Tradition

[Arsenios]

Originally Posted by Arsenios
I am not surprised that fallen man turning to God in repentance from sin is anathema to you...

Quote me where I stated it is "anathema".

Forgive me if I cited you falsely...

Did you not say that only SAVED man is capable of repentance?

That the not-yet-saved man is incapable of repentance?

That fallen man repenting unto Salvation by God is anathema...

Because to YOU, that would mean evil man is saving himself by his evil?

Did I totally not understand your meaning?

Can you straighten me out here please?

Did you not say that the Holy CALL of God unto Repentance from sin is a mere legalism?


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Forgive me if I cited you falsely...

Did you not say that only SAVED man is capable of repentance?

That the not-yet-saved man is incapable of repentance?

That fallen man repenting unto Salvation by God is anathema...

Because to YOU, that would mean evil man is saving himself by his evil?

Did I totally not understand your meaning?

Can you straighten me out here please?

Did you not say that the Holy CALL of God unto Repentance from sin is a mere legalism?


Arsenios

I did not say "anathema"


What I do indicate is that the dead, atheistic, enemy of God who thus denies that God exists, denies that God has any wisdom or law, denies that it is possible to offend one who doesn't even exist, is not likely to repent.

They may feel remorse for what they've done (even dogs can do that) but that's not repentance. Repentance is the awareness that one was violated the Law of God and offended the righteous God who exists and is aware, repentance means to stop the evil one is doing, turning to God's mercy and grace, and walking in a new path. Again, remorse is not the same thing as repentance.


But my disagreement with you is this: You argue all that is needed is the Law, just the Just God issuing a legalistic demand: And that the dead, atheistic enemy of God has the will and ability to respond to the Law. I think that is very unbiblical and that it renders the Gospel irrelevant, it renders Christ, the Savior, mercy, grace, the Cross, the Incarnation, the Empty Tomb, the Holy Spirit, faith - all that is entirely, wholly, completely irrelevant: what is needed is just the legal demand of God. And everyone has the will and ability to respond.

Now, I realize, SO FAR, you've only stated that as the beginning. But you've agreed it ALL hinges on that. Without that will and ability, without fallen, unregenerate, dead, atheistist, enemies of God having that complete full ability - entirely void of God, void of grace, void of mercy, void of life, void of faith, without God doing ANYTHING, supplying ANYTHING except pure Law, only absolutely ordering, THAT is how it all begins. All law, NO Gospel, NO God, NO Holy Spirit, NO faith. Everything hinges on fallen, dead, atheistic, enemies of God doing exactly what the Bible says they can't do. That's what I disagree with.

You claim the Bible teaches that if the Law calls for something, ERGO fallen, dead, atheistic, unregenerate,lifelife, man can do it. Doesn't leave any room for God (other than a proclaimer of pure law) nor for Christ, mercy, grace, the Holy Spirit, faith, life, the Cross, the Incarnation, the Resurrection. Just God announcing pure Law and fallen man thus having the will and ability to reply. Friend, even Islam and some forms of Hinduism leave more room for God than you do.



.f what you are proclaiming IS the Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, then I find the soteriology of all the false religions of the world to be better, closer to biblical Christianity. But I'm hoping (and believing) what you are saying is quite the antithesis of Orthodoxy on this point.





.

 

[MennoSota]

That's a start...

May I offer to you the fact that sin is an act of rebellion against God?

So that perhaps you might want to remove the word former from "former rebels" because we are still rebelling with every sin?



So in terms of sin, the saved are still sinners and shall ever be until death?



Does not Scripture affirm that "FEAR of God is the BEGINNING of Wisdom?"

I know we post-moderns like to tone it down to mean "awe for God"...

Yet fear of eternal consequences for their sins converts many - [It never converted me, mind you... But I am not typical...]

Yet Scripture tells us this fear is a start...

Which leads to your next point...



I would add, not only to spare us, but to Give us Life, and invite us to the Wedding of the Marriage of the Lamb...

The Life of Christ in this fallen life we live under the rule of death on this earth here and now...

But do we not have to affirm Biblically that both Fear and Love are affirmed by the Bible?

