Primacy of Jesus Christ, Alpha and Omega (sin or no sin)

Christianity Today ^ | January, 2008 | Philip Yancey

[koinonia]

Good morning, Maryz and Kosta50!

Kosta50, thank you for the link to the Dogmatic Faith of the Orthodox Church. I now understand your position on the Bible, since for the Orthodox the source of doctrine is Tradition, and the Bible is part of that Tradition; as opposed to the Roman Catholic which speaks of a twofold deposit of Faith: Scripture and Tradition; or the position of many Protestants of sola scriptura which I find very unbiblical.

In the article on the Orthodox Faith what I suspected to be the case was confirmed, namely the emphasis of the Orthodox on the theosis (communion with God or “deification”) of man through the Incarnate Logos, as opposed to a hyper-emphasis in the West (seemingly or really) on atonement.

Under Section IV, The Doctrine of the Church, there are the following beautiful statements:

Christ saved humankind through what He is, and through what He did for us. Beginning with St. Irenaeos, the Greek Fathers continually reiterate the statement that the Incarnate Son of God "became what we are (a human being) so that we may be deified," says St. Athanasios. By assuming our human nature, the Incarnate Logos, a divine person, brought this humanity to the heights of God. Everything that Christ did throughout His earthly life was based on the presupposition that humanity was already saved and deified, from the very moment of His conception in the womb of Mary, through the operation of the Holy Spirit. (Section IV, a).

I agree wholeheartedly. In my opinion, or according to my theologoumenon :) , this lends itself well to the position of Scotus because the primary mission of Christ here is not seen as the redemption, but rather the bringing of man into communion with God ( theosis )—after the fall, sin becomes an obstacle to that mission and thus redemption becomes a necessary part of this mission. From this perspective the mission of Christ as Mediator uniting God and man through his hypostatic union is quite capable of standing on its own, even if sin never entered the world.

In fact a little further on the article goes on to say: Jesus had the following obstacles to overcome in order for Him to accomplish the work for which He came (theosis): the obstacle of nature, the obstacle of sin, the obstacle of death, and the dominion of the devil. The obstacle of nature was overcome with His Incarnation; the obstacle of sin and death was overcome by the Cross and the Resurrection of Jesus. The dominion of the devil was overcome by Christ's descent into Hades (Hell). (Section IV, c).

From this perspective the primary reason for Christ's coming is theosis, man's communion with the Triune God. The article rightly mentions "the obstacle of nature" which would still exist if sin had not entered the world. In other words, man can not enter communion with the Infinite God except by a Mediator who possesses the divine and human nature. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus, "the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6).

Mind you, I’m not trying to dogmatize my opinion—even if I am relentless;-) it still remains my opinion. However, I must that I am edified by the fact that the Orthodox Christian perspective, which is far more positive in terms of Christ’s loving mission to elevate man into theosis, tends to be more coherent with the position of John Duns Scotus who, as a Franciscan, underscored Divine Love and the faculty of the will (love) in both God and man. Scotus often gets a bad rap because some of his so-called “disciples” (Ockham, for instance) were what we now call voluntarists and unfortunately gave rise to the Protestant revolution of the sola fide doctrine, something which Scotus would never have accepted (see the short video on this subject by Fr. Peter Fehlner, FI.

I wonder if the western focus on redemption among Catholics isn't in part the result of the Roman Catholic Church's situation after the 16th century with all the Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists and their offspring. Just a thought, I'm no theologian, but I'm even less an historian.

[Cvengr]

In humility to Him, we are able to seek and He is free to grace us with faith.

The problem with the person seeking proof of His existence is that creature is qualified to judge the Creator. We aren’t able to recognize that proof even when it is openly laid before us as it is daily.

[kosta50]

The problem with the person seeking proof of His existence is that creature is qualified to judge the Creator.

No one is questioning God here. I am questioning those who pretend to be the mouthpiece of God.

[kosta50]

I now understand your position on the Bible, since for the Orthodox the source of doctrine is Tradition, and the Bible is part of that Tradition

Correct. The faith was before the NT was. The life of the Church existed before the NT was written. Therefore the NT reflects the life of the Church and not the other way around. The NT is a product of the Church; the Church is not a product of the NT; the Church wrote it, the Church recognized it , the Church canonized it.  Therefore, the NT, and the OT which is appended to it, reflect the faith that already existed. The faith gave rise to the scriptures, not the other way around.

[kosta50]

In the article on the Orthodox Faith what I suspected to be the case was confirmed, namely the emphasis of the Orthodox on the theosis (communion with God or “deification”) of man through the Incarnate Logos, as opposed to a hyper-emphasis in the West (seemingly or really) on atonement.

