God won't FORGIVE!

[Cappadocian]

Hello all,

Do we all agree that God loves everyone and forgives everyone of their sins (non-Christian and Christian)? In our understanding hell is not the experience of those who are unforgiven, but of something else. (This is not to deny that we need to be forgiven and should seek forgiveness -- but that God will not withhold his forgiveness from anyone.):P

My Calvinist friends tell me they believe that God will not forgive non-Christians. It seems to me like when they say this, they are describing a different God than the one I worship in the Orthodox Church.:holy:

Can it be possible that our God is different from the God of the Protestants?:sleep:

Let me know what you think!:angel:

[pjw]

Can it be possible that our God is different from the God of the Protestants?
absolutely not! i am a protestant, from what i guess you would call a 'calvinist' church (i hate labels named after people. it usually connotates heresy), and in our church it is taught that God will forgive anyone who accepts that forgiveness through Jesus Christ. outside of Christ, there is no other way to be forgiven by God. but He is definitely the same God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!

[Cappadocian]

There is no other way to be forgiven by God. but He is definitely the same God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!
I see that we believe in the same doctrine of the Holy Trinity (as expressed, e.g. in the Nicene Creed) but is that enough to show that we worship the same God when you believe that God will not forgive non-Christians and we believe that God loves and forgives everyone? I mean, it seems like this is a significant difference -- even thought it may be true, as you say, that we both recognize the Holy Trinity.:bow:
http://orthodoxnorth.net/images/WI_Rublev_Trinity.jpg

[pjw]

if God forgives everyone, why do they go to hell? God OFFERS his forgiveness to everyone through Christ, but they must choose it for themselves and except it through His grace. it is impossible for us to choose Christ without His grace and the work of the Holy Spirit, but we are still responsible for our own actions before God.

[Facing East]

Different understadning of Hell in the Protestant and Orthodox traditions ... that's how. Might I recommend "River of Fire"?

http://www.stnectariospress.com/parish/river_of_fire.htm

[Philip]

absolutely not! i am a protestant, from what i guess you would call a 'calvinist' church (i hate labels named after people. it usually connotates heresy), and in our church it is taught that God will forgive anyone who accepts that forgiveness through Jesus Christ. outside of Christ, there is no other way to be forgiven by God. but He is definitely the same God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!

Of course, according to Calvinism, the only ones who can accept that forgiveness are those who God has arbitrarily 'elected'. This is incompatible with the Orthodox concept of God.

[Cappadocian]

Of course, according to Calvinism, the only ones who can accept that forgiveness are those who God has arbitrarily 'elected'. This is incompatible with the Orthodox concept of God.
It seems to me that it's not just Calvinists who worship a god who does not forgive Non-Christians, but this theology is common to all Protestants and Catholics. Calvinists might simply be notable for their doctrine of predistination as you note.:kiss:

[Marjorie]

Incompatible views of God doesn't mean a different God. If I love my mom, and my dad loves my mom, but he has a more accurate view of her, that doesn't mean that she's not my mother.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[xristos.anesti]

Marjorie,

yes, but incopatible views of God do mean a wrong view of God (at least those opposed to the right view)!

And being right or wrong is what really matters in this case.


The comparison given (the mom view) even-though very logical and true (in the case mentioned); does not work in this, the different God case (or in most cases when it comes to God).

Why? Well, loving and knowing are two different things.

Example: Orthodox Monk loves God and an arab terorrist loves God; by the presented logic, God of the Orthodox Monk is a God of an Arab terrorist.

[Marjorie]

Yes, they do matter, and there is a right experience/view of God. No disagreement here.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[xristos.anesti]

Marjorie,

the truth is: any logical argument can be pushed far enough to represent exact opposte of itself (basically, you can prove anything if you try hard enough). ^_^


I know what you are talking about, the thing is: how do we reconcile that both we and moslems (just as an example) belive in the same God (given that according to many, faith is all it takes)?!

[Marjorie]

*confused!* I just said I agreed...

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[xristos.anesti]

I know. LOL

I was just making a general observation. Large group of Christians deem that faith is all it takes (and a large group of this large group does not even make it to be faith in Christ). So, if faith is all it takes, does that mean that moslems belive in the same God as we do, given that there is only One God?

I was just wondering, how do these people think? That is, do they think at all.

I was not arguing with you...

[Philip]

yes, but incopatible views of God do mean a wrong view of God (at least those opposed to the right view)!

And being right or wrong is what really matters in this case.

The comparison given (the mom view) even-though very logical and true (in the case mentioned); does not work in this, the different God case (or in most cases when it comes to God).

Why? Well, loving and knowing are two different things.

Example: Orthodox Monk loves God and an arab terorrist loves God; by the presented logic, God of the Orthodox Monk is a God of an Arab terrorist.

However, we must be careful how we apply this. I think we can safely assume that the Holy Prophet Samuel had, during his time on earth, a different concept of God compared to mine. However, we certainly worship the same God.

Large group of Christians deem that faith is all it takes (and a large group of this large group does not even make it to be faith in Christ). So, if faith is all it takes, does that mean that moslems belive in the same God as we do, given that there is only One God?


