coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

minasoliman

posted on May 08, 2007 - 09:10 PM

If you are a theologian, or understands what's going on in the ecumenical world, the title says it all, that EO-style, anti-Western/RC "Triple A Attack", and this is about the "mystery of Redemption." We've had these discussions long long long ago, but I'd like to get a fresh start.

With the time I had, I've recently finished reading (took me months) two writings that are available online, Fr. John Romanides' paper on "Original Sin" and Vladimir Moss' thesis (well pretty much BOOK) on "The Mystery of Redemption." Moss is a very recent online publication, Pascha 2004, and it attacks basically those who oppose the so-called "juridical theory" or "scholasticism," which were allegedly "started" by these three up there, even though Moss argues that this belief has always existed.

Well, Moss and Romanides have something in common: they never address these three men themselves in a scholarly fashion (they also agree on the correct meaning and translation of Romans 5:12, that the word "because" is misleading, which I think is very interesting, considering they both take opposite views). They simply mention them by name and that's it. It's one thing to teach about the subject and show Biblical and Eastern Father quotes, but what about these three men? Have we accused them rightly or wrongly of "scholasticism"? Is "scholasticism" even wrong? Are EO's just taking this to an embarrassing level of anti-Western bigotry, or are they speaking truth?

The reason I ask is that when there are RC/EO ecumenical talks, the issue of Salvation is a major thorn to them, but to OO's, there's silence on the issue. Coptic, Indian, Syrian, Armenians, all have not really used this as a major divide.

Granted however there are those OO's who have nothing but EO sources to study from, which develops in their minds that there is a divide, but what about the other OO's. I know months ago (or was it years ago), Biboboy might have alluded to the juridical theory, and I've recently been open to it with a few exceptions (infinite sin and robbing God's glory, which are the only objectionable things I really find in the juridical teaching).

In addition, what exactly does Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas teach that got EO's going nuts, and OO's quiet?

Now, also, we have to consider something else, that the juridical theory may (and probably is) in fact an Eastern and Alexandrian teaching as well. St. Athanasius taught that it wasn't just because of Divine Mercy to incarnate, but also because of Divine Consistency, that He can't pretty much go back on His command that "you will surely die," so the Logos is Incarnate to take upon Himself this command of Divine Consistency for the sake of all while fulfilling the Divine Mercy and Love to ontologically fix man and have man partake of the Divine Nature. I find these teachings also not just in HH Pope Shenouda, but even in Fr. Matta el Maskeen (granted I don't know if Fr. Matta taught about the "Infinite Sin," which I have a huge issue with). But what if those EO's and EO-influenced OO's really condemned these three A's with something that is also "Athananasian" in belief?

I'd like to hear some of your thoughts, especially Biboboy, Fr. Subdeacon Peter Theodore, Misteka, Peter Fam, or Iqbal, and if there's more reading on the subject that you would recommend, I'd greatly appreciate it.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

Misteka

posted on May 09, 2007 - 11:28 AM

Mina,

Read the following article: (if you haven't already)

"River of Fire" - http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

This both explains Orthodox teaching on salvation and shows that EO anti-Western, anti-scholastic bile you mentioned.

Then read the book "The Redeemer" by Stephen B. Clark. It explains the doctrine of salvation from a New Testament reading. I won't say more because it really needs to be read invididually.

Then get the book "Crucified and Crowned" by William Barclay and read the chapter covering all the theories of salvation.

Fr. Matta does not teach 'infinite sin' at all, neither do his modern children, Hany Mikhail and George Bibawy.

Can't write more now, but will later. Great topic. Can't wait to jump in.

Joined: Oct 05, 2005 | Posts: 194
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Publican

posted on May 09, 2007 - 04:45 PM

Mina,
I apologise for going off topic, but I just want to clarify that George Bibawy is NOT a disciple of Father Matta, this is a fact and has been confirmed by an official statement from St. Macarius Monastery. I find it ironic, that anyone who has rebelled from the church will bring up Fr. Matta's name in an attempt to gain legitamacy; frankly it's ridiculous. Mr. Bibawy simply happened to read Fr. Matta's books, however this does not mean he is a represenative of Fr. Matta's ideas or theology. It is a shame that even after he reposed people continue to slander his name.

God Bless,
Michael

_________________
"Fight the battle for your Heart" -- St. Antony the Great

"Sit in the presence of the Lord every moment of your life, as you think of him and recollect him in your heart." -- St. Isaac the Syrian

The greater the Knowledge of God, the greater the Love, and the greater the Love for God the greater the Knowledge, the greater the Love, the greater the Knowledge, the greater the Suffering.-- St. Silouan

Joined: Nov 18, 2005 | Posts: 101

minasoliman

posted on May 09, 2007 - 07:01 PM

Dear Mina,

Thank you for the resources. I'll strongly consider them (actually, I'm going to put them on my Amazon wish list ). Have you read Vladimir Moss's "The Mystery of Redemption?" What do you think? (the only chapter that I wasn't too comfortable with was Chapter 6, and I thought that might be an unfair polemical chapter, but others seem to be for the most part relevant and fair).

