Subscribe by Email
« Nathaniel McCollum misrepresents my theology and then is offended when I defend it. | Main | What is the nous? »
An apology to those I have wronged
By James Kelley | September 17, 2008
To Aaron Taylor and to Nathaniel McCollum,
Forgive me, brethren, I have sinned against you.
As I chanted “O Gladsome Light” in my corner, my heart became soft and I was filled with remorse. How could I speak so casually about glorification, for I am the man of pride and self-regard. I know nothng about what the neptic Fathers speak about.
It is good that Aaron spoke against my prideful ways. Thinking I was doing good, I caused him and Nathaniel much distress. Let my unfortunate words, spoken in anger, stand as an example of the evil man and his self-righteousness.
Where will I be on that fearsome day? Without the Lord’s mercy, I will be left in lowliness and darkness.
James
Topics: Blog etiquette, Friendship, Prayer |
September 18th, 2008 at 5:47 am
All is forgiven my brother. Commune this week knowing that no enmity exists between us.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Well, I guess I’ll just have to forgive you too! It’s probably the Christian thing to do or something…
September 18th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Glory be to God for all things !
September 18th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
[taking Aaron and Nathaniel's hands] Let’s all sing Kum Ba Ya!
Just kidding. Balls to the wall, it makes more sense to own it now than own it later. I’ve been listening to James talk in some venue or another about eternal judgment being a form of salvation too, or so some of the fathers say. So I think about being locked into the way I am now, the constellation of petty little failures I excuse, keeping me company forever, leaving me who I am, and I think… crap, I have to fix this while I have a chance, or I’m liable to be stuck like with these habits irretrievably, and carry this life forward into eternity, like the fallen angels.
Sure, there may be a chance to repent after death takes my body (”He who began a good work in you will continue to perfect it until the Day of Christ Jesus” - that is, until final Judgment), but we’re not Premillenarian Evangelicals, who get a “tribulation” period of years and years where they know exactly what’s happening beforehand and get a chance to get our sh*t in order (their version of a final countdown - a warning shot over the bow). We may go off to Judgment suddenly (like a thief in the night, like a bridegroom before dawn), and I for one don’t want to be …. this thing.
“There’s something on the wing…. some… thing…. on the wing.”
Not forever anyway. So time to go after the gremlins of our passions, eh?
September 21st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
James and Readers,
My response to the initial dilaogue challenges are now posted here:
http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2008/09/response-to-jam.html
Jay Dyer
September 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
So the ‘response’ regards soteriology … right ?
The RC’s teach ?
[...] For children before the age of reason, the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation.
sad, sad … oh the ‘Enlightenment’ …
September 21st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Eastern Rite Catholics practice paedocommunion. Even EO dont think its absolutely necessary for the infant’s salvation. In fact–all men are saved!
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
All men are saved to eternal life, but not all men will enjoy it!
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
“People condemned God to death; with His Resurrection He condemned them to immortality. For striking Him, God returned embraces; for insults, blessings; for death, immortality. Never did men show more hate towards God than when they crucified Him; and God never showed His love towards people more than when He was resurrected. Mankind wanted to make God dead, but God, with His Resurrection, made people alive, the crucified God resurrected on the third day and thereby killed death ! There is no more death. Immortality is surrounding man and his entire world.“With the Resurrection of the God-Man, the nature of man is irreversibly led toward the road of immortality and man’s nature becomes destructive to death itself. For until the Resurrection of Christ, death was destructive for man; from the Resurrection of Christ, man’s nature becomes destructive in death. If man lives in the faith of the Resurrected God Man, he lives above death, he is unreachable for her; death is under man’s feet. Death where is thy sting? Hell, where is thy victory? And when a man who believes in Christ dies, he only leaves his body as his clothes, in which he will be dressed again on the Day of Last Judgment.”Before the Resurrection of the God-Man, death was the second nature of man; life was first and death was second. Man became accustomed to death as something natural. But after His Resurrection the Lord changed everything: and it was only natural until Christ’s Resurrection, that the people became mortal, so after Christ’s Resurrection it was natural that the people became immortal.”Through sin, man becomes mortal and temporal; with the Resurrection of the God-Man, he becomes immortal and eternal. In this lies the strength, in this lies the power, in this lies the might of Christ’s Resurrection. Without the Resurrection there is no Christianity. Among the miracles, this is the greatest one; all other miracles begin and end with it. From it sprouted the faith and the love and the hope and the prayer and the love toward God.”
-Archimandrite Dr. Justin Popovic
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:22 am
But where is this in the Fathers or Scripture, which is the central point of debate. I have provided ample citations in my response at nicenetruth that speak to the contrary.
