Theosis vs Justification and Sanctification

[Lotar]

Okay, I was going to post this in the Lutheran forum, but I decided to put it here first, and maybe start a parallel thread later.

This has been a source of confusion for me of late :D

I have read both Lutherans and Orthodox claim that we believe the same thing, only have a confusion of terms, and have read both Lutherans and Orthodox claim that our views are as different as the sun and moon. My knowledge of Theosis is limited, so it has been hard for me to gauge who has misconseptions about it and who does not, and whether some are just trying to blur differences that are real. I do notice that often when different Orthodox speak against the Lutheran belief, they are often full of misconceptions, and have more to do with Reformed and Anabaptist views.

From the LCMS website, it seems that from our position, the objection is less with the content than just that justification and sanctification are not clearly differenciated. And considering the West's past with indugences, Manicheanism, Pelagianism, etc., we are somewhat wary when that is done.

I know at least on the surface we believe the same thing. I read a couple of pages out of an Orthodox book in the library the other day during lunch. I read the story (loosely paraphrased from memory) about the bishop who was walking a long and a lady asked him "Bishop, are you saved?" And he asked her, "Do you mean am I saved, am I being saved, or will I be saved?" And the lady did not know what to say, so he said, "Well all three are true, I am saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved." Okay, I know I butched it :D , but I'm sure you know the story or a similair one. My point is that we believe in the same thing.

First point, Sola Fide/Faith Alone. An unfortunate slogan that we perhaps never should have coined. The truth is, we do not really believe in faith alone, in other words, when we say faith alone, we do not mean that it is faith that justifies us, especially in the gnostic sense, but we believe in Christ Alone, that it is Christ and His merit that justifies us. We do in fact believe that works, sacraments, preservance, chastity, etc., are indeed necessary for salvation and that there is even merit in it. What we do not believe is that it is such actions that are the source (?) of our justification, sanctification, salvation, etc.

I like the way Melanchthon explained it:
"He who does not love remains in death." Therefore it is impossible to say that a person is righteous by faith alone.
I agree with the above if you understand that faith must not be alone. But it does not follow from this that love is the cause of the remission of sins, just as it is necessary to add patience to faith, but it does not follow that our patience is a cause of our remission of sins. The exclusive particle does not exclude our virtues from being present, but it does exclude them as being the cause of our reconciliation, and this exclusionary idea does mean that the merit of Christ alone is the cause of our reconciliation. And we must also understand that it is necessary to remove our human imaginings from the righteousness of the Law which arises out of love for God.

Martin Chemnitz is always good as well:
The Testimonies of Scripture are clear, that the renewal of the new man, as also the mortification of the old, is not perfect and complete in this life but that it grows and is increased day by day until it is perfected in the next life, when this corruptible will have put on incorruption. Profitable also and necessary in the church are exhortations that the the regenerate should not neglect, extinguish, or cast away the gifts of the Spirit which they have recieved but that they stir them up with true and earnest exercises, calling on the help of the Holy Spirit, that He may give an increase of faith, hope, love, and of the other spiritual gifts; for what the punishment of spiritual neglligence is the parable of spiritual negligence is the parable of the talents shows. There is also no doubt that faith is effectual through love, that it is the mother goods works, and that good works please God through faith for the sake of Christ. And in this sense the statement in James 2:21-24 can be understood and accepted appropriately and rightly, that through the numerous good works that followed Abraham is declared to have been truly justified by faith, and it is shown that faith is not empty and dead, but true and living.

[Kripost]

I was under the impression the difference lies in 'imputed righteousness vs infused righteousness'. Is that correct?

[Orthosdoxa]

I have read both Lutherans and Orthodox claim that we believe the same thing, only have a confusion of terms, and have read both Lutherans and Orthodox claim that our views are as different as the sun and moon.

I tend to lean towards the latter group... Most Lutherans I know are not that far off from the Baptist beliefs I had growing up, except their belief in some sacraments.