I've read the River of Fire a while back, and I considered it, or didn't find really much wrong with it except that anti-Western bile, but I disagreed that this view is incompatible with the juridical explanation of salvation.

I should explain that the juridical theory has its support a lot from the book of Hebrews and the Old Testament. Something that I saw in Fr. John Romanides' paper that he lacked was references and explanations of the book of Hebrews and some OT passages.

Also, I do understand that Fr. Matta did not teach infinite sin, but it is so clear that he taught the aversion of the Law, taking the Law upon himself, and tasting that "forsakeness" of God (I guess you can allegorically call this "wrath" of God). Unfortunately, I don't have his booklets with me (one on salvation and one on crucifixion), but he explains salvation as twofold, taking the law upon Himself (becoming sin to destroy sin) and renewing human nature in unity and theosis. There are two articles (which really touched me and one of the reasons why I'm looking into the juridical teaching) that allude to this in coptichymns.net:

http://coptichymns.net/module-library-v ... d-261.html
http://coptichymns.net/module-library-v ... id-40.html

So, really, truth be told, he's not far off from juridical teaching. I read something by George Bibawy that completely rejects this type of language.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

Misteka

posted on May 10, 2007 - 09:30 AM

Publican,

Slander Fr. Matta's name?

How quickly you judged me.

I was using the word disciple loosely, as someone who's from that school. I associate myself with Fr. Matta's school, eventhough I am nowhere officially connected to them, I'm a layman.

In one of the Patriarch's lectures about Fr. Matta, he mentioned how Hany Mina, George Bibawy, and Fr. Matta are all of one school. This is why I said and used the word disciple. So, if you have a problem with this association, take it up with the Patriarch.

Minasoliman,

No problems. Let me know once you're done with them and I'll share with you other books/articles/sources that will be helpful.

I haven't read "Mystery or Redemption", no. But I will. I'll get you the oration by Gregory the Theologian that sums up the EO/Orthodox view on redemption. Oh yes, just remembered, there's a delightful little book called "How are we saved?" by Kallistos Ware. Excellent book. Measured, Orthodox, and answers Western/Romist arguments well.

Yeah, until I read "The Redeemer", I was virulently against the juridicial theory. But Stephen Clark shows how it's scriptural.

Both Kallistos Ware and William Barclay say that no one theory is superior over the other, as the mystery of redemption is 'holy ground'. All the different theories show and explain a certain aspect, and the harmony of the theories provide a full insight. Granted, some theories are flawed or possibly completely incorrect, and that should be taken into account as well. But the most productive way forward is to take into account all the theories and see which ones produce the greatest harmony.

The reason why the issue is still polarised on an ecumenical level because the opposing theories form a part of the theological 'identity' of the different members. So, it's like a raw nerve.

I know I haven't gotten back to you yet about the 3 "A"s. I will.

Mina Demian.

Joined: Oct 05, 2005 | Posts: 194
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Publican

posted on May 10, 2007 - 02:56 PM

Mina,
My apologies; when I said people were slandering his name, I was not referring to you, but Mr. Bibawy and Max and all these other "seperatists" who use fr. Matta's name just because he is not alive to defend himself. I apologise for not expressing myself more clearly.

God Bless,
Michael

P.S If anyone is interested in a brief introduction to Anselm, and Aquinas I found two interesting, relatively neutral sources:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/#4

_________________
"Fight the battle for your Heart" -- St. Antony the Great

"Sit in the presence of the Lord every moment of your life, as you think of him and recollect him in your heart." -- St. Isaac the Syrian

The greater the Knowledge of God, the greater the Love, and the greater the Love for God the greater the Knowledge, the greater the Love, the greater the Knowledge, the greater the Suffering.-- St. Silouan

Joined: Nov 18, 2005 | Posts: 101

Iqbal

posted on May 12, 2007 - 02:22 PM

From the lecture notes in my Course Guide to my 'Introduction to Theology' class (at St. Andrew's Theological Seminary--a Greek Orthodox seminary in Sydney), written by H.E. Archbishop Stylianos:

We should point out...that the mystery of the Incarnation cannot be approached in its true dimensions if we see the Incarnation of God merely as the antidote of the fall. The theory of Anselm of Canterbury concerning 'the satisfaction' is known, namely that God became man in order to satisfy the divine justice, that was wounded as a result of the fall, through crucifixion. The relevant classic question 'cur Deus homo?' is not answered satisfactorily with the theory of Anselm, which covers only one part of the truth, and cannot therefore be based on the testimonies of the Scriptures or Patristic tradition.

