I don't believe in Jesus Christ

Here's some more on the EO view of Justification (generally distinguished from salvation, in my experience). I don't have time to type it, so I'm going to copypasta.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Justification
[h=2]Definition[/h]The word justification is used three times in the Romans. The word group is defined in the following manner: dike (root word of the group, meaning right or just), dikaios (meaning righteously or justly), dikaiosune (meaning righteousness or justice),dikaiosis (meaning “the act of pronouncing righteous” or acquittal), dikaioma (meaning an ordinance, a sentence of acquittal or condemnation, a righteous deed), dikaio (meaning “to show to be righteous” or “to declare righteous”), and dikastase (meaning “to judge” or “a judge”). It appears that the word group, when taken as a whole, can convey both a sense of righteousness and justice (as a legal declaration).
This legal framework for understanding justification all hinges on the concept of justice as understood in the pagan Greek culture of the time - dikaiosis. The ancient, pagan Greeks, Thucydides for one, adhered to a juridical understanding of this concept as punishment. It is valid to assume that St. Paul was familiar with these pagan concepts, since this Greek culture was his immediate cultural context. The question arises: What do we do with St. Paul’s Jewish heritage and culture that was no less familiar to St. Paul, but was surely of more importance to him? Dr. Alexandre Kalomiros in The River of Fire proposes that the traditional Eastern Christian and patristic view of justification is more compatible with the nature of the Christian God. He says:
"The word dikaiosune, 'justice,' is a translation of the Hebraic word tsedaka. This word :means 'the divine energy which accomplishes man’s salvation.' It is parallel and almost :synonymous to the other Hebraic word, hesed, which means 'mercy,' 'compassion,' 'love,' :and to the word emeth which means 'fidelity,' 'truth.' This gives a completely other :dimension to what we usually conceive as justice. This is how the Church understood God’s :justice. This is what the Fathers of the Church taught of it - God is not :just, with the human meaning of this word, but we see that His justice means His goodness and :love, which are given in an unjust manner, that is, God always gives without taking anything :in return, and He gives to persons like us who are not worthy of receiving."Kalomiros sees justification primarily in an eschatological manner. For Kalomiros, justification is both present and future, eliciting submission in loving response to the unmerited love of God by those who would respond in faith. So, for the Eastern Christian, it is this imparted “righteousness,” dikaiosune, (instead of a juridical justification) that is culminated eschatologically in the fullness of time through the mercy of God by our loving response, in faith to Him.
[h=2]Basis[/h]So, in Romans 5:16, when St. Paul says, “And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto [dikaioma] justification,” the Eastern Christian and patristic scholar would be completely comfortable with justification defined as a “righteousness mercifully imparted by God that restores man to a state that was originally intended.” As the fall of Adam condemned the cosmos, and therefore mankind, to a world of sin and corruption, the death and resurrection of Christ is able to “make righteous” that creation which previously existed in a fallen state subjected to death.
While Eastern Christian theology does not embrace a juridical framework, the work of Christ is the sole basis for our imparted righteousness and “justification” in the eyes of God. It is only the work of Christ on the Cross, the “tree that saves,” which can counter the condemnation and corruption introduced to the world through the Edenic tree.
[h=2]Means[/h]Viewing the word group holistically, we can turn to the rest of scripture for a more complete understanding of the dike word group and its implications on St. Paul’s use of dikaiosune et. al.
In Matthew 5:17-20, Christ 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. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Here we see a hint about the depth of the righteousness imparted to us by God in his mercy. The dikaiosune tos anthropos that is unattainable by man (as indicated in the passage above) is to be replaced by the dikaiosune tou theou – the righteousness of God in Christ, which is imparted to man in God’s mercy. There is no necessity for a juridical pronouncement of innocence, but rather Christ’s righteousness is imparted to man in a transformative manner through Christ and his death on the Cross.
In the Eastern Church, this justification (impartation of righteousness) is associated with entrance into the Church. This is an ancient practice preserved from the earliest times. The liturgical texts indicate a process of conversion that culminates in baptismand the joining of oneself to the Church. The baptismal service text clearly defines this belief when the convert or newly baptized infant [after the baptism] is told, “You are justified; you are illumined!” (GOAA – The Service of Holy Baptism) Justification, the impartation of righteousness, begins at conversion through the mercy of God, and it continues throughout the life of the Christian as one is conformed, in righteousness, to the image and likeness of God through the power of the Holy Spirit.
[h=2]Permanancy[/h]Since the righteousness is offered and imparted to the Christian in love, the Orthodox Christian believes that man is, likewise, free to reject Christ’s righteousness and offer of salvation. For there is no love apart from freedom – coercion and slavery are characteristics that are incompatible with a perfect love. There are assurances in Scripture that God will hold close to himself those who are of his fold, and the Christian can rest confidently in this fact. But, we are just as free to reject God and his love as we are to embrace him.
