Why aren't you Eastern Orthodox?

[ByzantineDixie]

Qoheleth's question regarding Pelikan has me doing a little digging and my recent studies in church history also has piqued my interest. Has anyone given serious thought to this question? What keeps you Lutheran as opposed to converting to EO?

Peace

Rose

[Phoebe]

I don't know. I suppose I'd need to know more about the EO church to make an informed reply.

[Rechtgläubig]

Qoheleth's question regarding Pelikan has me doing a little digging and my recent studies in church history also has piqued my interest. Has anyone given serious thought to this question? What keeps you Lutheran as opposed to converting to EO?

Peace

Rose
Sola Fide.

[Phoebe]

Good reason, Rech.

I'll take your word for it. You are a wise man.
:)

[Rechtgläubig]

Good reason, Rech.

I'll take your word for it. You are a wise man.
:)
I disagree. :P


But I do believe that Justification is such an important and vital doctrine that it should always be our measuring stick. Any clouding over of the teaching of the pure Gospel message, no matter how slight or mild, should be met with quick objection.

Just my opinion. :sorry:

[LuxPerpetua]

Actually, I have given some serious thought to Orthodoxy myself. I honestly don't know how much you guys and gals remember this, but when I first came to CF a few months back I was very confused about "church." I was raised SBC, found it shallow and lacking, so then I moved on to the Episcopal church, found it outwardly exciting but inwardly dead, and then I mistakenly got mixed up with UCC and got completely freaked out. That's the point I was at when I found CF. One of the reasons I was attracted to CF to begin with was that it hosted so many denominations and I really wanted to learn more about everything to see how we are similar and how we differ, etc. Well, I am a Medieval History major, both as an undergrad and a grad student, so I know WAY too much about the RCC to be a good Catholic, and so as I participated on CF I was really drawn to both Lutheranism and EO. Both Lutherans and Orthodox have a a great sense of church history and tradition, and both tend to be incredible Scriptural exegetes. After much prayer and "struggling" with God (not sure how else to describe it), God's grace led me to Lutheranism, and here's why:

1) The proper balance between Law and Gospel. By nature, I'm a perfectionist, which is actually a very scary thing for a Christian. Left to my own devices, I constantly worry, "Am I being a good enough Christian?", "What if God hasn't chosen me to be Christian and I just think He has?", "What if I die and God doesn't let me into heaven?," etc. I'm terrified of my own sins and worry that God hasn't forgiven me. Then, I started studying Lutheran theology and realized that's what sacraments are for! I know that God has chosen me because I have been baptized. I know that God forgives my sins in Christ because He has given me the Eucharist and absolution from my pastor. Now I finally understand Christ's teachings in our Gospels: The point was not to say that we can save ourselves by being perfect but rather that God knows our imperfection and has given us Christ to make us perfect: "What is impossible with man is possible with God" (Luke 18:27). I cannot be perfect on my own, and I don't have to be. God has effected my salvation in Christ, and now I just need to rest in the peace of Christ through faith--He has done it all and He is doing it all. This idea of "rest" is so vital to me and now I have a much richer understanding of the "Good News." Orthodoxy stresses salvation as a process whereby humanity becomes increasingly like God (their phrase goes something like, "God became man so that man could become God"). I cannot find peace in that nor do I feel that I could approach God's throne in the confidence that St. Paul says we should have. I look at myself and I look at God and think, "I've got a LOOOONG way to go, baby!" Then I think about the sinner crucified with Christ. He certainly was not perfect and was condemned by both man's law and God's Law. I take comfort in Christ's words, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). Although I think sanctification is important, I do think that sanctification is different from justification. For me, the concept of salvation as a process brings on all of the anxiety that I find in Law. That is not Gospel to my ears.

2) Iconography. I have been in an EO church, and I do think that all of the iconography is breathtaking but I do have some problems with it. First off, although I understand their views concerning "reverencing" icons, I also think that nonbelievers may have the wrong understanding of this and assume that they are "worshipping" these icons rather than God. This is a practice that may cause people to "stumble" (cf. Romans 14:21). Iconography is a very important tradition in EO, but I think it goes a little overboard, which echoes my same feelings toward Catholicism and Mary.

3) The role of the Theotokos. In many ways I think that Orthodox have a better understanding of Mary than Catholics, but I disagree that the ever-virginity of the Theotokos is important to salvation. From what I've gathered in TAW, the eternal virginity of Mary is Orthodox dogma. I readily agree to the virginity of Mary at Christ's conception; I readily accept the title Theotokos; I readily accept that Mary is the most blessed of all woman-kind and is the spiritual mother of the church; and in fact, I actually accept the assumption of Mary into heaven. However, I see no indication in Scripture that Mary was ever virgin and I don't think that verse in Ezekiel makes all that great of an argument for her ever virginity. I also think that term "the new ark of the covenant" is falsely applied to Mary when it makes more sense to apply it to Christ (this is another argument used to support her ever virginity). Maybe Mary remained an eternal virgin--I don't know for certain--but I reject this belief as dogma material. The early church was wrong in requiring this belief, and it is wrong now. Early Greek society was heavily influenced by a cultural revulsion toward sexual activity, and especially in regard to women, so I think the concept of Mary's eternal virginity has a great deal more to say about the Hellenized beliefs of the early church than anything about Mary herself. May the Lord have mercy on my soul if I am wrong here. I have studied medieval art and theology a great deal, and for the record, a lot of Mariology reflects a similar devotion that many pagans had to the Egyptian goddess Isis. The Isis cult was very popular and usually preceded the spread of the Christian church. Likewise, when Christianity moved in, it was very easy for the people to retain this maternal goddess devotion by substituting Mary in her place. A great deal of early Christian art of the Madonna and child are strikingly similar to statues of Isis and her baby son Horace. It wasn't until the 12th century in the West that we see the emergence of an emotional Mary--the kind of Mary figure that is so prominent in Catholic devotion even now. The East, to my knowledge, retained the original "stoic" style of portraying Mary that resembled the Isis and Horace statues. Like I said, it just makes me wonder if this portrayal says more about the Christian culture at that time than the historical Mary. Again, my the Lord have mercy on my soul if I err. I just read yesterday that even St. Thomas Aquinas in the West was uncertain about the perpetual virginity of Mary, and yet, he has been declared a saint by the Catholic church, which now professes the semper virgo as dogma. Hmmm. :scratch:

4) The concept of a "true" church as an institution that has not changed over time and has been preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. While I readily agree that Orthodoxy has changed a great deal less than Catholicism, I think it is false to believe that Christianity has ever been completely unified in belief or practice. The Epistles in the NT are excellent examples of this. If you read the writings of early Christian theologians you can also see that practice was not standardized. I know a great deal less about EO, but I have problems with any church institution that claims to be perfectly guided by the Holy Spirit, be it the RCC or the EO. Because of my greater knowledge about Western Christianity, I will use St. Augustine, that great bishop in North Africa, as an example. I have been rereading his Confessions this week, and one thing that I notice is that baptismal practices widely varied among churches in the late 4th century when he was writing. Augustine himself was not baptized as an infant (although his mother was a practicing Christian and his father did even occasionally attend church himself) but rather as an adult. He gives the reasoning that his mother feared his sins would be even more heavily counted against him after baptism than before. The church now rejects this reasoning. Throughout this work also, Augustine demonstrates a completely different understanding of saints (in the "declared a saint by the church" sense) than what either of the RCC or the EO church have now. Also, in the early church, catechumens who were adults were traditionally baptized naked. Obviously, this practice is no longer in vogue. It seems to me then that church Tradition is not as homogenous as some want to think. Like the Bereans in Acts, I think we are less prone to error if we use the Scriptures to evaluate God's will and truth (Acts 17:11). Athough EO claims that Tradition is "living" and therefore not completely set in stone, they also claim that their church has not changed, or that the changes that have been made aren't really "changes" per se as they are clarification. In all honesty, I just fall short of understanding their interpretation here. And I'm always wary of the possibility of Tradition outshining God's will, as demonstrated by the Pharisees and warned against in Matthew 15.

5) Apostolic Authority. Yes, this was important to the early church, but I'm not so sure that God approves of it. Read Mark 9:38-41 and Luke 9:49-50, for example. Also, after Judas' betrayal, the Apostles selected Matthias to take his place among the apostles, and yet, it seem that God had other ideas and selected Paul instead to carry on His ministry. In many of Paul's letters you seem him feeling the need to justify himself to the other apostles and to the early Christians. The opening 2 chapters of Galatians is a good insight into this. 1 Corinthians 3:5-22 is interesting also. The Orthodox say, "We know where the church is, but we don't know where she isn't." I feel the same way, except what I'm meaning is that the church is where God's Word is taught and the Sacraments are administered. Scripture supports this view, I think.

6) Closed/Close Communion and the validity of the sacraments based upon apostolic authority. I know this is a devisive issue in the Lutheran church, as well, but as for me, I disagree with this practice across the board. All of the evidence that I see in Scripture that people used to justify this practice is, imo, taken out of context. No, I don't think communion should be given to people who are not Christian so I agree that communion is for baptized believers only. However, I think communion should be given to all who profess Christ as Lord and who come penitently before God. I would go even so far as to say that Christians who don't understand the Real Presence should be given communion (Oh, the shock!) so long as they view communion as a sacred time for believers to "commune" with each other and with God. When I consider close communion, my heart reminds me of that poor woman who had been menstruating for 12 years who reached out and touched Jesus or the sinful woman who anointed Jesus' feet with her tears described in Luke. None of us is worthy to receive Christ, and yet He gives Himself freely to all of us who have faith in Him, even faith the size of a mustard seed. At the end of Luke, Jesus, after His resurrection, reenacts the Last Supper among apostles who did not even recognize Him. When we start putting excessive regulations on communion, I think we miss the point entirely. In addition, EO claim that that their sacraments are the only ones that are valid (I'm not sure how they feel about RC sacraments, but that is largely irrelevant to my point). It is God's grace and promise in the Eucharist that makes it special and gives us Christ's body and blood, not anything that we do or that priests do. In all things, we look first to God, not men.

7) Married Priests. EO allow men who are married to become priests but they do not allow priests who are unmarried when they take their vows to marry afterward. Although I don't have a huge problem with this, I do find these stipulations legalistic.

8) Emphasis upon outward piety. I think we all agree that our fruits reflect our inner faith, but I have noticed a tendency among some of my Orthodox friends to go a little overboard in external demonstrations of piety. Some of the things I can think of right are immersing themselves in Orthodox traditions (setting up chapels in their homes decorated with Orthodox icons) and speaking to each other Orthodox "code" (not sure how else to put that). I read an article written by an EO priest about this phenomenon that is especially prevalent among converts (usually from an evangelical Protestant background), wherein they quickly swing from one extreme in practice to another when they become Orthodox--like going from Puritanical to Eastern mystic. I don't think that outward piety is bad at all, but I worry that some people put too much emphasis upon "saying and doing" the proper Orthodox thing that they begin evaluating the level of their faith upon how many icons they own or how much holy water they have on hand. Certainly, I don't think most Orthodox feel this way, but I have seen it become a problem with converts who begin viewing Orthodoxy as a special "club" where burning incense or fasting can earn brownie points with God. This to me emphasizes not what Christ has done for me but what *I* am doing, which I don't think is the proper way to look at our faith.