According to His Eminence, (or so it clearly seems--though I do intend on directly asking him directly, for the sake of extra clarity, when I get the chance) the flaw of Anselm's theory of redemption was its narrowness, not its falsity.

There is a tendency I see amongst those of our Church to take emotionally charged EO internet articles (such as 'River of Fire') as prima facie representing the standard of Orthodoxy. I would encourage a more critical approach, and would stress an appreciation of the reality of the fact that such viewpoints as propounded by the 'River of Article', in no way represent the EO consensus. Exhibit A: my lecturer's--a prominent and well-respected Archbishop's--afore-quoted comments.

In the 19th century, Greek Orthodox theological education was largely negligent of any adequate emphasis on the doctrine of theosis; It was largely western in outlook. In the last century, theologians and heirarchs of the EO Church began to recognise this subtle yet dangerous move away from patristic thought, and attempted to steer the Church back in the right direction (hence the very strong resurgent emphasis on theosis that we find in contemporary EO works). Unfortunately, some theologians and heirarchs have gone too far in their pursuit to promote what can be said to be a worthy and noble motivation, and have in turn rejected as western, genuinly patristic soteriological principles.

Our own Church seems to be beginning its own episode of negligence of the doctrine of Theosis. This has been the cause of despair for some, but we only need to look to the history of the EO Church, nay our last 1500 years, to realise that hope for the redemption of the Church's theological direction exists as long as the Church's Head--Christ, exists.

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 124

mourad

posted on May 13, 2007 - 09:41 PM

Iqbal,

out of curiosity, what is your take on our church's recent neglect - though I think here neglect to be a fairly delicate word - of our holy fathers' many expositions on theosis.

Pray you do not misunderstand me, i am also a student in a EO faculty at the University of Sherbrooke in Montreal and answering to some fellow-students has been quite the embarrassment as of late.

One hardcore "orthodoxy or death" serb got up recently and told other colleagues of mine something along the lines of: "You see! I told you they are monophysites" (In that nestorianism and monophysitism both lead the same thing kind of tone).

Joined: Nov 14, 2003 | Posts: 301
Location: Montreal, Canada

minasoliman

posted on May 13, 2007 - 09:52 PM

It is my deep joy where I am beginning to see that my conclusions are similar to both Misteka's and Iqbal's. I too have hope in my Church that we will head in the right direction, that this is nothing to me but a pebble in the way of correct thought.

As I have understood it, taking either a strictly ontological view (as is the case of the "River of Fire") or strictly juridical (Anselm) would be narrow-minded indeed. Vladimir Moss, although a ROAC (who used to be part of ROCOR) presented a thesis that pretty much agreed with what I have thought, and even strengthened it by showing how the juridical view does exist in the East. I also read a Catholic Encyclopedia article on Atonement, and it too did not teach a strictly juridical view as some EO's tend to accuse the Catholics, but considered a holistic view of all the fathers in Church history, and even Peter Abelard who was condemned, but recently looked at in contemporary Catholic historians as one who was simply misunderstood.

In addition, it's interesting to note that there's no talk about "Infinite Sin" in the Catholic article:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

Which makes me wonder if Anselm taught "infinite sin" or not?

Publican,

Thank you for the links. Well appreciated, my friend. The one on Anselm is quite complicated, and needs some time for digestion in my mind.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

minasoliman

posted on May 13, 2007 - 09:57 PM

Dear Mourad,

That serb was rude, and I would show him that the MP and Greeks also lived in a time where they ignored theosis. Maybe you should show, according to his thought, that these EO's were Nestorians. In fact, the late Fr. George Florovsky would say was that Monophysitism was for those highly exaggerated ascetics who wanted nothing but theosis, to the point that juridical information is neglected; so this Serb is way out of his league.

What a shame of such ignorance.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

mourad

posted on May 15, 2007 - 02:08 PM

Dr. Bebawi is not a seperatist, he was excommunicated, there is a big difference b/w getting kicked out and quitting.

MaxMichel is a seperatist, not same thing as Dr. Bebawi's situation.

Joined: Nov 14, 2003 | Posts: 301
Location: Montreal, Canada

Biboboy

posted on May 15, 2007 - 04:05 PM

Christ is risen,

Judicial, Western, Augustine, Anselm, theosis, Eastern, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Maximus.....

If you're asking for my opinion, Mina, I frankly don't think this topic is relevant to our times. What is essential in our faith is that there was an Original Fall and an Original Sin that brought about mortality, corruption, and seperation from God; and that our redemption is through Christ, who conquered death, shared our nature to bring us back to incorruption, and reconciled us to God and to each other.

