't feel that's a sufficient explanation of the Gospel that is that Jesus came into the world to save us from our sin.

Thirdly - Roman Catholics have used the first explanation of salvation. Anselm of Canterbury in particular introduced the satisfaction theory of atonement and he was a key figure in that church. The Wikpedia entry I've linked to makes it clear that it was used in the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Reformation. So I don't believe that Onesimus is being accurate by claiming that the second view of atonement fully describes the Christian position on it.

wolfsbane · 02-01-2012 02:30PM

So God loves all those He puts in the Lake of Fire, all He pours His wrath upon!

Even Satan, presumably.

I doubt even the RCC holds that heresy. Seems to me the guy is just spouting liberalism.

************************************************************************
Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

The Quadratic Equation · 02-01-2012 03:37PM

3rd poll choice. After watching the video . . . . it explains neither.

gimmebroadband · 02-01-2012 03:54PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

So God loves all those He puts in the Lake of Fire, all He pours His wrath upon!

Even Satan, presumably.

I doubt even the RCC holds that heresy. Seems to me the guy is just spouting liberalism.

************************************************************************
Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

God loves everybody and doesn't put ANYONE into the lake of fire, they put themselves there because THEY themselves didn't love God! He gave us free will to choose whether to love or reject Him, and grieves at the loss of souls!

The door to Hell is locked from the inside! C.S. Lewis.

J C · 02-01-2012 08:33PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

God loves everybody and doesn't put ANYONE into the lake of fire, they put themselves there because THEY themselves didn't love God! He gave us free will to choose whether to love or reject Him, and grieves at the loss of souls!

The door to Hell is locked from the inside! C.S. Lewis.

You are correct that God loves everybody ... and wants to Save them.
However, God is a God of both justice and mercy ... He extends His mercy to those who repent and believe on Him to Save them ... and His justice is served on those who refuse His mercy.

... and BTW the door to Hell is wide open before you are Saved ... and totally closed to you, when you are Saved.
... and it is also permanently locked ... once anybody is consigned there.

I don't think the video is a comprehensive presentation of either the Biblical or the Orthodox points of view.

It didn't address the doctrine of Hell from an Orthodox point of view ... and it didn't point out that Biblical Christians also study every word and every action of Jesus, while He was on Earth ... and they aren't exclusively focussed on Christ's atoning death.

He also said that God's love is 'a consuming fire' for those who don't love Him ... which is a very strange and destructive kind of 'love' ... that cannot be considered love at all, in any meaningful sense of the word ... and he hasn't even mentioned the Justice and Judgement aspects to God.

Onesimus · 03-01-2012 02:51AM

I think what he saying is that. Even though man turns his back on God, God does not turn his back on him but his love becomes a consuming fire and he will always be calling him/her towards himself.

Contrary to the protestant doctrine that when man turns his back on God, God in turn turns his back on him.

The Lords wrath and Justice is Love also for God is only but Love. When humanity turns its back on God, Gods justice chases humanity to try and humble them and for them to return to him. He chases them with burning love.

St.Thomas Aquinas tells us that Gods justice is also Gods love.

I thought it was interesting. and I doubt he is going to be able to cram in everything into 9mins. haha.

Cool vid to me anyways.

Onesimus

philologos · 03-01-2012 07:59AM

I believe your take on the RCC view of salvation is wrong. Historically many Catholics, including some people the RCC considers saints like Anselm of Canterbury, Augustine, and Aquinas held to the satisfaction theory of atonement.

I believe his take is dishonest. Much of what he mentioned in the second could have very easily been included in the first. In fact the second is an incomplete account of salvation in that it doesn't mention Jesus' death and resurrection in detail.

Slav · 03-01-2012 02:07PM

philologos wrote: »

It's not a direct comparison because he hasn't included the same depth of detail in the first and the second.

