/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>794189

Grace through faith, with synergy, yes. We are not saved through works, but for works.

We have been saved. We are being saved. We will be saved. It is both events and a process, called Theosis, correct. It is possible to fall out of it, which is why the icon clearly shows a Bishop falling into hell. This is also in the Parable of the Sower, those who fall away. It does imply progress even if said progress may be steps forward and steps back.

Wrt the car crash scenario, that type of legalism is more common with Roman Catholics and Protestants. The Church is a hospital and not a courtroom, and besides, in the 2nd Temple Judaism to which the Church addressed many of the Gospels and Epistles, the "judge" was also biased to the defense, in essence both "defense attorney" and "judge." Hence Christ is portrayed as both our Judge and our Mediator and Advocate. Finally, God saves whom He wills. The thief at his right hand was neither baptized nor chrismated but he was fully repentant to the best of his ability, and the Judge of men's hearts knew that.

Here is an Ortho Wiki on the subject of Theosis. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

Here is a short blog on the subject. https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/morningoffering/2018/09/theosis-9/

Here is a long-form book on the subject. It may be rather long and thick for you. http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis.aspx http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis-english.pdf

If I come up with more stuff, I'll try to drop it in this thread.

>>794189

I'm also going to pop this in here. It is the one-page article on Justification by Faith as it appears in the Orthodox Study Bible.

—

J U S T I F I C A T I O N B Y F A I T H

For most of church history, salvation was seen as comprehending all of life: Christians

believed in Christ, were baptized, and were nurtured in their salvation in the Church. Key

doctrines of the faith centered around the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of the Son of God, the

atonement.

In Western Europe during the sixteenth century and before, however, justifiable concern

arose among the Reformers over a prevailing understanding that salvation depended on

human works of merit, and not on the grace and mercy of God. Their rediscovery of Romans

5 lead to the slogan sola fides: justification by faith alone.

This Reformation debate in the West raised the question for the Orthodox East: Why this

new polarization of faith and works? It had been settled since the apostolic era that salvation

was granted by the mercy of God to righteous men and women. Those baptized into Christ

were called to believe in Him and do good works. An opposition of faith versus works was

unprecedented in Orthodox thought.

The Orthodox understanding of justification differs from the Protestant in several ways.

1Justification and the new covenant. When Orthodox Christians approach the doctrine of

salvation, the discussion centers around the new covenant. Justification—being or becoming

righteous—by faith in God is part of being brought into a covenant relationship with Him.

Whereas Israel was under the old covenant, in which salvation came through faith as

revealed in the law, the Church is under the new covenant. Salvation comes through faith in

Christ, who fulfills the law. We receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, leading us

to the knowledge of God the Father. Rather than justification as a legal acquittal before God,

Orthodox believers see justification by faith as a covenant relationship with Him, centered in

union with Christ (Rom 6:1–6).

2 Justification and God’s mercy. Orthodoxy emphasizes it is first God’s mercy—not our

faith—that saves us. “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God

through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in

which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Rom 5:1, 2). It is God who initiates

or makes the new covenant with us.

3 Justification by faith is dynamic, not static. For Orthodox Christians, faith is living,

dynamic, continuous—never static or merely point-in-time. Faith is not something a

Christian exercises only at one critical moment, expecting it to cover all the rest of his life.

True faith is not just a decision, it’s a way of life. Thus, the Orthodox Christian sees salvation

in at least three aspects: (a) I have been saved, being joined to Christ in Holy Baptism; (b) I

am being saved, growing in Christ through the sacramental life of the Church; and (c) I will

be saved, by the mercy of God at the Last Judgment.

Justification by faith, though not the major New Testament doctrine for Orthodox as it is

for Protestants, poses no problem. But justification by faith alone brings up an objection. It

contradicts Scripture, which says, “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by

faith only” (Jam 2:24). We are “justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom 3:28),

but nowhere does the Bible say we are justified by faith “alone.” On the contrary, “faith by

itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (Jam 2:17).