My knowledge of Theosis is limited

It is the return to our Adamic state, of what we were before the fall. Perfect god-likeness, for then we were true sons of God, truly in His Image and Likeness, without having that image and likeness darkened by passions. We receive God's Divine Grace through cooperation with that Grace, and as we are cleansed of that which cuts off our perfect communion with God (sin), we return to that communion and become ever more like Him. Sin is not the transgression of a divine law, but the denial of Love, which is the meaning of Life. Theosis is the repair of that communion, of defeating the passions and regaining the communion which grants us Life. Death does not happen because God is PO'd about our sins and it's a punishment - it happens because man's perfect communion with life has been screwed up. When Christ defeated death, He saved ALL of us from death and made it possible for ALL of us to be with God. We will all have eternal life in God's presence - but how we experience Him, whether as heaven or hell, will be up to us and the condition our souls are in when we meet Him. That is what theosis is all about. It is a mystery that transcends words, but that's my best attempt for now. And most of us (speaking for myself anyway) are barely even started on the narrow path, despite our enthusiastic embrace of Orthodox doctrines. The lifestyle is much more difficult than the easy believism which has pervaded so much of the West today. Perhaps that's why our Lord said, "Narrow is the gate..."

"He who does not love remains in death."


I don't know who Melcathon is, but what he said hit the nail on the head of Orthodox teaching.


There is also no doubt that faith is effectual through love, that it is the mother goods works, and that good works please God through faith for the sake of Christ.


Good works do more than just please God - they are part of the cooperation necessary in theosis. God doesn't "give" us theosis because He's happy with us - good works, ie, Love, leads to the natural consequence of growing more in the image of God, who IS Love.

This is about all I know, which isn't much. :o I am more than open to correction from older and wiser Orthodox. This is the deepest subject you could have brought up, and a few hastily typed paragraphs do not even begin to do it justice, but I hope it was at least a start for you. "The Orthodox Way" by +Bp. Ware was helpful to me in further understanding theosis. As a former Baptist, it was a pretty big paradign shift - but it was the right one.

God bless you! :pink:

[Lotar]

I was under the impression the difference lies in 'imputed righteousness vs infused righteousness'. Is that correct?
That's a big difference between the Catholic and Lutheran views. I hear that the Orthodox view on grace is not the same as the Roman one, though I am not sure how.

[Orthosdoxa]

AFAIK, the Roman view is that Grace is created. We say it's uncreated.

[nikephoros_spatharios]

When Christ defeated death, He saved all of us from permanently ceasing to exist (which is what would happen otherwise). Our fallen nature did not have as a consequence our "permanently ceasing to exist". Even those who lived and died before Christ did not cease to exist but continued to exist in Hadês. Christ's mission was not to ensure our eternal existence, but to rescue us from Hadês.

[Orthosdoxa]

.

[Orthosdoxa]

Our fallen nature did not have as a consequence our "permanently ceasing to exist". Even those who lived and died before Christ did not cease to exist but continued to exist in Hadês. Christ's mission was not to ensure our eternal existence, but to rescue us from Hadês.
You're right - I changed that awhile ago because it wasn't what I really meant to say. Hades is an existence and I knew that, but it wasn't coming out right, so I deleted that part. :o

Now how do I delete that empty post above? I had screwed this up and made a double post. I'm batting a thousand tonight! :(

[Lotar]

I tend to lean towards the latter group... Most Lutherans I know are not that far off from the Baptist beliefs I had growing up, except their belief in some sacraments.

No, believe me, we are much different than Baptists :D
Though it is true that many are too influenced by kwave, etc., and do not have a correct understanding of our doctrine...