I truly hope that this post doesn't cost me my dear Orthodox friends, because I do love them very much, and there really are many, many things I love about the Orthodox church. In general, though, I don't think there is a single believer alive (Lutherans and Orthodox included) who doesn't hold some sort of wrong understanding of Christianity (none of us is perfect, right?), and that's when I rest in the relief of knowing that Christ has been perfect for me because I cannot be perfect, and it is Christ who is the source of salvation and no other. "Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!" :bow:

[theologia crucis]

Qoheleth's question regarding Pelikan has me doing a little digging and my recent studies in church history also has piqued my interest. Has anyone given serious thought to this question? What keeps you Lutheran as opposed to converting to EO?

Peace

Rose

[broken record player]Original sin[/broken record player] and sola scriptura, which of course affects justification, sanctification, etc., stuff in good conscience I cannot compromise on.

[Carrye]

Original sin
Do Lutherans not believe in original sin, or do they have a different concept of it than the Orthodox?

[Rechtgläubig]

Do Lutherans not believe in original sin, or do they have a different concept of it than the Orthodox?
Yes we do, but it is different from what the EO believe.

[sculpturegirl]

LuxPerpetua- Very well said! I totally agree with you. I am very attracted to Orthodoxy very much and have tremendous repspect for my Orthodox friend, but for the very reasons you state above I have chosen the Lutheran church.

I am working on a Master's in Medieval Studies, too! YEAH! Where are you going to school? I, also, make sculptures for a living. I have a Theotokos going into a RCC in December and I know that people will rub her feet, pray for her intercession and offer her flowers. It bothers me a little, but my hope is that people will see her great example of being humble and obiediant to the Lord! "Be it unto me as the Lord has said." Amen to that! I find that most protestants hardly pay any attention to Mary and Lutherans have found that balance. I have been reading some of the writings of Martin Luther recently and he writes that he can accept the semper virgo of Mary, but it has no bearing on our salvation. Amen!

[Qoheleth]

Luthers Rose. I am trying to balance what the scriptures tell us and the what the ECFs taught.

I am giving weight to their writings and their witness as it pertains to those doctrines in scripture we all are familiar with.

EO gives a much healthier perspective on Mary, original sin, Salvation (without denying Gods role and our inability to save ourselves or approach God without he intiating it first). Yes they are synergists.

EO has such beautiful perspective on community, unity and the sacraments. EOs are not forceful yet stalwart in their beliefs.

Holy Scripture is preeminate to tradtition yet tradition must be recognized and given its due (and im sure thats an understatement)

Many protestants are finding the mystical theology of EO as very communal.

Luthers 'mysticism' (if I may) seems to be quite akin to EO theology and practice.

Luthers writings on Mary, making the sign of the cross, confession, theosis (becoming deified-not God mind you) and others are almost identical to EO.

I am an inquirer of EO and study Lutheranism at the same time.

I have decided to only consider the Lutheran and EO faiths as they give the Sacraments, litugy and tradition their proper place. Im sorry but the RCC is not a consideration for many reasons that are the same reasons that the EO split with them.

[IowaLutheran]

Sola Fide.Finnish Lutheran scholars have concluded that the Luther's doctrine of salvation by faith caused by Jesus' "real presence" in faith is highly similar to the Orthodox view of salvation through deification or theosis. The book "Union With Christ" contains several treatises on this school of thought:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802844421/qid=1095617530/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-6801684-2402303?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I've read some of it and it seems to make sense. So, while I'm not EO for many of the reasons cited by Lux, it appears our beliefs on salvation are closer than they may appear.

[Qoheleth]

I hope that Im not stepping pout of line by saying this but, in the EO churches that I have attended, I feel and sense and have been welcomed as part of the body of Christ like nowhere else. I feel as though Im part of the communion of saints in the EO liturgy and amongst the worshippers in the church.

At the Lutheran churches (only LCMS), I have not had this feeling. I do not think that the Divine service is as solemn or worshipping as the EOs. The baptism that was at the Lutheran church today was sadly informal and lacking much in the way of spiritual feeling. If baptism is to create faith and for the forgiveness of sins, well all I have to say is how little solemnenty (??) it was given.

The young women in the Lutheran churches that I have attended (or some older women) dress totally inapproprite for church and not so great in general. This is my experience in most protestant churches yet never in a EO church.

But all of the formal statements and tradition and sacraments of the LCMS speak to great reverence for God yet I do not see it in the attitude of the pastors or congregations I have attended (5 to be exact). This is not the fault of the Lutheran church itself, I understand that.

I do look for reverence, deep spirituality, solemn services (whether traditional or contemporary) and the utmost respect and desire for the sacraments. I see that in the EOCs they have all these things yet in the Lutheran church, it is not given the same amount of respect, reflection, or place in the Christian life as they should.

I am struggling between the two churches at this point, only a few certain issues (theology) hold me back and frankly I look as much for correct doctrine as I do the Spirit of God (in the sacraments) in the community and during the services.

[Qoheleth]

I've read some of it and it seems to make sense. So, while I'm not EO for many of the reasons cited by Lux, it appears our beliefs on salvation are closer than they may appear.
Here is an article that expounds on this

http://www.stnm.org/CenterforTheology/colloquium/col0101.html

Also, This site below has an incredible amount of Deep subjects as they relate to the Lutheran faith , doctrines and theology. I can feel the sacredness in them. But I do not recognize this same feeling in the church (lutheran) today.

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.html

[ByzantineDixie]

At the Lutheran churches (only LCMS), I have not had this feeling. I do not think that the Divine service is as solemn or worshipping as the EOs. The baptism that was at the Lutheran church today was sadly informal and lacking much in the way of spiritual feeling. If baptism is to create faith and for the forgiveness of sins, well all I have to say is how little solemnenty (??) it was given.

I understand what you are saying but I have heard similar comments of older, established, ethnically oriented EO congregations.

I do think that Lutherans appear less solemn, less "spiritual" than others but I think this is consistent with both the ethnicity and theology (in a sort of twisted way). Unfortunately, compounding the inherent ethnic stoicism, with Lutherans it can seem that false piety is to be shunned more than sin itself; to the extent genuine piety is masked, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Regarding community...I think this varies from congregation to congregation, and, maybe even to some extent, region to region. I wish you could experience our current congregation. It is our family. They are the people we can count on to be with us as we go through the tough spots of life and to help us get back in line when we need correction. But this hasn't always been the case. We were in an old German Lutheran congregation in Iowa for almost 9 years and it never felt like family...after 9 years we were still "new". :sigh:

I am compelled to comment on what you feel. Other than peace in decidedly unpeaceful times, feelings no longer have much credibility with me. I have come to the conclusion that, at least for me, if it feels right it probably is wrong. I was happiest and actually "felt" a deeper relationship with God when I was practicing a theologically unsound faith. All I know is that based on my "feelings" American Evangelicalism with a touch of neo-Pentecostalism worked very well for me--but God has since shown me, it ain't right!!! :scratch: I don't know why God has taken me from there to here--I trust that He has His reasons. Accordingly, I am now cautious when it comes to appearances and feelings.

It is very seldom that I am truly thankful to be a woman but frankly I am glad I do not have the burden of having to selecting the "right" way for our family to worship. My husband has done a nice job of taking his role as spiritual leader of our family. And I am glad that God has brought me to a place that I can appreciate both my husband's role and his choice. Qoheleth, I pray that you too will find a suitable way and place of worship for your family and that they come to value and appreciate the end result knowing that you have diligently sought God's direction.

Peace

Rose

[ByzantineDixie]

One thing where my studies of both Church History and Lutheranism have taken me...to a good understanding of how far the RCC has removed itself from the plumb line. While living in a monastary in Arkansas has its appeal, especially on those days when the marketing folks are giving me headaches because I can't release their backordered product(s), I am afraid my dream of worshiping side by side with John Michael Talbot will have to stay just that, a dream, until we meet in heaven! :D



1) The proper balance between Law and Gospel. By nature, I'm a perfectionist, which is actually a very scary thing for a Christian. Left to my own devices, I constantly worry, "Am I being a good enough Christian?", "What if God hasn't chosen me to be Christian and I just think He has?", "What if I die and God doesn't let me into heaven?," etc. I'm terrified of my own sins and worry that God hasn't forgiven me. Then, I started studying Lutheran theology and realized that's what sacraments are for! I know that God has chosen me because I have been baptized. I know that God forgives my sins in Christ because He has given me the Eucharist and absolution from my pastor. Now I finally understand Christ's teachings in our Gospels: The point was not to say that we can save ourselves by being perfect but rather that God knows our imperfection and has given us Christ to make us perfect: "What is impossible with man is possible with God" (Luke 18:27). I cannot be perfect on my own, and I don't have to be. God has effected my salvation in Christ, and now I just need to rest in the peace of Christ through faith--He has done it all and He is doing it all. This idea of "rest" is so vital to me and now I have a much richer understanding of the "Good News." Orthodoxy stresses salvation as a process whereby humanity becomes increasingly like God (their phrase goes something like, "God became man so that man could become God"). I cannot find peace in that nor do I feel that I could approach God's throne in the confidence that St. Paul says we should have. I look at myself and I look at God and think, "I've got a LOOOONG way to go, baby!" Then I think about the sinner crucified with Christ. He certainly was not perfect and was condemned by both man's law and God's Law. I take comfort in Christ's words, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). Although I think sanctification is important, I do think that sanctification is different from justification. For me, the concept of salvation as a process brings on all of the anxiety that I find in Law. That is not Gospel to my ears.I looked for a place where I could trim this out and quote less but the whole paragraph was so excellent I decide folks would benefit by reading it again so I cut nothing. I agree...I absolutely cling to the assurance of my salvation through Christ's perfected sacrifice and treasure rightly applied Law and Gospel.

This to me emphasizes not what Christ has done for me but what *I* am doing, which I don't think is the proper way to look at our faith. I honestly have not studied EO enough to make many intelligent comments but this is one aspect that I greatly value in Lutheranism. We do not elevate ourselves by looking to ourselves to "do" things. Everything in Lutheranism is appropriately centered in Christ. I have to admit after growing up RCC this was the hardest thing for me to reconcile as a Lutheran. Surely there was something I had to "do"! I spent years trying to get that notion validated in Lutheranism...never could! :D I have to admit...it feels good to "have to do" things. It makes me feel "holy" and "closer" to God and it feeds my pride as I check of my "did I do it" list. Its a dangerous place to play without a right understanding of justification and sanctification.

I truly hope that this post doesn't cost me my dear Orthodox friends, because I do love them very much, and there really are many, many things I love about the Orthodox church. In general, though, I don't think there is a single believer alive (Lutherans and Orthodox included) who doesn't hold some sort of wrong understanding of Christianity (none of us is perfect, right?), and that's when I rest in the relief of knowing that Christ has been perfect for me because I cannot be perfect, and it is Christ who is the source of salvation and no other. "Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!" :bow:I may not know much about EO theology but based on the little I know about EOers, I find them to be very loving and understanding. I can't imagine this would cost you their friendships. You are a blessing for all of us!

