Subscribe by Email
« Fr. Michael Azkoul, Photius Jones and the gang ask the difficult questions about Augustine | Main | Jay Dyer accuses the Orthodox Fathers of analogia fidae »
Jay Dyer at www.nicenetruth.com, tries to refute Fr. John Romanides
By James Kelley | August 2, 2008
Hey, gang, respond to any of these points, and cite sources, esp. if you quote Ancestral Sin. I’ll handle this soon. Jay, the author of this critique of Fr. John, is at www.nicenetruth.com
Oh, yeah. The formalities:
Hello Jay, if you’re reading this. My name is James Kelley. We have nothing but time to discuss your conclusions. It should be a fruitful exchange.
Heeeeeerre’s Jay:
For that matter, what is “Ancestral Sin”? I just don’t get it. I know what original sin is. And, I know what Fr. Romanides says, and his book has been one of the major hang ups for me in not becoming Orthodox. While I agree with some of his criticisms of overly-Latin thinking, some of my problems with his ‘seminal’ The Ancestral Sin are as follows:
1. Augustine is not a saint (pg. 11).
2. Romanides says many times that the parasite of death is the cause of our sins. What is more correct is that there is a sense in which we sin because of death and that death is also the result of sin.
3. Romanides accuses all the west of teaching that man is by nature “immortal,” yet this is not true. The Catechism of the Church states that “man is by nature mortal,” Par. 1008.
4. Romanides says that human free will is outside God’s jurisdiction (pg. 33). But the Holy Spirit says otherwise in Prov. 21:1. How can anything be outside God’s sovereignty? Romanides says God willed it to be so. Now I’m reminded of my former Orthodox priest’s statement in agreement with his former Bishop: “God has chosen not to know all things.” Supposedly this is a paradox. No, this is a contradiction. Scripture says that God knows the number of the hairs on our head. Androutsos proposes this same silly idea of God knowing all things only in a general sense. All of this to get away from sovereignty!
5. Romanides claims that the westerns fail in explaining evil as “lack of being,” yet this same idea is frequent in Eastern Fathers (pg. 34, fn. 65)!
6. Romanides follows the Synodikon of Orthodoxy in reference to condemning the analogia entis and the analogia fide, since “there is no similarity between the created and the Uncreated” in reference to God and Scripture. Then we have no true knowledge of God and Scripture does not truly reveal Him. If there is no true union or connection, then we fail to know Christ as truly divine. Romanides even says sarcastically that it is “supposed that God is revealed there [in Scripture].” How can we then have any knowledge of the ontological Trinity, since this comes only through Scripture? It follows that we do not. The energies that reveal God must then also be disconnected from the “hidden energies,” and even negative knowledge fails to obtain. For example, that I know that the Son is eternally generated from the Father comes to me through the words and images of Scripture. If there is no similarity, then I do not know that fact to be true of God, in terms of theology. How does economy teach anything about God, theologically?
7. Romanides claims that evil is not non-being and that this is nonsense, yet this is what St. Athanasius teaches very clearly in “Contra Gentes,” along with using many juridical concepts in “On the Incarnation of the Logos,” which Romanides hates so much.
8. Romanides says that God can never remove the “freedom of evil” (pg. 75),
and that Satan’s will is completely free and outside God’s jurisdiction (pg. 74)! If this is true, then it follows that Satan and Redeemed men in the eternal state can be saved and fall again, ad infinitum. This is pure Origenism.
9. Romanides derides the idea that angels govern men and nations and that fallen angels desired women as mates. If he were merely rejecting the idea of angels mating, it would be one thing, but Romanides implies that this is an error in Old Testament Scripture, quoting the liberal Abingdon Bible Commentary.
Romanides comes close to open theism in his chapter on the war between God and the Devil, since Satan’s fall really did mess up God’s plans in a sense, and as we said, God cannot touch the wills of men and angels (pg. 86). In this he sounds like “open theist” Greg Boyd.