This is an important observation. When carefully examined, their position seems to actually require faith and proper intellectual knowledge.

[Cappadocian]

xristos.anesti[/b] ]Large group of Christians deem that faith is all it takes (and a large group of this large group does not even make it to be faith in Christ). So, if faith is all it takes, does that mean that moslems belive in the same God as we do, given that there is only One God?
This is an important observation. When carefully examined, their position seems to actually require faith and proper intellectual knowledge.
What do you mean when you use the word "faith"? "Faith" in what?

Faith that God is a Holy Trinity? -- This they seem to have, but how far does this kind of faith go? One, two, three... Where does it take you?:confused:
Faith that God is a virtuous God who loves all of his creatures now and forever? -- Many Protestants I run across do not have this kind of faith. Rather they have trustless dread that cannot believe in the forgiveness of the Father; cannot believe that even God will do anything for nothing; cannot trust him without a legal arrangement to bind him. They expect him to render infinite penalties of suffering upon those who doubts the genuineness of their moral caricature of God. :help:
Faith in the doctrine of "Justification by Faith?" -- this they have, but it is entirely circular (and heretical in their conception of it).
I fear that when we speak of "faith" and "the gospel" and "the good news," we mean something entirely different from what they speak of faith.

To my mind, when true Christians speak of "Faith," they refer to (a) trust in the virtue of God; and (b) faith as obedience. This is what Jesus was referring to when he spoke of the "faith as small as a mustard seed." Yet Protestants tend to understand "faith" to mean neither of these things. Most of the time, they are simply speaking of Faith in the doctrine of "Justification by Faith," which, apart from being heresy, is creepily self-contained and circular.:help:

[Dust and Ashes]

What do you mean when you use the word "faith"? "Faith" in what?

Faith that God is a Holy Trinity? -- This they seem to have, but how far does this kind of faith go? One, two, three... Where does it take you?:confused:
Faith that God is a virtuous God who loves all of his creatures now and forever? -- Many Protestants I run across do not have this kind of faith. Rather they have trustless dread that cannot believe in the forgiveness of the Father; cannot believe that even God will do anything for nothing; cannot trust him without a legal arrangement to bind him. They expect him to render infinite penalties of suffering upon those who doubts the genuineness of their moral caricature of God.:help:
Faith in the doctrine of "Justification by Faith?" -- this they have, but it is entirely circular (and heretical in their conception of it).
I fear that when we speak of "faith" and "the gospel" and "the good news," we mean something entirely different from what they speak of faith.

To my mind, when true Christians speak of "Faith," they refer to (a) trust in the virtue of God; and (b) faith as obedience. This is what Jesus was referring to when he spoke of the "faith as small as a mustard seed." Yet Protestants tend to understand "faith" to mean neither of these things. Most of the time, they are simply speaking of Faith in the doctrine of "Justification by Faith," which, apart from being heresy, is creepily self-contained and circular.:help:

Do you think a lot of this has its beginning in the doctrine of sola scriptura? In Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells, Matthew Gallatin uses an analogy to differentiate the Protestant rationalistic understanding of God and the Orthodox experiential understanding.

He describes living in one room and his wife in the next with only a door separating them. He is given a book that describes her and he relates how he can read the book and think about her and even talk to her through the door but how his view of her will almost certainly not be accurate because it is colored by all of the baggage he carries around and how he interprets the book about her. It's not until he opens the door, embraces her and really begins to experience her (as we experience God in the life of the Church) that he really begins to know her and have a clear picture of what she is truely like.

Could much of the skewed understanding of God come from the whole rationalistic mindset that we can know God by reading about Him? I, myself, have heard Protestant ministers proclaim that "the only way to know God is to read the Word!"

[Michael the Iconographer]

Could much of the skewed understanding of God come from the whole rationalistic mindset that we can know God by reading about Him? I, myself, have heard Protestant ministers proclaim that "the only way to know God is to read the Word!"

The best way to know God is to live a Christian life and experience his work in your own personal life. I would much rather have a personal knowledge of Christ than an academic one of him.

[Cappadocian]

Do you think a lot of this has its beginning in the doctrine of sola scriptura? In Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells, Matthew Gallatin uses an analogy to differentiate the Protestant rationalistic understanding of God and the Orthodox experiential understanding.

Could much of the skewed understanding of God come from the whole rationalistic mindset that we can know God by reading about Him? I, myself, have heard Protestant ministers proclaim that "the only way to know God is to read the Word!"
I think the problem is that they have the Bible and they have some very strange ways they think it should be interpretted, they have some very strange theories of atonement and soteriology, and there is nothing that will dislodge it from their mind, even other statements in the Bible.

Here are the big catastrophes of Protestantism:

The Penal theory of the atonement.
The doctrine of justification by faith.
The theory of a penal hell.
Never mind that none of them make any sense and are each a profound obstacle to the acceptance of Christianity...

Never mind that these theories are never stated anywhere by Jesus in the Gospels and that much of his message would undercut these theories...