It is the return to our Adamic state, of what we were before the fall. Perfect god-likeness, for then we were true sons of God, truly in His Image and Likeness, without having that image and likeness darkened by passions. We receive God's Divine Grace through cooperation with that Grace, and as we are cleansed of that which cuts off our perfect communion with God (sin), we return to that communion and become ever more like Him. Sin is not the transgression of a divine law, but the denial of Love, which is the meaning of Life. Theosis is the repair of that communion, of defeating the passions and regaining the communion which grants us Life. Death does not happen because God is PO'd about our sins and it's a punishment - it happens because man's perfect communion with life has been screwed up. When Christ defeated death, He saved ALL of us from death and made it possible for ALL of us to be with God. We will all have eternal life in God's presence - but how we experience Him, whether as heaven or hell, will be up to us and the condition our souls are in when we meet Him. That is what theosis is all about. It is a mystery that transcends words, but that's my best attempt for now. And most of us (speaking for myself anyway) are barely even started on the narrow path, despite our enthusiastic embrace of Orthodox doctrines. The lifestyle is much more difficult than the easy believism which has pervaded so much of the West today. Perhaps that's why our Lord said, "Narrow is the gate..."

That much I get.


I don't know who Melcathon is, but what he said hit the nail on the head of Orthodox teaching.

Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and Martin Chemnitz were the three most influential Lutheran theologians of the Reformation. Philip Melanchthon was the author of the Augsburg Confessions, Defense of the Augsburg Confessions, and The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.


There is also no doubt that faith is effectual through love, that it is the mother goods works, and that good works please God through faith for the sake of Christ.


Good works do more than just please God - they are part of the cooperation necessary in theosis. God doesn't "give" us theosis because He's happy with us - good works, ie, Love, leads to the natural consequence of growing more in the image of God, who IS Love.

I think in the context of the previous sentences, he was not claiming that works are only to please God, but also so "that He may give an increase of faith, hope, love, and of the other spiritual gifts." But moreso, the point was that works are made "effectual through love." Love makes true works of the Spirit possible, and those true works in turn increase faith and love, and said love and works are made possible through His grace.


This is about all I know, which isn't much. :o I am more than open to correction from older and wiser Orthodox. This is the deepest subject you could have brought up, and a few hastily typed paragraphs do not even begin to do it justice, but I hope it was at least a start for you. "The Orthodox Way" by +Bp. Ware was helpful to me in further understanding theosis. As a former Baptist, it was a pretty big paradign shift - but it was the right one.

It is always a great thing when a Christian discovers the sacramental faith.

"The Orthodox Way" was too light on the subject for me, to me it seemed to be more of a pep-talk in the vein of evangelical "Christian inspiration."


God bless you! :pink:

And you too. Thanks for the answer. :)

[nikephoros_spatharios]

This sums it up pretty nicely, I think:

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7114.asp

THEOSIS

The fundamental vocation and goal of each and every person is to share in the life of God. We have been created by God to live in fellowship with Him. The descent of God in the Person of Jesus Christ has made possible the human ascent to the Father through the work of the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy believes that each Christian is involved in a movement toward God which is known as theosis or deification.

Theosis describes the spiritual pilgrimage in which each person becomes ever more perfect, ever more holy, ever more united with God. It is not a static relationship, nor does it take place only after death. On the contrary, theosis is a movement of love toward God which begins for each Christian with the rites of Baptism and which continues throughout this life, as well as the life which is to come. Salvation means liberation from sin, death, and evil. Redemption means our repossession by God. In Orthodoxy, both salvation and redemption are within the context of theosis. This rich vision of Christian life was expressed well by Saint Peter when he wrote in the early pages of his second Epistle that we are called "to become partakers of the Divine nature." It was also affirmed by Saint Basil the Great when he described man as the creature who has received the order to become a god.

These are certainly bold affirmations which must be properly understood. The Orthodox Church understands theosis as a union with the energies of God and not with the essence of God which always remains hidden and unknown. However, the experience of the Church testifies that this is a true union with God. It is also one which is not pantheistic, because in this union the divine and the human retain their unique characteristics. In this sense, Orthodoxy believes that human life reaches its fulfillment only when it becomes divine.

[Lotar]

AFAIK, the Roman view is that Grace is created. We say it's uncreated.A point that we agree with you on.