There is no question about the existence of Original Sin and the truth of the redemption through Christ. The rest is all interpretation of that essence of our faith according to the worldviews of those who interpret it. The Eatern worldview was different than the Western worldview in ancient times, and that's what brought about different interpretations of redemption, which suited the cultural, sociological and philosophical environment of the people they addressed. For this reason, I think it doesn't matter which interpretation is right: these interpretations are relative to the cultures in which they were expressed.

Another reason why I think they don't matter today (and this is my main reason) is that we no longer share those same worldviews and values in our present age. Our own lenses of seeing and interpreting the world around us is very different than both the Eastern and Western worldviews of the past. We no longer think in terms of Neo-Platonism, and we no longer categorize our knowledge in Aristotelian terms. However, don't take this to mean that those ancient traditions are completely irrelevant - we do (and must) share their faith, but its our understanding that has changed. So our efforts should not be spent on arguing whether Anselm or Irenaeus was right in their interpretations of Original Sin and redemption, but should involve asking what we could learn about the essence of our faith from Anselm and Irenaeus, and how could our faith be understood in our present evolutionary worldview?

_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).

"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.

In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 722

minasoliman

posted on May 16, 2007 - 02:56 AM

What is essential in our faith is that there was an Original Fall and an Original Sin that brought about mortality, corruption, and seperation from God; and that our redemption is through Christ, who conquered death, shared our nature to bring us back to incorruption, and reconciled us to God and to each other.

I agree wholeheartedly, but I don't see how the interpretaion of this changes in today's thinking with today's evolutionist world view. I mean, in considering studying St. Athanasius' interpretation in "On the Incarnation" alone, it seems very compatible with today's evolutionist world view, regardless of Platonic or Aristotelian thought, and it seems that the thought and interpretation of the Fall and our Salvation never really changed from that time, regardless of the worldview.

As for the East vs. West world views, I don't think they were that much different. One may have stressed one part of salvation more than the other, but there is debate as to whether culture really accounts for these types of interpretation. For example, many have taken quotes from people like St. Gregory Palamas and St. John Chrysostom to prove the juridical theory, even though these were Eastern fathers. Can we say the same for St. Augustine or the Western Fathers, that is did they lack a view of theosis? It's also important to understand this since this is what can create divides among the world's Christians on soteriology.

In addition, these are issues that don't just pertain to a theology about man, but also to a theology of God, and might have nothing to do with Platonism, Aristotelianism, or evolutionism. For many people, the juridical concept makes God look like a God "limited" by necessity and anti-Christian paganistic concepts, which is not the case, while the "Eastern view" makes it seem like there was no "wrath" from God against sin or that God is "non-personal", and that everything is all relative to that "non-personal" God. To use both perhaps is the perfection of a theology of God, complementary positions that can take away any hint of imperfection in the thought or interpretation.

Perhaps, I can see more clearly in what you're saying by giving me an example on how things have changed, or how culture affects interpretation of salvation.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

lowlyman

posted on May 16, 2007 - 12:17 PM

I wish i knew more on this, so i can contribute.

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

Remnkemi

posted on May 16, 2007 - 01:44 PM

I agree with lowlyman. I wish I can contribute also but I am surely learning something here.

Joined: Apr 07, 2003 | Posts: 669
Location: Boston, MA USA

petertheodore

posted on May 19, 2007 - 02:35 PM

Actually I have been reading a lot of St Severus and St Cyril over the last couple of weeks and I don't get the sense that they understand the Fall in any sense along the lines of Original Sin.

I need to read more and make some better notes so that I can understand clearly myself what these holy Fathers are saying, but I have the impression that it is very different from the sometimes rather absolutist Western juridical view.

St Severus, following St Cyril, does teach that the Fall was not a change in our human nature but a loss of grace, therefore he and St Cyril teach that the humanity which the Word assumed was liable to passionless suffering and was naturally mortal.

This means that the whole Western problem with Original Sin is not a problem at all for St Cyril and St Severus. There was nothing in the humanity of the Mother of God that could corrupt the incarnation, since He willed to assume our own human nature except for sin.

For St Severus, following St Cyril, sinfulness is found in the will and is not a corruption of nature. It is moral not ontological.A corrupt use of the will which by habit, environment, example and lack of grace cannot consistently choose that which is good.

As far as I can see, and I am studying this intently at the moment, salvation is the renewal of grace and the beginning of a life lived in and through and by grace which allows us to live as we were created. The life and death of the Incarnate Word are the fulfillment of the punishment due to Adam's sin - you shall die, and this death was both the being given over to mortality - which St Cyril and St Severus say is the natural state of all created beings apart from Grace - and even worse to spiritual separation from God which is true death.

St Severus following St Cyril seems to be saying that salvation is won for us by Christ living the whole of our human life, but in obedience, so that the curse of death had no power over Him. And then in submitting to a natural death and resurrecting he defeats the power of death, He lives the human life that he desires and wills and provides for us.