Never mind that these doctrines present God as being gratified by the sufferings of others as such...

Never mind that the doctrines drive a third of the Protestants crazy, a third of them into Inquisitors, and the rest of them into people who would just prefer not to think too hard about their theology at all (to their credit)...

C.S. Lewis argued that "the moment “Heaven” ceases to mean union with God and “Hell” separation from Him, the belief in either is a mischievous superstition; for then we have, on the one hand, a merely “compensatory” belief (a “sequel” to life’s sad story, which everything will “come all right”) and, on the other hand, a nightmare which drives men into asylums of makes them persecutors." -- Reflection on the Psalms.


To them (Augustinians) nothing at all matters except these bizarre and terrifying theories. They force evil things upon their fellows—utter or imply them from the seat of authority or influence—to their agony, their paralysation, their unbelief, their indignation, their stumbling. All the while, if we object to their presentation of God and soteriology, they tell us:"The Gospel is offensive to those who are lost."

"And accursed is anyone who teaches another Gospel."

And of course, they have Bible verses to support such a jab as well.

I think what we see is that the Orthodox Church is the only ones who have the ability and will to teach the religion of Jesus, while Protestants and Catholics teach the religion of Paul at his more frightened and angry and human moments.

The way I think of it is this: a heart (the Bible) is a very good thing and functions well when it is located in a body (the Church). But if you take a heart out of the body and set it on the ground, it will very quickly begin to cause a very foul stench and perhaps even spread disease.

[pjw]

I think what we see is that the Orthodox Church is the only ones who have the ability and will to teach the religion of Jesus, while Protestants and Catholics teach the religion of Paul at his more frightened and angry and human moments.
what is the religion of Jesus as compared to the religion of Paul? they both taught that 'Christ loved us and gave Himself for us.' to me, that's the heart of Christianity. Christ gave Himself so that those who believe in Him could have life forever. those who reject Him reject the life He offers, and live in eternal separation from God. those who accept Him, live for ever. this is the heart of the Christian Gospel.

[Philip]

I think what we see is that the Orthodox Church is the only ones who have the ability and will to teach the religion of Jesus, while Protestants and Catholics teach the religion of Paul at his more frightened and angry and human moments.


I disagree. I think you are creating a false dichotomy between Christ and His Apostle. It is more accurate to say that Western theology teaches a misunderstanding of St Paul.

[Joykins]

I disagree. I think you are creating a false dichotomy between Christ and His Apostle. It is more accurate to say that Western theology teaches a misunderstanding of St Paul.

I would be interested in hearing more about this. From a Western point of view, I find Paul both fascinating and problematic.

[Philip]

I would be interested in hearing more about this. From a Western point of view, I find Paul both fascinating and problematic.

Perhaps tomorrow, when I am more awake.

[Cappadocian]

I disagree. I think you are creating a false dichotomy between Christ and His Apostle. It is more accurate to say that Western theology teaches a misunderstanding of St Paul.


When Paul calls down divine penalties for not getting straight his good news,Galatians 1:6-9

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another- but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, Let him be accursed! As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, Let him be accursed!

and tells people that God will render penalties against people who do not conform to a moral ideal perhaps known only to Paul,Hebrews 10:25

"If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."

and displays a pathological self-loathing and horror at human sexuality:Rom 7:21-24

"I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am!"

Then you have to just say, "Thank GOD that he has given us Orthodox Holy Tradition to smoothe over Paul's frustrations, anxieties and obsessions!" Under the steady hand of St. Maximos, or St. Basil the Great, even Paul's manic moments are tempered in the fullness of truth. It is not simply a "misunderstanding of Paul," it is a recognition that even Paul is not our infinitely virtuous God who is revealed to us in the Orthodox Church.

[seebs]

Hi! I don't wish to debate, but I am very curious about some of the commentary I've seen here about exclusivism.

My own view is that the word "Christian" denotes people who hold to certain beliefs about God. According to these beliefs, God will "save" at least some people; they will become reconciled to God.

I do not see any obvious reason to believe that everyone who holds these beliefs will be reconciled, or that everyone who does not hold them will not be reconciled. If these beliefs are true, the conclusion is not "if you do not hold these beliefs, you will suffer horribly and eternally", but "if you do not suffer horribly and eternally, these beliefs explain why and how this should be so".

It seems to me that "God loves you and wishes to reconcile with you" is "good news" in a way that "believe this or be punished" is not.

So, how far off am I from the Orthodox perspective?

[Joykins]

Does members there mean what it would mean to a modern romance reader? Spong posits, I think, that Paul was a self-loathing gay man. He must have been thinking of the passage you cited above...

[Cappadocian]

Hi! I don't wish to debate, but I am very curious about some of the commentary I've seen here about exclusivism.

My own view is that the word "Christian" denotes people who hold to certain beliefs about God. According to these beliefs, God will "save" at least some people; they will become reconciled to God.

I do not see any obvious reason to believe that everyone who holds these beliefs will be reconciled, or that everyone who does not hold them will not be reconciled. If these beliefs are true, the conclusion is not "if you do not hold these beliefs, you will suffer horribly and eternally", but "if you do not suffer horribly and eternally, these beliefs explain why and how this should be so".