10. Romanides engages in a zealous attempt to eradicate the idea that death is a punishment from God, and he says this ad nauseam. Romanides should have read more St. John Chrysostom, or been more honest with him. But worse, he quotes Romans 8:20 , arguing that God didn’t subject the creation to death and futility, when St. Paul ’s text itself says the very opposite! Using the flood or Sodom as examples of God’s punishment don’t work, since Romanides probably believed it never happened.
11. Romanides seriously tries to argue that God doesn’t curse Adam and Eve, but only the ground and the serpent (pg. 95), quoting St. Irenaeus. This is because, he imagines, God has no wrath or desire for vengeance or need for propitiation. All of these concepts are western heresies. Yet they are undoubtedly Pauline! This just goes to show that the Orthodox writers can’t deal with St. Paul . The one’s who do, like those summarized in Gavin’s Greek Orthodox Thought must apparently be castigated as “Latinized” Greeks, since so much in their writings is “western” and juridical!
12. He claims that the fall was “not at all juridical” for the New Testament writers (pg. 112). Can he be serious?
13. Romanides argues that we should not be motivated by pleasures to be saved or by fear of hell, but rather that we should obtain apatheia. How stoic. Scripture says that in God’s hands and pleasures evermore (Ps.16). He admits on pg. 123 that he wants to return to Jewish conceptions as opposed to Augustinian ones, since “Jews didn’t believe in God’s retributive justice.” The prophets certainly did, and they were true Jews. Who does he think brought about AD 70?
14. Romanides claims that monasticism declined in the west when Augustinianism prevailed (pg. 174). Is this for real? Is he not aware that monasticism prevailed in the medieval Augustinian West?
What is the point of all this railing against St. Augustine and the western errors? It’s that Romanides hates the idea of a God who punishes sin: the God revealed in Scripture. So he was forced to run to the post-Apostolic fathers as a supposedly more faithful presentation of the Apostolic Faith. These facts are all related to the strands in all the Orthodox: there is no predestination or unconditional election, God is not fully sovereign—maybe not even omniscient, and doesn’t eternally damn people as a punishment. And of course, this goes hand in hand with the numerous Orthodox writers and priests I’ve met who refuse to take Scripture seriously on these points, and often impute errors to it, rather than impute errors to their own intellect! In this regard, I feel just like St. Augustine combating the very same errors of his day (not that I am a great saint). Why the zeal for errors in Scripture? Because, if Scripture has manifest errors, one need not take its threats of damnation seriously, of course. This stuff clearly borders on Origenism and in some cases is Origenism (think Kalomiros’ awful River of Fire article), and I just can’t confess this semi-pelagian nonsense, which appears to be the “mind of Orthodoxy,” since most all of them hold this, or tend in this direction.
Topics: Augustino-Platonic Phantasmal Theophanies, Heresy, Intellectual honesty, Patristics, Romanides |
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
The following is my first comment on Dyer’s site, posted today (08/02/08):
I quote you:
“How can we then have any knowledge of the ontological Trinity, since this comes only through Scripture? It follows that we do not. The energies that reveal God must then also be disconnected from the “hidden energies,” and even negative knowledge fails to obtain. For example, that I know that the Son is eternally generated from the Father comes to me through the words and images of Scripture. If there is no similarity, then I do not know that fact to be true of God, in terms of theology. How does economy teach anything about God, theologically?”
First of all, Holy Scripture in itself is not the source of knowledge about God for the Orthodox. To know God one must follow the regimen of purification of the heart in the context of spiritual fatherhood and sacramental life in order to share in the same noetic inspiration that the biblical writers had.
Secondly, knowledge of God is not merely rational, as St. Paul and all of the Fathers aver. Knowledge of God is both a knowing and an “unknowing”. Your Augustinian analogia entis/analogia fidae epistemology is shattered by St. Gregory the Theologian’s simple statement of the biblical and patristic foundational dogma that: “it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him” (Theol. Orations 2.4). Look at all of the Fathers that Fr. John quotes in all of his writings who explain what this means.