Jay
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 am
Jay,
I don’t think that anyone is saying that those who reject God will not suffer in the life to come. It is my understanding though that “punishment” is an anthropomorphic term. Similarly we cannot fully describe God’s love and mercy. It seems that the best we can do is offer paradox and say that His love is a terrible thing to experience, and not many can handle it.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Jay> When I first read Andrea Elizabeth’s comment, I thought she’d misunderstood you. But now, having perused the response to James on your blog I’m inclined to think she hasn’t. To my knowledge, neither James nor Fr Romanides believes in ‘apokatastasis’. I think you’ve misunderstood them. Have you read Met. Hierotheos’s ‘Life After Death’? He is a pretty faithful student of Fr Romanides (although he doesn’t often mention him by name), and he makes it quite clear that Orthodox do in fact believe in what several of the Fathers you quote refer to as ‘everlasting fire’. In fact, Metropolitan Hierotheos goes so far as to argue that St Gregory of Nyssa has been misunderstood and did not literally (or at least consistently) teach apokatastasis either (I’ve never heard that St Maximos taught this). So while he’s been criticised for this defense of St Gregory, he certainly cannot be accused of teaching against ‘everlasting fire’. I think the confusion stems from the fact that Orthodox and Catholics traditionally have a different understanding of the nature of this fire. Orthodox believe the fire to be the uncreated energies of God, which burns some because they are unrepentant sinners and saves others because they have repented and turned to Him. As I understand it, Catholics and conservative Protestants too believe the fire to be some sort of created force, fashioned by God in order to punish the damned. Hence Dante’s ‘Justice moved my high Maker, in power divine, / . . . No things were / Before me not eternal; eternal I remain.’ So what I’m saying is, we Orthodox find it potentially misleading to refer to the fires of hell as having been ‘made’ by God. But we follow entirely the Scriptural and patristic teaching that sinners will suffer everlasting torment.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Dear Jay,
God is love, but a love which “seeketh not its own.” This notion of a love delivered from all necessity is in a sense incomprehensible to man, since it would have to be lived to be believed. However, all of Orthodox theology is there to guide seekers into a transfiguration into the Light which is God’s glory or love. Andrea is right, I believe, to say that hell is to be understood antinomically, as I am suggesting “love of God” is to be understood.
I am too busy readying a book for publication to read and respond to your post on nicene truth. I’m sure you’ve got some valid concerns about the Orthodox conception of salvation and damnation. I’ve already stated my understanding of the Orthodox position, and I have also outlined the theological presuppositions which explain why I belive in this manner. Just quoting Scripture or Fathers who seem to indicate that sinners will burn in hell (maybe you do more, I don’t know) does not provide me or anyone else with a set of presuppositions which would convince anyone to accept your overall theological mindset. Why should we apostatize and accept Papal claims or the filioque, much less a God who has a postiive intent to work evil? Quotations are only as good as the presuppositions which provide a context for meaning. I’ve stated what the Orthodox epistemolgy and presuppositions are, and there is little else I can do but co-labor with God in prayer and fasting.
Glory be to the One God in Trinity,
The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit!
James
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Dear Jay, ………. (Who is Patron Saint?)
Saint Isaac the Syrian:
I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. Nay. what is so bitter and vehement as the torment of love? I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment. For the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against love is more poignant than any torment. It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God. Love is the offspring of know¬ledge of the truth which, as is commonly confessed, is given to all. The power of love works in two ways: it torments sinners, even as happens here when a friend suffers from a friend; but it becomes a source of joy for those who have observed its duties. Thus I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. But love inebriates the souls of the sons of Heaven by its delectability.
Someone was asked, ‘When will a man know that he has received the remission of his sins?’ He answered, ‘When in his soul he becomes conscious that he has completely hated them with his whole heart, and when he governs himself in his external actions in a man· ner opposed to his former way of life. Such a man, as having already hated his sin, is can· fident that he has received remission of his sins by reason of the good witness of his con¬science which he has acquired, after the saying of the Apostle, “A conscience uncon¬demned is a witness of itself.”’ And may we also gain remission of our sins by the grace and love for man of the unoriginate Father with His only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit, to Whom be glory unto the ages of ages. Amen. [HOMILY 28]
Saint Peter the Damascene writes:
“We all receive God’s blessings equally. But some of us, receiving God’s fire, that is, His word, become soft like beeswax, while the others like clay become hard as stone. And if we do not want Him, He does not force any of us, but like the sun He sends His rays and illuminates the whole world, and he who wants to see Him, sees Him, whereas the one who does not want to see Him, is not forced by Him. And no one is responsible for this privation of light except the one who does not want to have it.
Dr. Alexander Kalomiros:
God is good, loving, and kind toward those who disregard, disobey, and ignore Him.8 He never returns evil for evil, He never takes vengeance. His punishments are loving means of correction, as long as anything can be corrected and healed in this life.
They never extend to eternity. He created everything good.The wild beasts recognize as their master the Christian who through humility has gained the likeness of God. They draw near to him, not with fear, but with joy, in grateful and loving submission; they wag their heads and lick his hands and serve him with gratitude. The irrational beasts know that their Master and God is not evil and wicked and vengeful, but rather full of love. (See also St. Isaac of Syria, Ozomena Asketika [Athens, 1871], pp. 95-96.) He protected and saved us when we fell. The eternally evil has nothing to do with God. It comes rather from the will of His free, logical creatures, and this will He respects. ["The devil is evil in such wise that he is evil in disposition, but not that his nature is opposed to good." St. Basil the Great, EPE, 7, 112. "Since God is good, whatever he does, He does for man’s sake. But whatever man does, he does for his own sake, both what is good and what is evil."Philokalia, vol. 1, chapter 121, St. Anthony the Great.]