It seems to me that "God loves you and wishes to reconcile with you" is "good news" in a way that "believe this or be punished" is not.

So, how far off am I from the Orthodox perspective?
Orthodox inclusivism cuts both ways as you say -- it says that some Non-Christians will be saved from moral and spiritual death, but it also says that some Christians may not be saved from moral and spiritual death. -- Both propositions stand up to empirical observation.

And as you say definition a "Christian" is someone who subscribes to the Nicene Creed, a document that says nothing at all about soteriology, the specific nature of the atonement, or the nature of hell, or the membership of those who go there. The Nicene Creed tells us that God is a Holy Trinity (a doctrine that has the full support of reason) and presents the true myth that "for us and for our salvation, Christ was incarnated, died and rose again." Different Christians fill in the blanks in different ways.

If these beliefs are true, the conclusion is not "if you do not hold these beliefs, you will suffer horribly and eternally", but "if you do not suffer horribly and eternally, these beliefs explain why and how this should be so".

This was exactly C.S. Lewis's thought process in his commentary on the (Pseudo-)Athanasian Creed:


St. Athanasius has suffered in popular estimation from a certain sentence in the "Athanasian Creed." I will not labour the point that that work is not exactly a creed and was not by St. Athanasius, for I think it is a very fine piece of writing. The words "Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly" are the offence. They are commonly misunderstood. The operative word is keep; not acquire, or even believe, but keep. The author, in fact, is not talking about unbelievers, but about deserters, not about those who have never heard of Christ, nor even those who have misunderstood and refused to accept Him, but of those who having really understood and really believed, then allow themselves, under the sway of sloth or of fashion or any other invited confusion to be drawn away into sub-Christian modes of thought.

[Philip]

When Paul calls down divine penalties for not getting straight his good news,
Galatians 1:6-9
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another- but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, Let him be accursed! As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, Let him be accursed!


You are not being fair to St Paul. The 'divine penalties' of which you accuse him are anathemas. The word translated as 'accursed' is indeed anathema. Do you also criticize the countless other anathemas pronounced by the Church? In particular, do you criticize Sts Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa for agreeing with the anathemas set down by the Second Council? I should hope not. This is a vital facet of Church disciple, to cut off those who preach against the teachings of the Church.


and tells people that God will render penalties against people who do not conform to a moral ideal perhaps known only to Paul,
Hebrews 10:25
"If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."




Huh? 'Moral ideal perhaps known only to Paul'? Where do you get that? 'God will render penalties'? How can you accuse Paul of this without condemning Christ at the same time? Consider the countless warnings of Christ, such as


Matthew 3:10-12
"The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

and


Matthew 13:40-43
"So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. "Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Are St Paul's comments any different than Christs?


And pathological self-loathing and horror at human sexuality:
Rom 7:21-24
"I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am!"


Please leave the verses in context. Leaving out the verses before the citation is misleading. Cutting it off at 'Wretched man that I am' is intellectually dishonest. An expanded quotation follows:


Romans 7:19-25
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.


St Paul is not suffering from a 'pathological self-loathing'. Rather, he is confessing that he still suffers from temptation. He is offering strength to his readers, showing that he understands their trials. He concludes the discussion with a passage that you omitted: Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Paul offers his readers the reassurence that even though they still feel temptation, they must know that God will help them. Even while they try to conform to the Divine Nature, they will continue to face the temptations of this fallen world.

[Philip]

Does members there mean what it would mean to a modern romance reader?

Not likely. Consider Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:12,27, Ephesians 3:6, and so on. Members, melos, normally has the simple meaning of 'limb'.

[azzy]

God offers grace and forgiveness to whosoever will,but to those who reject Gods gift of grace,they will face the full wrath of God.


A gift must be recieved.And forgiveness and grace is a gift,and it cost the Lord dearly,to reject this gift is to do so at your own peril,it isnt Gods will that any should perish,but that all should come to repentance.

God allows us to choose to recieve or reject his gift of love and grace.

But he warns us of the judgment to come,should we choose not to believe and recieve forgiveness.

To be forgiven,one must first admit guilt,and many scoff at the idea that they even need to be saved.

[Philip]

A gift must be recieved.And forgiveness and grace is a gift,and it cost the Lord dearly,to reject this gift is to do so at your own peril,it isnt Gods will that any should perish,but that all should come to repentance.


Neither forgiveness nor grace cost God anything. He forgives us freely. His Grace, His uncreated energies, flow forth from Him 'naturally'. It costs Him nothing.

Perhaps you are confusing forgiveness and grace with God trampling down death with death?