I think he put the same level of details on both views and in both cases it was a low level. I guess his intention was only to draw a sketch rather then putting accurate and comprehensive definitions of Penal Substitution and some sort of Christus Victor. Not to mention that these two views are not the only ones in Christianity.

Onesimus wrote: »

He then gives the Orthodox/Catholic view of salvation.

As philologos has pointed out already Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not in agreement on the issues of salvation. In fact there are two closely related questions: what is sin and what is salvation, and these two are the foundation of all our theological differences. This is for instance why Purgatory and Immaculate Conception are accepted by one side and rejected by the other.

Also I don't think such a thing as "the Orthodox view of salvation" even exists, i.e. in Orthodoxy there is no single theological doctrine that can explain the atonement. The atonement is seen as God's work and therefore it's likely that we would not be able to fully comprehend it at least while "we know in part, and we prophesy in part" (1Cor 13:9). Salvation is God's mystery. However while we cannot examine and describe its mechanisms we can still have our reflections on it. Some reflections can be rather good and deep and some can be not so good and not so deep but if they all have the gospel as their foundation they don't conflict with but complement each other. When however one of them become a theological doctrine it starts compete with the others and as a result we unavoidably end up with an incomplete or even a flawed picture.

For a more accurate representation of the Orthodox view of salvation check these two lectures by Fr Thomas Hopko. They are rather long and there are repetitions between them but I think they both worth listening to (there are links to mp3 as well for offline use):

1. The Death of Christ and Our Death in Him: Contemporary Issues in Light of the Church’s Teachings (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)

2. The Word of the Cross (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4)

alex73 · 03-01-2012 07:30PM

Slav wrote: »

As philologos has pointed out already Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not in agreement on the issues of salvation. In fact there are two closely related questions: what is sin and what is salvation, and these two are the foundation of all our theological differences. This is for instance why Purgatory and Immaculate Conception are accepted by one side and rejected by the other.

Strange how the in the Orthodox divine liturgy the use the word immaculate 8 times in refence to Mary. (archrantos) "This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary..."; "She is conceived...the only immaculate one"

Is that not what is celebrated in the Orthodox Church not in communion with Rome?..

As for purgatory, Well the Orthodox do accept a purification after death? Correct.

Its like Transubstantiation . Orthodox don't like using this latin terminology but they accept the same real presence of Christ Body and Soul in the Eucharist, but as a symbol but as a real true presence.

CMpunked · 04-01-2012 01:23AM

I wasnt expecting him to give a bias view towards the two descriptions anyway.
And i knew that before i even pressed play.

Slav · 04-01-2012 04:05AM

alex73 wrote: »

Strange how the in the Orthodox divine liturgy the use the word immaculate 8 times in refence to Mary. (archrantos) "This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary..."; "She is conceived...the only immaculate one".

There is nothing strange about it. I'm not sure where exactly did you get that quotes from (I cannot recognise them) but certainly Theotokos is described as "pure", "most pure", "the only pure" in practically every Orthodox service. If the Roman liturgical texts just had the similar wordings then there would be zero problem with the Immaculate Conception from the Orthodox perspective. However Catholicism also have

"the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin"

and this is something that Orthodox cannot accept.

As for purgatory, Well the Orthodox do accept a purification after death? Correct.

Orthodox accept resurrection and judgement after death.

They in general also hope that God's mercy is not limited by human death and some of the Eastern Church Fathers expressed this hope using the word purification or even purification fire. If Catholicism stayed within these limits then Orthodoxy would have zero problem with Purgatory but Rome (assuming that Satisfaction theory is THE atonement doctrine) went further with

"If anyone says that after the grace of justification has been received the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out for any repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this world or in the other, in purgatory, before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven, let him be anathema"

and this is something that Orthodox cannot accept.

Its like Transubstantiation . Orthodox don't like using this latin terminology but they accept the same real presence of Christ Body and Soul in the Eucharist, but as a symbol but as a real true presence.