St. Isaac the Syrian:
“‘For God so loved the world as to give His Only-begotten Son unto death for it.’ Not that He could not have redeemed us by another means, but He wished to manifest to us His boundless love, and to draw us near Him through the death of His Only-begotten Son. Indeed, if He had anything more precious than His Son, He would have given it for our sakes, in order that through it our race would be found nigh to Him. Out of His abundant love, He was not pleased to do violence to our freedom, although it was possible for Him to do so; but He let it be in order that we would draw nigh to Him with the love and volition of our own will.”
Jay, have you read: The River of Fire ?
http://philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html
With the love of Christ,
Diakrisis Logismon
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Kalomiros continues:
The Light of Truth, God’s Energy, God’s grace which will fall on men unhindered by corrupt conditions in the Day of Judgment, will be the same to all men. There will be no distinction whatever. All the difference lies in those who receive, not in Him Who gives. The sun shines on healthy and diseased eyes alike, without any distinction. Healthy eyes enjoy light and because of it see clearly the beauty which surrounds them. Diseased eyes feel pain, they hurt, suffer, and want to hide from this same light which brings such great happiness to those who have healthy eyes.
But alas, there is no longer any possibility of escaping God’s light. During this life there was. In the New Creation of the Resurrection, God will be everywhere and in everything. His light and love will embrace all. There will be no place hidden from God, as was the case during our corrupt life in the kingdom of the prince of this world.4l The devil’s kingdom will be despoiled by the Common Resurrection and God will take possession again of His creation.["For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil." I John 3:8.] Love will enrobe everything with its sacred Fire which will flow like a river from the throne of God and will irrigate paradise. But this same river of Love—for those who have hate in their hearts—will suffocate and burn.
“For our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). The very fire which purifies gold, also consumes wood. Precious metals shine in it like the sun, rubbish burns with black smoke. All are in the same fire of Love. Some shine and others become black and dark. In the same furnace steel shines like the sun, whereas clay turns dark and is hardened like stone.
The difference is in man, not in God. The difference is conditioned by the free choice of man, which God respects absolutely. God’s judgment is the revelation of the reality which is in man.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Andrea,
You said:
[...] Similarly we cannot fully describe God’s love and mercy. It seems that the best we can do is offer paradox and say that His love is a terrible thing to experience, and not many can handle it. [...]
For what reason (fundamentally) would one be UNable to “handle it” - God’s Love ? What “tools”, given by God, have been usurped via modernism, that are the very fabric by which we are saved ?
Are the Fasts, Canons, Dogma, etc … everything necessary for salvation? [Rhetorically] Is the Revelation of God “progressive” ? What then happens when we are “duped” by the enemy of our souls to “water” this down … I [may] think that Jay wants to know what Orthodox Christians TRULY believe and teach, traditionally.
Let us be very careful !
Diakrisis Logismon
_
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Diakrisis,
That was my way of saying that some will suffer torment in the Light, as you all have explained better.
But since you bring up asceticism, it does seem that the Orthodox way is more rigorous than other Christian faiths. I agree that this and the Canons and Doctrines should not be watered down. However new converts especially need direction from their Priest on the right approach, because some acclimation, as with the Presence of God, is usually necessary.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
What do YOU (personally) mean by, “acclimation, as with the Presence of God” ?
How many “Christian faiths” are there ?
September 24th, 2008 at 9:38 am
DL,
You are a stickler!
I assume that His brightness needs a little accustoming to, do you? But in my experience, the adjustment is on His part. He knows how much of my sins I can bear to see at a time, or I would fall into despair. And my senses of His presence are pretty subtle, if He showed me as much as He showed Moses I think it would scare me. I want what He has given me to continue as it is, but I’m not sure I can handle more right now. Maybe I’m aiming too low.
As for other “Christian Faiths”, I mean the ones that call themselves Christian, and have something of a Trinitarian theology, but that word can be controversial. I believe that the Orthodox Faith is the Faith of the Fathers, and seems to be unique regarding teaching in Salvation/Theosis. I also understand that Mr. Dyer and the Catholics do not believe that Purification/Illumination/and Theosis are the only ways toward union with God. I haven’t really studied their ideas regarding the Beatific Vision. The problem is when we who believe it is, but still have sin in our lives, come down on those who don’t. St. Seraphim said “acquire the Spirit of peace, and those around you will be saved.” He withdrew for years into solitude before he began ministering to others in “miraculous” ways. Is becoming a miracle-working Saint (miracles can be different in different people. Maybe “inspired” would be better?) before we can start to share our Faith? I think of the Ethiopian Eunuch who was trying to understand the Scriptures. Who opened his eyes? A time and space traveling Phillip. Who opened St. Paul’s eyes? A vision seeing Apostle Ananias. Some of the monks of Mt. Athos, mature in their prayer, can recognize strangers and tell them their lives. This is what we must become, and people will be saved around us. And the way to get to this is by becoming one with the undiluted, precise Orthodox Faith and Praxis.