I have much more to read and study and understand.

But the clearest point seems to be that these Fathers teach that God willed from eternity that He should become man for our sake and grant us grace for eternal life with Him. He is not eternally offended with an infinite offence. He loves His creation dearly, so much so that from eternity He planned to become part of His creation for the salvation of His creation. He knew that man would fall because it is in the nature of created beings to fall apart from grace, but seeing this would happen He willed that something better might come of it.

I do rather think that too much of the Oriental Orthodox consideration of theology, certainly on the Internet and in English, seems to be through a Byzantine filter. I don't think this is wise. There is a great deal of material which we should be coming to know very well in our own tradition. Most of St Severus' voluminous writings are available to us. There are large numbers of other Fathers available, both from the Coptic and Syrian traditions. I sense that we hardly know the Armenian tradition at all here. Just through my inadequate study of St Severus I am sure that he and St Cyril provide a coherent and transforming view of salvation, and so many other things.

I am heading away for a few days to Finland, but I will try and go over what I have been reading this past couple of weeks with the topic of salvation in mind and will post some of my findings, with quotations, later. I do rather sense that St Severus and St Cyril are thinking very differently to Anselm, Augustine and Aquinas - not that their thought cannot be understood sympathetically (I do not share at all the Byzantine animosity towards everything Western) but I think that we should seek to compare them with our own wonderful, rich and transforming tradition rather than that of the Byzantine Church which has its own problems.

Peter Theodore

Joined: Dec 02, 2003 | Posts: 341
Location: England

minasoliman

posted on May 20, 2007 - 02:08 AM

I want to bring this up for various reasons. To every culture and every church, there is a special language and expression of something that pertains to important issues of dogma. We know this very well when it comes to Christology, that whether saying "one incarnate nature" or "two natures" does not in any way differ when looking at what those who keep this language actually teach. Likewise, when one says "God is offended" or "God is angry" there are those who teach that there is nothing lost in God, and that the "wrath of God" is just another side of the "Love of God." St. Augustine writes something very important in the beginning of his Confessions:

unchangeable, yet changing all things; ... always working, yet ever at rest; gathering, yet needing nothing; ... seeking, and yet possessing all things. Thou lovest, and burnest not; art jealous, yet free from care; repentest, and hast no sorrow; art angry, yet serene; changest Thy ways, leaving unchanged Thy plans; recoverest what Thou findest, having yet never lost; art never in want, whilst Thou rejoicest in gain; never covetous, though requiring usury. That Thou mayest owe, more than enough is given to Thee; yet who hath anything that is not Thine? Thou payest debts while owing nothing; and when Thou forgivest debts, losest nothing. Yet, O my God, my life, my holy joy, what is this that I have said? And what saith any man when He speaks of Thee? Yet woe to them that keep silence, seeing that even they who say most are as the dumb.

I think it's quite important that St. Augustine recognizes Biblical language of God and does not at all take them in the sense many Byzantines have accused him of. If man has to pay a "debt" to God, St. Augustine says God doesn't have anything that He lost per say. If the Bible says God is jealous, we shouldn't take that literally either.

Now, I haven't read a lot of "Western" theology, but when the description was given to me, I didn't outright object every part of it, and tried to see if it was just a language difference. I even grappled with "infinite sin" to find if that is in the realm of possibility in being compatible with Orthodoxy, especially Oriental Orthodoxy.

One thing that hasn't escaped me for years was St. Athanasius' explanation of the Divine Consistency. If God commanded death for sure, then He cannot go back on His word. This is a part of salvation that I feel many Byzantines have ignored. There is a part in your post, Fr. Subdeacon Peter, that I feel is similar to that Athanasian language:

The life and death of the Incarnate Word are the fulfillment of the punishment due to Adam's sin - you shall die, and this death was both the being given over to mortality - which St Cyril and St Severus say is the natural state of all created beings apart from Grace - and even worse to spiritual separation from God which is true death.

If there is any hint that Westerners do not adopt something that we accuse them of constantly, but rather something in their "juridical teachings" that agree with this concept of St. Athanasius, then it is our duty that we should be fair and not as judgmental as say Fr. John Romanides in his ever-so strict Greek upbringing. I mean it took a while for this guy to come in terms with Oriental Orthodoxy and the non-acceptance of so-called "ecumenical councils"; how do I know that the Byzantine spite carried out in "The River of Fire" isn't the same?

That's what I seek. And most importantly, because of the ecumenical dialogue we are in, and the Western countries that we live in, we have to engage in this. It's obviously important to remember your roots, like St. Athanasius, St. Severus, and St. Cyril, as well as the OO fathers who brought us to where we are today, but I feel we should not ignore all the other languages around us that seem to create a problem, especially if we are to unite with Eastern Orthodox sometime hopefully before the Second Judgment.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

petertheodore

posted on May 20, 2007 - 12:43 PM

Dear mina

I agree entirely with what you say about allowing western christians to speak for themselves and in their own theological language.