The West eventually invented (or should I say returned to) the legalistic reasons of Judaism and applied them to God's atonement, neglecting to see that law and love are essentially different and mutually excusive, and that law cannot express or replace love.

This is reflected in the Gospels when Jesus "overrides" the law to save a man's life on a Sabbath, and +Paul reflects the same teachings in his Epistles regarding the issue of grace versus the law.

Theosis is rather accurately summarized in Wikipedia as

"[S]alvation from unholiness by participation in the life of God. According to this conception, the holy life of God, given in Jesus Christ to the believer through the Holy Spirit, is expressed beginning in the struggles of this life, increases in the experience of the believer through the knowledge of God, and is later consummated in the resurrection of the believer when the power of sin and death, having been fully overcome by God's life, will lose hold over the believer forever.  This conception of salvation is historically foundational for Christian understanding in both the East and the West, as it has been developed directly from the apostolic and early Christian teachings concerning the life of faith."

Christ made it possible for mankind to be saved. In order for him to die on the cross for our sins, he had to become man. Thus his Incarnation was intended for our theosis, which is salvation, thorugh the atonment for our sins mad epossible by his death. Notice that there is nothing legalistic in all this.

But let us not neglect the intent. Legalistic western Christianity sees it as obedience to sovereignty of God, rather than attachment we feel for someone we love. If we struggle in our theosis, it must be out of love and not our selfish reasons or legal obligations.

Now, no one can be made to love someone. Forced love is no love. That has to come from the heart. And some people are good at imitating love, and even pretending to love for selfish reason, but that is not love.

How many people would love God just because he is God if there were no promises of rewards? How many people would go to church only to glorify his name if there was nothing in it for us?

Mind you, I’ma not trying to dogmatize my opinion—even if I am relentless

Your attempts to connect John Duns Scotus to Orthodoxy is comparing apples and oranges. All you see is that they are both fruit! Actually, Scotus represents that (scholasticism) which Orthodoxy soundly rejected through hesichastic fathers and, in particular, thanks to St. Gregory Palamas.

He was decidedly Aristotelian in philosophy, which is not the basis for the East.

Also, Scotus' theology is basically Augustinian, and Augustinian theology was likewise rejected by the East. So, any attempts to link Scotus to Orthodoxy is a non-starter.

Finally, Scotus' logical works works are heavily disputed, save for four books.  He may have been influential in the western Church, but that in an of itself doesn't make him right.

Thanks for the video link. I must note that the concept of will, as described, is something I wholly disagree with. Will is a result of a "need." If all our needs are satisfied we have no reason to will. That "need" results either from an unconscious or conscious perception of either a lack or excess of something. Reason does not give rise to will.  Reason usually attenuates the will.

[koinonia]

So, any attempts to link Scotus to Orthodoxy is a non-starter.

Truth is truth, wherever it may be found. And there are links all over the place in the saints and among the Churches because of the Apostolic Faith. I'm not saying that Scotus was Orthodox or that the Orthodox are Scotists--just that I see an overlap of truth in both.

Regarding law--Jesus and St. Paul are speaking about the legalism of the Jewish law, but not the divine law, such as the 10 commandments. Jesus himself says, " If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15), and St. Paul several times enumerates sinners who will not enter the kingdom if they do not repent and keep the moral, divine law --drunkards, fornicators, adulterers, sodomites, etc. This is distinct from the Judaizers which St. Paul had little time for.

Regarding the will... We need God. So we will always have a will--the capacity to freely love God and neighbor.

[kosta50]

Regarding law--Jesus and St. Paul are speaking about the legalism of the Jewish law, but not the divine law

Now you are walking on thin ice, differentiating between The Ten Commandments and the rest of the Law given to Moses (613 commandments in all; the Jews know them as the mitzvot; they are things they are to do or obstain from doing).

Christ gave us only two of "his" commandments, as they would include all 613 mitzvot.

Don't forget that the entire Torah (aka the Law) is in the Bible. Are you saying that somehow Leviticus is not from God? After all, the Jews and most Evangelicals believe that God dictated to Moses the entire Torah, word by word.

Are you saying parts of the Torah are not true? You never identified yourself as either a Catholic, Anglican or whatever, so I don't know, but I would say that wehatever your denomination is questioning the Bible is not one of its teachings.

Is this your private belief and if so, why don't you state is as such?

I love when a discussion come to this!

[koinonia]

You wrote that the West fails to see that law and love are essentially different and mutually excusive, and that law cannot express or replace love.

But Jesus clearly states, "If you love me, keep my commandments... If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14:15, 23)

Jesus says: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)

In fact in the Sermon on the Mount he goes on to confirm the commandments and even further them--the teaching of Christ is even more demanding than the ten commandments.

For example, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:21-22).