That fear of eternal death is the beginning [of scorn for temporal death] which leads to the Love of God and neighbor?

That IF we are still sinning AFTER being Saved, we are still immature in Christ, yes?

That maturing in Christ is the overcoming of sin(s)?


Arsenios

Of course sin is an act of rebellion. Christians are simply sinners captured by God's grace where as non-Christians are still uncaptured rebels. We all sin. We all fall short. By God's grace we are made holy through the propitiatory work of Christ Jesus.
Throw out your flagellation as an attempt to beat yourself into God's favor. Jesus was beaten and torn so that you might have life. Trust that truth.

 

[Arsenios]

Throw out your flagellation as an attempt to beat yourself into God's favor.
Jesus was beaten and torn so that you might have life.
Trust that truth.

Flagellation is a western aberration and not a feature of the EOC...


Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

Flagellation is a western aberration and not a feature of the EOC...


Arsenios

Saint Paul wrote about his own practise of self discipline - 1 Corinthians 9:27 Instead, I chastise my body, so as to redirect it into servitude. Otherwise, I might preach to others, but become myself an outcast.

If the EOC has lost this wisdom then come to the "west" and learn from Christ again.

Of course I also invite your interlocutor to learn at the feet of Christ too, and hear what saint Paul says on the matter of self control. Not everything is a matter of physical chastisement but often the service of Christ involves danger and privations for the sake of the gospel and these things are chastisements for the sake of the gospel.

 

[Arsenios]

I did not say "anathema"

OK - I stand terminologically corrected!

Please forgive my transgression...

What I do indicate is that the dead, atheistic, enemy of God who thus denies that God exists, denies that God has any wisdom or law, denies that it is possible to offend one who doesn't even exist, is not likely to repent.

Oh, I suppose not, unless, of course, God CALLS him to repentance...
I know one guy who was either killing Christians and having them killed who got the Call and repented...
Ended up writing half the New Testament...

They may feel remorse for what they've done (even dogs can do that) but that's not repentance. Repentance is the awareness that one was violated the Law of God and offended the righteous God who exists and is aware, repentance means to stop the evil one is doing, turning to God's mercy and grace, and walking in a new path. Again, remorse is not the same thing as repentance.

I agree, they are two and not one, for somewhat similar reasons...

But my disagreement with you is this: You argue all that is needed is the Law, just the Just God issuing a legalistic demand:

I have never argued that at all - The Call of God struck Saul blind, and he fasted for three days, and was healed of his blindness by Ananias and was Baptized by Him...

The Call to Repentance is not just some sissy little legalism of a demand to be different...

I don't know where you came up with that and shoved it into my pile...

And that the dead, atheistic enemy of God has the will and ability to respond to the Law.

Saul and millions of Christians have managed to turn from their sins upon receiving the Holy Call of God unto Repentance...

I think that is very unbiblical and that it renders the Gospel irrelevant, it renders Christ, the Savior, mercy, grace, the Cross, the Incarnation, the Empty Tomb, the Holy Spirit, faith - all that is entirely, wholly, completely irrelevant:

The way you misunderstand the Call of God, I would have to agree with your conclusion...

Check your premisses...

what is needed is just the legal demand of God. And everyone has the will and ability to respond.

What is the difference between that and the Just God issuing a legalistic demand which you so vehemently reject???

This is a strange twist, Josiah...

Now, I realize, SO FAR, you've only stated that as the beginning. But you've agreed it ALL hinges on that. Without that will and ability, without fallen, unregenerate, dead, atheistist, enemies of God having that complete full ability - entirely void of God, void of grace, void of mercy, void of life, void of faith, without God doing ANYTHING, supplying ANYTHING except pure Law, only absolutely ordering, THAT is how it all begins. All law, NO Gospel, NO God, NO Holy Spirit, NO faith. Everything hinges on fallen, dead, atheistic, enemies of God doing exactly what the Bible says they can't do. That's what I disagree with.

The Holy CALL of God is drenched in Grace... Saturated... But you understand the Fall differently... You think we are born as corpses... Orthodoxy sees man as born under the rule of death and weak... But still alive in the death which rules his brief life... You think he is as dead as the barn door buried in cow manure...