As Christians we are no longer under the demands of the Old Testament law (Rom 3:20),

for Christ has fulfilled the law (Gal 2:21; 3:5, 24). By God’s mercy, we are brought into a new

covenant relationship with Him. We who believe are granted entrance into His Kingdom by

His grace. Through His mercy, we are justified by faith and empowered by God for good

works or deeds of righteousness that bring glory to Him.

>>794200

>>794205

I'm going to look through these more in a sec but do you mind if I ask a quick question:

Do you have to have some sort of higher understanding of God or some of the higher states of theosis to be saved, or is God's grace alone by means of Faith sufficient?

Obviously we would need to engage in theosis across our lives, but a friend of mine who's also discerning has been struggling with the idea of this. He takes issue with the idea that some sort of knowledge or higher attained state is necessary for salvation when we're clearly justified by God's grace through Faith (with the works and even the process of maintaining that grace resultant from that).

I think your post pretty much answers this already I just want to be sure. I think his issue is he's not sure if "extra steps" are necessary for salvation above and beyond Grace and Faith and what naturally results from maintaining that and struggling with it.

>>794215

What "higher understanding" or "higher state" of theosis could the "good thief" have had? And where did Jesus say he was? What about people with Downs or innocent aborted babies?

I would assume based on what I know and read that if we have the grace through faith and have the time and opportunity then that will naturally manifest itself in works according to our gifts and abilities, as well as a higher level of faith over time, but no, strictly speaking, I don't understand that as necessary.

Your friend may be confusing Christianity with gnosticism. There is no great theological knowledge needed to be saved; it's not an intellectual issue or decision. Some people myself and wife included find the intellectual study of Scripture to be uplifting and to help us grow in the faith, but others may not find that, and others may not be able to do so because of a lack of intelligence. Faith is LIVED.

>>794231

Thanks for the clarification, it was exactly what I was looking for, I appreciate the help and I'll go through the other resources you posted more thoroughly. The answer is along the lines of what I was guessing it would be but I'm glad to see it corroborated here.

As for my friend he had one more question. He seemed to recall (probably confusing memories) a website saying that to be saved in orthodoxy it requires a supernatural experience (not what you mean by grace he never fully understood what the website was saying).

He seemed to think that it required more than just grace faith and good works (part of faith) to be saved, but from this it seems clear he's just wrong.

>>794232

I've never seen it taught in Orthodoxy that any kind of "supernatural experience" was needed. Nothing like Paul on the road to Damascus or jumping benches or blabbering gobbledeegook is REQUIRED. Some people have them. Some people (like myself) simply have moments of clarity that lead them to change direction. Simply growing over time in faith and love is very much a spiritual or supernatural experience in itself, because it comes by grace, and this is what happens to most people I know and know of.

The only people I'm aware of, who do teach such a thing, are the pentecostalist protestants, some of whom teach that "tongues" are required. This is a dangerous heresy for several reasons. First, it comes from a total misreading of Paul's epistle on the subject, second, it invites both fraudulent behavior (several con men were involved with the founding of the movement) and spirits who aren't holy to join with one through the seeking of such experiences, third, it discourages the mass of people who simply grow in faith and repentance and do works befitting it, and fourth, it ultimately comes straight from voodoo practice (the Asuza St church leadership had voodoo connections). Beyond the scope of this thread, I think, but worth being warned away from the "bench jumpers" as a group. Wheat and tares, of course, there are doubtless some fine people in them, but there's a lot of potential danger there.

>>794298

As someone who has had some experiences, I find it sad that some would insist on it. I, for one, admire the simple faith of some who don't need this. They are richer than I am. Jesus told us this himself, when he spoke of our faith needing to be like that of little children. We are in danger without this. He also said even the least in the kingdom is greater than John the Baptist (arguably the greatest saint outside Mary), to illustrate the role switch here.

Never lose a long for the miraculous, but sometimes God is subtle. Remember that and even the small things will provide wonder and the presence of God to you. Know that the Lord is NOT always in all of the huge apparent signs, but the small ones.