Btw, Acts 9 indicates that St. Paul began his ministry right after his conversion, but Galatians 2 says he waited 14 years. These are different times though. Archamandrite Zacharias said in a conference I went to earlier this year that deserts are very scarce now, and that the world is in such a state that just coming to Liturgy becomes a miracle-working feat. So maybe the likes of me qualify.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:03 am
To quote St. Hilary of Poitiers, “heresy lies not in the word, but the meaning given to the word. As James said above: “Quotations are only as good as the presuppositions which provide a context for meaning.” … this also applies to Orthodox Faith and Praxis.
Hence we [...] adhere quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (”to that which is believed everywhere, always, and by all”), or, to phrase it another way, as the Saint does, to that which possesses universitas, antiquitas, et consensio (”universality, antiquity, and consent”). Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky writes that Saint Vincent’s rule is “at once the criterion and the norm. The crucial emphasis was here on the permanence of Christian teaching. St. Vincent was actually appealing to the double ecumenicity’ of the Christian faith—in space/time.”
First, we ask ourselves, is this belief held throughout the Church, universally? That all religious bodies have only portions of the truth and therefore need to be merged together to achieve the fullness of truth is not a belief held universally within the Church, and only in a few places have such notions been expressed by Church members, and even then usually only by implication.
Second, did our Fathers in the Faith, the Orthodox of past ages, hold such a belief? Quite the contrary is the case; the idea that the Orthodox Church is not the single repository of the fullness of truth was explicitly condemned by the Church’s ancient authorities, the Holy Fathers and the Holy cumenical Synods. (Let us remember in this context, however, that antiquity by itself is not a safe measure of truth, since some heresies are also ancient and have their own ancient authorities.)
Third, does this new belief enjoy the unanimous (or nearly unanimous) approval of all Church authorities? Definitely not! Considerable numbers of Church authorities and the Church Faithful have objected to the ecumenist dogma (even among those who participate formally but with reservations in the ecumenical movement itself), and, despite misleading impressions to the contrary, only a tiny handful of clerics has given categorical approval to this novel teaching.
So we see that if we follow Saint Vincent’s rule, we remain on theologically solid ground.
Orthodox Christians living in the world are bombarded perpetually by the spokesmen of religions who stand in opposition to Orthodoxy, through newspapers, printed tracts, books, radio programs, television programs, and websites. These trumpet forth the religious beliefs of hosts of sectarian preachers. Most generally, sectarians are highly adept in the use of the mass communications media, and they are nearly always lavishly funded in their endeavors. More often than not, the sects offer what appear to be far easier ways of life than does Orthodoxy. Orthodox believers must take great pains to protect themselves and those in their charge from the contaminating influence of non-Orthodox religions and their spokesmen. We do not judge such men and women or their followers as individuals; we can say only that insofar as they differ from the Orthodox Church, they are in error.
Our Blessed Forebears in the Faith were decidedly straightforward in their defense of truth. They held absolutely correctly that forthrightness in these matters is necessary, since religious truth involves the life or the death of the soul, involves one’s state for all eternity. Thus, Saint Vincent tells us that it is incumbent on all Orthodox believers “who are anxious to approve themselves genuine sons of Mother Church, to adhere henceforward to the holy faith of the holy Fathers, to be wedded to it, to die in it; but as to the profane novelties of profane mento detest them, abhor them, oppose them, give them no quarter.”3
Let us resolve to embrace our saving Orthodox Faith unconditionally, to strengthen it by prayer and by study, and forevermore to reject and oppose all theological innovation. Let us embrace the Faith that is believed and upheld “everywhere, always, and by all.”- Fr. James Thornton
evlogeite!
Diakrisis
September 24th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
What book are you getting ready for publication?
James Kelley Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I am … readying a book for publication
James …
September 25th, 2008 at 9:15 am
To all,
Yes, I have read Dr. Kalomiros. He is one of the reasons I did not become Orthodox. I know that Fr. Romanides does not seem to espouse the apokatastasis (at least not from ‘The Ancestral Sin’), but Kelley and Co. do. If you read through my response to James, you’ll note that I bring up Fr. Rose’s blasting of Kalomiros.
May I suggest one of your own in response to him:
http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2008/03/the-river-of-fi.html
Jay
September 25th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Jay,
You say, “seem” to espouse apokatastasis … what specifically was said that leads to “Kelley & Co.” do (seem to) espouse apokatastasis ? I have not seen this said specifically, since I have not been a part of the dialogue long enough … thanks
I appreciate Kalomiros for many things he said, and what he what says is a ’start’ for those searching, however, I am not an cookie cutter follower of him … and Fr. Serafim of Platina did oppose many things Kalomiros said, regarding Creation …
Aside - check out:
Even After Death the Soul . . . https://diakrisislogismon.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/even-after-death-the-soul/
September 25th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I think the possible espouser’s of a restoration of all things (apokatastasis), should read: On the Remembrance of Death
by St. Ignaty (Brianchaninov) / http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/stignaty_death.aspx?print=ok
_
September 26th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
God bless you all,
Diakrisis,
Thank you for your interest and your contributions to our discussions. You are a what the wise Hellene Demosthenes looked for day and night, lamp in hand: a true man.