[Cappadocian]

"Pathological self-loathing" was my intuitive observation and no more, I hope you may permit me such things. I also hope that you may allow me to quote passages from the Bible without accusing me of vices such as dishonesty. I too believe, as Jesus did, that trees that do not bear good fruit will be thrown into the divine fire. But I do not believe that "throwing a tree into the fire" is a penalty upon the tree by a God who has not forgiven the tree. Rather, the only loving thing to do to a dead three is to throw it in the God's fire. Even this is a form of mercy and grace.^_^

Paul, more than Jesus seemed to separate divine judgment from righteous living, and instead connected it to assent to certain religious opinions, which is contrary to Orthodoxy.:hug:

We are allowed our differences in opinion, so please converse nicely, ok?:kiss:

[Cappadocian]

To be forgiven,one must first admit guilt,and many scoff at the idea that they even need to be saved.
Saved from what?

Everyone knows they need to be saved -- every person who goes to the drug store to refill their Paxil prescriptions admits that the need the Holy Eucharist (whether they know it or not). Every person who visits their psychiatrist proclaims that they need confession with an Orthodox priest (whether they know it or not). People everywhere -- atheists, pagans, etc. -- are shouting "save me, I need to be saved!"

[Philip]

"Pathological self-loathing" was my intuitive observation and no more, I hope you may permit me such things.

You are welcome to your opinions, but they do not permit you to misrepresent St Paul's writings. Inserting your unfounded psychological diagnosis does great damage to Paul's words. But even so, if it is only your 'intuitive observation and no more', how can you use it to challenge Paul. Does he not deserve the benefit of the doubt? An 'intuitive observation and no more' is not a basis for questioning one of the Apostles.

I also hope that you may allow me to quote passages from the Bible without accusing me of vices such as dishonesty.

You are welcome to quote passages as you see fit. However, you must expect people to question your interpretations. Further, if you engage in intellectual dishonesty, you must expect people to call you on it. Asserting your opinion that Paul had a "Pathological self-loathing" and defending it by quoting 'Wretched man that I am' without Paul's conclusion is textbook ID. You have twisted Paul statement by leaving off the conclusion, that Christ saves us from our wretchedness.

Again, you cited Galatians 1:6-9 as Paul 'call down divine penalties for not getting straight his good news'. That is not even remotely what the text says. He used the word anathema, the same word the Church has always used to cut off heretics. I assume you simply spoke without knowing what word was translated as 'accursed'. If so, then you have again misinterpreted Paul's words. If you did know the Greek, then we must seriously question why you condemn Paul for issuing an anathema.

I too believe, as Jesus did, that trees that do not bear good fruit will be thrown into the divine fire. But I do not believe that "throwing a tree into the fire" is a [i]penalty upon the tree by a God who has not forgiven the tree. Rather, the only loving thing to do to a dead three is to throw it in the God's fire. Even this is a form of mercy and grace.^_^

Good. Now, why do you think that St Paul had a penalty in mind when he wrote the following?


"If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."

The word 'penalty' does not appear in the text. Why do you insert it? Further, if we leave this passage in context, it is clear that Paul is speaking of the difference between the Old Covenant and the New. There is no inkling of a 'Moral ideal perhaps known only to Paul'. You have inserted that into the text. Again, this may be your 'intuitive observation and no more', but that is not a basis for questioning Paul.

Paul, more than Jesus seemed to separate divine judgment from righteous living, and instead connected it to assent to certain religious opinions, which is contrary to Orthodoxy.

You have yet to show this. Rather, you have only misinterpreted and misrepresented Paul's writings.

We are allowed our differences in opinion, so please converse nicely, ok?

Differences in opinion are one thing. Misrepresenting the words of the Holy Apostle Paul are another. Remember, you accused St Paul of teaching a religion other than that of the religion of Christ. In particular, you stated:


I think what we see is that the Orthodox Church is the only ones who have the ability and will to teach the religion of Jesus, while Protestants and Catholics teach the religion of Paul at his more frightened and angry and human moments.


That is a serious charge. You must expect Christians to question you on it.

[xristos.anesti]

When I read that statement for the first time (regarding Paul) I was reading (somehow) something along the lines that Orthodox Church was presenting the correct teaching of St. Paul and that west was not - this being the case.

But now, I re-read what was actually stated.



Cappadocian, honestly - there is a word for it, αιρεσις.

[Philip]

As I review this thread, it seems that we have a simple dilemma. One of the following statements is true:

St Paul was wrong.
Cappadocian's interpretation of St Paul's writings is wrong

For me, the solution is simple:


Troparion - Tone 4

First-enthroned of the apostles,
teachers of the universe:
Entreat the Master of all
to grant peace to the world,
and to our souls great mercy!

Kontakion - Tone 2

O Lord, You have taken up to eternal rest
and to the enjoyment of Your blessings
the two divinely-inspired preachers, the leaders of the Apostles,
for You have accepted their labors and deaths as a sweet-smelling sacrifice,
for You alone know what lies in the hearts of men.

I am done with this thread.

[Cappadocian]

I am done with this thread.
Suit yourself, big guy.

What I am saying is that there is a sense of St. Paul's writings which St. Augustine and John Calvin explicated but which the Orthodox Church does not. In that sense, the Orthodox Church has the better view, even though it would depart from this sense of St. Paul.