Peace

Rose

[LuxPerpetua]

LuxPerpetua- Very well said! I totally agree with you. I am very attracted to Orthodoxy very much and have tremendous repspect for my Orthodox friend, but for the very reasons you state above I have chosen the Lutheran church.

I am working on a Master's in Medieval Studies, too! YEAH! Where are you going to school? I, also, make sculptures for a living. I have a Theotokos going into a RCC in December and I know that people will rub her feet, pray for her intercession and offer her flowers. It bothers me a little, but my hope is that people will see her great example of being humble and obiediant to the Lord! "Be it unto me as the Lord has said." Amen to that! I find that most protestants hardly pay any attention to Mary and Lutherans have found that balance. I have been reading some of the writings of Martin Luther recently and he writes that he can accept the semper virgo of Mary, but it has no bearing on our salvation. Amen!

Wow!! Another lover of medieval times! We're rare creatures, I think. ;)

I got my undergrad in History (emphasis in Medieval History and minor in Classics) at the University of Southern Mississippi, where I studied extensively with Dr. Phyllis G. Jestice from Stanford. Last year, I started my Master's at the University of Connecticut in Medieval Studies. Due to my husband's degree, though, we ended up moving to Cleveland a month ago so that he could finish his Ph.D. in polymer science at Case Western Reserve University. I'm now a poor unemployed former grad student who is praying for a job. :prayer:

I'd love to know more about your work! I think we have a lot in common. I actually did my undergrad honors thesis on the "crisis of Christology" that is apparent in 12th century cathedral art in the West. I can chat more with you later, but alas, my pizza is out of the oven and hubby is desperately waiting . . .

Blessings!
Lux :)

[LuxPerpetua]

I have more to add to the substance thread but I'm in a hurry so it will need to wait til tomorrow.

Love you all!

[filosofer]

Ah, and many moons ago, I wrote a paper on a 12th century monk, Aelred of Rievaulx. Fascinating study.

[Qoheleth]

I do think that sanctification is different from justification. For me, the concept of salvation as a process brings on all of the anxiety that I find in Law. That is not Gospel to my ears.
I have struggled with the fact that the ECFs (as early as 80 AD) all seem to elucidate their beliefs about salvation as that held by Orthodoxy and the idea that Co-operation in our salvation is of being obedient, availing ourselves of the sacraments and being faithful (all with Gods help and sustaining power) is required of us. God will never let anything tear us from his hands except our own unfaithfulness. Orthodoxy does not see being obedient as meritorious works.

Even the Lutheran church teaches this. So if it is possible to lose ones salvation (as the Lutheran church well teaches), are not the two churches teaching the same thing...cooperation and a two way relationship.

[ByzantineDixie]

Faithfulness to the Word and Sacrament nurtures and sustains faith. In that respect, it is linked to salvation. But it is only faith that saves. And any faithfulness we may have to Word and Sacrament is not of our own doing but, at most, it is our mere concurrence with what the Holy Spirit does working through us. Our cooperation is really more akin to our "failure to foil" than our proactive movement.

While Lutherans believe we can lose our faith through our own actions, we do not believe that we sustain faith by our own actions. Our faith is given to us and preserved for us by God alone. So though we can actively go about doing those things that destroy faith, our activity on the opposite end (fueling and nurturing faith) is not equal and opposite. And as already mentioned, that work is done by the Holy Spirit and our action is at best concurrence or failure to resist.

Obedience is required because God commands it but not because it is required for our salvation. I believe it was Lux who pointed to the thief on the cross. Obedience did not save that thief, faith did, faith alone.

It is in these truths that we find the roles of justification and sanctification. While they are not separate from each other, they are quite distinct.

Recht, in all his verbosity ;) , summarized the Lutheran perspective on salvation, solo fide. From what you describe, this does differ from EO???

Peace

Rose

[Carrye]

While Lutherans believe we can lose our faith through our own actions, we do not believe that we sustain faith by our own actions. Our faith is given to us and preserved for us by God alone. So though we can actively go about doing those things that destroy faith, our activity on the opposite end (fueling and nurturing faith) is not equal and opposite. And as already mentioned, that work is done by the Holy Spirit and our action is at best concurrence or failure to resist.
I'd love to see you expand upon this. I really don't understand the distinction.

[Qoheleth]

I'd love to see you expand upon this. I really don't understand the distinction.
Please, I would like clarification on this myself. Although I have read this before, I have felt that the distinction is leaning more towards the desire to never attribute a cooperative relationship even after one is justified or being sanctified just to avoid the word 'works'.

[ByzantineDixie]

No rest for the weary, eh? ;) Unfortunately, I am not the best person to expand on this concept but perhaps if I start and stumble, someone else can follow and pick up the ball.

Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit and this work springs from us unimpeded, many times completely unknown to us. (I had an interesting experience with this when I visited my mom and dad recently. I saw some of the God-pleasing things they were doing and they were completely unaware of them.) We are compelled to do the things associated with the holy life because it is the Spirit working in us. None of it comes from our own natural or carnal desire. However...sometimes, our natural desire will attempt to "do" something God-pleasing but our motives are to earn God's favor or to "do" something because we are reluctant to accept the free gift of His grace--we feel we need to contribute something to our salvation...those are the "filty rags" we set before the throne.

Lutherans do not make this distinction simply to avoid the association with "works". The distinction is made because it is the appropriate Scriptural way to look at how God works in us. It isn't really a difficult concept when you think about it in this way....we would never say that the Holy Spirit would lead us to do those things that destroy faith. The work of the Holy Spirit is one-sided in that it brings and sustains faith. Likewise, we say that while we are responsible for anything we do that works to destroy our faith, we cannot take credit for the work that is done to keep us in the faith. As the Holy Spirits role is one-sided in bring and sustaining faith, our role is one-sided in our abilities to only destroy it, not build and sustain.

Cooperation, then, is not synergistic but is comes in the form of "mere concurrence". The Formula of Concord does a nice job in explaining this:


“As soon as the Holy Ghost through the Word and Sacraments has begun in us His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate, although in great weakness. But this does not occur from our carnal natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us in our conversion, as Paul expressly and earnestly exhorts that we as workers together with Him receive not the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. 6:1. But this is to be understood in no other way than that the converted man does good to such an extent and so long as God by His Spirit rules, guides, and leads him, and as soon as God withdraws His gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere in obedience to God. But if this were understood thus that the converted man cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses together draw a wagon, this could in no way beconceded without prejudice to the divine truth” (F.C., (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=9365862#_ftn1)Th. D., Art. II, 65. 66, Triglot, p. 907).

I am also going to direct you to this article on sanctification...not that I think it addresses specifically the question of man's role in this (although it does touch on that) but because I do think its a great article on the topic! :D

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8692177&postcount=46

Did this help clarify anything? What questions / concerns do you have?

Peace

Rose

[SPALATIN]

I hope that Im not stepping pout of line by saying this but, in the EO churches that I have attended, I feel and sense and have been welcomed as part of the body of Christ like nowhere else. I feel as though Im part of the communion of saints in the EO liturgy and amongst the worshippers in the church.

At the Lutheran churches (only LCMS), I have not had this feeling. I do not think that the Divine service is as solemn or worshipping as the EOs. The baptism that was at the Lutheran church today was sadly informal and lacking much in the way of spiritual feeling. If baptism is to create faith and for the forgiveness of sins, well all I have to say is how little solemnenty (??) it was given.

The young women in the Lutheran churches that I have attended (or some older women) dress totally inapproprite for church and not so great in general. This is my experience in most protestant churches yet never in a EO church.

But all of the formal statements and tradition and sacraments of the LCMS speak to great reverence for God yet I do not see it in the attitude of the pastors or congregations I have attended (5 to be exact). This is not the fault of the Lutheran church itself, I understand that.

I do look for reverence, deep spirituality, solemn services (whether traditional or contemporary) and the utmost respect and desire for the sacraments. I see that in the EOCs they have all these things yet in the Lutheran church, it is not given the same amount of respect, reflection, or place in the Christian life as they should.

I am struggling between the two churches at this point, only a few certain issues (theology) hold me back and frankly I look as much for correct doctrine as I do the Spirit of God (in the sacraments) in the community and during the services.Please don't judge all Baptisms in Lutheran Churches based on your experience today. There are many congregations in the LCMS who have informalized the sacrament so much so that it lacks the substance it should have. I am sure that those here will say that their church though is not that way.

I am sorry that you felt the Divine Service not to your satisfaction.

[filosofer]

Please don't judge all Baptisms in Lutheran Churches based on your experience today.
I would agree with Scott on this point.

There are many congregations in the LCMS who have informalized the sacrament so much so that it lacks the substance it should have.
I would disagree with this. What we do or don't do with regard to Baptism does not change Baptism one iota. The substance of Baptism is Word with the water bringing salvation/forgiveness of sins. That can be done in a house, in a hospital room, and very simply. That is as valid and effective as the most elaborate "high church" festivities, and maybe isn't obscured by all the "extras".

[SPALATIN]

I would agree with Scott on this point.


I would disagree with this. What we do or don't do with regard to Baptism does not change Baptism one iota. The substance of Baptism is Word with the water bringing salvation/forgiveness of sins. That can be done in a house, in a hospital room, and very simply. That is as valid and effective as the most elaborate "high church" festivities, and maybe isn't obscured by all the "extras".

I stand corrected, however, I was not referring to the substance of the Baptism itself but of the ceremony. I have seen some contemporary services use a very informal service. The substance of Baptism itself though is always the same. By the way filosofer is correct in that we don't always wait for a Church service to Baptize. We do it wherever and whenever possible but only once.

[Flipper]

I have seen some contemporary services use a very informal service.
What happens to make it informal, instead of formal? I'm only asking because I've been to many Catholic baptisms, which are so formal that it is a separate service, and Lutheran baptisms at 3 LCMS churches, and they were all done in much the same way as each other, but as part of the service. While they weren't as formal as Catholic baptisms, I thought they were quite formal - but, I really don't know what is formal or informal in the Lutheran church.

The young women in the Lutheran churches that I have attended (or some older women) dress totally inapproprite for church and not so great in general. This is my experience in most protestant churches yet never in a EO church.

What is inappropriate? Is it that they just aren't keeping certain parts covered? Or, do you think that women should only wear long dresses in church? I agree that low cut blouses with hip huggers showing off the thongs are quite inappropriate in a church setting (and most other settings), but where's the line? Is it at dresses? Or no jeans? Do you think where the church is, has something to do with it?

[SPALATIN]

What happens to make it informal, instead of formal? I'm only asking because I've been to many Catholic baptisms, which are so formal that it is a separate service, and Lutheran baptisms at 3 LCMS churches, and they were all done in much the same way as each other, but as part of the service. While they weren't as formal as Catholic baptisms, I thought they were quite formal - but, I really don't know what is formal or informal in the Lutheran church.