Thirdly, to you the energies of God are either revealed (which to you means revealed to the intellect of man, since you don’t know what a nous is) or they are “hidden”, which to you means “hidden from man’s reason”. You are making up your own theology, and your newfangled distinctions don’t make sense to us. Energies of god, in your Roman Catholic mind, are created. They can cause phantasms to appear, like in the burning bush or on Mt. Tabor. Think, brother. You know in your heart of hearts that the Light on Mt. Tabor is not a creaturely thing, as Augustine and all the West along with him say. We are saved through these uncreated energies, or we are of all men most miserable, having no hope.
Why did you waste time reading Fr. John Romanides without learning about what the Orthodox truly teach? We are already discussing your anti-Romanides post on my site http://www.orthodoxpatristics.com, and you are welcome to read and respond.
All of the above is written in all humility and love. Truth is what we are both after, and I hope we can continue this dialogue. Please pray for me and my family, and I will do the same for you.
Also I would like to dedicate this short posting to Blessed Father John (Romandies), who is a Father to all Orthodox Christians, and a true defender of the Faith. Memory Eternal!
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I much prefer one on one phone discussions to the personless matrix of the net. Perhaps we can progress to that point. In fact, email me, and maybe we can talk.
My retraction was not an attempt at a point by point refutation of Fr. Romanides, but the points that I could not agree to as an attendee and student of Orthodoxy for the past 3-4 years or so. So, characterizing my retraction as a weak refutation (which is what you’re doing) is not an accurate portrayal of my intentions in that article. I was instructed by my spiritual advisors to write a retraction and give my reasons. A point by point refutation of Fr. Romanides is not within my scope, nor the scope of a blog. But I still don’t agree with him.
I’ve read the Theological Orations of St. Gregory Nz. I’ve read tons of St. Basil. I’ve read “On the Orthodox” Faith and others works of St. John Damascene. I’ve read St. Cyril and the St. Athanasius volume (mostly). I’ve read Dionysius. Ive read St. Gregory of Nyssa (though the anti-Eunomius work is in progress). To put it short, I have the Schaff set and should be done with all 38 volumes in the next few years (shooting for 5). So please don’t waste time insulting me. I know what the energies of God are who Gregory of Palamas is. And I know you think I haven’t truly experienced them and you can also skip the part where you tell me how I haven’t experienced that ever elusive ‘mind of Orthodoxy’ and true mystagogy that I will only attain by reading your blog and the books you recommend. I’ve heard this more than I can count.
I’ve read most, or, a large portion of St. Augustine’s available English works (probabaly 2/3). I’ve read a good portion of the Summa–hopefully finishing it in the next few years as well. I’ve read the stuff at TR Valentine’s site, and that anonymous attack on “bishop augustine” is no good. St. Augusitne doesnt say that the OT theophanies are only angels, he says there is a mysterious relationship between angels and Christ’s own presence in the OT theophanies, basing himself on the fact that NT texts say both that Christ gave the law, *and* that the law was given through the mediation of angels. But Romanides and the anonymous refutation accuse him of something he didn’t teach.
I’ve been reading Perry’s site for a while now, and I grasp their points, many of which I agree with, many of which I do not. Again, my retraction was not a strict refutation, but the issues in my mind that held me back from being chrismated. But as for my personal life, I do practice asceticism (though weakly), and I do understand that God is not a purely rational entity. Im not a slavish Thomist: I recognize the exaggerations of scholasticism, but I also recognize its good points.
So, to make a long story short, I don’t know how fruitful this dialogue would be: you obviously know far more than I do, and are quite confident you are correct, so what would be beneficial in that?
If you want to recommend something for me to read, be my guest, and I’ll read it as soon as I am able. Everyone who knows me knows I practice this principle: I will, in honesty and good conscience, take a look at whatever you want to recommend. But I’m not really interested in a debate on your blog over Romanides because I doubt you will convince me that he is a true father.
Jay
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
You never answered my objections to analogia entis/analogia fidae, which we could nickname “the defective Western epistemological life-preserver,” which you guys vehemently hold onto, even when philosophers, theologians, scientists, and finally, today, the common man, laugh it to scorn because there are obviously no universals in God. I’m writing a chapter of my book as we speak about the connection between Platonic universals and the stubborn Augustinian insistence on their existence. Barlaam was ran out of town on a rail for his Augustinian beliefs, as you know, though the Calabrian found a home later in Rome as a bishop.