My book is the first volume in a projected multi-volume series on the theology of Fr. John Romanides, of blessed memory. The title is:
A REALISM OF GLORY: A CHRISTOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE WORKS OF PROTOPRESBYTER JOHN ROMANIDES, VOLUME ONE (1955-1960).
Please do not expect this book to come out soon, for I am still editing the manuscript and I am seeking a publisher. In the event that a publisher for my series is not found in a reasonable time-frame, I will proudly publish it under my newly-created Romanity Press. More will be said later about other publications from me and other like-minded theologians which are definitely coming out under Romanity Press, which is the name of my own humble publishing venture.
As for Jay’s recent comments about my supposed “apocatastasis,” I respectfully ask this question: Jay, have you really tried to understand why I have followed Fr. John, Dr. Kalomiros, St. Maximos, and others in saying that God loves and saves all men? St. Silouan, Elder Sophrony, Arch. Zacharias, and all of their many followers agree with me that God’s love is experienced by all as fire at first, and only after purification as Light. Man can refuse to love, and thereby experience an eternal “self-castigation of the witless elements within him” as St. Maximos says. See, both the fire and the light are the same uncreated glory of the Lord, in this life and the next. However, perhaps I have been remiss in speaking of secret things so openly, Jay. These truths are part of our secret (mystike) life of Orthodox asceticism, which many read about but which few practice. I am the most hapless of all in this area, but nonetheless I stand here tonight and the prayers will be said by these unworthy lips. Jay, I truly wish, in all humility, to learn why you believe the things that you believe, and I will love you no matter what happens.
Pray for me, all of you. I feel close to every one of you tonight, but I do not feel worthy of any of you. Jay, let us not please ourselves, but let us starve the demons, giving them NOTHING to hold onto within us. We will not understand each other until we both become crucified, then we will recognize what reality is and what fantasy is.
What did I ever do to deserve this burning certainty within which spills itself out in fiery hot tears? Let us not speak of it, for fear of dissipating and misusing what has been bestowed.
Lord, irradiate Thy mercy and Thy glory upon the whole world, indeed upon all of those which You have enlightened, and sustain us all, from glory to glory,
Save us all, for the love in my heart cannot bear anything less!
James
September 26th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
AMEN!
“let us starve the demons” … / demons, though bodiless, are possessed by lust, according to Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov) / https://diakrisislogismon.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/demons-feed-upon-carnal-vapors/
September 28th, 2008 at 10:51 am
“However, perhaps I have been remiss in speaking of secret things so openly, Jay. These truths are part of our secret (mystike) life of Orthodox asceticism, which many read about but which few practice.”
Wow. If I wanted to interpret this uncharitably, I would say this is just a new form of Gnosticism.
Christ has risen. The truth must be shouted from the rooftops — there must not be “secret things” known only by the few. I hope this is not what you’re saying.
The days of reticence on dogmatic matters are long over (I mean, for about 1700 years).
September 29th, 2008 at 12:05 am
I am sorry, passenger, I should have explained further. I cannot always assume that my readers are familiar with the works of Fr. John Romanides. I often refer to Fr. John’s writings as if everyone knows them. Actually, not many have taken the time to carefully read them. Here is an excerpt from one of his writings that explains what is meant by secret/mystike:
“Orthodox Fathers of the Church are those who practice the specific Old and New Testament cure of this sickness of religion. Those who do not practice this cure, but on the contrary have introduced such practices as pagan mysticism, are not Fathers within this tradition. Orthodox Theology is not “mystical,” but “secret” (mystike). The reason for this name “Secret” is that the glory of God in the experience of glorification (theosis) has no similarity whatsoever with anything created. On the contrary the Augustinians imagine that they are being united with uncreated original ideas of God of which creatures are supposedly copies and which simply do not exist.”
As we all can see, I do not mean that we do not tell people about Jesus, but rather that it is perhaps unwise to speak about certain aspects of glorification on a blog (such as my needless discussion of hell above). It would be better to proclaim “Repent, the Kindgom is at hand,” in other words, “let us start to purify ourselves,” than to talk about what it must be like to be glorified or to be in hell. How dare we speak so confidently about what will happen to those in hell, as if we will not be in hell ourselves? The arrogance of such a position, which I have unconsciously held oftimes, is quite apparent.
So, passenger, pray for me, that God may find mercy upon me.
God bless you all, and let us think of the hour of our deaths. All shall see paradise, all but the lowly
James
September 29th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Mr. Kelley, thank you for responding. I’m not sure that you have allayed my concerns. Take this remark:
“As we all can see, I do not mean that we do not tell people about Jesus, but rather that it is perhaps unwise to speak about certain aspects of glorification on a blog (such as my needless discussion of hell above).”
It sounds to me as if what is being claimed is that the glorified have been granted certain insights, not just experiential but doctrinal (such as the nature of hell), about which it is unwise to speak to the unglorified.
I remain unconvinced that this bifurcation of the gospel into what we may readily speak of, and what we may not, is valid.