What is inappropriate? Is it that they just aren't keeping certain parts covered? Or, do you think that women should only wear long dresses in church? I agree that low cut blouses with hip huggers showing off the thongs are quite inappropriate in a church setting (and most other settings), but where's the line? Is it at dresses? Or no jeans? Do you think where the church is, has something to do with it?
I guess by informal is that the Pastor paraphrased the Baptism liturgy so much so that the atmosphere of the event was casual or laid back rather than solemn. I don't care about the dress code but would rather stick to the book on what is said. I don't like it when someone paraphrases something just because they think it would speak better to the masses. People are not stupid and can tell when they are being patronized.

[ByzantineDixie]

We use our liturgy verbatim but I wouldn't call our Baptism's particularly formal and solemn. They seem more light hearted, joyous occasions. Probably the most solemn thing done is when our pastor even takes infants to the altar and raises them up. It gives me goosebumps just typing about it. Despite this...solemn is not the first word that comes to mind nor is formal. I suppose what we perceive would be all relative anyway.

I really liked how filo characterized it. The substance of Baptism is not impacted by our perceptions. And when you think about it, the Baptism in the New Testament were not liturgical ordeals. They were quite simple and unencumbered. It was only later that the early church added mega requirements for Baptism (up to 3 years catechesis!) and the surrounding liturgy complete with multiple exorcisms and the like. Makes one almost wonder whether Phillip's eunuch's simple Baptism counted! :wink: Just joking, of course. :D

Peace

Rose

[SPALATIN]

We use our liturgy verbatim but I wouldn't call our Baptism's particularly formal and solemn. They seem more light hearted, joyous occasions. Probably the most solemn thing done is when our pastor even takes infants to the altar and raises them up. It gives me goosebumps just typing about it. Despite this...solemn is not the first word that comes to mind nor is formal. I suppose what we perceive would be all relative anyway.

I really liked how filo characterized it. The substance of Baptism is not impacted by our perceptions. And when you think about it, the Baptism in the New Testament were not liturgical ordeals. They were quite simple and unencumbered. It was only later that the early church added mega requirements for Baptism (up to 3 years catechesis!) and the surrounding liturgy complete with multiple exorcisms and the like. Makes one almost wonder whether Phillip's eunuch's simple Baptism counted! :wink: Just joking, of course. :D

Peace

Rose
Rose et al

I am attaching a picture that depicts the Sanctification and Justification as we believe.

This I believe is how we should see on how God Justified and Sanctified us through Christ on the Cross

[ByzantineDixie]

Scott, absolutely perfect!

Qoheleth...you have Kolb's book. Look under the section on horizontal and vertical righteousness. Scott's picture is a good visual of those explanations.

Peace

Rose

[Matrona]

Sola Fide.
I hope this is okay for me to post here, but one of my favorite ways of explaining the Orthodox view on faith and works is by paraphrasing Martin Luther: "We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone."

What you mean by sola fide is exactly what we Orthodox believe but the problem is a lack of understanding on what is meant by works. Y'all rightly decry works, meaning acts of legalistic obedience, which wrongly turn the relationship between God and His children into something based on deals and favors, rather like the mafia. :) Orthodox, OTOH, emphasize James's declaration that a faith without works is dead, but when we say works we mean things you do on account of the Holy Spirit working in you, not something you can do in place of faith. Nothing replaces faith. Faith breathes life into the inhabited world. One without faith is as good as dead.

If this isn't okay I apologize. I just didn't want y'all walking away thinking Orthodox believe in some kind of works salvation. :wave:

[LuxPerpetua]

I really liked how filo characterized it. The substance of Baptism is not impacted by our perceptions. And when you think about it, the Baptism in the New Testament were not liturgical ordeals. They were quite simple and unencumbered. It was only later that the early church added mega requirements for Baptism (up to 3 years catechesis!) and the surrounding liturgy complete with multiple exorcisms and the like. Makes one almost wonder whether Phillip's eunuch's simple Baptism counted! :wink: Just joking, of course. :D

Peace

Rose

This is such a great post, Rose! You have really made a fabulous point here, as did Filo earlier. :hug:

[Lotar]

I hope this is okay for me to post here, but one of my favorite ways of explaining the Orthodox view on faith and works is by paraphrasing Martin Luther: "We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone."

What you mean by sola fide is exactly what we Orthodox believe but the problem is a lack of understanding on what is meant by works. Y'all rightly decry works, meaning acts of legalistic obedience, which wrongly turn the relationship between God and His children into something based on deals and favors, rather like the mafia. :) Orthodox, OTOH, emphasize James's declaration that a faith without works is dead, but when we say works we mean things you do on account of the Holy Spirit working in you, not something you can do in place of faith. Nothing replaces faith. Faith breathes life into the inhabited world. One without faith is as good as dead.

If this isn't okay I apologize. I just didn't want y'all walking away thinking Orthodox believe in some kind of works salvation. :wave:
I think there's more truth to this than people like to admit. EO do not teach that we earn merit, as the papacy does.

Remember that Lutherans do not split faith and works, as the sects do, but that they are inseperable. The issue is the cause of our salvation, which, when language is properly defined, there is not much of an issue with EO doctrine. The main difference, because of issues pertaining to Pelagianism and the Reformation, Lutherans tend to focus a great deal on the act of conversion, while EO tend to focus a great deal on the road after conversion.

There is not even really a large dispute over theosis, only that Lutherans are wary of combining conversion and sanctification in the same doctrine, and that Lutherans do not believe that the end result is possible in this life time.


As for the OP, Idunno

[ufonium2]

My dad proclaimed yesterday that he's not Orthodox because we stand up too much, so I'm glad to see the folks on this board at least have theological reasons.

[KagomeShuko]

My dad proclaimed yesterday that he's not Orthodox because we stand up too much, so I'm glad to see the folks on this board at least have theological reasons.
Lutherans stand up lots, too - if they follow the tradition of the service.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[SPALATIN]

Lutherans stand up lots, too - if they follow the tradition of the service.

Stein Auf!
Bridget
I have friends who left the Lutheran Church because of just that. That is usually a failure of the Pastoral staff to teach the why's and whatfor's of worship and of the parishioner who never bothered to ask why or whatfor in the first place. These are the same people who say that they want to participate in worship but when they are asked to do so decline because it is too much work.

[Bradford]

My dad proclaimed yesterday that he's not Orthodox because we stand up too much, so I'm glad to see the folks on this board at least have theological reasons.
Hope your dad isn't thinking of being Lutheran.. or Catholic, or... :D

[LuxPerpetua]

I hope that Im not stepping pout of line by saying this but, in the EO churches that I have attended, I feel and sense and have been welcomed as part of the body of Christ like nowhere else. I feel as though Im part of the communion of saints in the EO liturgy and amongst the worshippers in the church.

At the Lutheran churches (only LCMS), I have not had this feeling. I do not think that the Divine service is as solemn or worshipping as the EOs. The baptism that was at the Lutheran church today was sadly informal and lacking much in the way of spiritual feeling. If baptism is to create faith and for the forgiveness of sins, well all I have to say is how little solemnenty (??) it was given.

The young women in the Lutheran churches that I have attended (or some older women) dress totally inapproprite for church and not so great in general. This is my experience in most protestant churches yet never in a EO church.

But all of the formal statements and tradition and sacraments of the LCMS speak to great reverence for God yet I do not see it in the attitude of the pastors or congregations I have attended (5 to be exact). This is not the fault of the Lutheran church itself, I understand that.

I do look for reverence, deep spirituality, solemn services (whether traditional or contemporary) and the utmost respect and desire for the sacraments. I see that in the EOCs they have all these things yet in the Lutheran church, it is not given the same amount of respect, reflection, or place in the Christian life as they should.

I am struggling between the two churches at this point, only a few certain issues (theology) hold me back and frankly I look as much for correct doctrine as I do the Spirit of God (in the sacraments) in the community and during the services.

I really hope you don't feel "picked on" Qoheleth, but I'm using your post to highlight the point that Rose mentioned in regard to church traditions. Know that you are dearly loved, and it is only in that spirit of love that I want to point out some problems, from a Lutheran perspective, that I see in the way you are approaching our common faith.


You have highlighted probably my greatest reservation toward EO because it is one of its greatest attractions for me. I have heard countless times the description of EO liturgy as a "divine opera" that they "watch" each service. And how I love "smells and bells!" The fear to be addressed here is the reliance upon "feeling" rather than upon Christ's promises to validate a religious experience. Christ himself was baptized in a river without pomp and circumstance, so I see no Scriptural reason mandating that the sacraments be surrounded by either mystery or ceremony. God himself came into the world as an infant born in Bethlehem, away from his family home, born to a poor, unwed mother. His birth was not surrounded by the excited exclamations of happy family members but rather by shepherds--a vocation that had a rather seedy reputation. It's really quite interesting when you compare the birth of John the Baptist to that of Jesus, and yet, the former himself claimed that he was not fit to untie the sandals of the latter.

In general, I really wonder how much God himself likes our "rituals." When reading Philip Yancey's book _The Jesus I Never Knew_ this part in particular struck me and I think it makes a good point for my argument. Yancey uses this illustration from Dostoevsky's work, _The Brothers Karamozov_:

The agnostic brother Ivan Karamozov writes a poem called "The Grand Inquisitor" set in sixteenth-century Seville at the height of the Inquisition. In the poem, a disguised Jesus visits the city at a time when heretics are daily being burned at the stake. The Grand Inquisitor, a cardinal, "an old man, almost ninety, tall and erect, with a withered face and sunken eyes" recognizes Jesus and has him thrown into prison. There, the two visit in a scene intentionally reminiscent of the Temptation in the desert. The Inquisitor has an accusation to make: by turning down the three temptations, Jesus forfeited the three greatest powers at his disposal, "miracle, mystery, and authority." He should have followed Satan's advice and performed miracles on demand in order to increase his fame among the people. He should have welcomed the offer of authority and power. Did Jesus not realize that people want more than anything else to worship what is established beyond dispute? . . . By resisting Satan's temptations to override human freedom, the Inquistor maintains, Jesus made himself far too easy to reject. He surrendered his greatest advantage: the power to compel belief. Fortunately, continues the sly Inquisitor, the church recognized the error and corrected it, and has been relying on miracle, mystery, and authority ever since. For this reason, the Inquisitor must execute Jesus one more time, lest he hinder the church's work.

I readily admit that I don't know much about Jarislav Pelikan, but if his reason for converting to Eastern Orthodoxy is to be believed (i.e. that when LCMS decided to become Southern Baptist, and ELCA Methodist, that he would become Orthodox) then I think he is misguided, most notably in the way that he views communal worship. His reasoning illuminates the snobbery found in the church at large today, across denominational demarcations. Such people emphasize the "miracle, mystery, and authority" discussed in the citation above. I am reminded of Jesus' words in Matthew to the Pharisees (known for their strict adherence to both ritual and tradition) in which He quotes Hosea 6:6: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." If God the Son elucidated these feelings held by God the Father, then I think it wise to be wary of putting too much emphasis upon liturgical ritual. I enjoy a "high" liturgy as much as anyone, but the power of the liturgy is there even in the simplest of services because it is Christ who gives it its life and He is equally present in both. Matthew 18:20 comes to mind here.