It's not the terminology that Orthodox don't like but the scholastic approach to the Eucharist. We are in agreement of what is Eucharist but Transubstantiation also tries to answer the question "how". This is seen by Orthodox as completely unnecessary and rather clumsy.

lionmqj · 04-01-2012 12:30PM

Onesimus wrote: »

but of course it's the Catholic view too. I came across this video and found it interesting. I've never seen anything like it using just chairs as part of the demonstration. First he gives the protestant view of salvation. He then gives the Orthodox/Catholic view of salvation.

After that tell me which sounds a lot better to you? This poll and post and video is for all peoples, not just Christians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8

The second view says (If I have got this correctly) that I don't even have to believe in God to be saved?????

alex73 · 04-01-2012 06:45PM

Slav wrote: »

There is nothing strange about it. I'm not sure where exactly did you get that quotes from (I cannot recognise them) but certainly Theotokos is described as "pure", "most pure", "the only pure" in practically every Orthodox service. If the Roman liturgical texts just had the similar wordings then there would be zero problem with the Immaculate Conception from the Orthodox perspective. However Catholicism also have

"the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin"

and this is something that Orthodox cannot accept.

Orthodox accept resurrection and judgement after death.

They in general also hope that God's mercy is not limited by human death and some of the Eastern Church Fathers expressed this hope using the word purification or even purification fire. If Catholicism stayed within these limits then Orthodoxy would have zero problem with Purgatory but Rome (assuming that Satisfaction theory is THE atonement doctrine) went further with

"If anyone says that after the grace of justification has been received the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out for any repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this world or in the other, in purgatory, before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven, let him be anathema"

and this is something that Orthodox cannot accept.

It's not the terminology that Orthodox don't like but the scholastic approach to the Eucharist. We are in agreement of what is Eucharist but Transubstantiation also tries to answer the question "how". This is seen by Orthodox as completely unnecessary and rather clumsy.

I accept what you are saying. The Catholic Church takes faith, accepts it as passed from the Apostles, I don't think that using reason to deepen our understanding of Faith is wrong, St. Thomas Aquinas did not change what we believed in, but what he did was show what logically must pertain as part of our faith if we believe in principles. The question of Marys Immaculate conception is one that has been debated since 12th century. The step to make it Dogma was spurred on after Lourdes. I know the Orthodox point of view well, Since it was never taught as part of the Original Faith then its never going to be part of the Orthodox faith. However they do accept that she was without sin all her entire life, Its not a stretch of reason to conclude that God conceived a pure soul in which is Son was incarnated.

Onesimus · 04-01-2012 08:36PM

Here is an interesting thread I found on Eastern Catholicism with regards to transubstantiation. Even the Orthodox in the thread admit that Slav is wrong.

As far as St.Mary being Immaculate and pure. the Orthodox have a hymn called ''O Virgin Pure, Immaculate'' etc.

Alex. A lot of Orthodox always try their best to make themselves different from Catholics. Many Orthodox beleive that Mary was indeed Immaculate. But many Orthodox in the bid to tear themselves away from Catholicism call it merely an ''optional'' belief for the Orthodox. it was never Optional for Catholics to disbelieve because the Fathers were all unanimous in their belief that Mother Mary was Immaculate. And whenever the fathers are united in belief it is taken for granted that indeed that is the belief according to Sacred Tradition ( a Sacred Tradition the Orthodox ultimately reject oddly enough ). The Pope over some confusion that arose in the Church decided to make it doctrine and just complete what the Fathers already made quite clear. And he can do this because he holds the keys.

God bless
Onesimus

wolfsbane · 04-01-2012 08:43PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

God loves everybody and doesn't put ANYONE into the lake of fire, they put themselves there because THEY themselves didn't love God! He gave us free will to choose whether to love or reject Him, and grieves at the loss of souls!

The door to Hell is locked from the inside! C.S. Lewis.