All of this does not surprise me, because only the Orthodox (to my knowledge) condemn both (some Protestants do not believe in entis, but obviously stake their whole sorry epistemological ediface on an. fidae, which you also seem to do at times, if I understand your writings correctly).
As for Augustine’s imaginary “holographic theophanies” which would be only embarrassing if they were not blasphemous, it is as simple as cutting-and-pasting a couple of quotations from De Trinitate to refute you. You say that Fr. John and others falsely accuse Augustine of things he didn’t teach. Well, let’s give Augustine the floor, and see what he actually says about it:
“It is, then, for this reason nowhere written, that the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is less than God the Father, because the creature in which the Holy Spirit was to appear was not taken in the same way as the Son of man was taken, as the form in which the person of the Word of God Himself should be set forth not that He might possess the word of God, as other holy and wise men have possessed it, but “above His fellows;” a not certainly that He possessed the word more than they, so as to be of more surpassing wisdom than the rest were, but that He was the very Word Himself. For the word in the flesh is one thing, and the Word made flesh is another; i.e. the word in man is one thing, the Word that is man is another. For flesh is put for man, where it is said, “The Word was made flesh;”(4) and again, “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” For it does not mean flesh without soul and without mind; but “all flesh,” is the same as if it were said, every man. The creature, then, in which the Holy Spirit should appear, was not so taken, as that flesh and human form were taken, of the Virgin Mary. For the Spirit did not beatify the dove, or the wind, or the fire, and join them for ever to Himself and to His person in unity and “fashion.”(6) Nor, again, is the nature of the Holy Spirit mutable and changeable; so that these things were not made of the creature, but He himself was turned and changed first into one and then into another, as water is changed into ice. But these things appeared at the seasons at which they ought to have appeared, the creature serving the Creator, and being changed and converted at the command of Him who remains immutably in Himself, in order to signify and manifest Him in such way as it was fit He should be signified and manifested to mortal men. Accordingly, although that dove is called the Spirit;(7) and in speaking of that fire, “There appeared unto them,” he says, “cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them; and they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance;(8) in order to show that the Spirit was manifested by that fire, as by the dove; yet we cannot call the Holy Spirit both God and a dove, or both God and fire, in the same way as we call the Son both God and man; nor as we call the Son the Lamb of God; which not only John the Baptist says, “Behold the Lamb of God,”(9) but also John the Evangelist sees the Lamb slain in the Apocalypse.(10) For that prophetic vision was not shown to bodily eyes through bodily forms, but in the spirit through spiritual images of bodily things. But whosoever saw that dove and that fire, saw them with their eyes. Although it may perhaps be disputed concerning the fire, whether it was seen by the eyes or in the spirit, on account of the form of the sentence. For the text does not say, They saw cloven tongues like fire, but, “There appeared to them.” But we are not wont to say with the same meaning, It appeared to me; as we say, I saw. And in those spiritual visions of corporeal images the usual expressions are, both, It appeared to me; and, I saw: but in those things which are shown to the eyes through express corporeal forms, the common expression is not, It appeared to me; but, I saw. There may, therefore, be a question raised respecting that fire, how it was seen; whether within in the spirit as it were outwardly, or really outwardly before the eyes of the flesh. But of that dove, which is said to have descended in a bodily form, no one ever doubted that it was seen by the eyes. Nor, again, as we call the Son a Rock (for it is written, “And that Rock was Christ”(11)), can we so call the Spirits dove or fire. For that rock was a thing already created, and after the mode of its action was called by the name of Christ, whom it signified; like the stone placed under Jacob’s head, and also anointed, which he took in order to signify the Lord;(1) or as Isaac was Christ, when he carried the wood for the sacrifice of himself.(2) A particular significative action was added to those already existing things; they did not, as that dove and fire, suddenly come into being in order simply so to signify. The dove and the fire, indeed, seem to me more like that flame which appeared to Moses in the bush,(3) or that pillar which the people followed in the wilderness,(4) or the thunders and lightnings which came when the Law was given in the mount.(5) For the corporeal form of these things came into being for the very purpose, that it might signify something, and then pass away.(6)”
This is from De Trinitate, I, chap six.