In regard to how people dress for church these days, I certainly acknowledge that this is a problem not only in Protestantism but also in Catholicism, at least from what I gather from some in OBOB and also my Catholic friends in "real life." You are right that EO is more rigid in this respect. But you know what? The other day in TAW there was a thread in which a person wishing to attend an Orthodox service was turned away at the door by the priest because he was wearing shorts and thus not dressed appropriately. I have HUGE problem with this line of reasoning and I do not find this at all to be GOSPEL. Thankfully, Christ himself rebelled against this sort of thinking. He dined and chatted with lepers, prosititutes, Samaritans, tax collectors, and his best friends were poor fishermen. I think that it is nothing less than a tragedy when legalistic requirements are set in place that keep people from hearing God's Word.

I am really a rather rotten apologist, but I do hope that my input has been somewhat helpful to you, Qoheleth. Christianity today is a confusing business, I know.

Blessings always!

Lux :crosself:

[ByzantineDixie]

Matrona...many thanks for your clarification. Your input is valued in this discussion as you speak from a position of knowledge. Plus, our little Lutheran forum allows others to post in disagreement with us, so long as it is done respectfully. What good is a Lutheran who can't appreciate a good disputation! :D

Lotar...thanks also for adding succinct clarity. Someday I hope to cultivate that ability to speak volumes in just a few short sentences.

That is usually a failure of the Pastoral staff to teach the why's and whatfor's of worship...and of the parishioner who never bothered to ask why or whatfor in the first place.
Scotty!!! Your poor pastor! ;) Actually there is probably more truth to the latter half of this quote. We have this awesome Wednesday evening service. Our pastor had been going through books of the bible chapter by chapter teaching each week. Recently he decided to do the same thing with the Augsburg Confessions...and some of our most faithful attendees decided to stop coming. They aren't interested in "doctrine". :sigh: Pastor even took the time to explain why it was important to study this. You can lead a horse to water but .....

Peace

Rose

[SPALATIN]

Matrona...many thanks for your clarification. Your input is valued in this discussion as you speak from a position of knowledge. Plus, our little Lutheran forum allows others to post in disagreement with us, so long as it is done respectfully. What good is a Lutheran who can't appreciate a good disputation! :D

Lotar...thanks also for adding succinct clarity. Someday I hope to cultivate that ability to speak volumes in just a few short sentences.


Scotty!!! Your poor pastor! ;) Actually there is probably more truth to the latter half of this quote. We have this awesome Wednesday evening service. Our pastor had been going through books of the bible chapter by chapter teaching each week. Recently he decided to do the same thing with the Augsburg Confessions...and some of our most faithful attendees decided to stop coming. They aren't interested in "doctrine". :sigh: Pastor even took the time to explain why it was important to study this. You can lead a horse to water but .....

Peace

Rose
I am not putting it on the Pastor we grew up with because he really didn't do anything wrong in the case of my friend. My friend did not attend church for over 15 years partly because of being in the Marine Corp. and the other because his first wife did not attend church. After he divorced her he met a good Christian woman and a year later married her. She grew up Catholic and was attending a non-denom church which he also started attending.

I recently found out that he doesn't like the Lutheran church because of all the "standing and sitting" they have to do.

I think the reason many don't want to learn doctrine is because it is heady stuff and they don't understand it all. Even if explained they may feel that they would look stupid if they didn't understand it when everyone else did.

[ByzantineDixie]

Lux, you must have posted just before I did.

I don't know what to say. Your post leaves me absolutely speechless. If there was a "standing ovation" smilie...I'd use it now. I will have lots to think about on the ride home.

Love

Rose

[Carrye]

No rest for the weary, eh? ;)
There are times when I just want to leave it as I've written it, as that's the extent to which I understand it, but those are always the times someone wants MORE! :)

Lutherans do not make this distinction simply to avoid the association with "works". The distinction is made because it is the appropriate Scriptural way to look at how God works in us. It isn't really a difficult concept when you think about it in this way....we would never say that the Holy Spirit would lead us to do those things that destroy faith. The work of the Holy Spirit is one-sided in that it brings and sustains faith. Likewise, we say that while we are responsible for anything we do that works to destroy our faith, we cannot take credit for the work that is done to keep us in the faith. As the Holy Spirits role is one-sided in bring and sustaining faith, our role is one-sided in our abilities to only destroy it, not build and sustain.
Here's where we disagree, I think ... but why? The Holy Spirit works in us, yes. He guides us to do right, and to make good choices. But ultimately I decide whether or not to do the right thing. If I do the right thing, I am working to build virtue. Virtue helps to sustain my faith.

I think our disagreement is less about "works" or "sustaining faith" as it is about exactly what these things mean. And honestly, if that's all our disagreement is, I'm ok with that. :)

Thank you for explaining.

[Qoheleth]

Where to begin?? First, if anyone felt offended by my statements concerning the Lutheran service, I whole heartily apologize as my intent was not to offend.

As to the ritual of Baptism. I agree that pomp and circumstance is not needed. I do believe that like many things in the church, we lose are perspective as to what is taking place. I for one was praying with joy in my heart for the infant and her family. I just had a problem with others having a conversation during the baptism.

The dress of the young and not so young ladies. Yes their clothing revealed to much, was to tight, to low cut and so on, and most certainly it did not reflect respect for themselves or the service. The thing is, it was not just a couple but maybe 20 or 30. I suppose that this is my problem but I get frustrated at the mothers and fathers of these young women for not guiding them a little bit more closely in the matter of self-respect.

Im not sure how to interpret many churches theology. Im lost as to what makes sense anymore. I pray, pray, and pray. Many times I just want to take a churches word for it since I cant seem to discern the true meanings.

I simply want to worship and be obedient but I need a deeper understanding of Gods word. Either Im not intelligent enough to understand or the Holy spirit has not revealed the truth or I need to submit to a churches wisdom and guidance and start from there.

So many times when I feel convicted of a biblical truth and can express it with passion, in a short time I am convinced against it.

I suppose Im an orphan in that respect but I cannot let this go on for my wife and two daughters.

Currently I am attending a Lutheran (LCMS) church and a Orthodox-OCA church every week and also Im taking instruction from both the pastor and priest of each church respectivly.

Maybe this is not wise. But I need to have some peace.

[Iacobus]

You have highlighted probably my greatest reservation toward EO because it is one of its greatest attractions for me. I have heard countless times the description of EO liturgy as a "divine opera" that they "watch" each service. And how I love "smells and bells!" The fear to be addressed here is the reliance upon "feeling" rather than upon Christ's promises to validate a religious experience. Christ himself was baptized in a river without pomp and circumstance, so I see no Scriptural reason mandating that the sacraments be surrounded by either mystery or ceremony. God himself came into the world as an infant born in Bethlehem, away from his family home, born to a poor, unwed mother. His birth was not surrounded by the excited exclamations of happy family members but rather by shepherds--a vocation that had a rather seedy reputation. It's really quite interesting when you compare the birth of John the Baptist to that of Jesus, and yet, the former himself claimed that he was not fit to untie the sandals of the latter.

In general, I really wonder how much God himself likes our "rituals." When reading Philip Yancey's book _The Jesus I Never Knew_ this part in particular struck me and I think it makes a good point for my argument. Yancey uses this illustration from Dostoevsky's work, _The Brothers Karamozov_:



I readily admit that I don't know much about Jarislav Pelikan, but if his reason for converting to Eastern Orthodoxy is to be believed (i.e. that when LCMS decided to become Southern Baptist, and ELCA Methodist, that he would become Orthodox) then I think he is misguided, most notably in the way that he views communal worship. His reasoning illuminates the snobbery found in the church at large today, across denominational demarcations. Such people emphasize the "miracle, mystery, and authority" discussed in the citation above. I am reminded of Jesus' words in Matthew to the Pharisees (known for their strict adherence to both ritual and tradition) in which He quotes Hosea 6:6: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." If God the Son elucidated these feelings held by God the Father, then I think it wise to be wary of putting too much emphasis upon liturgical ritual. I enjoy a "high" liturgy as much as anyone, but the power of the liturgy is there even in the simplest of services because it is Christ who gives it its life and He is equally present in both. Matthew 18:20 comes to mind here.

In regard to how people dress for church these days, I certainly acknowledge that this is a problem not only in Protestantism but also in Catholicism, at least from what I gather from some in OBOB and also my Catholic friends in "real life." You are right that EO is more rigid in this respect. But you know what? The other day in TAW there was a thread in which a person wishing to attend an Orthodox service was turned away at the door by the priest because he was wearing shorts and thus not dressed appropriately. I have HUGE problem with this line of reasoning and I do not find this at all to be GOSPEL. Thankfully, Christ himself rebelled against this sort of thinking. He dined and chatted with lepers, prosititutes, Samaritans, tax collectors, and his best friends were poor fishermen. I think that it is nothing less than a tragedy when legalistic requirements are set in place that keep people from hearing God's Word.

I am really a rather rotten apologist, but I do hope that my input has been somewhat helpful to you, Qoheleth. Christianity today is a confusing business, I know.

Blessings always!

Lux :crosself:

I really do not want to break any rules, and be unruly in a forum which is not my own, but I have to say I have been distressed by many of the arguments put forth for not being EO. Differences of opinion are to be expected, of course, but many of the arguments are nothing more than misconceptions and misunderstandings - misstatements really - of what Orthodoxy is all about. I would be very happy to discuss these things if it would be appropriate to do so, but I would not want to without a go-ahead from the members.

At the very least, I urge Lux Perpetua to take her concerns to TAW. Some of what was said simply shocked me, both in the post above and particularly in post number six.

James, who is not often shocked

[ByzantineDixie]

James...please feel free to respectfully comment on any misconceptions you might feel have been presented. (see note to Matrona in post #41 and our forum rules--a courteous exchange of conflicting notions is permitted)

Peace

Rose

[Iacobus]

1) The proper balance between Law and Gospel. By nature, I'm a perfectionist, which is actually a very scary thing for a Christian. Left to my own devices, I constantly worry, "Am I being a good enough Christian?", "What if God hasn't chosen me to be Christian and I just think He has?", "What if I die and God doesn't let me into heaven?," etc. I'm terrified of my own sins and worry that God hasn't forgiven me. Then, I started studying Lutheran theology and realized that's what sacraments are for! I know that God has chosen me because I have been baptized. I know that God forgives my sins in Christ because He has given me the Eucharist and absolution from my pastor. Now I finally understand Christ's teachings in our Gospels: The point was not to say that we can save ourselves by being perfect but rather that God knows our imperfection and has given us Christ to make us perfect: "What is impossible with man is possible with God" (Luke 18:27). I cannot be perfect on my own, and I don't have to be. God has effected my salvation in Christ, and now I just need to rest in the peace of Christ through faith--He has done it all and He is doing it all. This idea of "rest" is so vital to me and now I have a much richer understanding of the "Good News." Orthodoxy stresses salvation as a process whereby humanity becomes increasingly like God (their phrase goes something like, "God became man so that man could become God"). I cannot find peace in that nor do I feel that I could approach God's throne in the confidence that St. Paul says we should have. I look at myself and I look at God and think, "I've got a LOOOONG way to go, baby!" Then I think about the sinner crucified with Christ. He certainly was not perfect and was condemned by both man's law and God's Law. I take comfort in Christ's words, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). Although I think sanctification is important, I do think that sanctification is different from justification. For me, the concept of salvation as a process brings on all of the anxiety that I find in Law. That is not Gospel to my ears.