In that regard I don't think our church is entirely fair to the church of the east, as it seems to me that we don't allow them to properly describe their own faith.

I guess my main point was that we should not relate to the west on the basis of byzantine thought, which is not always properly orthodox but on the basis of our own fully orthodox faith

Joined: Dec 02, 2003 | Posts: 341
Location: England

lowlyman

posted on May 21, 2007 - 05:57 PM

Petertheodore, Mina

Any chance you present the EO or the byzantine viewpoint on this? I wish i knew enough to speak up here.

Btw, i would rather be influenced by the Holy fathers of the EO church than by any recent Byzantine book .

God bless

From petertheodore:Dear mina

I agree entirely with what you say about allowing western christians to speak for themselves and in their own theological language.

In that regard I don't think our church is entirely fair to the church of the east, as it seems to me that we don't allow them to properly describe their own faith.

I guess my main point was that we should not relate to the west on the basis of byzantine thought, which is not always properly orthodox but on the basis of our own fully orthodox faith

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

Misteka

posted on May 22, 2007 - 11:14 PM

The biggest problem I have with Anselm is his insistence on the 'moral goverment' in soteirology. He holds that God is the moral governor of the universe (which within an Orthodox understanding isn't too alien), but it's the way he uses that assertion to develop his theology of salvation. Instead of me trying to paraphrase, I'll just quote the passages from William Barclay's Crucified and Crowned, which for me as a novice in this field, serves as a good introduction to Anselm. This is a summary of his work Why God became Man


... Every living creature in the universe, angel and man alike, owes God perfect obedience to God's law. If that obedience were given, there would be no sin. Sin is failure to render to God what is owed to God, and that which is owed to God is perfect submission to his law and will. This is the one honour which is owed to God and which God desires. To fail to render this obedience to God is to take away from God what is his by right, and to 'put God out of his honour'. In an age of chivalry it was a first principle that he whose honour was belittled or injured must seek satisfaction, and so, says Anselm, it is with God.

But, even if God's honour is injured and insuted, why cannot God simply, by an act of grace and pardon and mercy, forgive? Why is satisfaction necessary? First, God is the moral governor of the universe, and if his honour can be insulted with impunity and without due satisfaction being paid, then the moral government of the universe is weakened and discredited. To maintain the moral government of the universe, its moral governor must exact satisfaction when his law is broken and his honour insulted. Second, God demands of men that they should unconditionally forgive each other and that they should never exact vengeance. Why does he not do the same himself? The answer is that herein is precisely the difference between man and God. Vengeance belongs to God; man, because he is man, must unconditionally forgive; God, because he is God, has the right to act in vengeance.


Just a brief insight into Anselm. As you can see, so many assumptions he's making which I can't accept experientially and intellectually.

Can't say much about Augustine or Aquinas as I know very little on their theology of salvation and have read little of their theological work.

Mina Demian.

Joined: Oct 05, 2005 | Posts: 194
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

minasoliman

posted on May 23, 2007 - 01:45 AM

As I read it, it seems that Anselm had a very narrow view of life. That is not to say he is wrong, but wrongly limited in his thinking of the world and God.

Another problem with Anselm is that he used language potentially harmful to the theology of God. A system by which God honor must be kept or else we pretty much dishonor God, or "put God out of His honor." I think Anselm had a poor choice of words that need to be accompanied with the correct thinking of God.

This poor choice is also found Biblically, which is why one has to think of the whole of theology before describing a certain aspect that loses site of the issue. For example, it is said in the Bible that God is "jealous." What does that mean? If we take this literally, it would be a theological disaster! How can one who is by nature FREE, and yet can be "jealous" to the limitations of the world? Well, people had a mindset limited to their own actions, and pretty much any theology that describes God would limit Him, even if we say He's "infinite." The word "infinite" makes infinity so small sometimes, where we define "infinity" as a concept that we can never understand or reach to. The concept can be approached, but never quite close. In theology, all things are reduced to concepts, which is something we don't intend to do, but have no choice because of our limited brains. In other words, I am saying that it is natural and normal in humanity's limited brain to define everything, even the undefinable, and we pretty much have no other choice. Let X=God, even though God is not X.

So, God is jealous, and yet He is free from care (St. Augustine). Likewise, God can be dishonored or offended, but never loses anything whether His honor or nature.