You claim the Bible teaches that if the Law calls for something, ERGO fallen, dead, atheistic, unregenerate,lifelife, man can do it.

That is your fantasy-football misunderstanding of what I claim...

Doesn't leave any room for God (other than a proclaimer of pure law) nor for Christ, mercy, grace, the Holy Spirit, faith, life, the Cross, the Incarnation, the Resurrection. Just God announcing pure Law and fallen man thus having the will and ability to reply. Friend, even Islam and some forms of Hinduism leave more room for God than you do.

Well, your fantasy staggers my imagination...

If what you are proclaiming IS the Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, then I find the soteriology of all the false religions of the world to be better, closer to biblical Christianity. But I'm hoping (and believing) what you are saying is quite the antithesis of Orthodoxy on this point.

You haven't understood a word of it yet...

So given your blinders of western Soteriology, I agree with you...

Take off the blinders, and check your premisses...

Perhaps your eyes might see...

Salvation is Union with God the Father through Union with God the Son IN the Holy Spirit...

If THAT is NOT your basic Soteriological premise, then you will not be able to understand my words...


Arsenios


ps - Thank-you for actually "talking" to me finally!

Marvelously refreshing, I should say!

 

[Arsenios]

Saint Paul wrote about his own practise of self discipline - 1 Corinthians 9:27 Instead, I chastise my body, so as to redirect it into servitude. Otherwise, I might preach to others, but become myself an outcast.

If the EOC has lost this wisdom then come to the "west" and learn from Christ again.

Of course I also invite your interlocutor to learn at the feet of Christ too, and hear what saint Paul says on the matter of self control. Not everything is a matter of physical chastisement but often the service of Christ involves danger and privations for the sake of the gospel and these things are chastisements for the sake of the gospel.

Flagellation is not an eastern practice...

The word in Paul is "keep under", meaning "subdue"...

In the west, it came to mean punish the flesh, which is gnostic...

In the east, the flesh is not punished as some kind of evildoer...

Nor is it permitted to rule the soul, whatever that might take...

You will NOT find flagellants in the EOC - Whose practice is to flagellate themselves as a practice of the Faith...

eg Say, nightly going to bed self-flagellating just to make sure your flesh is subdued, or the like...

That is a western phenom...

Striking the body can be indicated as an antidote to an issue of assault by the demon of fornication, but only as an antidote at the onset, and stopping as soon as the assault stops... Validating Paul's "Not as a shadow boxer beating the air", but surgically applied only when needed... We do not see the flesh as evil, but to be subdued unto obedience to the soul, which is obedient to the Spirit and Christ... It is because of this passage in Paul that I think it was the demon of fornication that was Paul's "thorn in the flesh" that God so generously provided to him... There are many opinions, I know...


Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

Flagellation is not an eastern practice...

The word in Paul is "keep under", meaning "subdue"...

ὑπωπιάζω
hupōpiazō
hoop-o-pee-ad'-zo
From a compound of G5259 and a derivative of G3700; to hit under the eye (buffet or disable an antagonist as a pugilist), that is, (figuratively) to tease or annoy (into compliance), subdue (one’s passions): - keep under, weary.
(Strongs)

ὑπωπιάζω
hupōpiázō; fut. hupōpiásō, from hupṓpion (n.f.), the part of the face which is under the eyes, the face, which is from hupó (G5259), under, and ōps (n.f.), eye, face, countenance. To strike under the eyes, beat the face black and blue, give a black eye. In the NT generally to mistreat, trans. spoken of the body, to subject to hardship, mortify (1Co 9:27). Figuratively to weary with prayers, entreaties, to tire out someone, with the acc. (Luk 18:5).
Syn.: kolaphízō (G2852), to strike with clenched hands, box with the fist; kopiáō (G2872), to grow weary, feel tired; kámnō (G2577), to wax weary; ekkakéō (G1573), to feel faint.
Ant.: eupsuchéō (G2174), to cause to be encouraged; parakaléō (G3870), to comfort; paramuthéomai (G3888), soothe, console, encourage.
(The Complete Word Study Dictionary

© 1992 By AMG International, Inc.
Chattanooga, TN 37422, U.S.A.
Revised edition, 1993)

I think you are likely mistaken about the word's meaning.