An Orthodox guy who was saying that our beliefs are the same described our position correctly here:


I believe the Lutheran reformation is an attempt to recover what was lost in the West due to its schism with the East. Luther reacted strongly to scholasticism and, of course, papal authority. Instead of being content with the "authoritative gospel", Luther returned to the question of which gospel is able to save. This is a return to a truly patristic way of thinking. For Luther, this question is a Christological question. Rome maintained a concept of "created grace", that is, salvation was a substance that existed outside of Christ, was governed by the church, and was available to the individual for a fee. For Rome, Christ only earned the "opportunity" to be saved. This "opportunity" was governed by the church heirarchy and was the means of gaining power and riches for the pope. For Luther, salvation exists totally and completely in the person of Christ. Christ does not just earn the opportunity to be saved; He actually is salvation in His very being. salvation by faith alone actually means salvation in Christ alone. When Christ is given to me in the sacramental life of the church, salvation (full and complete) is given to me. Thus, Luther believed in Christ as the full incarnation of God and the full deification of man. If Christ HImself is salvation, then grace cannot be a "created substance." Grace consists in a real contact and communion with God Himself.

[Orthodox Andrew]

The Orthodox Way is a little too light. I'm surprised that with all the other great books Bishop Kallistos has written, it's the second post popular.

[Orthosdoxa]

The Orthodox Way is light?? Wow, do I ever feel my IQ sinking lower and lower.... :blush:

It's light for those who already have some grasp on things. For those coming from an anti-liturgical, anti-sacramental background (ie, me three years ago), it's just right. Lotar said he knew next to nothing on Theosis, so I thought it'd be good. I see now that I was mistaken. :sorry:

Lotar -

Have you checked out Regina Orthodox Press or Light and Life? They would have a number of titles specifically devoted to Theosis that you could choose from, perhaps a little more advanced, as that seems to be where you're coming from.

[Orthodox Andrew]

The Orthodox Way is light?? Wow, do I ever feel my IQ sinking lower and lower.... :blush:

It's light for those who already have some grasp on things. For those coming from an anti-liturgical, anti-sacramental background (ie, me three years ago), it's just right. Lotar said he knew next to nothing on Theosis, so I thought it'd be good. I see now that I was mistaken. :sorry:

Lotar -

Have you checked out Regina Orthodox Press or Light and Life? They would have a number of titles specifically devoted to Theosis that you could choose from, perhaps a little more advanced, as that seems to be where you're coming from.
No, I didn't mean it that way, sorry.:hug: I myself come from more of an atheist background than anything else. I just kind of wondered what was the point of the book by the time I was done? That's not to say I didn't learn anything from it.:)

[Lotar]

The Orthodox Way is light?? Wow, do I ever feel my IQ sinking lower and lower.... :blush:

Don't feel bad, some people think The Purpose Driven Life is deep. ;)



It's light for those who already have some grasp on things. For those coming from an anti-liturgical, anti-sacramental background (ie, me three years ago), it's just right. Lotar said he knew next to nothing on Theosis, so I thought it'd be good. I see now that I was mistaken. :sorry:


I guess I should have clarified what I did know :D When compared to Justification, I know next to nothing about Theosis, I would hardly consider myself a expert on the subject.


Lotar -

Have you checked out Regina Orthodox Press or Light and Life? They would have a number of titles specifically devoted to Theosis that you could choose from, perhaps a little more advanced, as that seems to be where you're coming from.

Do you have a link?

[Orthodox Andrew]

Don't feel bad, some people think The Purpose Driven Life is deep. ;)




I guess I should have clarified what I did know :D When compared to Justification, I know next to nothing about Theosis, I would hardly consider myself a expert on the subject.



Do you have a link?http://www.light-n-life.com/

Don't like the Regina press, but I'll still link you the site.:P

http://www.reginaorthodoxpress.com/

[Orthosdoxa]

http://reginaorthodoxpress.com/

http://light-n-life.com/


Aw shoot - Andreas beat me to it!

[Orthodox Andrew]

http://reginaorthodoxpress.com/

http://light-n-life.com/


Aw shoot - Andreas beat me to it!