Please allow me to add a polemical point: You do not claim that you have experienced glorification. I think you have stated that you have not, in fact. Then why is it unwise to speak of these “secret” things to others, in this setting, when it wasn’t necessarily unwise for you to read about them? What is the difference?
“How dare we speak so confidently about what will happen to those in hell, as if we will not be in hell ourselves?”
I think it is best we take our dogma for dogma, and our theologoumenon for theologoumenon, and not claim the latter is the former.
I will pray for you. Please keep me in your prayers as I struggle to become an Orthodox Christian.
September 29th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Dear passenger, beloved of the Lord,
Do not worry yourself too much over what you read on a blog. Indeed, much of it is foolishness. Submit yourself, instead, to the instruction and direction of a wise spiritual father, and obey him with your heart. This is the only way to become an Orthodox Christian, and, as such, it is the only way to understand Holy Orthodoxy.
May God the Father bless you in your search through Jesus Christ our Lord who, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth one God, world without end. Amen.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:53 am
passenger> St Gregory the Theologian writes, ‘Discussion of theology is not for everyone, I tell you, not for everyone–it is no such inexpensive or effortless pursuit. Nor, I would add, is it for every occasion, or every audience; neither are all its aspects open to inquiry. It must be reserved for certain occasions, for certain audiences, and certain limits must be observed. It is not for all people, but only for those who have been tested and have found a sound footing in study, and, more importantly, have undergone, or at the very least are undergoing, purification of body and soul. For one who is not pure to lay hold of pure things is dangerous, just as it is for weak eyes to look at the sun’s brightness’ (Or. 27:3).
He goes on to say, ‘let us at least make this mutual concession, to utter spiritual truths with the restraint due to them, to discuss holy things in a holy manner, and not to broadcast to profane hearing what is not to be divulged’ (Or. 27:5).
St Dionysios the Areopagite, at the beginning of his treatise ‘On the Divine Names’, says, ‘This is the kind of divine enlightenment into which we have been initiated by the hidden tradition of our inspired teachers, a tradition at one with scripture’ (DN 4).
It sounds like you are leaving no room for such a ‘hidden tradition’, or for St Gregory’s admonition not to divulge theological truths to ‘profane hearing’.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:02 am
passenger> A brief follow-up: it’s true that James has probably not experienced glorification yet!
But he has been baptised and chrismated, dying and rising with Christ and receiving the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. He is also actively struggling to continue living a sacramental and ascetical life, that is, he is gradually undergoing what St Gregory calls ‘purification of body and soul’. (He also has the blessing of our spiritual father to engage in theological studies.) I don’t think he means to be haughty, but I think James is referring to the fact that his interlocutor, Jay Dyer, has not even embarked on this path yet, since he has chosen to remain outside of the Church. I think he is quite right to be reticent, and there is nothing ‘Gnostic’ (at least not in the heretical sense) about this.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Mr. Price, thank you for the good advice. I don’t believe I will be able to “figure out” Orthodoxy by getting involved in these online debates. Such a journey is a matter of the heart, not just the head — an encounter, not just a syllogism. My concern here is more historical than theological.
Mr. Taylor, I wrote a long reply but don’t think I will post it. I have already said what I meant to say, and my concern has not really been alleviated by what I’ve read. I’ll just add that I think your quote from St. Gregory is taken completely out of context, and does not establish your point; and that I do not know the context of the quote from Pseudo-Dionysius, but I don’t consider it an adequate proof-text if it means what you assert it means.
I think all secret gnosis is heretical.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
passenger> The ‘context’ has little bearing on the passages I’ve quoted. Both passages assert that there are certain things that should not be shared with just anyone, and I think they make that point quite clearly. Furthermore, if the passage from SAINT Dionysios (who is not a ‘false’ teacher, whoever he may be) means what I assert it means, how can it not be ‘adequate’? Unless that is, you reject the witness of the Holy Fathers. But I assumed you were Orthodox and would accept them.
My point is that you, personally, may think that ‘all secret gnosis is heretical’, but as far as I can tell the Fathers teach otherwise. They judge such gnosis by its content and not by the volume with which it is broadcast to the masses. I think you are simply unaccustomed to seeing the words ’secret’ and ‘gnosis’ used in an Orthodox way.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Fr. Romanides on:
[...] Heaven and Hell
Everyone will see the glory of God in Christ and reach that degree of perfection one has both chosen and worked for. Following Saint Paul and the gospel of John the Fathers support that those who do not see the resurrected Christ in glory in this life, either in a mirror dimly by unceasing prayers and psalms in the heart, or face to face in glorification, will see his glory as eternal and consuming fire and outer darkness in the next life. The uncreated glory that Christ has by nature from the Father is heaven for those whose selfish love has been cured and transformed into selfless love and hell for those who choose to remain uncured in their selfishness.
Not only are the Bible and the Fathers clear on this, but so are the Orthodox Icons of the last judgment. The same golden light of glory within which Christ and his friends are enveloped becomes red as it flows down to envelope the damned. This is the glory and love of Christ which purifies the sins of all but does not glorify all. All humans will be led by the Holy Spirit into all the Truth which is to see Christ in glory, but not all will be glorified. “Those whom he justified those he also glorified,” according to St. Paul (Rom. 8:30). The parable of Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham and of the rich man in the place of torment is clear. The rich man sees but he does not participate (Luke 16:19-31).