Consider the Athanasian argument that appeals in such Eastern language, but can also be understood when "translated" in Anselmian terms. In God, there is a consistency that is part of His nature. If God said "If you disobey, you die surely," then if man disobeys, it has to happen. The slight difference in language here that a lot of Byzantines will defend is that it's not taken as God punishing man, but as a cause and effect, man bringing this on his own, as something part of an ontologically natural issue. However, they miss something in St. Athanasius' explanation. If God did not say "If you disobey, you die surely," then there would have been options. Man would have repented, and man would have done some sort of time, or whatever God willed to make it happen. God could have easily from the beginning said "If you disobey, you will be freezing cold, so you have to run and eat good so that you will warm up and then repent, and then the effect of the disobedience is gone." Of course, I took it to an absurdity on this one, but the point is God made the laws in the beginning for man, and if man disobeyed, the laws must be consistent, especially since God said this was going to happen. If it didn't happen, God would be looked at as untrue and inconsistent.

Now look at the flipside of this in Anselmian language. Forget about the whole narrow moral universe assumption for a second, and let's assume that by saying God's honor was "insulted" that it wasn't really insulted or that owing God something doesn't mean God needed anything, just as God isn't really jealous or that God really has no "bosom" or "wings," but rather lack of better expressions or words (even in iconography, some churches, like the Ethiopian Church, draws the Trinity as three men, even though this may have theological issues if the correct assumptions are not preserved). To Anselm, "maintaining the moral government" was probably his way of saying keeping consistent God's commands. To Anselm, "satisfying" was required to "gain God's honor back" (assuming that nothing was lost and nothing is gained in God the unchangeable) was probably his way of saying keeping consistent God's commands and that which includes the effects of these commands or "laws of nature". The word "satisfy" maybe a poor choice, but is it probably better to understand this as a "satisfaction" to Someone who needs no "satisfaction," but to show forth in fulfillment His Consistency in the Laws of Nature, in His Laws and Commands. One can agree that in appealing to the Eastern mind, St. Athanasius puts it in much better terms than Anselm, but I would try to stress not to bring judgment on Anselm if it can be interpreted in other terms. And this is not to vindicate Anselm, but to show the realm of possibilities it brings, especially since there's also a lot of Biblical language about the description of God that we dare not take literally. Did Anselm take this terminology literally as we accuse him of, or allegorically to appeal to the simple minds of the Western people? Let's be true to ourselves and perhaps give Anselm the benefit of the doubt for once, being innocent till proven guilty I guess.

The only thing wrong that Anselm probably has done is defining the world in such limited terms. Eastern people can be quick to condemn Anselm's description of God as a bloodthirsty wrathful, limited serf-ruler of a God "seeking satisfaction" by killing an innocent man, lacking all that is loving in God, while we forget Western people also believe that "God is love" somehow; we just neglected to ask how. The answer is translated in Athanasian teaching on God's consistency, which will make it so much easier to accept phrases as "debt," "God's wrath," "satisfaction," etc. if we only pay attention to the whole of tradition, and not the narrowness of a concept. St. Athanasius was very smart to teach us about both God's Consistency and God's Mercy to teach us the Incarnation. Perhaps, we should give Anselm a chance while condemning simply his narrowness, and not his overall theology of the "moral government."

I think in analogy, we can also extend this to Fr. Subdeacon Peter's concern in our dialogue with the Assyrians. We as Oriental Orthodox have pretty much accepted the possibility of vindication by understanding what we felt was incomplete and obscure in Chalcedon through Constantinople 553, accepting to lift our anathemas to Chalcedon and Leo of Rome on this specific interpretation. Likewise, in the West. is there first a possible way of reinterpreting Anselm? Then, is there something in the West that would lead us to vindicate Anselm, or even in Anselm's writings himself? And if not Anselm, but even the West: We find that the Roman Catholic Church recently rejected the Augustinian idea of "limbo." Do Roman Catholics find it possible to reject something like "infinite sin," even if attributable to a saint that they revere, like Anselm (that's if Anselm taught "Infinite Sin")?

God bless.

PS In all honesty, it's interesting to note that atheists take pleasure in pejoratively criticizing the Bible in some passages that seem to belittle God in contradiction with correct theistic theology. I think in this sense, we have to take into account to understand the minds of the leaders of the Church on what the correct theology is and if these passages are interpreted in other ways. In other words, if only atheists were open-minded.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

minasoliman

posted on May 23, 2007 - 02:24 AM

Dear Lowlyman,

Let me present you the Byzantine view of how most today would like to define salvation:

God created all things good, with man as partaking of the grace of incorruption with God from the moment of his creation. Man disobeyed God, and since man disobeyed God, logically, man disconnects himself from God, thus leading to the Natural Law of death which was protected by that union with God. It was man who punished himself to this. But God loved man. Therefore, He became incarnate to give man hope of Resurrection and incorruption once more, and in an even better state than before.

Now, the stereotypically held Western view:

God created all things good and in moral order, with man as the highest of all beings, worthy through God's good pleasure of immortality through the keepings of good moral laws executed by the just God. Man disobeyed God (immoral), and since man disobeyed God, logically, God pushes man away and punished man to death. It was God who punished man because God is just. But God loved man. Therefore, He became incarnate to take upon Himself this punishment on behalf of all, and to reconcile man with God, an atonement for sins.