Thanks, Rose. I don't intend to be at all disrespectful, either of Lux or of Lutherans in general. In fact, I know relatively little about the Lutheran Church, and would not be qualified to say anything much about it. I'll be the first to admit that. :|

I snipped the above quote to comment on, although it was not the only thing that grabbed my attention. In fact, until I saw Jaroslav Pelikan dismissed as a shallow kind of guy, I had resolved to say nothing at all. But, of course, fools rush in.... :D

When I first read the section above, it was unclear to me whether the charge being leveled was that the Orthodox are overly legalistic -- a charge made elsewhere in the post -- or if the argument was that we were, in some sense, past the point of worrying about our sinfulness and simply concentrate on theosis. Rightly or wrongly, I decided that the latter was the point Lux was making, a conclusion which amazed me, especially when she closed with the quintessential Orthodox prayer -- "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner."

It is ironic that one of the most frequent complaints my protestant friends make about Orthodoxy is that its such a downer -- that we spend all of our time saying what sinners we are. In a sense, its true. We answer every petition with "Lord have mercy", our pre-communion prayers are an unending litany of how horrible we are, and we spend all of Great Lent -- 40 days plus Holy Week -- flat on our faces in repentance. To understand Orthodoxy as a simple search for theosis is to misunderstand the enormous struggles that go on simply to defeat the passions within us. Most Orthodox -- myself included -- will tell you that as far as we can tell we are not making any progress toward theosis at all. I think it was the implication that our struggles are simply to reach theosis that flew all over me. Our struggles are against ourselves, our passions and the devil. That is why cherish our sacraments, why we fast, why we follow prayer rules, why we do many of the things that Lux is critical of.

Do we have to reach theosis to enter paradise? Of course not. But are we satisfied with saying "well, I'm not perfect, but God doesn't mind"? Absolutely, unequivocally not. Like St. Dismas, the thief on the cross, repentance is the key. His repentance and faith at the moment of his death opened paradise to him. Our repentance and faith throughout our life is our key to paradise.

Look at it this way. If I look at my wife, and say to myself "I can never be the ideal husband, but at least she won't divorce me, cause she already knew I was a jerk", I am shortchanging both myself and the one I love. I owe my wife my absolute best effort to be the ideal husband, whether I ever am or not.

But beyond that, and maybe most importantly, Orthodoxy offers healing to us. Sure we might not ever be perfect, but it is equally important that the soul -- wracked by passions and suffering from sin -- be healed. That is a major reason for the sacraments, from confession to the Eucharist to unction -- AND our disciplines -- fasting, prayer rules and all of the others -- are so critical for us. That is also why we can never, ever allow the notion that "I'm never going to be perfect, but God doesn't mind" to enter our minds. Look at it this way -- if you go to a doctor, do you refuse to take the medicine under the theory that the doctor doesn't care whether or not you take it? Of course not. One of the most profound books I have ever read had the self-explanatory title of "Orthodox Psychotherapy". It related the teachings of the church fathers in regard to the healing of the soul. Salvation is not just escaping hellfire -- it is healing our spiritual sickness.

Christ came to heal us, to save us and, yes, to open the door the theosis. Only in Orthodoxy have I found all of those missions addressed.

There, I feel better. Unless somebody asks for it, I won't bother with the rest of the objections. Thanks for hearing me out.

James

[KagomeShuko]

I have friends who left the Lutheran Church because of just that. That is usually a failure of the Pastoral staff to teach the why's and whatfor's of worship and of the parishioner who never bothered to ask why or whatfor in the first place. These are the same people who say that they want to participate in worship but when they are asked to do so decline because it is too much work.
I don't think standing is "too much work," but we're also told in my church that you worship how you want - so if that's sitting - that's fine - if it's standing, that's fine. Worship is different for different people and can be different for people each different time, too.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Bradford]

Well, after all these complicated answers... Why am I not EO?

It's not even an option for me. The nearest EO church is 3 hours away- each way. :D

[Protoevangel]

It would be hard to be a bobble-headed Lutheran and EO at the same time...

One must have their priorities!

[ByzantineDixie]

Well, after all these complicated answers... Why am I not EO?

It's not even an option for me. The nearest EO church is 3 hours away- each way. :DConsider then, that your Divine appointment is NOT to be EO! Makes it simple, doesn't it! :D

Yesterday at lunch I was visiting a site which theoretically houses the names of all the "confessional" LCMS Lutheran churches. (I take exception that the term "confessional" has been held hostage to the interpretation of the linking site...but that's another thread for another day.) Anyway...I think there are like 9 states that do not have these so-called "confessional" Lutheran churches, Georgia is one of them. So I guess is all part of the Divine plan, Bradford, that you and I can't be "confessional" Lutherans either! ;)

I shouldn't complain...if we used Geography and church population as our yardstick for Divine appointments I would have to be Independent Baptist and learn to read the olde English of the KJV!!! YIKES!!! I'll gladly live in a state that has no "confessional" Lutheran congregations than have to go there! :D

Peace

Rose

[ByzantineDixie]

Here's where we disagree, I think ... but why? The Holy Spirit works in us, yes. He guides us to do right, and to make good choices. But ultimately I decide whether or not to do the right thing. If I do the right thing, I am working to build virtue. Virtue helps to sustain my faith.

I think our disagreement is less about "works" or "sustaining faith" as it is about exactly what these things mean. And honestly, if that's all our disagreement is, I'm ok with that. :)

Thank you for explaining.I saved the harder one for last! ;)

I don't know if our disagreement is merely semantics or if it is deeper than that. In what I understand you to write it appears that our disagreement is deeper than mere meaning of words.

Here is where I think we are in agreement:

The Holy Spirit is the source and cause of all good works and faith giving / sustaining activities.

Here is where I think we have some disagreement:

But ultimately I decide whether or not to do the right thing. If I do the right thing, I am working to build virtue. Virtue helps to sustain my faith.There is no "I decide to do the right thing" in Lutheran theology--only "I decide to do the wrong thing".

Interestingly enough, a blog I periodically follow (http://joelbrondos.worldmagblog.com/)posted on this very topic recently.


Luther describes faith in this way while writing prefaces to the books of the New Testament (AE 35:370-371):

“O it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing good works incessantly. It does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is asked, it has already done them, and is constantly doing them. Whoever does not do such works, however, is an unbeliever. He gropes and looks around for faith and good works, but knows neither what faith is nor what good works are. Yet he talks and talks, with many words, about faith and good works.

“Faith is a living, daring confidence in God’s grace, so sure and certain that the believer would stake his life on it a thousand times.

“This knowledge of and confidence in God’s grace makes men glad and bold and happy in dealing with God and with all creatures. And this is the work which the Holy Spirit performs in faith. Because of it, without compulsion, a person is ready and glad to do good to everyone, to serve everyone, to suffer everything, out of love and praise to God who has shown him this grace.

“Thus it is impossible to separate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate heat and light from fire. Beware, therefore, of your own false notions and of the idle talkers who imagine themselves wise enough to make decisions about faith and good works, and yet are the greatest fools. Pray God that he may work faith in you. Otherwise you will surely remain forever without faith, regardless of what you may think or do.”If you are looking for the "balance" in the equation--if "I" can decide to do wrong then "I" can decide to do right...its not there for Lutherans. The free will we have is one sided...the will to do wrong. The will to do right comes from faith by the Holy Spirit. So if indeed we are doing virtuous activity (and we absolutely will do these because we have been given faith) it is not because we decide to do it, that activity springs almost spontaneously from the faith that we have been given. It's not the result of our idea, it's not the result of our will, at most it is mere concurrence with the promptings of the Spirit.

So...at least to me it appears we are saying something different. Would you agree or disagree?

Peace

Rose

[Qoheleth]

I thought that I would add this from another Orthodox source...



Our faith in Jesus Christ is not an abstraction but rather a communion with Him. This communion fills us with the power of the Holy Spirit and our faith becomes a fertile reality which engenders good works in us as the Scriptures attest "which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10). Thus, according to the Apostles, faith engenders true works; and true works, which are the fruit of the Holy Spirit, bear witness and prove the existence of a true faith. Since faith is neither abstract nor sterile, it is impossible to dissociate it from good works.

[SPALATIN]

It is ironic that one of the most frequent complaints my protestant friends make about Orthodoxy is that its such a downer -- that we spend all of our time saying what sinners we are. In a sense, its true. We answer every petition with "Lord have mercy", our pre-communion prayers are an unending litany of how horrible we are, and we spend all of Great Lent -- 40 days plus Holy Week -- flat on our faces in repentance. To understand Orthodoxy as a simple search for theosis is to misunderstand the enormous struggles that go on simply to defeat the passions within us. Most Orthodox -- myself included -- will tell you that as far as we can tell we are not making any progress toward theosis at all. I think it was the implication that our struggles are simply to reach theosis that flew all over me. Our struggles are against ourselves, our passions and the devil. That is why cherish our sacraments, why we fast, why we follow prayer rules, why we do many of the things that Lux is critical of. I think that the reason we don't see eye to eye on this stuff Iacobus is that to a Lutheran much of the stuff you mention here sounds more like Law than Gospel. It is saying that we have to do these things if we even hope to achieve "Theosis." Following rules of prayer and fasting are legalism in best sense. Mostly because it is focusing on what "I" should do or must do in order for God to do his part. Whether that is the true essence or not it comes across that way.

Now I am not saying this because I want to anger you or anyone else that comes from the EOC. It is one thing if we do something based on tradition and yet another when we do it because the Priest tells me I can't be complete unless I do. If the tradition seems legalistic it probably is and maybe should be examined to see whether it truly is beneficial.

Look at it this way. If I look at my wife, and say to myself "I can never be the ideal husband, but at least she won't divorce me, cause she already knew I was a jerk", I am shortchanging both myself and the one I love. I owe my wife my absolute best effort to be the ideal husband, whether I ever am or not.
That would be unconditional love. She loves you inspite of your shortcomings as does my wife. This is the way God loves us as well.