The Church does not send anyone to heaven or hell, but prepares the faithful for the vision of Christ in glory which everyone will have. God loves the damned as much as he loves his saints. He wants the cure of all but not all accept his cure. This means that the forgiveness of sins is not enough preparation for seeing Christ in glory.
It goes without saying that the Anselmian tradition whereby the saved are those to whom Christ supposedly reconciled God is not an option within the Orthodox Tradition. Commenting on 2 Cor. 5:19, for example, St. John Chrysostom says that one must “be reconciled to God. Paul did not say, “Reconcile God to yourselves, for it is not He who hates, but we. For God never hates.”
It is within the above context that the State understood the Church’s mission of cure within society. Otherwise religions promising happiness after death are not much different from each other.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Dear passenger,
Above, you wrote:
“It sounds to me as if what is being claimed is that the glorified have been granted certain insights, not just experiential but doctrinal (such as the nature of hell), about which it is unwise to speak to the unglorified.”
passenger, in all humility, allow me to explain some of what the Orthodox teach on the subject of glorification:
The glorified have been granted direct suprarational union with God because they have “take[n] heaven by force,” that is, they have polished their nous’s so that they can reflect the divine resplendence, the glory of the Lord. They are heroic co-laborers with Almighty God. Indeed they have become adopted Sons of the Father. Let us be as bold as St. Athanasius and call the saints TRUE BROTHERS OF CHRIST, THE LORD OF GLORY. Their experience cannot be circumscribed by words or contained in concepts, but their experience of God does inspire them to speak and to write words which teach “hearers” (those who are on their way to illumination and glorification) the methods of therapy which, in the context of the Holy Sacraments and the whole life of the Church, lead one to the same experience of glorification. For us, “hearers” rather than “doers”, it is best to focus on praxis, on ascetic practice, and not speak too much about theoria. Theoria is vision of God’s uncreated glory, and indeed is a transformation of man into this divine Light. One becomes a fit Temple of the Holy Spirit by constantly returning one’s thought’s to God, eventually acheiving unceasing memory of God. In this state of illumination, God may grant (if and when He wills it) to bestow a direct vision of His glory, during which man sees all of creation bathed in God’s uncreated glory. Also, the glorified one’s senses are transformed because his nous is communing directly with God and God alone, so that the glorified one becomes the Light that he sees which is God. It is a foretaste of the glory which the worthy will experience in the afterlife. Indeed, there are subjects that we should be careful about bandying around, such as “glorification,” since it is difficult for us to be humble when we speak of God’s glory from our lowly standpoint. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I know that for me, to be in contact with God’s glory right now would be all fire and no light, since I am dust and ashes.
passenger, if you remember nothing I’ve said, remember this: Orthodoxy exists for one reason only, to heal the “inner man” and prepare men to experience glorification. Outside of man’s cure, outisde of Orthdoxy, so-called “Christianity” becomes a mere religion, spreading noetic sickness and further ensnaring men in demonic nets.
Let us be zealous to follow the conscience, which constantly convicts us. Let us all pray tonight, giving up whatever vain distractions we had planned. Let us unburden ourselves before the Lord. God grant us your strength!
As we all can see, passenger, there is no opposition between experience and doctrine. The former leads “doers” to proclaim the latter. Doctrine is not a mere set of rules that God made up. Doctrine is “Orthodoxy.” Orthodoxy is “right glory” meaning that it is the correct method of curing man’s ailing nous and it leads to glorification of man and the cosmos, “from the nous outward.” Of course, this method is not mechanical, nor can it be recognized outside of spiritual fatherhood and life in the Sacraments.
None of this is my opinion, none is a theologoumenon, though I do not want to be arrogant, but rather to be humble as God was when he was humiliated at the hand of man made in His image!
Forgive me for speaking about things that are above my lowly station,
In Christ,
James
October 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I have been doing some thinking and have decided that I too quickly and rudely ended the conversation from a few weeks ago. Since it appears that this blog is not too active right now, I hope I am correct that I won’t be interrupting anything.
Aaron Taylor wrote:
“passenger> The ‘context’ has little bearing on the passages I’ve quoted.”
Sure it does. St. Gregory said those words in front of a large group of Christians as a preface to a series of orations on the Trinity. He is warning against taking theological discourse too lightly, and of speaking about certain profound matters to just anyone. I think the point is largely rhetorical, and I mean that in a good way. So the context is the Eunomian controversy (i.e., the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit), and what he is offering is a sort of defense about what he is about to expound and a warning that we not be cavalier about such matters. There is neither textual nor contextual evidence that St. Gregory was referring to hidden gnosis apart from the faith once delivered. That is something you choose to infer, but I believe my interpretation fully explains the meaning of that passage without the need for extra interpretation.
“Both passages assert that there are certain things that should not be shared with just anyone, and I think they make that point quite clearly.”