 

[MennoSota]

Flagellation is a western aberration and not a feature of the EOC...


Arsenios

Yet you call for it none-the-less...

 

[Josiah]

Oh, I suppose not, unless, of course, God CALLS him to repentance...

Of course, THAT'S your position. All that is needed is pure law, for God to demand something and presto, the audience has the will and ability to obey.
No need for grace or mercy. No need for the Holy Spirit or faith. No need for the Cross or the Savior. No need for any Gospel whatsoever.
Just a legalistic demand.

And you claim that everything hinges on this.... the unbelieving, unregenerate, fallen, dead atheist adequately performing a good work - and God therefore doing the right then issuing the required reward.
THIS you insist is what is at the foundation of everything.
No Gospel.
No mercy.
No Holy Spirit.
No faith.
No Christ.
No Cross.
No Resurrection.
Just a legal demand.... and dead folks willing and able to do as commanded.

Kinda makes Christianity unnecessary.
See Galatians 2:21

I know one guy who was either killing Christians and having them killed who got the Call and repented...
Ended up writing half the New Testament...

You evidently are unaware of Acts 9. Read it.
FIRST God justified him - gave him faith and the Holy Spirit.

There is NOTHING in Acts 9 that says FIRST God issued a pure legalistic demand on Paul.... and as an enemy of Christ he therefore had the will and ability to do as God demanded..... and he did.... and as a reward, God paid him off with faith, the Holy Spirit and spiritual life.

Read Acts 9 about that example because he perfectly illustrates what the Bible teaches and the opposite of what you do.

Saul and millions of Christians have managed to turn from their sins upon receiving the Holy Call of God unto Repentance...

That's not the issue, is it? You are claiming that the FALLEN, the NON-Christians, the NON-believers, have the will and ability to respond to God's pure law - nothing else from God is relevant or needed. And thus the dead atheist responds with metanoia, not metamelomia, because sorrow for offending God and looking to God for mercy requires no life, no faith, no Holy Spirit, no Savior, no Cross, no mercy, no grace, no nothing because that fallen enemy of God as ALL that's needed: Pure law.

Ironically, your example in Acts 9 rather dramatically proves the exact opposite. And of course, many of us have shared a long, long list of Scriptures that show your whole theology here is obviously unbiblical. Which is why you can't produce a single Scripture that says that the fallen, unbelieving, enemies of God don't need what Paul received, don't need the Holy Spriit, don't need faith, don't need life, don't need mercy or grace, don't need ANYTHING except the pure legalistic demand of God.




.

 

[Arsenios]

ὑπωπιάζω
hupōpiazō
hoop-o-pee-ad'-zo
From a compound of G5259 and a derivative of G3700; to hit under the eye (buffet or disable an antagonist as a pugilist), that is, (figuratively) to tease or annoy (into compliance), subdue (one’s passions): - keep under, weary.
(Strongs)

ὑπωπιάζω
hupōpiázō; fut. hupōpiásō, from hupṓpion (n.f.), the part of the face which is under the eyes, the face, which is from hupó (G5259), under, and ōps (n.f.), eye, face, countenance. To strike under the eyes, beat the face black and blue, give a black eye. In the NT generally to mistreat, trans. spoken of the body, to subject to hardship, mortify (1Co 9:27). Figuratively to weary with prayers, entreaties, to tire out someone, with the acc. (Luk 18:5).
Syn.: kolaphízō (G2852), to strike with clenched hands, box with the fist; kopiáō (G2872), to grow weary, feel tired; kámnō (G2577), to wax weary; ekkakéō (G1573), to feel faint.
Ant.: eupsuchéō (G2174), to cause to be encouraged; parakaléō (G3870), to comfort; paramuthéomai (G3888), soothe, console, encourage.
(The Complete Word Study Dictionary

© 1992 By AMG International, Inc.
Chattanooga, TN 37422, U.S.A.
Revised edition, 1993)

I think you are likely mistaken about the word's meaning.

Well, it would not be the first time...

I went to the term piazo, which means 'to press', 'to lay hold of', and 'to apprehend' - Hence the gloss: sub-due = hypo-piazo

You are right about the 'black-eye' meaning of beating something black and blue, and especially in the context of "not as a shadow-boxer beating the air"...