Man's sin is the reason he is damned - but it is God who actually sends the sinner to hell. The sinner would not go there if left to his own choice. He would be glad to continue his sinful existence without being punished.

Your idea about the love of God is not derived from the Bible, but from human emotionalism. Here's what Scripture says:
Matthew 25:29 ‘For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

He is not voluntarily going away into the outer darkness - he is being cast there.

Matthew 13:40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

2 Thessalonians 1:6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

Does this sound like on-going love toward the wicked? Punishment without hope of reprieve.

*********************************************************************
Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Slav · 05-01-2012 02:24AM

alex73 wrote: »

The Catholic Church takes faith, accepts it as passed from the Apostles, I don't think that using reason to deepen our understanding of Faith is wrong, St. Thomas Aquinas did not change what we believed in, but what he did was show what logically must pertain as part of our faith if we believe in principles. The question of Marys Immaculate conception is one that has been debated since 12th century. The step to make it Dogma was spurred on after Lourdes. I know the Orthodox point of view well, Since it was never taught as part of the Original Faith then its never going to be part of the Orthodox faith.

Alex, I don't think this is the case. For instance, the teachings of Trinity, Chalchedonian Christology, stating that it's proper to call Mary Theotokos, explanations why iconoclasm is wrong were not (and could not be) formulated by the Apostles. So Orthodox are cool with the doctrinal development but it should satisfy a number of conditions:

1. There should be a good reason to introduce it, namely to cut out a dangerous heresy off the Church,
2. It should not contradict the previously established Church teachings, i.e. Scripture, Tradition, Liturgy,
3. It should be based on and expand on doctrines which are catholic, i.e. universally believed by the whole Church,
4. Once formulated they should get the catholic acceptance of the Church.

Looking at the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception from the Orthodox perspective, not only it violates no.1 above but most importantly it violates no.3: it's based on the "augustinian" original sin which is not a catholic teaching but a theologoumena proposed by St.Augustine and then developed by a number or Western Fathers. Therefore the rejection of Immaculate Conception is not a matter of believing whether Theotokos was immaculate or not. If Orthodox accept it as a dogma it would make them at very least to accept the augustinian original sin which has never been popular in the East. Apart from that there are other parts of the dogma as it's worded in Ineffabilis Deus that would contradict the general Eastern understanding of why Theotokos is immaculate and by what means.

Same applies to Purgatory. Even though there is absolutely no need for it in the Eastern theological system (for Orthodox it does not pass Occam's razor if you like), accepting Trent canons is seen as accepting Trojan horses packed with augustinian original sin, satisfaction theory of atonement as THE theory of atonement, mortal and venial sin distinction and other things foreign to the East.

And same again with Transubstantiation - subscribing to it as it's worded by RCC would make everyone to use philosophical categories in relation to the Eucharist, even those who feel it's inappropriate to do so.

Slav · 05-01-2012 03:27AM

Onesimus wrote: »

Here is an interesting thread I found on Eastern Catholicism with regards to transubstantiation. Even the Orthodox in the thread admit that Slav is wrong.

Post #3 in that thread sums up the Orthodox position pretty well. Although I'm not too sure who admits there that I'm wrong and why...

As far as St.Mary being Immaculate and pure. the Orthodox have a hymn called ''O Virgin Pure, Immaculate'' etc.

"Ἁγνὴ Παρθένε" is not a good example. This is a modern hymn (19th century) so you can rarely hear it in church (I have never). There is a far better choice: a very old and very well known hymn that you hear every Divine Liturgy and the word used there is probably as close to immaculate as you can get in Greek, see below.

A lot of Orthodox always try their best to make themselves different from Catholics. Many Orthodox beleive that Mary was indeed Immaculate. But many Orthodox in the bid to tear themselves away from Catholicism call it merely an ''optional'' belief for the Orthodox. it was never Optional for Catholics to disbelieve because the Fathers were all unanimous in their belief that Mother Mary was Immaculate. And whenever the fathers are united in belief it is taken for granted that indeed that is the belief according to Sacred Tradition ( a Sacred Tradition the Orthodox ultimately reject oddly enough ). The Pope over some confusion that arose in the Church decided to make it doctrine and just complete what the Fathers already made quite clear. And he can do this because he holds the keys.