"And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?" - 1 Kings 19:10-13

>>794189

>We're justified by grace through faith which necessarily results in a constant struggle to fully cooperate with God synergistically.

That's a decent way to put it.

>If someone believes in Jesus Christ and is baptized and then say got hit by a car, what would happen to them? Do they need absolute cooperation with God's will first?

They had cooperation with God's will when they got baptized. Of course, if they get baptized, curse and despise God 15 seconds later, and get killed by a car 20 seconds later with an unrepentant heart, they've already fallen into grave sin, but it's not healthy to think about such unrealistic scenarios for the sake of playing mental games and making hypotheses about God's will.

>If they had that (assuming its possible immediately after baptism) would they be saved?

Who knows? God promises them salvation, but I can't know personally what was in their heart in the moment the car hit them. What we can say for sure is that they will receive an Orthodox funeral service, including prayers for the forgiveness of sin.

>If not, is salvation truly a process then?

Salvation begins with Baptism and "ends" when we are with Christ in Paradise (I say "ends" because truly theosis has no end, we only move "from grace to grace", the travel toward God's being cannot be exhausted).

>Are young people even capable of being saved then?

What do you mean? We don't gather "good boy points" throughout our life and get saved or not based on that. A 3-year old Orthodox Christian who dies, someone who converts to Orthodoxy on their deathbed, and someone who spent dozens of years in prayer in a cave, are all in the hand of God and He will judge them with justice. Our works will be judged, but in relation to what we could actually do to begin with (and these works are not truly ours, but Christ's working through us).

>>794200

>The thief at his right hand was neither baptized nor chrismated but he was fully repentant to the best of his ability, and the Judge of men's hearts knew that.

The sacraments give us communion with Christ. Those who had communion with Christ when He walked among us received the same grace. It's not right to say that one can be saved without sacramental grace.

>>794215

>Obviously we would need to engage in theosis across our lives, but a friend of mine who's also discerning has been struggling with the idea of this. He takes issue with the idea that some sort of knowledge or higher attained state is necessary for salvation when we're clearly justified by God's grace through Faith (with the works and even the process of maintaining that grace resultant from that).

Baptism, Chrismation, and the Eucharist are needed. One who has the mental capacity for faith in Jesus Christ (as He is defined by the ecumenical councils - truly God and truly man, Who really saves us) must have faith, or else the sacraments do nothing at best and condemn at worst. If someone does not have the mental capacity to have faith, godparents must intercede with their own faith.

So, if basic faith in Christianity is "gnosis" to you, then sure, that is required, if one has the mental capacity for it.

>>794231

>What about people with Downs or innocent aborted babies?

If they are not baptized, they can only go to Hell.

>>794232

>

As for my friend he had one more question. He seemed to recall (probably confusing memories) a website saying that to be saved in orthodoxy it requires a supernatural experience (not what you mean by grace he never fully understood what the website was saying).

On the path of theosis we certainly need to experience God and contemplate Him at one point or another. But it doesn't need to happen here and now for everyone - it can happen in Paradise too.

Or if you mean a particular experience (rather than the general "baptism of the Holy Spirit" that is to be expected of all Christians, either now or in the next life), then that is certainly not needed. It can be a gift of God for those whose faith is not stable, or for the edification of those around the individual concerned. But it's definitely not necessary for salvation.

>>794464

>If they are not baptized, they can only go to Hell.

You don't know that. And anyone who taught you that didn't know either. They're just as in the dark as you are, despite their psychopathic confidence in catechizing people. Not even church fathers and saints were of one mind and sure of it. And all Orthodox to this day pray for departed infants in such a state (it'd be pointless to pray if this fate was a reliable teaching). And if you're Catholic, the Vatican isn't sure of this either:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

>Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).

>>794486

>You don't know that. And anyone who taught you that didn't know either. They're just as in the dark as you are, despite their psychopathic confidence in catechizing people. Not even church fathers and saints were of one mind and sure of it. And all Orthodox to this day pray for departed infants in such a state (it'd be pointless to pray if this fate was a reliable teaching).

You are not in a position to attack clergymen and call them "psychopatic".