But that’s a far, far cry from saying that they establish that there is a hidden gnosis apart from the general content of revelation.
“Furthermore, if the passage from SAINT Dionysios (who is not a ‘false’ teacher, whoever he may be)”
I was not, of course, saying he was a false teacher. I was referring to him in the standard manner which distinguishes him as the 5th-6th century writer quite familiar with Proclus, who wrote Mystical Theology, et al - as opposed to the judge from Areopagus whom St. Paul converted, and who was traditionally but wrongly credited with writing Mystical Theology, et al. I don’t suppose you think they are the same individual…?
“ means what I assert it means, how can it not be ‘adequate’? Unless that is, you reject the witness of the Holy Fathers.”
But I have yet to see any documentary evidence for the gnosis which is being asserted to exist by the people on this blog.
“But I assumed you were Orthodox and would accept them.”
Sorry if I misled you. I am not Orthodox. Please be gentle.
“My point is that you, personally, may think that ‘all secret gnosis is heretical’, but as far as I can tell the Fathers teach otherwise.”
Where? Surely you have better evidence than the passage from St. Gregory Nazianzen, or a single sentence from another author.
October 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Mr. Kelley,
I am glad that you are attempting to dialogue me with a spirit of humility. Frankly, it’s better than I, who am severely lacking in even the beginnings of humility. I will think about what you have written.
If you are asserting, in a roundabout way, that Palamism is Orthodox dogma, I don’t mind. I have questions about the dogmatic status of the Palamite councils, but that is neither here nor there.
But note that Palamism and the teachings of the hesychasts were confirmed as dogma by councils. Furthermore, while St. Gregory Palamas may have been defending the experiences of the hesychasts, he did not simply say: saints proclaimed it, that settles it. He argued for it, both in attacking Barlaam on e.g. divine simplicity and by defending his own views. This is how all theological controversies are settled, by a conversation between experience and doctrine (and liturgy, etc.). So it is laudable that you say that “there is no opposition between experience and doctrine,” but it seems to me that unless we buttress claims of experience with evidence from doctrine, liturgy, the writings of the Fathers, and yes, reasoned argument – unless we do these things, claims of hidden gnosis have no more claim to knowledge than the experiences of Sufi mystics, or Hindu gurus, or Buddhist monks, etc., etc., all of whom, we can agree, are in error. Such an emphasis on experience as the arbiter, the touchstone, of dogma threatens to make the (prima facie) fallible experience of individuals the sole criterion. And such a position is hard to distinguish from fideism, though frankly I think that many online Orthodox of this particular theological orientation are in fact fideists, so maybe that isn’t even a criticism from your point of view.
Apart from all this, and especially given the paucity of evidence for this alleged hidden gnosis that has been offered here, I also feel that such claims seem to contradict the teachings of scripture on evangelization. Take, for example, Matt. 28:20.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
passenger,
Where you ever got the idea that I merely proclaim “theological fiats” without reasoned backup is beyond me. All of the Church Fathers (except Saint Augustine) write about the Church as a place of cure and not a place to speculate about the essence of God.
If you want reasoned arguments and quotes from the Church Fathers, read this whole site and read http://www.romanity.org, every word please. As St. Gregory Palamas wrote, we use dialectical reason to show the reasonableness of following the path to the cure of the nous, but we do not use reason to speculate about God (not that you want to do that, passenger!).
Just read the writings of St. Symeon in vol. four of the Philokalia. Then tell us what you think (after you obey what St. Symeon says. Pray also that I, “a worm and dead dog,” may obey him!).
Having said the above, I do see your point, passenger, about verification. We must always realize that our own discernment and reason are needed to even BEGIN TO find a suitable spiritual father! Point well taken. Let us use our reason ascetically, choosing humility, following Him who, being the uncircumscribable God, was humiliated for us. “If we are worthy, we will know.”
Thanks for your time, and write us back after you have prayed for us. I hope we can become friends.
In Christ,
James
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I undoubtedly stated my case about experience much too strongly. I withdraw the straight charge of fideism, though it is still my opinion that the heavy emphasis laid on the experience of monastics tends to push in that direction.
I have tried reading romanity.org before. I hope that Romanides is not essential reading when it comes to understanding Orthodoxy.
On the other hand, I’ve just gotten through the Cappadocians and have started reading some St. Maximus. I want to get to The Triads sometime next year. I am a little reluctant to read the Philokalia, as I feel it is above my station. I really do believe that I do not have the time or ability to master these complex theological controversies, so I hope my knowledge about other things (like history) is sufficient….
“Having said the above, I do see your point, passenger, about verification. We must always realize that our own discernment and reason are needed to even BEGIN TO find a suitable spiritual father! Point well taken. Let us use our reason ascetically, choosing humility, following Him who, being the uncircumscribable God, was humiliated for us. “If we are worthy, we will know.””
I agree with you here. We clearly have different opinions, but we also feel that reason is both extremely important… and not nearly sufficient. All great theologians, East and West, have affirmed this truth.
I will pray for you. Please keep me in your prayers.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I just realized I contradicted myself regarding “sufficiency.” Please interpret charitably.