As I said in the previous post for Orthodox it's not a question whether Theotokos is immaculate or not. Of course she is as at very least every Divine Liturgy in "Άξιον εστίν" she is called "all immaculate":

Άξιον εστίν ως αληθώς μακαρίζειν σε την Θεοτόκον, την αειμακάριστον και παναμώμητον...

The real problem here and the reason for rejection of the Catholic dogma is that for Orthodox being immaculate is nowhere close to the idea "that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin"

alex73 · 05-01-2012 09:46AM

@Slav. Great posts, Some food for thought. I am heading to Agio Oros soon.

Slav · 06-01-2012 04:09PM

alex73 wrote: »

I am heading to Agio Oros soon.

Enjoy it! I hope all that Vatopedi events and the recent geronta Ephraim controversy did not have any negative effect on the Mount and you will find there everything you're going for.

Onesimus · 06-01-2012 05:00PM

Slav wrote: »

Enjoy it! I hope all that Vatopedi events and the recent geronta Ephraim controversy did not have any negative effect on the Mount and you will find there everything you're going for.

Yeah somebody got arrested. Have you any more info on this? It was something to do with land wasnt it?

Slav · 06-01-2012 05:34PM

That particular monastery, using some very old documents, claimed ownership of a lake which they then somehow exchanged with the help of the government for a real estate in Athens of much higher market value. This story is relatively old but few weeks ago archimandrite Ephraim of Vatopedi was arrested in relation to that case. In the current political and economical climate of Greece it's hard to tell what's it all about: some say Ephraim is rightly arrested because the deal was unlawful (although he was not the only figure there and likely not the main one), some say that Greece is now busy scapegoating for the troubles they found themselves in, some say it's the Ecumenical Patriarchate behind it because of Ephraim's too close relations with Moscow as well as over 9000 other speculations.

Onesimus · 06-01-2012 05:41PM

Slav wrote: »

That particular monastery, using some very old documents, claimed ownership of a lake which they then somehow exchanged with the help of the government for a real estate in Athens of much higher market value. This story is relatively old but few weeks ago archimandrite Ephraim of Vatopedi was arrested in relation to that case. In the current political and economical climate of Greece it's hard to tell what's it all about: some say Ephraim is rightly arrested because the deal was unlawful (although he was not the only figure there and likely not the main one), some say that Greece is now busy scapegoating for the troubles they found themselves in, some say it's the Ecumenical Patriarchate behind it because of Ephraim's too close relations with Moscow as well as over 9000 other speculations.

Yeah the scapegoating of the Greek Government one seems the most applicable speculation at the moment.

alex73 · 06-01-2012 10:28PM

Slav wrote: »

Enjoy it! I hope all that Vatopedi events and the recent geronta Ephraim controversy did not have any negative effect on the Mount and you will find there everything you're going for.

I am actually going to Vatopedi on the 1st night. I don't have all the facts to comment on the arrest... But there was no need to hold him in jail... It was excessive. But it does not effect me love for Agio Oros which for me is one of the most sacred places.

Slav · 07-01-2012 01:42PM

alex73 wrote: »

But there was no need to hold him in jail... It was excessive.

Absolutely. Arrest could be a reasonable measure if there is a possibility that the suspect might disappear or there is a danger of witness tampering; neither was the case with archimandrite Ephraim. Moreover, the arrest happened just now long time after the investigation has started and it's only him who got arrested in connection to this case. All this just sparkled a lot of rumours that it's actually some powers in Athens, Brussels or Constantinople behind the arrest.

Love Wins - an Orthodox view.

After watching this video I'd rather have... 4 votes

Comments