:P

[Lotar]

Thanks, hopefully I'll get to it eventually. Lately I've been having the bad habit of buying books faster than I can read them. :D

[Kripost]

The Orthodox Way is a little too light. I'm surprised that with all the other great books Bishop Kallistos has written, it's the second post popular.

Ah! I ordered that book. Unfortunately it will take around 8 more weeks for it to come in. Is it really that bad?

[Orthodox Andrew]

Thanks, hopefully I'll get to it eventually. Lately I've been having the bad habit of buying books faster than I can read them. :D
You're looking at the man who orders 10 books at once.^_^

[Lotar]

You're looking at the man who orders 10 books at once.^_^
You'e just barely got me beat ;) Wednesday, I had to force myself not to buy Eusebius' book on the history of the Church.

You should look at my collection, only one book was written after 1600 :holy:

[Orthodox Andrew]

You'e just barely got me beat ;) Wednesday, I had to force myself not to buy Eusebius' book on the history of the Church.

You should look at my collection, only one book was written after 1600 :holy:
:D

I'm telling you Amazon loves me.^_^ Until I realized recently that I could read, I really didn't buy any books. But after I found literacy, I think I could open my own Orthodox library. *ANDREAS GETS AN IDEA TO OPEN HIS OWN LIBRARY. HOWEVER HE PLANS ON CHARGING PEOPLE $10 A DAY FOR TAKING OUT A BOOK. SADLY HE FALLS OFF HIS CHAIR AND FORGETS HIS PLAN DURING HIS STAY IN THE LOCAL HOSPITAL.*

[Iacobus]

Hi Lotar

Are you familiar with the series of letters exchanged between followers of Luther and the Patriarch of Constantinople in (I think) the mid-16th century? I'll confess that I haven't read them carefully, but they may be instructive. If you like, I'll try to dig up a URL or a cite. As I recall, the net result, after several letters were written by each side, was that the Patriarch decided the correspondence was pointless.

I guess I'm curious now. I might go find them just for the fun of it.

James

[Rilian]

No, believe me, we are much different than Baptists :D
Though it is true that many are too influenced by kwave, etc., and do not have a correct understanding of our doctrine...


I remember reading a quote by Jaroslav Pelikan saying that when the LCMS became Southern Baptist and the ELCA became Methodist, he became Orthodox...

Someone already pointed out what I think is the chief distinction, namely the different understandings between East and West of the implications of the Fall.

Here's a couple of links for what Iacobus was talking about, one is html (http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/lutheran.htm) and one's a pdf (http://www.transfigcathedral.org/faith/corner/LutheranDialogue.pdf) . It's interesting to note the Lutheran scholars were from Tübingen which was the site of much of the unraveling of traditional Protestantism in the 19th century.

Kripost, I liked The Orthodox Way.

[countrymousenc]

Lotar: You'e just barely got me beat Wednesday, I had to force myself not to buy Eusebius' book on the history of the Church.

Buy it!!! Don't pass that one up. :D

May I recommend (if no one else has) Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (can't remember the author's name right away; book's upstairs). The author was educated at the seminary in Kiev back before the Russian Revolution, and the book was translated into English by the very respected (but now departed) Fr. Seraphim Rose. If you want something to sink your teeth into, it's the one. I've just finished the introduction and first chapter - don't skip the intro.

As for Theosis vs Justification and Sanctification.... vs? ;)

Lutheran theology, insofar as it reflects the Augsburg Confession, is still too Roman (Western) for Orthodox tastes. The big difference (please don't take offense; none intended) is the Western view of Original Sin, which is that Adam's guilt is inherited. In the Orthodox view, it is the effects of that sin that we have inherited, as well as a proclivity to sin, living, as we do, in a fallen world. That difference also affects how we view justification and sanctification, of course. Do be aware, however, that Orthodoxy is not, repeat, not Pelagian. We know that theosis depends upon God's grace. Everything does.

[Lotar]

Hi Lotar

Are you familiar with the series of letters exchanged between followers of Luther and the Patriarch of Constantinople in (I think) the mid-16th century? I'll confess that I haven't read them carefully, but they may be instructive. If you like, I'll try to dig up a URL or a cite. As I recall, the net result, after several letters were written by each side, was that the Patriarch decided the correspondence was pointless.