You cannot read Romans 9 without hearing John Calvin's deterministic thinking and St. Augustine's rigid "us vs. them" call to war. All humans share a common enemy -- Satan, and share a common friend -- God. And although St. Paul or Christians may endlessly curse others for heresy, non-belief, honest, or deliberate mistakes, etc, God will not answer those requests by doing harm.

And sometimes when we throw down anathemas, God retorts, "Ye know not what spirit ye are of. The Son of Man came not to destroy man's life, but to save them."

Now you may feel happy about glossing over the problematic aspects of St. Paul's thinking, and you have every right to do so. But for you to do this all the while accusing other people of intellectual dishonesty is ironic in the extreme.

[Padraig]

Hello all,

Do we all agree that God loves everyone and forgives everyone of their sins (non-Christian and Christian)? In our understanding hell is not the experience of those who are unforgiven, but of something else. (This is not to deny that we need to be forgiven and should seek forgiveness -- but that God will not withhold his forgiveness from anyone.):P



You seem to be posing a paradox. How can we say that we are forgiven and then say we need to seek forgiveness? Logically, if we are already forgiven, we do not seek it. Why would God require us to ask forgiveness if we already have it? This would seem to be the height of ritualism which we know Christ preached against. Obviously we believe that God's kenosis, His self-emptying is sufficient for forgiveness and salvation. As far as God's side of the affair, everything is accomplished. This should not be taken to mean, however, that there aren't "conditions" (I hate using this word, but it's the only one I can think of right now).

Christ teaches us the Lord's prayer in which we ask for forgiveness. In it He also includes the "condition" of our forgiveness. Namely, that we forgive each other. It is made very clear throughout the Gospels that our love and forgiveness of others is a "condition" to our own forgiveness.

The Church believes in synergy. A one-sided wiping of the slate so-to-speak negates the whole concept of our synergism, our co-working with God.

Christ also teaches us about the unforgiveable sin: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. If forgiveness is a foregone conclusion without our asking for it how can there possibly something that is unforgiveable? The very fact that Christ raises the issue means that He knows that some will choose to remain unforgiven.

Again, the Church does indeed believe that God wants to forgive all, and indeed died and rose again to reconcile all, but the work of forgiveness and salvation depends on us as well.

I add one last thing. In reference to your statement about hell, St John the Theologian tells us in his Gospel that hell is Christ (The Light) coming into the world and those who hate the light because it shows their deeds and their deeds are evil (horrible paraphrasing). In a word, unforgiveness.

Your statement: but that God will not withhold his forgiveness from anyone. is right but it needs a qualifier. We must accept that forgiveness. This is an all too laconic summation of the Christian belief in forgiveness.

I think we're saying the same thing, but I just wanted to make sure that we understand that we must accept the forgiveness freely given, and that it is possible to be unforgiven because we choose to be.

In Christ,
Kevin

[Marjorie]

The main thing that's un-Orthodox in this thread is the libel against Christ's Holy Apostle. This sounds like the cheesy Jesus Seminar stuff, "Paul corrupted Christianity!" etc. Show me ONE Church Father or saint who said such things against our holy and all-venerable father Paul.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Cappadocian]

How can we say that we are forgiven and then say we need to seek forgiveness? Logically, if we are already forgiven, we do not seek it. Why would God require us to ask forgiveness if we already have it? This would seem to be the height of ritualism which we know Christ preached against.
Every created human is and will eternally continue to be God's child. When we sin against our Father, it is proper and right to recognize the wrong that we have done against God, and ask forgiveness of him. This is not to deny, however, that God will still forgive the child even if the child never does come to seek repentance, restitution, confession, prayer for forgiveness, and righteous dealing thereafter.

We have sinned against God and need to be forgiven by him, but it is not ritualistic to seek that forgiveness, even, as we know, that "neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

I seek my own earthly Father's forgiveness even though it would be an insult to him for me to untrustfully imagine that he would withhold his forgiveness unless I asked for it. A request for forgiveness can be sincere and non-ritualistic, even if the fact of forgiveness is an assumed conclusion.

This should not be taken to mean, however, that there aren't "conditions" (I hate using this word, but it's the only one I can think of right now).

Is it your position that there are conditions upon God's forgiveness and love?

Christ also teaches us about the unforgiveable sin: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. If forgiveness is a foregone conclusion without our asking for it how can there possibly something that is unforgiveable? The very fact that Christ raises the issue means that He knows that some will choose to remain unforgiven.

Well, I guess there is a sense in which God will not forgive our sins. No man is ever condemned for any sin except one—that he will not leave his sins and come out of them, and be the child of him who is his father.

[Cappadocian]

The main thing that's un-Orthodox in this thread is the libel against Christ's Holy Apostle. This sounds like the cheesy Jesus Seminar stuff, "Paul corrupted Christianity!" etc. Show me ONE Church Father or saint who said such things against our holy and all-venerable father Paul.

In IC XC,
Marjorie
Marjorie,

Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" is chock-a-block with heresy, from beginning to end. It is extremely embarrassing to read, given John Calvin's rhetoric and slander of anyone who would dare to hold a different opinion than him. It is also packed with quotes from the Pauline epistles. Calvin uses Paul's writings to a degree that goes far beyond the Greek Fathers' use of Paul's writings.