Christ Himself tells us that Baptism is necessary for salvation, while the Fathers tell us that original sin condemns one to Hell and only Baptism can cure it. See canon 110 of the Council of Carthage of 419, which was ratified with ecumenical authority by the Council in Trullo:

>Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

>For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, "By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned", than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.

Infants are baptized for the remission of sin, because even if they have no actual sin, they are born with original sin, which means they are submitted to a tendency to sin, corruption, illness, suffering, death, and Hell.

I'm not a Catholic, thankfully.

By the way, I do know that St Gregory of Nyssa does not think that unbaptized infants go to Hell. But he is only one voice. The testimony of Holy Tradition is stronger.

And, yes, we pray for the salvation of unbaptized infants who die. This does not mean that they are guaranteed to go to Heaven. Likewise we pray for the salvation of all Orthodox Christians who receive an Orthodox funeral service, does that mean that we guarantee their salvation? No. It only means that we express our hope that God forgives them. You cancel the necessity of Christ's sacrifice, and the necessity of the sacraments, by claiming that people don't actually have original sin until they become conscious of sin. Of course, the same "age of reason" thinking is why Evangelicals do not baptize children, and why Catholics do not confirm or give communion to children, and it is wrong.

>>794464

>The sacraments give us communion with Christ. Those who had communion with Christ when He walked among us received the same grace. It's not right to say that one can be saved without sacramental grace.

It's not right for you to who can or can't be saved and under what conditions. Are you God? God will save whom He wills. You're also incorrect in that those who lived in communion with Christ while He walked among us had the same communion we do, because we eat His body and drink His blood. It is correct to say that the Church teaches the Sacraments as an essential aid to our Salvation, yes, but at the same time the Church acknowledges something which I said just above: He saves whom He saves.

>>What about people with Downs or innocent aborted babies?

>If they are not baptized, they can only go to Hell.

OIC. You're a heretic. Who thinks he's God and can damn whom he wills. Repent.

>>794489

OIC. Even more heresy. "Original sin" is not taught by the Orthodox according to the Roman Catholic understanding of it, which you clearly follow. Either you're a troll, a Roman Catholic ITT to derail, or a really supreme and uncatechized idiot. Repent.

And until you do, kindly winnie the pooh off from an Orthodox thread.

>>794524

>. Either you're a troll, a Roman Catholic ITT to derail, or a really supreme and uncatechized idiot. Repent

My brother, this kind of language is what ruins the Christian fellowship that this board is supposed to support. Maybe this guy is just, you know, wrong about something. He doesn't have to be a troll or an idiot.

I'm not trying to attack you here or to scorn your sins when mine own are countless, but try to remember the charity to which we are called. We face enough evil from the world without visiting it upon each other.

>>794524

>Are you God? God will save whom He wills

And God told us who would be saved and who would be condemned. Are you also bothered when we canonize people and say they are assuredly saved?

>OIC. You're a heretic. Who thinks he's God and can damn whom he wills. Repent.

Of course, resorting to accusations of heresy and commanding others to go to confession. This place's favorite strategy, whether one is Orthodox or not.

I will not go to confession for being obedient to my priest and my catechesis, thank you very much.

>"Original sin" is not taught by the Orthodox according to the Roman Catholic understanding of it, which you clearly follow.

I don't care what Filioquists believe. It's their problem. You seem to think that to be Orthodox is to define oneself in relation to Catholicism or Protestantism.

But that aside, Catholics believe that it is absolutely impossible to be righteous at all while still having original sin. That is why they believe the Theotokos had to be conceived without original sin, or else she wouldn't have had the capacity to respond positively to the Annunciation. We clearly do not believe such a thing. On the contrary, her acceptance of God's will is something that we must emulate even before our Baptism. Overall, following St Augustine, Catholics tend to think of the Fall as an error we made in maturity, with the consequence being an absolute separation from God. We do not believe that this error was made in maturity or that its consequence is as absolute.

Although this isn't dogmatic, Catholics tend to believe that unbaptized infants go to Limbo as well, not Hell.