But beyond that, and maybe most importantly, Orthodoxy offers healing to us. Sure we might not ever be perfect, but it is equally important that the soul -- wracked by passions and suffering from sin -- be healed. That is a major reason for the sacraments, from confession to the Eucharist to unction -- AND our disciplines -- fasting, prayer rules and all of the others -- are so critical for us. That is also why we can never, ever allow the notion that "I'm never going to be perfect, but God doesn't mind" to enter our minds. Look at it this way -- if you go to a doctor, do you refuse to take the medicine under the theory that the doctor doesn't care whether or not you take it? Of course not. One of the most profound books I have ever read had the self-explanatory title of "Orthodox Psychotherapy". It related the teachings of the church fathers in regard to the healing of the soul. Salvation is not just escaping hellfire -- it is healing our spiritual sickness.

Christ came to heal us, to save us and, yes, to open the door the theosis. Only in Orthodoxy have I found all of those missions addressed.

There, I feel better. Unless somebody asks for it, I won't bother with the rest of the objections. Thanks for hearing me out.

JamesI believe the same things you do about what Christ came to do and for me Lutheranism has addressed these missions.

I don't disagree with your desires regarding the EOC. If you feel that they offer you something you don't find in Lutheranism or other brand of Christianity you belong where God will put you. I wish you well and bid you welcome here anytime to either have fun chatting with us about everyday stuff or if you have more questions.

[ByzantineDixie]

From what I read I wonder if, at least on the theology of theosis, we (EOs and Lutherans) might be talking past each other because of our different perspectives rather than really speaking of some kind of substantive difference. :scratch: While Lutherans agree fasting and prayer are not something "we" must initiate on our own, without the prompting of the Holy Spirit to further our salvation and grow in faith, we do certainly agree that fasting and prayer are important and are often prompted by the Holy Spirit to do these things.

Interesting stuff.....

Peace

Rose

[SPALATIN]

I thought that I would add this from another Orthodox source...

Our faith in Jesus Christ is not an abstraction but rather a communion with Him. This communion fills us with the power of the Holy Spirit and our faith becomes a fertile reality which engenders good works in us as the Scriptures attest "which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10). Thus, according to the Apostles, faith engenders true works; and true works, which are the fruit of the Holy Spirit, bear witness and prove the existence of a true faith. Since faith is neither abstract nor sterile, it is impossible to dissociate it from good works.

This is more in line with what I believe as well. I think this is very close to what Lutheran's all believe about Faith and Works.

[LuxPerpetua]

Thanks, Rose. I don't intend to be at all disrespectful, either of Lux or of Lutherans in general. In fact, I know relatively little about the Lutheran Church, and would not be qualified to say anything much about it. I'll be the first to admit that. :|

I snipped the above quote to comment on, although it was not the only thing that grabbed my attention. In fact, until I saw Jaroslav Pelikan dismissed as a shallow kind of guy, I had resolved to say nothing at all. But, of course, fools rush in.... :D

When I first read the section above, it was unclear to me whether the charge being leveled was that the Orthodox are overly legalistic -- a charge made elsewhere in the post -- or if the argument was that we were, in some sense, past the point of worrying about our sinfulness and simply concentrate on theosis. Rightly or wrongly, I decided that the latter was the point Lux was making, a conclusion which amazed me, especially when she closed with the quintessential Orthodox prayer -- "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner."

It is ironic that one of the most frequent complaints my protestant friends make about Orthodoxy is that its such a downer -- that we spend all of our time saying what sinners we are. In a sense, its true. We answer every petition with "Lord have mercy", our pre-communion prayers are an unending litany of how horrible we are, and we spend all of Great Lent -- 40 days plus Holy Week -- flat on our faces in repentance. To understand Orthodoxy as a simple search for theosis is to misunderstand the enormous struggles that go on simply to defeat the passions within us. Most Orthodox -- myself included -- will tell you that as far as we can tell we are not making any progress toward theosis at all. I think it was the implication that our struggles are simply to reach theosis that flew all over me. Our struggles are against ourselves, our passions and the devil. That is why cherish our sacraments, why we fast, why we follow prayer rules, why we do many of the things that Lux is critical of.

Do we have to reach theosis to enter paradise? Of course not. But are we satisfied with saying "well, I'm not perfect, but God doesn't mind"? Absolutely, unequivocally not. Like St. Dismas, the thief on the cross, repentance is the key. His repentance and faith at the moment of his death opened paradise to him. Our repentance and faith throughout our life is our key to paradise.

Look at it this way. If I look at my wife, and say to myself "I can never be the ideal husband, but at least she won't divorce me, cause she already knew I was a jerk", I am shortchanging both myself and the one I love. I owe my wife my absolute best effort to be the ideal husband, whether I ever am or not.

But beyond that, and maybe most importantly, Orthodoxy offers healing to us. Sure we might not ever be perfect, but it is equally important that the soul -- wracked by passions and suffering from sin -- be healed. That is a major reason for the sacraments, from confession to the Eucharist to unction -- AND our disciplines -- fasting, prayer rules and all of the others -- are so critical for us. That is also why we can never, ever allow the notion that "I'm never going to be perfect, but God doesn't mind" to enter our minds. Look at it this way -- if you go to a doctor, do you refuse to take the medicine under the theory that the doctor doesn't care whether or not you take it? Of course not. One of the most profound books I have ever read had the self-explanatory title of "Orthodox Psychotherapy". It related the teachings of the church fathers in regard to the healing of the soul. Salvation is not just escaping hellfire -- it is healing our spiritual sickness.

Christ came to heal us, to save us and, yes, to open the door the theosis. Only in Orthodoxy have I found all of those missions addressed.

There, I feel better. Unless somebody asks for it, I won't bother with the rest of the objections. Thanks for hearing me out.

James

Oh, James, I just feel horrible that I seem to have upset you. :( Can I give you a hug, please? :hug:

I originally contemplated not posting on this thread because in some ways it is a double-edged sword: I am having to pit Lutheranism against Eastern Orthodoxy. As I said earlier, I love both, and I really, really, let me repeat, REALLY, hate confrontation, especially when I see so much good on both sides. I hope you believe me in that! It is so important that you know that.

Lutheranism and EO share so much in common, and there are true Christians on both sides (as there are in other churches, too). I really like the Orthodox saying, "We know where the church is, but we don't know where she isn't." I disagree with the Orthodox meaning of "church" in this phrase (which EO uses to mean itself), but I think we both share the same sentiments that God's sovereign truth is not limited by human barriers. Many of the complaints I have listed I am not directing toward the Christians in TAW. TAW hosts some of the most wonderful Christians on CF!! I truly love my Orthodox friends more than you can imagine! I am directing my complaints more toward what I have seen in "real life," where official church theology and lay understanding and practice differ more apparently than in the confines of CF (by nature CF attracts Christians who are passionate about their faith and have a greater understanding of Christian history and theology). Actually, my understanding of "church" that I mentioned just a minute ago highlights why I cannot be Orthodox, and this was really the crux of why I am now Lutheran. Do I believe that Lutheranism teaches the uncorrupted truth of Christianity? Not entirely, but neither do I believe that EO does. This very sentiment excludes me from Orthodoxy. I believe that Lutheranism holds closest to Scripture and that the Scriptures cannot lie to us, but I also do not think that any of us can completely have a perfect understanding of Scripture or God's will, and therefore no physical church body is perfect in its teachings. To my knowledge, Martin Luther readily admitted himself that he did not understand the Scriptures perfectly. I do not think Martin Luther was the end-all, be-all of theologians--and neither did Luther himself--but I think that his approach toward Scripture as the touchstone for Christian faith is correct. Is there great good in Orthodoxy? Absolutely YES!!! Is there great good in Lutheranism? Absolutely YES!!! I do believe, though, that Lutheranism is where God wants me. Do you err in being Orthodox? No. Do I err in being Lutheran? No, but the Orthodox answer is yes. We both believe in the "invisible church," but I define it far less rigidly than you. God leads where He will lead, and I will not even begin to either explain or attempt to understand why God has led me to Lutheranism or you to Orthodoxy. We just both must trust that we are in God's will.

I included the Orthodox "Jesus Prayer" in my post for several reasons. It is not just an Orthodox prayer but a Christian prayer that is found in Luke 18:13. I am not perfect nor do I have a perfect understanding, thus, I pray for God's mercy if I have erred in what I have said. I am not seeking to "pull" anyone away from EO but to present my reasons for being Lutheran rather than Orthodox. On the other hand, if what EO says is the truth, then I have greatly sinned in speaking against it. I do not know, nor do I believe, that that is the case, but regardless I pray for mercy and compassion just as you do. My inclusion of this was not to be condescending to you but rather to be honest in admitting my own inclination toward misunderstanding.

As I stated in regard to Jarislav Pelikan, I really know very little about him. I have read one of his books, one on the Theotokos, and the general impression that I got from that book in regard to the author himself is that he is drawn to the mystical side of Christianity--the "smells and bells" as I term it. I do not think that Pelikan is "shallow" as you seem to think, but I find his reason for leaving the Lutheran church to be shallow if it is as I understand it. I do not think that "high" liturgy is in itself bad, but nor do I think it is necessary. In his statement regarding his conversion, Pelikan seems to be reacting to the changing style of Lutheran worship that has upset so many conservative Lutherans. If his only reason for converting is because he does not like more contemporary styles of worship that now coincide with traditional Lutheran liturgy then I find that reason to be devoid of real substance. I would be lying to say otherwise. I do not know anything more about the situation than the statment I mentioned earlier about "LCMS becoming Southern Baptist and ELCA Methodist," so I am only commenting on what I have drawn from that statement.

I hope that clears the air a bit.

Regardless of our differences, which really are few, I hope that we can be friends and pray for each other.

Blessings,
Lux

[Carrye]

There is no "I decide to do the right thing" in Lutheran theology--only "I decide to do the wrong thing".

Interestingly enough, a blog I periodically follow (http://joelbrondos.worldmagblog.com/)posted on this very topic recently.

If you are looking for the "balance" in the equation--if "I" can decide to do wrong then "I" can decide to do right...its not there for Lutherans. The free will we have is one sided...the will to do wrong. The will to do right comes from faith by the Holy Spirit. So if indeed we are doing virtuous activity (and we absolutely will do these because we have been given faith) it is not because we decide to do it, that activity springs almost spontaneously from the faith that we have been given. It's not the result of our idea, it's not the result of our will, at most it is mere concurrence with the promptings of the Spirit.

So...at least to me it appears we are saying something different. Would you agree or disagree?
I think you articulated our point of disagreement accurately. I was reading about this just yesterday for my Theological Anthropology class, and I think that I reflected the Catholic position correctly in my earlier post. So if you presented the Lutheran position in the same way (which I assume you did :)), then it seems we have arrived at some sort of mutual understanding and mutual disagreement. And like I said before, I'm quite ok with that. There are so many things within Catholic theology and teaching that I just assume others share. I know about the big points of contention, but never thought this topic would be an area of disagreement; it's quite interesting, actually.

Thank you for your kind replies. It appears that I learned something today.