Orthodoxy likes to maximize meaning, so I would seek a way of understanding that is inclusive of both...

We have an Elder not yet made a Saint by the Church who grew up in a pious and old-country, as in no longer existent, Orthodox family, who never had a lustful thought in his life, and he was on Mt Athos, and agreed (in Spirit) to take on the demon of fornication in one on one combat... So he got himself a stick of 3-4 feet length, and eagerly looked forward to overcoming that demon...

7 years later, he had still not overcome that demon... Every time a seduction would begin in the noesis of his flesh, he would bring down that stick sharply on his leg(s) - Each infusion of pleasure met by a refutation of pain... All to no avail over 7 years... Never punishing the flesh, but inflicting pain in response to demonic pleasure... Accurately striking... Then one day, as he was sitting on the floor in his hut, he heard someone come in, and thought it was his cell partner, and kept his head down in prayer, until someone reached under his cassock to tempt him physically, and he looked up and say the demon itself, and he leaped forward and grasped it in his hands, and poof! It disappeared... And it never returned... The battle was over...

His legs were never all that good after that 7 year battle... He reposed at age 57... His life renewed the Monastic Tradition of Mt. Athos... Called: "The Great One." Anyone interested can read about Elder Joseph the Hesychast and Cave Dweller...

But this idea that one punishes the body because the flesh is evil is not an EOC doctrine...

But we will bring it into obedience to the Spirit, whatever that should take...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Yet you call for it none-the-less...

I do not...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Of course, THAT'S your position. All that is needed is pure law
.

You are still lost in the fantasy-land of blah-blah-blatherdom...


Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, it would not be the first time...

I went to the term piazo, which means 'to press', 'to lay hold of', and 'to apprehend' - Hence the gloss: sub-due = hypo-piazo

You are right about the 'black-eye' meaning of beating something black and blue, and especially in the context of "not as a shadow-boxer beating the air"...

Orthodoxy likes to maximize meaning, so I would seek a way of understanding that is inclusive of both...

We have an Elder not yet made a Saint by the Church who grew up in a pious and old-country, as in no longer existent, Orthodox family, who never had a lustful thought in his life, and he was on Mt Athos, and agreed (in Spirit) to take on the demon of fornication in one on one combat... So he got himself a stick of 3-4 feet length, and eagerly looked forward to overcoming that demon...

7 years later, he had still not overcome that demon... Every time a seduction would begin in the noesis of his flesh, he would bring down that stick sharply on his leg(s) - Each infusion of pleasure met by a refutation of pain... All to no avail over 7 years... Never punishing the flesh, but inflicting pain in response to demonic pleasure... Accurately striking... Then one day, as he was sitting on the floor in his hut, he heard someone come in, and thought it was his cell partner, and kept his head down in prayer, until someone reached under his cassock to tempt him physically, and he looked up and say the demon itself, and he leaped forward and grasped it in his hands, and poof! It disappeared... And it never returned... The battle was over...

His legs were never all that good after that 7 year battle... He reposed at age 57... His life renewed the Monastic Tradition of Mt. Athos... Called: "The Great One." Anyone interested can read about Elder Joseph the Hesychast and Cave Dweller...

But this idea that one punishes the body because the flesh is evil is not an EOC doctrine...

But we will bring it into obedience to the Spirit, whatever that should take...


Arsenios

Martin Luther was among the people who thought that physical pain was a way to overcome sin. He was mistaken. Saint Paul's comments do not approve beating one's body with sticks. Nevertheless suffering privations for the sake of the gospel does bring a harvest of grace and wisdom.

 

[Arsenios]

You evidently are unaware of Acts 9. Read it.
FIRST God justified him - gave him faith and the Holy Spirit.

First God came to him (3) and dropped him onto the dirt (4) and accused him (4).
And Saul asked Who He was (5) and He replied to him (6) and convicted him (6)

And Saul repented and sought and sought His Command that he should obey it... (7)
And the Lord gave him His Command and Saul obeyed Him...
And stood but could not see, for he was blinded (8)
And needed to be led by the hand into Damascus...(8)
And fasted from food and water blind for three days... (9)

Now I do not know YOUR standards...
But by MY miserable standards, Josiah...