Do you believe that Calvin was completely wrong about Paul's meanings and spirit when he uses Paul to construct his tower of heresies?

Show me ONE Church Father or saint who said such things against our holy and all-venerable father Paul.

Perhaps it is possible for us to do our own thought about such a question.

[Padraig]

Is it your position that there are conditions upon God's forgiveness and love?


Certainly not. As we both have said, the forgiveness offered by God is open to all. However, this is not the only condition of the equation. In order for us to be forgiven we must ask and accept it. We must repent. Was the Publican or the Pharisee forgiven? Tradition teaches us to flee from the pride of the Pharisee. Christ time and again told the Scribes and Pharisees that they could not take their position as God's Chosen People for granted. He told them there would be many among their number who would not partake of the Kingdom. This was not due to God's lack or unwillingness to forgive, but their hardness of heart and refusal to seek and accept forgiveness.

Any unforgiveness is self-imposed by us. God will not make us ask and accept what He freely offers. This is the unforgiveness. This is the state of those in hell.

In Christ,
Kevin

[Cappadocian]

Certainly not. As we both have said, the forgiveness offered by God is open to all. However, this is not the only condition of the equation. In order for us to be forgiven we must ask and accept it. We must repent. Was the Publican or the Pharisee forgiven? Tradition teaches us to flee from the pride of the Pharisee. Christ time and again told the Scribes and Pharisees that they could not take their position as God's Chosen People for granted. He told them there would be many among their number who would not partake of the Kingdom. This was not due to God's lack or unwillingness to forgive, but their hardness of heart and refusal to seek and accept forgiveness.

Any unforgiveness is self-imposed by us. God will not make us ask and accept what He freely offers. This is the unforgiveness. This is the state of those in hell.

In Christ,
Kevin
You are 100% right!:clap:

Provided, we are using Orthodox definitions of the words "forgiveness" and "repentance."

Orthodoxy understand metanoia to mean genuine personal transformation, a reordering of values and behaviors.

St. Gregory of Nyssa has a more medicinal than legal understanding of forgiveness. St. Gregory of Nyssa emphasizes the need for God through Christ to heal our pride and other sin. And St. Clement of Alexandria taught that divine punishment proceeded to the very same end; "Reproach is like application of medicines, dissolving the callousness of the passions, and purging the impurities of the lewdness of life; and in addition, reducing the excrescences of pride, restoring the patient to the healthy and true state of humanity." When you refuse this manner of treatment by God, you will remain in hell.

[pjw]

and i thought the orthodox church believed in the inspiration of the Scriptures!

[Marjorie]

and i thought the orthodox church believed in the inspiration of the Scriptures!

Of course we do. Anyone who speaks as if the Scriptures are not inspired is not speaking with the Holy Spirit.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Marjorie]

Marjorie,

Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" is chock-a-block with heresy, from beginning to end. It is extremely embarrassing to read, given John Calvin's rhetoric and slander of anyone who would dare to hold a different opinion than him. It is also packed with quotes from the Pauline epistles. Calvin uses Paul's writings to a degree that goes far beyond the Greek Fathers' use of Paul's writings.

I doubt that. I read the Greek Fathers and they quote him all the time, though not as exclusively.

Do you believe that Calvin was completely wrong about Paul's meanings and spirit when he uses Paul to construct his tower of heresies?

OF COURSE HE WAS. You cannot be Orthodox and reject the teachings of the Holy Apostle Paul! How do you go to Liturgy and hear his epistles read virtually every Sunday and think that this is just a fluke? Calvin interpreted Paul based on a series of false dilemmas that were created by the contemporary atmosphere of Western theology. He was in no way able to read the epistles and understand them in his context.

Perhaps it is possible for us to do our own thought about such a question.

Do not claim to speak with the authority of Orthodoxy behind you and then reject the Holy Apostle Paul. All of the Holy Fathers revered him; who are you to reject him? Who here is then thinking "like a Protestant"?

In IC XC,
Marjorie

P.S. I think everyone here has read Frederica's article on the Atonement and "The River of Fire." Don't think that you're the only one to notice how our theology is different. But that's not a good reason to reject St. Paul's writings-- this is absurd.

[Rilian]

Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" is chock-a-block with heresy, from beginning to end. It is extremely embarrassing to read, given John Calvin's rhetoric and slander of anyone who would dare to hold a different opinion than him. It is also packed with quotes from the Pauline epistles. Calvin uses Paul's writings to a degree that goes far beyond the Greek Fathers' use of Paul's writings.

Cappadocian, I've read some of your threads and this whole topic is something that seems to trouble you. I don't know what your background is, so it's hard for me to guage where you're coming from.

With that said, I would ask simply what does it matter? Who cares what Calvin said?

Don't let it trouble you. Find joy in Orthodoxy and focus on what is good in it. Don't worry about what is taught or believed elsewhere. Build your faith on what you affirm and not what you oppose.