But wait, just so we do not misunderstand Augustine (I’m all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to accusations of this magnitude), let’s read on further:
“12. The Holy Spirit, then, is also said to be sent, on account of these corporeal forms which came into existence in time, in order to signify and manifest Him, as He must needs be manifested, to human senses; yet He is not said to be less than the Father, as the Son, because He was in the form of a servant, is said to be; because that form of a servant inhered in the unity of the person of the Son, but those corporeal forms appeared for a time, in order to show what was necessary to be shown, and then ceased to be. Why, then, is not the Father also said to be sent, through those corporeal forms, the fire of the bush, and the pillar of cloud or of fire, and the lightnings in the mount, and whatever other things of the kind appeared at that time, when (as we have learned from Scripture testimony) He spake face to face with the fathers, if He Himself was manifested by those modes and forms of the creature, as exhibited ant presented corporeally to human sight? But if the Son was manifested by them, why is He said to be sent so long after, when He was made of a woman, as the apostle says, “But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman,”(7) seeing that He was sent also before, when He appeared to the fathers by those changeable forms of the creature? Or if He cannot rightly be said to be sent, unless when the Word was made flesh, why is the Holy Spirit said to be sent, of whom no such incarnation was ever wrought? But if by those visible things, which are put before us in the Law and in the prophets, neither the Father nor the Son but the Holy Spirit was manifested, why also is He said to be sent now, when He was sent also before after these modes?
13. In the perplexity of this inquiry, the Lord helping us, we must ask, first, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or whether, sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or whether it was without any distinction of persons, in such way as the one and only God is Spoken of, that is, that the Trinity itself appeared to the Fathers by those forms of the creature. Next, whichever of these alternatives shall have been found or thought true, whether for this purpose only the creature was fashioned, wherein God, as He judged it suitable at that time, should be shown to human sight; or whether angels, who already existed, were so sent, as to speak in the person of God, taking a corporeal form from the corporeal creature, for the purpose of their ministry, as each had need; or else, according to the power the Creator has given them, changing and converting their own body itself, to which they are not subject, but govern it as subject to themselves, into whatever appearances they would that were suited and apt to their several actions. Lastly, we shall discern that which it was our purpose to ask, viz. whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were also sent before; and, if they were so sent, what difference there is between that sending, and the one which we read of in the Gospel; or whether in truth neither of them were sent, except when either the Son was made of the Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit appeared in a visible form, whether in the dove or in tongues of fire.”
I could go on, but, as Fred McMurray drily intoned in Double Indemnity, “That tears it.”
Just as a sidebar, this last quotation from Augustine includes the unbelievable notion that the entire Trinity could somehow be communicated to man through a corporeal, created medium. Don’t take this badly, but perhaps Fr. John was right, and you should reconsider whether or not you want to base your theology on a writer who does not understand that the Trinity is not contained or circumscribed by creation. No glorified saint made this mistake, because they were co-reigning with Christ already, and would sooner be ground into dust, as many were, than to blaspheme about the uncreated glory of God. You are all about the Holy Scriptures; you do well. However, you must judge your Great Father Augustine by St. Paul’s standards. St. Paul said: “No one in the spirit can say ‘anathema Jesus’.” Draw your own conclusions about Augustine’s unheard-of doctrines about creaturely, corporeal appearances on Sinai and on Tabor. Do you really understand the seriousness of this issue? This is not a theological nicety which we can just agree to disagree about.
Augustine’s apparent ignorance (at least as his extant writings show) of the basic beliefs of the Church
are also evident in his espousal of the Filioque, prevenient grace, and “psychological hypostatic properties in the Trinity.” Since you obviously do not want to confuse the uncreated God with creatures (St. Athanasius has an ugly word for this, which I’ll refrain from using, since we all know what it is), perhaps you should pin down exactly why you are not a Thomist. Many of his objectionable teachings come straight from Augustine, but I’m sure you know this.