I guess I'm curious now. I might go find them just for the fun of it.

James
I've read them, but it's generally agreed that both sides were talking passed each other on a lot of the subjects. Both sides also mistakenly believed that they agreed on original sin. 90% of the content was devoted to the filoque.

[Eusebios]

Thanks, hopefully I'll get to it eventually. Lately I've been having the bad habit of buying books faster than I can read them. :D
This is a bad habit? :)
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.
:bow:

[Suzannah]

Buy it!!! Don't pass that one up. :D

May I recommend (if no one else has) Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (can't remember the author's name right away; book's upstairs). The author was educated at the seminary in Kiev back before the Russian Revolution, and the book was translated into English by the very respected (but now departed) Fr. Seraphim Rose. If you want something to sink your teeth into, it's the one. I've just finished the introduction and first chapter - don't skip the intro.

As for Theosis vs Justification and Sanctification.... vs? ;)

.

HI!!! I'm fairly certain you are referring to Michael Pomazansky. Incredible book! A must read for you Lotar....I think because of your extensive knowledge already, you would really like it. I think it is out of print. You can read it online here for free:
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0824.HTM

[Lotar]

I remember reading a quote by Jaroslav Pelikan saying that when the LCMS became Southern Baptist and the ELCA became Methodist, he became Orthodox...

Ah yes, the imfamous quote. :D
LCMS has been having some turmoil over the liturgy, which I am sure he was refering too. But we're finally coming out on top and putting an end to the abuses. If a church want's to do a contemporary service, they must still have a traditional service, and the contemporary service can only change the songs, not the liturgy. Hopefully well get rid of the contemporary stuff all together soon.


Someone already pointed out what I think is the chief distinction, namely the different understandings between East and West of the implications of the Fall.
Probably so.


Here's a couple of links for what Iacobus was talking about, one is html (http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/lutheran.htm) and one's a pdf (http://www.transfigcathedral.org/faith/corner/LutheranDialogue.pdf) . It's interesting to note the Lutheran scholars were from Tübingen which was the site of much of the unraveling of traditional Protestantism in the 19th century.
Yes, I've read it before. I'll try to look up one Lutheran perspective I read before as well.

[countrymousenc]

HI!!! I'm fairly certain you are referring to Michael Pomazansky. Incredible book! A must read for you Lotar....I think because of your extensive knowledge already, you would really like it. I think it is out of print. You can read it online here for free:
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0824.HTM

Yes, that's the one. Thanks, Suzannah! (I forgot to look when I went upstairs. :o )

[Rilian]

LCMS has been having some turmoil over the liturgy, which I am sure he was refering too. But we're finally coming out on top and putting an end to the abuses.

Interesting. One thing I would have assumed to be verboten in traditional confessional Lutheranism are icons, but according to this (http://www.holytrinitylutheranchurchlcms.org/hticons.html) site that appears not to be the case.

[Lotar]

Buy it!!! Don't pass that one up. :D
I'm already reading 3 books at once :D

I'll get around to it eventually.


May I recommend (if no one else has) Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (can't remember the author's name right away; book's upstairs). The author was educated at the seminary in Kiev back before the Russian Revolution, and the book was translated into English by the very respected (but now departed) Fr. Seraphim Rose. If you want something to sink your teeth into, it's the one. I've just finished the introduction and first chapter - don't skip the intro.

I'll give it a go.



As for Theosis vs Justification and Sanctification.... vs? ;)

Lutheran theology, insofar as it reflects the Augsburg Confession, is still too Roman (Western) for Orthodox tastes. The big difference (please don't take offense; none intended) is the Western view of Original Sin, which is that Adam's guilt is inherited. In the Orthodox view, it is the effects of that sin that we have inherited, as well as a proclivity to sin, living, as we do, in a fallen world. That difference also affects how we view justification and sanctification, of course. Do be aware, however, that Orthodoxy is not, repeat, not Pelagian. We know that theosis depends upon God's grace. Everything does.