[h=2]Western v. Eastern concepts - Implications[/h]While the western approach to theology seems to help our Western minds, so used to a scientific model of reasoning, “understand God,” the Eastern approach seems to organically synthesize the multi-faceted nature of theological truth. Eastern theology is far from systematic, but it takes into account and embraces all that has been handed down to us from Christ, to his apostles through the Church via the Holy Spirit.
Paul Negrut defines the tension that exists when trying to understand Western theological concepts in light of early Christian and Eastern theology. He says, “Much of this sounds strange to Western ears, both Protestant and Catholic, because the historical development of Western theology has been quite different. Patience is therefore required to penetrate this strangeness, but that is a necessary prelude to any real understanding, dialogue or critique!” This patience is, however, necessary and would, if employed in theological dialog between the East and West, yield much fruit.
It would serve the western Christian well to bear in mind that the juridical concepts of salvation, substitutionary atonement, et. al. were foreign to not only the Eastern Church but also the Western Church (Catholic and Protestant) until the time of Augustine. Even then these concepts were vague and undefined; they were not universal doctrines in the Church anywhere. Anselm further developed these ideas some 600 years later, and Luther built on the work of Anselm about 500 years after that. Is it any wonder that these concepts which seem to the Protestant an integral part of historical Christian theology (which are, in actuality, rather new) baffle the Eastern Christian mind? These categories and concepts are somewhat unique and have existed in their present form for a relatively short period of time. To the Eastern Christian, theology is not something that improves with age—it is something to be internalized, and it can best be understood by journeying as close to the roots of our faith as possible. Reason and logic [read: the Enlightenment] cannot guarantee a better understanding of God, his Son or our faith.
[h=2]Helpful quotations[/h]In summary, it is not an antagonistic attitude that causes the eastern Christian and patristic scholar to recoil at some notions of western and Protestant theology, it is simply that the approach employed by many western scholars (inherited from the likes of Augustine, Anselm and Luther) seems at odds with what eastern Christians believe has been safeguarded since the foundation of the Church at Pentecost. The traditional Orthodox mind is immediately suspicious of biblical interpretations that have little or no root in the early life and theology of the Church; this is true in spades of particularly the forensic notion of justification, and of its consequent bifurcation of faith and works. … This of course does not mean that the Orthodox do not believe that each generation of Christians may receive new insights into Scripture, especially insights relevant in a given cultural context. However, it does mean that the new insights must remain consistent with earlier ones, and that one or two Pauline passages (and one specific interpretation of those passages) are not considered theologically normative – particularly as a foundation for a soteriological dogma – unless the early and continuing tradition of the Church show them consistently to have been viewed as such. … Because of its less juridical exegesis of Pauline soteriological statements, Eastern Christianity has never had anything approaching the kind of faith v. works controversies that have enveloped and (for both good and ill) theologically shaped the Christian West, whether one considers the late fourth-/early fifth-century Pelagian controversy or the 16th-century Protestant Reformation begun by Martin Luther. Rather, the East has maintained a somewhat distant and even puzzled attitude toward the theological polemics which have raged over justification in terms of faith or works. - Valerie Karras
This paganistic conception of God’s justice which demands infinite sacrifices in order to be appeased clearly makes God our real enemy and the cause of all our misfortunes. Moreover, it is a justice which is not at all just since it punishes and demands satisfaction from persons which were not at all responsible for the sin of their forefathers. In other words, what Westerners call justice ought rather to be called resentment and vengeance of the worst kind. Even Christ’s love and sacrifice loses its significance and logic in this schizoid notion of a God who kills God in order to satisfy the so-called justice of God. Does this concept of justice have anything to do with the justice that God revealed to us? Does the phrase “justice of God” have this meaning in the Old and New Testaments? Perhaps the beginning of the mistaken interpretation of the word justice in the Holy Scriptures was its translation by the Greek word dikaiosune. Not that it is a mistaken translation, but because this word, being a word of the pagan, humanistic, Greek civilization, was charged with human notions which could easily lead to misunderstandings. First of all, the word dikaiosune brings to mind an equal distribution. This is why it is represented by a balance. The good are rewarded and the bad are punished by human society in a fair way. This is human justice. - Kalomiros
[h=2]Sources[/h]
  • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America - Service of Holy Baptism
  • Karras, Valerie A. – Justification and the Future of the Ecumenical Movement (Liturgical Press – Collegeville, MN)
  • Kalomiros, Dr. Alexandre – Saint Nektarios Orthodox Conference: The River of Fire (Seattle, St. Nektarios Press, 1980)
  • Pollard, Aurthur - Anselm’s Doctrine of the Atonement: An Exegesis and Critique of Cur Deus Homo, Churchman Volume 109, Number 4, 1995
 