I’m sorry you feel insulted by my insistence that you read the Fathers. I know that you have read a lot, but it doesn’t matter how much you’ve read when you come to Orthodox texts with Augustinian spectacles on your nose. The Carolingians also read St. John of Damascus, and they perverted it into Augustinian nonsense.
At any rate, email me your number, and I’ll be glad to talk more about this. I wouldn’t bother with it, but you are the kind of guy I want on my side, not on any other side. I respect the fact that you were extremely specific about your objections to Ancestral Sin. Hopefully, my book will be the first “close textual reading” of Ancestral Sin (and literally everything else he wrote). I don’t know if you’ve scoured the net, but it looks like my book and your post are the only two things out there (besides Sopko’s book, which is more synthetic than “close textual,” and probably way more useful because of that!) that are doing Romanides writing that quotes a lot of page numbers. Thus, I’m glad you are so thorough in your approach. We should all be so scrupulous. Unfortunately, not everyone cares about these issues as much as you do, which is sad.
Here’s a short refutation of pt. 13, just to show you what I’m thinking:
You say that Fr. John wants to return to Jewish notions about non-eudaemonistic salvation, and you quote Psalms 16:11. Let’s get some context here. The whole passage reads: “Thou wilt show me the path of life: in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures evermore.” This is utterly irrelevant to the section of Ancestral Sin where Fr. John speaks about eudaimonia. Page 123-124 in Ancestral Sin does not triumph or fail because you think the Psalter advocates eudaimonia. It is perfectly fine for us Orthodox to say that we achieve happiness or eudaimonia in theosis, as long as we mean the transformation of the passions and the cleansing of the nous whch crucifies our selfish love and allows us to approach the love of Christ, which seeks not its own. Fr. John is obviously not talking about Orthodox theosis-eudaimonia on pg. 123-124. Here, we find the real context for Fr. John’s anti-eudaimonism: Augustine’s eudaimonia is tied to his notion of Adam as born utterly perfect (123). Augustine actually believed, according to Fr. John, that Adam originally enjoyed the complete joys of eudaimonia in God, but yet somehow fell from them (124). Let’s hear Fr. John on this, since his book is being objected to so strongly:
“Augustine does not adequately explain how a mind that wa created utterly perfect could fall from the eudaemonia of the vision of the highest good. If man had fallen out of pride, however, then his mind could not have been made in such a way that it would truly be fulfilled by the vision of the divine essence. And in such a cae, God would be the cause of the fall.” (124)
Fr. John then shows how this put Aquinas in a pickle later on, since St. Thomas did not want to blaspheme.
As a last comment on “naive biblicism” or “terminological fundamentalism”, we Orthodox consider it a heresy. Words are not glorification, as the Formulary Council of 433 shows, where flexibility was shown between Antioch and Alexandria. Here’s the problem: In the post-Augustinian West, Christology lost its therapeutic, experiential basis. That’s why Christology was the plaything of arrogant schoolmen in the West, because all they could do, having no regimen of purification/illumination/glorification, was play Upwords with formerly-therapeutic terms like “Holy Trinity,” “Hypostasis,” “Essence,” etc.
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 am
James,
I just want to let you know how happy I am to see what you are doing here. May our gracious Lord bless your efforts, dear brother.
I posted this on my blog:
http://molonlabe70.blogspot.com/2008/08/adding-of-new-orthodox-site.html
As well, I added your post to my list here:
http://molonlabe70.blogspot.com/2008/07/post-listing-discussions-ensuing-from.html
In Christ,
Sophocles
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
My email is:
christus_vincit7@yahoo.com
Jay
August 4th, 2008 at 1:03 am
James,
I just posted the last part of my essay “Thoughts on the Orthodox Catholic Faith which you may find of interest:
http://molonlabe70.blogspot.com/2008/08/response-to-drcarson-thoughts-on.html