[ufonium2]

The other day in TAW there was a thread in which a person wishing to attend an Orthodox service was turned away at the door by the priest because he was wearing shorts and thus not dressed appropriately. I have HUGE problem with this line of reasoning and I do not find this at all to be GOSPEL.
Just to clarify, the person was turned away by an usher; the priest was not consulted. Also, please consider that whole thread in context. Basically, the guy owned appropriate clothing, and this was not his first visit to an Orthodox church, but he had consciously decided to wear inappropriate clothing because it was more comfortable. We have people at my church who don't own dress clothes, we have people at TAW who don't own dress clothes. I've never known anyone to be turned away (or even spoken to about it) because their clothes aren't "nice enough." But, when you have someone that's wearing a $50 pair of shorts (and to be honest, there are very few people on this continent who only own shorts and no pants) it's a fairly safe bet they own a pair of khakis or dockers. It's not about price, style, or quality. It's about modesty. Had he been wearing long pants of any kind, nothing would have been said.

So, whether or not you believe the situation was handled appropriately is up to you, but please judge it in context.

[Bradford]

Consider then, that your Divine appointment is NOT to be EO! Makes it simple, doesn't it! :D

Yesterday at lunch I was visiting a site which theoretically houses the names of all the "confessional" LCMS Lutheran churches. (I take exception that the term "confessional" has been held hostage to the interpretation of the linking site...but that's another thread for another day.) Anyway...I think there are like 9 states that do not have these so-called "confessional" Lutheran churches, Georgia is one of them. So I guess is all part of the Divine plan, Bradford, that you and I can't be "confessional" Lutherans either! ;)

I shouldn't complain...if we used Geography and church population as our yardstick for Divine appointments I would have to be Independent Baptist and learn to read the olde English of the KJV!!! YIKES!!! I'll gladly live in a state that has no "confessional" Lutheran congregations than have to go there! :D

Peace

Rose
Well, I can't be EO, I can't be "Confessional" Lutheran... I won't be a credobaptist. Wow... I'm out of churches! :D

[Lotar]

Pelikan's comments about LCMS becoming Baptist and ELCA becoming Methodist came well before his conversion. He has declined to say what his reason was. He may very well have been a casualty of the "worship wars," but he may have just converted because he thought it was truth. After reading large portions of his series on the history of Christian Tradition, I am suprised he did not convert much earlier.

Pelikan is not alone in his conversion, it has been quite common in recent years for Lutheran pastors and theologians to convert. Though LCMS and ELCA have not yet become Baptist or Methodist, they have been leaning more and more in those directions.

[SPALATIN]

Pelikan's comments about LCMS becoming Baptist and ELCA becoming Methodist came well before his conversion. He has declined to say what his reason was. He may very well have been a casualty of the "worship wars," but he may have just converted because he thought it was truth. After reading large portions of his series on the history of Christian Tradition, I am suprised he did not convert much earlier.

Pelikan is not alone in his conversion, it has been quite common in recent years for Lutheran pastors and theologians to convert. Though LCMS and ELCA have not yet become Baptist or Methodist, they have been leaning more and more in those directions.
Martin Luther would roll in his grave if he knew that Lutheran's were becoming Sacramentarians.

[ByzantineDixie]

Pelikan is not alone in his conversion, it has been quite common in recent years for Lutheran pastors and theologians to convert. Though LCMS and ELCA have not yet become Baptist or Methodist, they have been leaning more and more in those directions.
Is there anything more than anecdotal information that addresses the actual number of Lutheran pastors and theologians who have left the Lutheran church in favor of EO. I'd be very interested in investigating this trend.

Would you mind explaining what is becoming Baptist about the LCMS? What exactly were Pelikan's concerns. Or your own, if those are the tendancies you see?

Thanks much!

Rose

[gzt]

"Smells and bells" is not mystical is not "smells and bells". I see what you're saying, but please choose a better term! Mystical theology is very important to your life, you just don't know it yet, but it's a part of your life whether or not your church has incense. Mystical theology is, quite simply, the practical theology of meeting God. A well-developed emphasis on mystical theology goes hand-in-hand with smells-and-bells-ery in the EO church because we believe the earthly liturgy is the heavenly liturgy and the Bible mentions smells and bells when it describes that [well, I can't find bells, but there's a lot of incense].

[ByzantineDixie]

Well, I can't be EO, I can't be "Confessional" Lutheran... I won't be a credobaptist. Wow... I'm out of churches! :D
Well, if I were a Calvinist then I would conclude that you are predestined to spend enternity...ahem...elsewhere. ;) But since I am not I will just tell you that its time for you to relocate because Georgia just ain't the hub of the Lutheran life! I think you need to move up to where Scott is...Minnesota is a little bit of Lutheran heaven and I hear the hotdishes schmeckt gut. :D

From one boll weevil Lutheran to another.....R

[Jason of Wyoming]

Where to begin?? First, if anyone felt offended by my statements concerning the Lutheran service, I whole heartily apologize as my intent was not to offend.

As to the ritual of Baptism. I agree that pomp and circumstance is not needed. I do believe that like many things in the church, we lose are perspective as to what is taking place. I for one was praying with joy in my heart for the infant and her family. I just had a problem with others having a conversation during the baptism.

The dress of the young and not so young ladies. Yes their clothing revealed to much, was to tight, to low cut and so on, and most certainly it did not reflect respect for themselves or the service. The thing is, it was not just a couple but maybe 20 or 30. I suppose that this is my problem but I get frustrated at the mothers and fathers of these young women for not guiding them a little bit more closely in the matter of self-respect.

Im not sure how to interpret many churches theology. Im lost as to what makes sense anymore. I pray, pray, and pray. Many times I just want to take a churches word for it since I cant seem to discern the true meanings.

I simply want to worship and be obedient but I need a deeper understanding of Gods word. Either Im not intelligent enough to understand or the Holy spirit has not revealed the truth or I need to submit to a churches wisdom and guidance and start from there.

So many times when I feel convicted of a biblical truth and can express it with passion, in a short time I am convinced against it.

I suppose Im an orphan in that respect but I cannot let this go on for my wife and two daughters.

Currently I am attending a Lutheran (LCMS) church and a Orthodox-OCA church every week and also Im taking instruction from both the pastor and priest of each church respectivly.

Maybe this is not wise. But I need to have some peace.
I feel for you. Im in a similar situation, but for me it's a toss up between Orthodox Catholicism, and an "Old Catholic" church called Christ Catholic Church International (sorry guys, but Lutheranism doesn't work for me).

Im leaning very heavily toward "Old Catholicism," in that it has the best of the RCC (minus the Papal superiority) with the best of the OC, while admitting that all can worship together even with their differences (yes, that's you Lutheran's too!). The motto of the CCCI is "Unity in essentials, diversity in non-essentials, and above all charity."

In my opinion, that opens the door to RCC, OC, Lutherans, Anglicans, and other like protestant faiths.

But im sorta into all that ecumenical stuff.

Ok....flame away.

[Bradford]

Well, if I were a Calvinist then I would conclude that you are predestined to spend enternity...ahem...elsewhere. ;) But since I am not I will just tell you that its time for you to relocate because Georgia just ain't the hub of the Lutheran life! I think you need to move up to where Scott is...Minnesota is a little bit of Lutheran heaven and I hear the hotdishes schmeckt gut. :D

From one boll weevil Lutheran to another.....R
Well... I was a Calvinist for most of the time after my conversion... So... :D

[KagomeShuko]

Well, if I were a Calvinist then I would conclude that you are predestined to spend enternity...ahem...elsewhere. ;) But since I am not I will just tell you that its time for you to relocate because Georgia just ain't the hub of the Lutheran life! I think you need to move up to where Scott is...Minnesota is a little bit of Lutheran heaven and I hear the hotdishes schmeckt gut. :D

From one boll weevil Lutheran to another.....R
I don't exactly live in an area where there are Lutherans. .but we have an ELCA and an MS church. Then, there's another MS one in a city nearby here and an MS one in a little city about an hour or two away. ELCA however, we have to go all the way to Lafayette, LA or Orange, TX before finding another.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[ByzantineDixie]

Ah Bridget, that's right! I forgot we had another Boll Weevil Lutheran on board! Did you see that movie Catch Me if You Can with Leonardo DeCaprio--they were Louisianna Lutherans in that show! :cool:

:D Rose

[theologia crucis]

I had just a little time (for me!) tonight, so here goes nothing. This is not complete, and I don’t know when I’ll be able to get back to finish it. But, I though I’d go ahead and post it so y’all can cuss and discuss it. I will apologize in advance if I get a group’s theology wrong. I don’t mean to. Please correct me. But I’m not one to gloss over differences…

Has anyone given serious thought to this question? What keeps you Lutheran as opposed to converting to EO?

After my wife made me join her church, I devoured all I could on various Christian groups. After doing so, I am absolutely convinced of the truth of Lutheranism. There are some beautiful and meaningful and even some truthful things from the various Christian groups, I haven't found one that is as consistent, scriptural, historical, or apostolic as Lutheran doctrine.

So I must echo Recht as I completely agree with him (and it’s not because we’re both Lutheran Texans!):

Sola Fide.

...I do believe that Justification is such an important and vital doctrine that it should always be our measuring stick. Any clouding over of the teaching of the pure Gospel message, no matter how slight or mild, should be met with quick objection...

Do Lutherans not believe in original sin, or do they have a different concept of it than the Orthodox?

Lutherans very much believe in original sin, and it is a very different concept than the EOC.

If I'm not mistaken, EO theology (and Catholic, too, I believe, and I am being VERY general) teach that man's condition after the fall is a very deep and painful wound, which can be remedied by being stimulated by God's grace and participating in the process of salvation (faith, partaking the sacraments, etc.). And I'm pretty sure Catholic theology (and I would guess Orthodoxy) believe that humankind still has the image of God. Please correct me if I'm blatantly wrong, but I don't think I am.

For Lutherans, original sin is such a nasty ailment that we are dead to sin, and absolutely cannot do anything at all to participate in our salvation. Lutherans believe that humankind has lost the image of God because of original sin.

Can any Orthodox accept this theology of original sin?

Third, as the Smalcald Articles say [III, 1], "reason does not recognize" and knows nothing about the nature of this inherited defect. Instead, it must be learned and "believed on the basis of the revelation of the Scripture." This is summarized in the Apology [II:2-50] under these headings:

1. That this inherited defect is guilt, which causes us all to stand in God’s disfavor and to be “children of wrath by nature” because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, as the Apostle testifies in Romans 5[:12].

2. Second, that original sin is a complete absence or “lack of the original righteousness acquired in Paradise” [Ap II, 15] or of the image of God, according to which the human being was originally created in truth, holiness, and righteousness. At the same time it is the absence of any ability or competence in anything that relates to God or, as the Latin text says, "The description of original sin deprives the unrenewed human nature of the gifts, powers, and all capacity to initiate and effect anything in spiritual matters."

3. That not only is original sin (in human nature) such a complete lack of all good in spiritual, divine matters, but also that at the same time it replaces the lost image of God in the human being with a deep-seated, evil, horrible, bottomless, unfathomable, and indescribable corruption of the entire human nature and of all its powers, particularly of the highest, most important powers of the soul, in mind, heart, and will. Ever since the fall, the human being inherits an inborn evil way of doing things, an internal impurity of the heart, and an evil desire and inclination, so that we all by nature inherit s