Well. As I said, it was the quickest thing I could find on the fly. And that particular segment of it is spot on.

If you would like, I suppose that I could gather the data itself. It is, after all, my field.
Please do. That segment is not spot on at all, if you're interested in solid evidence from any perspective. The authors of Zeitgeist demonstrate no knowlege of Koine Greek, and their wordplay "sun/son" and so on doesn't work if you use the original text. It's total nonsense that Joseph made up to dupe his audience.
 
No! Jesus died so that we may all have the opportunity to go to heaven.

That is a popular false gospel today, but that is not the truth. The good news is that Jesus actually saved His people at the cross. He died for the sins of the elect and secured their salvation. There is no conditionality in this sacrifice. It fully and completely saves real people.

The popular false gospel today actually today says that Jesus died for all people, yet did not secure anyone's salvation. This is the same as saying He didn't die for anyone.
 
Last edited:
What HB was giving in that quote was the EO view, which does not accept that justification is a one-time event, but rather a life-long process. See, for example, Decree 9 here. See also, here. Note especially the description of it as imparted, rather than imputed, righteousness.

You're right, though, that the apostles taught that it was a one-time event in the New Testament. The EO view is a later innovation. I'm not sure when it was first devised.

What the Orthodox believe is also what the Scriptures say (not one verse here or there, but the entire Scriptures) and what the Fathers of the Church have taught. And then you claim that the Orthodox view is the 'later innovation'!

I do appreciate the link to the Confession of Dositheus. Good read indeed!

The concept of justification in Orthodox theology differs from that of evangelical Protestantism and is the consistent witness from the earliest saints recorded in the history of the Church. Instead of justification being simply a judicial declaration of the right status of the person on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness, Orthodox theology holds that justification includes also the actual making of the person righteous. It involves the partaking of a "real righteousness" whereby the individual is in fact being made righteous by being "in Christ," that is, by becoming a partaker of the Divine nature and, thus, entering the path of theosis or deification, all biblical concepts which the West has lessened or ignored. Orthodox theology thus includes what evangelical Protestantism understands as regeneration and sanctification in the meaning of justification. It defines justification as including the concept of being transformed into the likeness of God. Justification is included in the process of "salvation" or "deification" (being transformed into the likeness of God through union with Christ). Thus the place of works in relation to "salvation" or "deification" is also the place of works in relation to justification.

1. "Justification is not merely a once-for-all event, but a dynamic, ongoing process. Three conditions are given here: God accepts whoever (1) fears Him (2) follows His commandments and (3) works righteousness made possible by the grace of God. This in no way denies justification by faith; but it is not by faith alone. And God supplies the grace necessary for us to fear Him and work righteousness."

2. Orthodox teaching implicitly denies justification by faith alone by asserting the necessity of following the Lord's commandments as well the sacramental rites for justification, regeneration, or salvation which Christ established, namely Holy Baptism, Holy Confession, and above all the Holy Eucharist. Evangelical Protestantism denies that baptism or any other sacramental rite is essential for justification or regeneration. This is actually the innovation.

Our justification and salvation are linked with our growth in Christ through theosis, thus is not a one time event but a lifelong process.
 
Last edited:
Please do. That segment is not spot on at all, if you're interested in solid evidence from any perspective. The authors of Zeitgeist demonstrate no knowlege of Koine Greek, and their wordplay "sun/son" and so on doesn't work if you use the original text. It's total nonsense that Joseph made up to dupe his audience.

Listen. I don't care about Zeitgeist. But I know how the cosmos work. All of your history has been bastardized. It's irrelevant. Koine Greek or wordplay or any of that is irrelevant. Don't care if it "works".