Why would I take offense? :D

Of course I know that there is the East vs West veiws here, we don't hide the fact that we follow the western tradition. It's obvious from the earliest writtings that we have always looked at things differently. But what I am trying to see is if we really aren't that different, just looking at the same thing from a different view.

Just like our talk on atonement the other week, where we believe basically the same thing, just look at it differently and emphasize different points. In this same way, Lutherans tend to put and emphasis on justification and Orthodox tend to put an emphasis on sanctification, but neither of us would ever say the other was not essential.

It is true that we believe that you make too light of Original Sin. We do believe that original sin is more than just an inherited guilt, but it effects us so that we are born without fear of God or a true faith in God. Indeed, that is what we consider the sin, not so much that we are guilty for what Adam did, but we are guilty of not fearing the Lord our God. In the same way, Baptism is not a get out of jail free card, but a beginning of the healing of this wound, sparking true faith and God imparting His grace upon the child or convert.

Now, how I see it, our views on original sin have more of an effect on how we view conversion, namely the relation between election and free will. After that point, I think it has less of an impact.

[Lotar]

Interesting. One thing I would have assumed to be verboten in traditional confessional Lutheranism are icons, but according to this (http://www.holytrinitylutheranchurchlcms.org/hticons.html) site that appears not to be the case.No, we like icons. We're also known for our stained glass windows. One thing to remember, in the Formula of Concord we reaffirmed all the anathemas of the 7 councils.

Our difference is that we don't what such things as venerating icons and invoking saints to become dogma. If you read our talks with Rome, you will see that in the case of reunion, our consern is not with the practice of prayer to Saints, but whether it will be required.


Edit: I don't know if it's just me, but the big eye Jesus always creeps me out...

[Orthodox Andrew]

Ah! I ordered that book. Unfortunately it will take around 8 more weeks for it to come in. Is it really that bad?
OPPS! I just saw your post now.:blush:

No it's not a bad book. It's a good book, but it just lacks some meat on it's bones.

[prodromos]

I don't know if it's just me, but the big eye Jesus always creeps me out...

I assume you are talking about the Pantocrator from St Catherine's on Mt. Sinai? I love that icon :)

[countrymousenc]

Lotar, perhaps if you read about what the various features of the icons mean, it would help you not to be creeped out. I have to admit that, at first, some of the icons were difficult for me to look at for very long; I felt unworthy. I think that I knew (before I "knew") that to look upon the icon was a way of being in the presence of the one portrayed. None of us are worthy (in our own rights) to stand in that Presence, except we acknowledge our unworthiness and are humbly grateful for what He accomplished for us.

[Lotar]

Lotar, perhaps if you read about what the various features of the icons mean, it would help you not to be creeped out. I have to admit that, at first, some of the icons were difficult for me to look at for very long; I felt unworthy. I think that I knew (before I "knew") that to look upon the icon was a way of being in the presence of the one portrayed. None of us are worthy (in our own rights) to stand in that Presence, except we acknowledge our unworthiness and are humbly grateful for what He accomplished for us.
I know what it means, He is both God and man, just something about it is creepy. I guess I'm just wierd...

[Photini]

Our fallen nature did not have as a consequence our "permanently ceasing to exist". Even those who lived and died before Christ did not cease to exist but continued to exist in Hadês. Christ's mission was not to ensure our eternal existence, but to rescue us from Hadês.

But what is true existence? What is it to be truly human? There is no true existence apart from God. Furthermore, there would be no bodily resurrection had Christ not been resurrected. We would have been eternally torn apart.

St. Mark of Ephesus uses this "salvation from non-existence" to refute the RCC doctrine of Purgatory. The verse in I Corinthians that ends with "....but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire," St Mark explains that ALL people will be saved from eternal non-existence...however, some will be in eternal fire and others in eternal blessedness.

[nikephoros_spatharios]

But what is true existence? What is it to be truly human? There is no true existence apart from God. Furthermore, there would be no bodily resurrection had Christ not been resurrected. We would have been eternally torn apart.