[Padraig]

You are 100% right!:clap:
Whew! You made me work for that one! ;)

Kevin

[xristos.anesti]

Cappadocian, I've read some of your threads and this whole topic is something that seems to trouble you. I don't know what your background is, so it's hard for me to guage where you're coming from.

With that said, I would ask simply what does it matter? Who cares what Calvin said?

Don't let it trouble you. Find joy in Orthodoxy and focus on what is good in it. Don't worry about what is taught or believed elsewhere. Build your faith on what you affirm and not what you oppose.


Worthy of a repeat.

[Xpycoctomos]

If I can jump in. I think it is important to note that God does NOT forgive everyone. He OFFERS forgiveness to everyone, but it is up to us toaccept it. Orthdoox will tend to believe that this is not limited to Christians only, and this is based on the very true idea that we can NEVER judge who is saved and not saved. It is not for us to guess if a good buddhist man is saved or not saved. A Calvinist and most traditional protestant CHurches would say this latter example is out of the question. We would also differ (as others ahve pointed out) in that we do not believe that God predestines anyone to hell, but rather that He gives all of us Free Will. This is not compatible with Calvinist thought in anyway.

This post is long over due as I just finally decided to click on this thread today (the title of it made me weary at the time, but I see now it is not what I thought. So, I apologize if I have repeated anything anyone already said here. I read the first many post and then it started to branch out a bit a way from the OP so I stopped reading (not that it wasn't getting interesting, but it's too hard for me to remember what I was going to say lol).

Interesting thread... sorry, I don't really know how to answer the one about if we worship different Gods. I suppose I think that I could be worshipping a different God than the Orthodox standing next to me at Church. Most of us probalby have certain aspects that are somewhat skewed of the true reveled God. I suppose that is one reason we don't mess with our Liturgy. It stays the same (well, yes, there have been signifigant changes... but none on a whim and always in the same spirit) so that WE conform to it. WE learn from the timeless words. WE change our thoughts. I suppose the unity comes in in that, while I may have some skewed ideas that still need straightening out throughout my lifetime, we are all partaking of the same Christ ion the Eucharist. That is what is so important aobut the Eurcharist: it does not depend on our intellectual ascent to certain beliefs. Sure, we can't knowingly go agaisnt what the Church teaches, but the Eucharist is not dependant on us... our beliefs are.

With that said, my gut tells me that Lutherans (I don't know Calvinists so I can talk better aobut Lutherans) have the same God we do, despite the differences of how we view Him. To be sure, these differences are important and vital, but I think that God understands our weaknesses that we are born and raised into. That doesn't really answer the question at all.. just throws more into the pot of things to think about lol.

John

[Cappadocian]

If I can jump in. I think it is important to note that God does NOT forgive everyone. He OFFERS forgiveness to everyone, but it is up to us toaccept it. Orthdoox will tend to believe that this is not limited to Christians only, and this is based on the very true idea that we can NEVER judge who is saved and not saved. It is not for us to guess if a good buddhist man is saved or not saved. A Calvinist and most traditional protestant CHurches would say this latter example is out of the question. We would also differ (as others ahve pointed out) in that we do not believe that God predestines anyone to hell, but rather that He gives all of us Free Will. This is not compatible with Calvinist thought in anyway.

This post is long over due as I just finally decided to click on this thread today (the title of it made me weary at the time, but I see now it is not what I thought. So, I apologize if I have repeated anything anyone already said here. I read the first many post and then it started to branch out a bit a way from the OP so I stopped reading (not that it wasn't getting interesting, but it's too hard for me to remember what I was going to say lol).

Interesting thread... sorry, I don't really know how to answer the one about if we worship different Gods. I suppose I think that I could be worshipping a different God than the Orthodox standing next to me at Church. Most of us probalby have certain aspects that are somewhat skewed of the true reveled God. I suppose that is one reason we don't mess with our Liturgy. It stays the same (well, yes, there have been signifigant changes... but none on a whim and always in the same spirit) so that WE conform to it. WE learn from the timeless words. WE change our thoughts. I suppose the unity comes in in that, while I may have some skewed ideas that still need straightening out throughout my lifetime, we are all partaking of the same Christ ion the Eucharist. That is what is so important aobut the Eurcharist: it does not depend on our intellectual ascent to certain beliefs. Sure, we can't knowingly go agaisnt what the Church teaches, but the Eucharist is not dependant on us... our beliefs are.

With that said, my gut tells me that Lutherans (I don't know Calvinists so I can talk better aobut Lutherans) have the same God we do, despite the differences of how we view Him. To be sure, these differences are important and vital, but I think that God understands our weaknesses that we are born and raised into. That doesn't really answer the question at all.. just throws more into the pot of things to think about lol.

John
Great ideas, I really appreciate your input!

[Cappadocian]

Do not claim to speak with the authority of Orthodoxy behind you and then reject the Holy Apostle Paul.
I have never seen you so worked up...

I never said that I "reject" Saint Paul or his Epistles. In fact, my favorite Biblical passages come from Paul's Epistles.

What I said is likely already audacious enough without putting words into my mouth.