And this Joseph character. Joseph who?
 
Last edited:
saves That is a popular false gospel today, but that is not the truth. The good news is that Jesus actually saved His people at the cross. He died for the sins of the elect and secured their salvation. There is no conditionality in this sacrifice. It fully and completely saves real people.

The popular false gospel today actually today says that Jesus died for all people, yet did not secure anyone's salvation. This is the same as saying He didn't die for anyone.

So, what do you make of the Sermon on the Mount? These people he talked about certainly do not obtain any of it in this realm.
 
Please do. That segment is not spot on at all, if you're interested in solid evidence from any perspective. The authors of Zeitgeist demonstrate no knowlege of Koine Greek, and their wordplay "sun/son" and so on doesn't work if you use the original text. It's total nonsense that Joseph made up to dupe his audience.

Since you don't want to actually refute it piece by piece, I guess @Natural Citizen will have to do the work. I know, it's easier to just say "that's full of crap". Did you watch the video @NC posted?
 
He can't.

I know, because I had a friend that designed and built the controls for automating one the Utah Telescopes so that it could automatically locate and track stars, nebulas, etc. (he had a great database of all the named stars, galaxies, etc..). He watched that video and said it was spot on, in fact, he got kind of got mad at me for not telling him about it sooner. I wish he were still in this realm so that he could come here and discuss it.
 
Last edited:
You're right, though, that the apostles taught that it was a one-time event in the New Testament. The EO view is a later innovation. I'm not sure when it was first devised.

Yes. The departure from imputed righteousness was a later innovation. This is why the EO church does not have apostolic authority. It doesn't teach what the apostles taught. Here is a description of what I'm talking about:
Kenneth Escott Kirk writes:
“St. Paul's indignant wonder was evoked by the reversion of a small province of the Christian Church [Galatia] to the legalistic spirit of the Jewish religion. Had he lived half a century or a century later, his cause for amazement would have been increased a hundredfold. The example of the Galatians might be thought to have infected the entire Christian Church; writer after writer seems to have little other interest than to express the genius of Christianity wholly in terms of law and obedience, reward and punishment.”


J. L. Neve carefully documents in the apostolic fathers how quickly after the age of Paul—doubtless due to Jewish and Hellenistic influences without and the tug of the Pelagian heart within—the emphasis in their preaching and writings on soteriology fell more and more upon human works and their merit and upon moralism.

J. N. D. Kelly reaches similar conclusions. Richard Lovelace affirms:

"By the early second century it is clear that Christians had come to think of themselves as being justified through being sanctified, accepted as righteous according to their actual obedience to the new Law of Christ."


And Thomas F. Torrance, in his The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers—whose entire work is an inquiry into the literature of the apostolic fathers, that is to say, into the Didache of the Twelve Apostles, the First Epistle of Clement, the Epistles of Ignatius, the Epistle of Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Second Epistle of Clement, in order to discern how and why such a great divergence away from the teaching of the New Testament occurred in their understanding of salvation—concludes his research by saying:

“In the Apostolic Fathers grace did not have [the] radical character [that it had in the New Testament]. The great presupposition of the Christian life, for them, was not a deed of decisive significance that cut across human life and set it on a wholly new basis grounded upon the self-giving of God. What took absolute precedence was God's call to a new life in obedience to revealed truth. Grace, as far as it was grasped, was subsidiary to that. And so religion was thought of primarily in terms of man's acts toward God, in the striving toward justification, much less in terms of God's acts for man which put him in the right with God once and for all. “...Salvation is wrought, they thought, certainly by divine pardon but on the ground of repentance, not apparently on the ground of the death of Christ alone.… It was not seen that the whole of salvation is centred in the person and death of Christ, for there God has Himself come into the world and wrought a final act of redemption which undercuts all our own endeavours at self-justification, and places us in an entirely new situation in which faith alone saves a man, and through which alone is a man free to do righteousness spontaneously under the constraining love of Christ. That was not understood by the apostolic fathers, and it is the primary reason for the degeneration of their Christian faith into something so different from the New Testament.”


Thus the early post-apostolic church's sub-Christian soteriological deliverances launched the church on a doctrinal trajectory that moved virtually the entire church (there was always a “remnant” that put up resistance) away from the pristine Pauline teaching on salvation by pure grace and justification by faith alone, a trajectory that eventually came to expression in Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and Semi-Semi-Pelagianism, that then found formal expression in the system of Thomas Aquinas, and finally became the hardened official position of the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent.