I personally wouldn't say that either view was the strictly held view while the other was rejected, but rather one was more stressed than the other. With these two views, implications can be made. More importantly, these two views were explained more and more through other theologians through new terms, like in the Eastern fathers, every man was born "diseased" because of Adam's sin, while in the Western fathers, every man was born punished with the "Original Sin" because of Adam's sin.

The West would be accused of a bloodthirsty God lacking so that He always is in need of satisfaction as well as loveless. The East, I would personally say, can be accused of an impersonal God and a God without justice or consistency, and sometimes Roman Catholics have accused the Byzantines of Pelagianism. Both sides accuse each of pretty much distorting God and the theology of salvation.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

Publican

posted on May 23, 2007 - 07:12 AM

Mina,

I have a difficult time accepting Anselm's theology, as you eloquently displayed in your previous posts, Anselm paints a very distorted icon of God. His theology limits God to the human mind robbing Him of His divinity and attributing to Him human passions.

Unfortunatly, I think the pervailing thought of most Copts is closer to Anselm than Irenaeus. The majority of Coptic servants and clergy teach the juridicial view of salvation...its really unfortunate. We really need to avoid incorrect beliefs, Western or Eastern, from infilitrating our theology.

God Bless

P.S. Can you explain what you mean by "infinite sin"...thanks.

_________________
"Fight the battle for your Heart" -- St. Antony the Great

"Sit in the presence of the Lord every moment of your life, as you think of him and recollect him in your heart." -- St. Isaac the Syrian

The greater the Knowledge of God, the greater the Love, and the greater the Love for God the greater the Knowledge, the greater the Love, the greater the Knowledge, the greater the Suffering.-- St. Silouan

Joined: Nov 18, 2005 | Posts: 101

lowlyman

posted on May 23, 2007 - 03:49 PM

Thank you minasoliman and God bless you.
Based on materials presented in this thread, the eastern viewpoint seems more worthy of God.
From minasoliman:Dear Lowlyman,

Let me present you the Byzantine view of how most today would like to define salvation:

God created all things good, with man as partaking of the grace of incorruption with God from the moment of his creation. Man disobeyed God, and since man disobeyed God, logically, man disconnects himself from God, thus leading to the Natural Law of death which was protected by that union with God. It was man who punished himself to this. But God loved man. Therefore, He became incarnate to give man hope of Resurrection and incorruption once more, and in an even better state than before.

Now, the stereotypically held Western view:

God created all things good and in moral order, with man as the highest of all beings, worthy through God's good pleasure of immortality through the keepings of good moral laws executed by the just God. Man disobeyed God (immoral), and since man disobeyed God, logically, God pushes man away and punished man to death. It was God who punished man because God is just. But God loved man. Therefore, He became incarnate to take upon Himself this punishment on behalf of all, and to reconcile man with God, an atonement for sins.

I personally wouldn't say that either view was the strictly held view while the other was rejected, but rather one was more stressed than the other. With these two views, implications can be made. More importantly, these two views were explained more and more through other theologians through new terms, like in the Eastern fathers, every man was born "diseased" because of Adam's sin, while in the Western fathers, every man was born punished with the "Original Sin" because of Adam's sin.

The West would be accused of a bloodthirsty God lacking so that He always is in need of satisfaction as well as loveless. The East, I would personally say, can be accused of an impersonal God and a God without justice or consistency, and sometimes Roman Catholics have accused the Byzantines of Pelagianism. Both sides accuse each of pretty much distorting God and the theology of salvation.

God bless.

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

minasoliman

posted on May 23, 2007 - 11:34 PM

Dear Publican,

Don't get me wrong. You see, I had some uneasiness with Anselm's juridical teachings before, but let's be fair. All I know about Anselm is from Byzantine sources, and that's not fair. Probably, there could be someway where we as Easterners can vindicate the language of Anselm, and that is what I'm alluding to, starting with St. Athanasius' understanding in the "consistency of God."

As for "infinite sin," I'm not sure whether this was started by Roman Catholic saints or Protestant figures in history, but I think the watered-down version is that if you sin against an infinite God, you committed an "infinite offense," and that is "infinite sin."

I don't know if I'm doing any help to the explanation, but when explained to me that way, I couldn't help but at first instinct to reject it, since that would make sin equal to God, which to me is blasphemous. But I wonder if there are better explanations to "infinite sin?"

Dear Lowlyman,

Like I said to Publican, what I really am trying to get is that both views probably taken ALONE are not worthy of God, that rather they may complement one another. When taken alone, each of them can present a narrow belief about God that could lead to heresy if not taking precautions.

God bless.

Mina

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748