St. Mark of Ephesus uses this "salvation from non-existence" to refute the RCC doctrine of Purgatory. The verse in I Corinthians that ends with "....but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire," St Mark explains that ALL people will be saved from eternal non-existence...however, some will be in eternal fire and others in eternal blessedness.
I guess the way I see it, is in a nutshell the following:

In Pre-Fall times: man in Paradise with God. in BC times: body decays+soul in Hades. In AD times: body decays+soul waiting 2nd coming. Post-2nd coming times: body+soul reunited and renewed --> new resurrected existence for everyone, which is experienced positively or negatively by each person.

[Lotar]

I guess the way I see it, is in a nutshell the following:

In Pre-Fall times: man in Paradise with God. in BC times: body decays+soul in Hades. In AD times: body decays+soul waiting 2nd coming. Post-2nd coming times: body+soul reunited and renewed --> new resurrected existence for everyone, which is experienced positively or negatively by each person.
Pretty much the same thing that we believe.

[Lotar]

I was hoping I would get more of a commentary on what you think is wrong with the position I was putting forth :sorry:

[Photini]

I guess the way I see it, is in a nutshell the following:

In Pre-Fall times: man in Paradise with God. in BC times: body decays+soul in Hades. In AD times: body decays+soul waiting 2nd coming. Post-2nd coming times: body+soul reunited and renewed --> new resurrected existence for everyone, which is experienced positively or negatively by each person.
Exactly. And being apart from God, (as well as being eternally torn from our bodies), is NOT true existence.

"Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them, they were in process of becoming corrupted entirely, and death had them completely under its dominion. For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good. By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Him Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt. So is it affirmed in Wisdom: 'The keeping of His laws is the assurance of incorruption.' And being incorrupt, he would be henceforth as God, as Holy Scripture says, 'I have said, Ye are gods and sons of the Highest all of you: but ye die as men and fall as one of the princes.'" ~St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation

-------
Had Christ not saved us, we would have been in a state of non-existence.

[Rilian]

Lotar, I think the real difference is that Lutheranism and by proxy almost all Protestantism views the consequence of the fall as the loss of man's freedom. We are now seen as being in a state of complete helplessness to do good or to choose God's love.

Orthodoxy would see the fall as a consequence of man's freedom, and that a compromise of man's freedom would create a world of fatalistic determinism. Irenaeus described us as being at an "epistemic distance" from God, meaning a distance of knowledge, and that it is by our conscious choice to truly turn to God that leads us into full maturity as human beings.

[Photini]

Irenaeus described us as being at an "epistemic distance" from God, meaning a distance of knowledge, and that it is by our conscious choice to truly turn to God that leads us into full maturity as human beings.
I believe you can see this described as well in the quote I just posted from St. Athanasius.

[Rilian]

I believe you're correct Photini. Looks like we cross-posted.

[Lotar]

Lotar, I think the real difference is that Lutheranism and by proxy almost all Protestantism views the consequence of the fall as the loss of man's freedom. We are now seen as being in a state of complete helplessness to do good or to choose God's love.

Orthodoxy would see the fall as a consequence of man's freedom, and that a compromise of man's freedom would create a world of fatalistic determinism. Irenaeus described us as being at an "epistemic distance" from God, meaning a distance of knowledge, and that it is by our conscious choice to truly turn to God that leads us into full maturity as human beings.
Yes, I know that is a point where we disagree. We are not fatalists nor manicheans, like Calvin, but that is a different conversation. At the moment I would not like to look at justification and sanctification, and Theosis. Forget about conversion for the moment.

[Orthosdoxa]

Lotar -

I just finished reading "The Life" yesterday (Clark Carlton's treatise on the Orthodox view of salvation), and, at the risk of being told it's "light" :P I think it might be what you're looking for. It also quotes quite a bit from "The Deification of the Purpose of Man's Life", by Archimandrite George - which is a booklet that I myself have and completely forgot about! I think either of them might be helpful.