- See more at: http://trinityfoundation.org/journal....xXSV3oyv.dpuf
 
Last edited:
If this is true, than what do we have to worry about? Can we all relax and just enjoy life without worrying about Hell?

It is my belief that belief is all it takes. I don't believe in a mixture of works salvation. I believe in "blessed assurance". I am simply one of those people that believes if I am saved by grace, I ain't kept by works. I do not believe that this condones sin though. Before I did the focused study, I was unsure, and found the more "sin conscious" I was, the more I sinned. The more insecure I felt, the more anxious and unloving I was.
It is common knowledge that "performance based love" is bad for our children, .... God is not going to do it to his.
 
No. Salvation is a lifelong process. It is unfortunate that the false doctrine of certain heretics and modern "fundamentalists" WRT being "born again" and therefore never having to be considerate of anything has been popular for so long that it's just passed into "common knowlege". :/ :(

Why do you talk about being born again as if it's a false idea, when Jesus Himself taught about the necessity of being born again. I don't think you can get much more clear than:

Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

John 3
 
That is a popular false gospel today, but that is not the truth. The good news is that Jesus actually saved His people at the cross. He died for the sins of the elect and secured their salvation. There is no conditionality in this sacrifice. It fully and completely saves real people.

The popular false gospel today actually today says that Jesus died for all people, yet did not secure anyone's salvation. This is the same as saying He didn't die for anyone.

Mt 23:13 ¶ But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
 
I know, because I had a friend that designed and built the controls for automating one the Utah Telescopes so that it could automatically locate and track stars, nebulas, etc. (he had a great database of all the named stars, galaxies, etc..). He watched that video and said it was spot on, in fact, he got kind of got mad at me for not telling him about it sooner. I wish he were still in this realm so that he could come here and discuss it.

The ancients were a part of the natural landscape. They understood it. And that landscape wasn't limited to Earth itself. The cosmos was their guide, so to speak. It was their way of life. A synergy. And we have devolved to the extent that there is a little man in the sky watching everything we do and we couldn't tell you if the Sun orbits the Earth or the Earth orbits the Sun to save our necks. It's that bad. That's "organization" for you.

I don't know, Clyde. I'm probably going to just bow out of this thread. I don't feel like herding cats today. And I really don't want to pee on people's faith.
 
Last edited:
Yes. The departure from imputed righteousness was a later innovation. This is why the EO church does not have apostolic authority. It doesn't teach what the apostles taught. Here is a description of what I'm talking about:

Actually Sola, what you believe is the modern understanding. The juridical view of Christ's work is but one aspect in His ministry and the West has adopted it as the prime and even sole view of our soteriology. This was propagated in earnest by Anselm of Canterbury which he developed from Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. It became the main view of the Reformers but was never the complete picture with regards to how we are justified through Christ and find salvation. The Scriptures themselves clearly speak about our growth in Christ and partaking in the divine nature through what would later be termed theosis. Indeed, our justification and sanctification is through our theosis and growth into the likeness of God through Christ by the Holy Spirit. This was the very reason Christ came into the world, so that we might be transfigured into His image and likeness by grace, not at one moment in time, but continuously and eternally.
 
Why do you talk about being born again as if it's a false idea, when Jesus Himself taught about the necessity of being born again. I don't think you can get much more clear than:

Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

John 3

We are born again through baptism.
 
BTW Sola, the entire post you posted above just proves my point that the Orthodox belief is the belief of the early Church. But to deny these proofs, you have to then take the leap that the Church fell into apostasy and create this untruth so that your interpretation of the Scriptures can be correct. I simply am not buying it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
That is a popular false gospel today, but that is not the truth. The good news is that Jesus actually saved His people at the cross. He died for the sins of the elect and secured their salvation. There is no conditionality in this sacrifice. It fully and completely saves real people.

The popular false gospel today actually today says that Jesus died for all people, yet did not secure anyone's salvation. This is the same as saying He didn't die for anyone.

He died for his people, but his people are those who choose to believe with their own free will.
 
We are born again through baptism.

Water baptism? I respectfully disagree.

Baptism is just the outward sign of an inner change that has already taken place. If that inner change never took place, the baptism in and of itself is basically meaningless.
 
He died for his people, but his people are those who choose to believe with their own free will.

But those who choose of their own free will are only those whom God first changes so that they are no longer inclined to choose not to believe in him, which is how all of us are by nature.
 
Back
Top