He does the same for adultery, extending it to chastity of the mind; divorce; oaths; justice; love of neighbor, extending it to include enemies.

My point is that murder and adultery and false oaths and revenge are clearly against the teaching of Jesus. Jesus demands not only external observance ("Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven"), but even more, purity of intention and heart in observing them (hence not legalism). Our Lord and St. Paul never dispense from the natural law, the 10 commandments as such; and, as far as I can see, they never imply that a Christian is obliged to 613 norms of the mitzvoth as expressed in the Torah. As St. Paul points out, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” (Galatians 5:3). And if that is the case, "Christ shall profit you nothing...[and] ye are fallen from grace." (5:2,4) So we are justified by faith, not by the law.

Yet if we break the 10 commandments we are not justified: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19-21).

Help me out. There has to be a distinction somewhere. I don't think you are saying "all or nothing"--Do we have to observe the mitzvoth in its entirety? Or no law at all, not even the 10 commandments? Is it faith alone (no law)? Or merits and good works alone (legalism)?

What is the Orthodox position on all of this?

[kosta50]

But Jesus clearly states, "If you love me, keep my commandments..."

It's conforming to God out of love. The obedience is internal not external. We don't want to offend God! If we love God, we will not do that which would not please him the way you would never do something to hurt those you love. It's different from obeying the speed limit "because it's the law and everyone is subject to law."  

[kosta50]

My point is that murder and adultery and false oaths and revenge are clearly against the teaching of Jesus.

He merely taught the mitzvot.

[kosta50]

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)

You mean there will be different "levels" of eternal bliss? Some will abide "closer" to God than others? Must be careful about the wording. The "kingdom of heaven" in Judaism is merely the state of Israel: a kingdom of God's people on earth, established by God. It doesn't mean the kingdom "up there" (that is a Christian re-interpretation). You also must realize that the Jews did not believe in "heaven" but they did believed in "the underworld" (Sheol), which is not exactly hell; it is rather both the paradise and hell.

If you read the story of the poor man (Lazarus) and a rich man,  in Luke 16, it is obvious that the Apostles still believed the dead ended up in Sheol and not in heaven. Sheol was essentially the world of the departed which very much reflected our earthy life, some "living" in Abraham's bosom, and other far away; some comforted and other alone.

Judaism taught that those who are righteous in the eyes of God (those who observed the 613 mitzvot) would be rewarded proportionally in Sheol as well as in the kingdom of Israel God will establish when the messiah (the anointed warrior king) appears.

[kosta50]

Our Lord and St. Paul never dispense from the natural law, the 10 commandments as such; and, as far as I can see, they never imply that a Christian is obliged to 613 norms of the mitzvoth as expressed in the Torah

Christ, for one, had to abide by the law and he never taught that the Torah  was wrong; he simply taught that some interpreted it wrongly. He also never taught that we are saved by faith alone. If anything, he emphasizes works.

+Paul on his part kept the law as well. He just didn't hold the non-Jews to it. Being a Jew he was acutely aware that only Jews are obligated by the law, but God's choice, and that holding Gentiles to it would be contrary to God's wishes because God never says non-Jews fall under the law.

Being clever, +Paul understood that the law by itself doesn't save, but only God's grace. That's why he says

"Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?" [Rom 3:1]

We are all equally guilty! We all have sinned. We are not saved by the law, nor by faith, but by God's mercy. 

However, if that's the case, why keep any commandments? The answer, of course, is out of love. When the Orthodox go to confess, they say

"I confess to God, before you venerable father, that I have sinned out of ingratitude to God..."

We don't say that we have broken the law. We didn't break the law. We did something much worse: we "dumped" God for something material and passing, for the love of the world, for the love of Mammon over God, out of disrespect for the One who gave us everything, including our life.

And if that is the case, "Christ shall profit you nothing...[and] ye are fallen from grace." (5:2,4)

The Bible also says that God will save whomever he wants to save.

As for the Law, +James—Paul's nemesis—teaches

"whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." [James 2;10]

You can't only quote +Paul. There is other talent besides him. :)

I don't see Christ anywhere suggesting one is saved by faith alone. Nor do I see anywhere Christ calling on ministering to the Gentiles by dropping the Law. He only places love as the motivator as the reason for obeying commandments, and not the law itself. In other words, obey the commandments our of respect for, and gratitude to God, and not because "it's the law."

If you love God with all your heart and mind and soul, you will not have to worry too much about breaking the commandments.

[koinonia]

Good morning again...

You wrote: It's conforming to God out of love. The obedience is internal not external. We don't want to offend God! If we love God, we will not do that which would not please him the way you would never do something to hurt those you love. It's different from obeying the speed limit "because it's the law and everyone is subject to law."