THAT is a pretty good CALL from God...

Were you reading along with me?
The CALL of God gets your attention...
You need to make a decision...
You need to act on that decision...

"Those whom God fore-knew...
These also He CALLED..."

Remember that passage?
It is God Who CALLS those He already KNOWS...

Only THEN does justification FOLLOW...
Have you not read that Scripture?

I have a young friend...
Totally brilliant kid...
He can't hear what he hasn't spoken...
Tried to teach him how to park a car...
He could not hear instructions...

He wanted to learn...
He did not want to be instructed...

Everyone wants a high paying job...
Nobody wants to work...

Can't get no respect!!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Saint Paul's comments do not approve beating one's body with sticks.

They justify subduing one's body whatever that may take...

One will not find God's Salvation in obedience to the flesh...

But only in one's flesh being in obedience to one's soul...

Elder Joseph was a special and unusual case, yet illustrates the spirit needed to overcome demonic temptations...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Martin Luther was among the people who thought that physical pain was a way to overcome sin.

Does not the Latin doctrine of Purgatory teach that sin is paid for by temporal suffering after death?

The Orthodox approach is to take away the reward of the sin as it is being offered, you see...

Physically at first, until the mind can catch up and begin to see more clearly in its repentance...

Elder Joseph was different, because he was given the demon after being thoroughly illumined...

The stick is not normally called for in the temptations of porneira...

But you never want to rule it out...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Nevertheless suffering privations for the sake of the gospel does bring a harvest of grace and wisdom.

Roger that!

All manner of privations ...

Food, sleep, shelter, clothing, bedding, heating, baths, rest, idleness of all kinds...

All beneficial in one's thirsting quest for God...


Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

Does not the Latin doctrine of Purgatory teach that sin is paid for by temporal suffering after death?

The Orthodox approach is to take away the reward of the sin as it is being offered, you see...

Physically at first, until the mind can catch up and begin to see more clearly in its repentance...

Elder Joseph was different, because he was given the demon after being thoroughly illumined...

The stick is not normally called for in the temptations of porneira...

But you never want to rule it out...


Arsenios

Purgatory is about purging the habits of mind and body related to sinning. Some have spoken of fires that burn and purge others have spoken about torments of various kinds. It is an area where speculative theology has sometimes run amok. I have not researched to see what the Church teaches on the matter if she teaches on it in detail.

 

[Josiah]

PPurgatory ... is an area where speculative theology has sometimes run amok.

... I could not agree more.


It's one of a few new dogmas unique to the individual RC denomination where I think your characterization applies. And a classic case where "Tradition" is just what one denomination currently says and the antithesis of how Protestants tend to think of it.


Now, some time ago, I had quite a serious of conversations with a Greek Orthodox friend of mine on this (as you know, the EOC does not have this dogma). She and I both dealt with verses that suggest that nothing unclean can enter heaven and what that may mean. It's especially relevant to Protestants who tend to argue that we are DECLARED clean but not MADE clean. Well..... she gave the EOC view, stressing as strongly as she could that this is NOT dogma, NOT binding, NOT mandated.... just an understanding, a common way to view this. She said that SOMEHOW, without regard for space or time, God performs a miracle as we pass from this life to the next. It involves our bodies but also our souls, so that SOMEHOW, by that miracle, we are holy as we enter heaven. I could live with that. I shared that with my Lutheran Doctrine teacher and he too said he could live with that - as pious opinion. But of course, the RCC went way, way beyond that.... with a LOT of medieval speculation.... those Catholic Scholastics had a field day with speculation.... and the RCC eventually made it Dogma. Now, I'd agree... IN PRACTICE the RCC has generally abandoned this dogma without ever declaring it wrong or even optional, but what the RCC has is.... well..... a classic case of wild speculation within a single, individual denomination turned into divisive mandated dogma. Tradition in the "self agrees with self alone - currently" definition. And of course, some Catholics will (absurdly) claim that ALL Christians believed this (it's just the EOC forgot it) and eventually the RCC decided to tell this to folks. But I find that absurd.




.