Without clear external norms we end up with "LUV" not love; we end up with "nice people", not holy people. After all, the Episcopalians are all about "LUV" nowadays--although they spell it "love", it's not what Jesus had in mind; it just sounds the same :-) . They claim to love God and not to want to offend him. They are saying from the Bishops to the layman that Christians should stop trying to make homosexuals straight and telling them to obey "because it's the law and everyone is subject to the law".

I know that this is not what you are saying. But that's the danger I see in not explicitly acknowledging the 10 commandments, the natural law that all men are subject to.

Jesus established a new covenant (Luke 22:20; I Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 8:6) and did away with the 613 mizvot. In establishing the new covenant, he perfects the law and does away with the Jewish law and this perfecting of the law, this law of love of God and neighbor explicitly includes precepts which in many instances go beyond the mizvot, such as anger, looking lustfully at a woman, divorce and remarriage, swearing unnecessary oaths based on sacred things, seeking just revenge (Jesus says to turn the other cheek), hating ones enemies (Matthew 5)--things which the mizvot does not demand.

St. Paul, as noted earlier, several times lists explicit transgressions that will bar Christians from entering Heaven. He too says that love is the fulfillment of the law, but does not hesitate to list sins and reprimand the various Christian communities for their vices.

I agree with you 100% that the Gospel, the new covenant of Christ, is about "conforming to God out of love" and not because its "the law--buckle up or you'll get it buddy" :-). However, not to describe what, in practice, conforming to God means can result in LUVing God and people and animals and trees and, in the end, just being nice people. And nowhere does the Bible say, "Blessed are the nice". ;-)

[koinonia]

To confirm that love is the motivator:

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." (Romans 13:8-10).

And to quote someone besides St. Paul :) and clarify him:

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him."(I John 2:3-5).

And to quote your favorite ;-)

"Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee: Love, and do what thou wilt... of this root can nothing spring but what is good." St. Augustine (In epistulam Ioannis ad Parthos)

[kosta50]

Without clear external norms we end up with "LUV" not love; we end up with "nice people", not holy people

Who are we to say who is holy and who is not in the eyes of God? What makes you the mouthpiece of God and the judge in his stead?

[kosta50]

[They claim to love God and not to want to offend him

Every sect and cult says that.

[Episcopelians] are saying from the Bishops to the layman that Christians should stop trying to make homosexuals straight

What should we do with them? Burn them at stake? What is it any of your business what they do in private? Love means do no harm. We can pray for their conversion because you (and I) believe they are wrong in God'e eyes. That's an act of love.

[kosta50]

I know that this is not what you are saying. But that's the danger I see in not explicitly acknowledging the 10 commandments, the natural law that all men are subject to

So, then of the 613 commandments given by God in the Torah, you, arbitrarily choose only the first 10 as binding and reject the rest? Are you forgetitng that the Ten, as well as the remaining 603, are all part of the same Torah, which was supposedly given to Moses word-by-word by God?

What makes the first ten more important or more binding? You call it the "natural" law. What "natural law?" Besides, I don't see homosexuality mentioned in the Ten Commandments as an abomination. So, you must be clining on to some parts of the Law, selectively and arbitrarily, the way you see fit. By what authority do you do that?

[kosta50]

Jesus established a new covenant (Luke 22:20; I Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 8:6) and did away with the 613 mizvot

He did? Where? If anything he says (and you even quoted it earlier) that "until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." [Mat 5:18]

I Corinthians 11:25, Luke 22:20; I Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 8:6...New Covenant established

I hate to burst your "bubble." :) The word "new" is not found in ancient manuscripts associated with the Covent in the Gospels. It is added to Mark, and Matthew only in KJV.

"Naturally," the idea is embraced by Paul (and his companion Luke, and whoever the author of Hebrews is) for obvious reasons.

The "new covenant" comes from Jeremiah 31:31, and it is to be "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah"—only with the two Israelite kingdoms, not the Gentiles!

This shows once again +Paul's way of "selling" his version of Judaism to te Gentiles.

[kosta50]

this law of love of God and neighbor explicitly includes precepts which in many instances go beyond the mizvot

I suggest you look up the mitzvot. Based on your responses, I don't think you understand what they are.

St. Paul, as noted earlier, several times lists explicit transgressions that will bar Christians from entering Heaven

How is that possible if you are "saved" by "faith alone?"

[koinonia]

Who are we to say who is holy and who is not in the eyes of God? What makes you the mouthpiece of God and the judge in his stead?

Admittedly, I'm a nobody. I'm a sinner who needs God's mercy. I know my sinful heart and I can't judge other people's hearts--even when their actions are clearly sinful. So I pray, and will continue to pray every day for the conversion of sinners. Somebody prayed for me, now I must pray for others.