Subscribe by Email
Man was created with free will. Its power was compromised by the fall. It is further dimished by delusion and the passions. We escape them through true faith, worship and fasting. Our freedom increases as these negative forces decrease.
« The Real Issue in the Kelley/Dyer Debate: Epistemology and Revelation | Main | Praise for Fr. John Savvas Romanides, of blessed memory »
Fr. Michael Azkoul comments on man’s free will
By James Kelley | September 11, 2008
- Fr Michael Azkoul Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm e
Fr. Michael submitted this comment to the “Kelley/Dyer” debate recently. Listen to Fr. Azkoul, who has studied the Fathers in their original languages and has led a life of prayer in imitation of these same Fathers.
St. Irenaeus insists that God gives man the power over his own salvation. The Fathers after him echo this truth. To say that man’s will is controlled by prevenient grace is unbiblical and unpatristic.
Topics: General |
September 12th, 2008 at 7:05 am
What about the incarnation? What about the cross? What about the resurrection? Are *these* not the way we escape a defective will, delusion and passions? Certainly true faith, worship and fasting (among other ascetic disciplines) are important and effective, but these are not the central proclamation of our faith. Perhaps it would be better if you could point a link to these debates so we could see some context.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Nathaniel,
When an Orthodox Christian says “faith” what is indicated is “faith in the power of the Cross,” or “faith in the Way.” “Worship,” means true worship of the Holy Trinity. Fasting is following the example of Christ and those who have seen Christ, from Adam to today.
I don’t understand what your problem is, but if you are not comfortable with Orthodox theology and its patristic presentation, you may not want to post messages here. I have more patience with non-Orthodox who are ignorant than with Orthodox who should know better.
James
September 12th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Dear to Christ Nathaniel,
Perhaps it would be better to tell us the concern rooted within your concern? How does this effect you personally?
God is He Who operates, and man is he who co-operates.
Dr. Alexander Kalomiros said:
“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 12th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
St. Peter of Damascus: God sends the light of knowledge like rays to all, but He also gave us faith like an eye. The one who wants to receive knowledge through faith, keeps it by his works, and so God gives him more willingness, knowledge, and power” (Philokalia, vol. 3, p. 8).
May our Saviour help us all in the days ahead! +
_
September 13th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Thanks for the Alexander K. quote, D.L. As Orthodox, we know that hell is not a layer in some Gnostic “triple-deckered” universe, as is taught sometimes in the West. Nor is hell a place where God tortures people. Our icon of the Last Judgement says it all: The same love/energies of God are at one light/golden to the pure in heart and fiery/red to those who, like Thomas Aquinas, desire to live in eternal “actus purus eudaimonia.”
Having said the above about Aquinas, let me say that everyone will get to heaven before me, a miserable sinner. However, sinner that I am, let me not impute impieties to Our Lord, for He never hates but only loves man. Let us therefore labor to restore the inner man, for “no one in the Spirit can say ‘anathema Jesus’.” This is the meaning of noetic martyrdom. He is a God of love, He is the One light from Three experienced as joy by his saints.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
DL, I have no problem with us co-operating with God. I guess my concern is merely to be more systematic (though not in the protestant sense) than purely polemic. Yelling “you are wrong” across the wall does not provide a path to the truth. Providing a more systematic understanding actually invites people to share in the truth.
James, again, I’m not disagreeing, just wanting more substance. My point is that, for the Fathers the *reason* these things are true is *because* of the kerygma, our proclamation of faith. For instance, the will belonging to our nature is redeemed in Christ’s “thy will be done,” giving himself up for the life of the world. This healing is appropriated to us through baptism and completed in us through the whole of the sacramental life, including prayer, doctrine, fasting, asceticism and especially Holy Communion. However, it is only in Christ’s choosing the cross that any of these things are of any significance. Further, the two most significant aspects of our healing are baptism and communion, both themselves appropriations of the cross (and our liturgy makes this explicit). Is this not the Orthodox understanding of the redemption of our compromised will?
Further, without defining “true faith,” Fr. Azkoul’s statement could be championed by Pelagius (who is a heretic for both Rome and Orthodoxy). I’m not suggesting that he is pelagian (he’s not). However, the “pelagian” issue is both a controversial and poorly understood topic for Protestants and Catholics. The best path forward is therefore not unclear, confrontational statements that could be interpreted as pelagian. This will only result in alienating those in the dialogue. The way forward is clear exposition of our faith, starting with “Christ has suffered and died, according to the scriptures; Christ has risen on the third day, according to the scriptures” which is the beginning of the Gospel. Irenaeus, whom you reference, is invaluable in this process, as are all the luminaries of the Church.
If you would prefer that I not post on this blog further, I will honor your request. However, it is not because I am “not comfortable with Orthodox theology and its patristic presentation.”
Nathaniel
September 16th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
I repeat your words, Nathaniel:
“the *reason* these things are true is *because* of the kerygma, our proclamation of faith”
My response:
No, you could not be more wrong. The reason why we can cooperate with Christ for salvation is not because words were forged into a kerygma, for this is a result of the glorification of the Apostles and saints who lead others to glorification by the liturgical/ascetical use of such words. It is infinitely more “systematic” and infinitely more “substantive” to proclaim that we are able to cooerate with God for our salvation because we are made in the image of the Word, Who is the eternal and perfect Image of the Father. This cooperation or synergy has nothing in common with your “Cross as divine fiat” theology, which could have come out of any Roman Catholic or Protestant mouth.
You sound like this Protestant commentator I was made to read in grad school who proclaimed that the central regulating principle of the Church is the “rule of faith” which he then defined as books and sacraments. What you don’t seem to get is that books and sacraments are there because of glorification, not the other way around. It is obvious to all of us here at Orthodox Patristics that glorification is possible because of Christ’s Incarnation. Thus your insinuation that we do not speak enough about Christ is groundless. To speak of Christ as you do, that is, without reference to our union in glory through purification of the heart, is not to speak about Christ at all, but is merely blowing air. That’s why I talk about deification so often and in such great detail, though you accuse me of lacking “substance.” Have you read the lives of the Saints? I’ll give you a little hint: the lives of the saints are “glorification narratives.” They speak about things that we are concerned with here at Orthodox Patristics. They do not pop off about the Cross or about kerygma without reference to actual lives of ascesis/illumination. We aim to follow the holy ones, not systematic theologians, who, as Archimandrite Sophrony was fond of saying, “can have academic degrees but may not have a single drop of knowledge of God.”
In your post, you are just talking in circles, mentioning every individual “element” of Orthodox life except for illumination/glorification. Read it again, and be honest: Do you really think this soup of slogans constitutes theology? I could read your message and never realize that I had to get off the couch and “take heaven by force.”
You obviously do not understand, or at least are not expressing adequately, the fact that the center of our faith is theosis. You would rather talk about the Cross (in your case, we should say Sola Crusis), or say that the kerygma is the reason for our salvation, all the while never explaining how any of this relates to our healing, than to talk about illuminaiton of the nous. You sound like a Protestant, frankly. I’m just as put-off by your cloudy, non-glorification theology as you are by my theology of glorification. It’s not my bad attitude, it’s my Orthodoxy that is stepping on your toes.
You speak as if we have neglected the Cross or neglected christology on this website. You say we should start with the Gospel message, but you do not go on to explain how we are to follow it. Protestants do this every day, telling us that Christ died for us, and waving a book at us. Similarly, you wave strung-together phrases and cliches at us, giving us no insight into the process of purifying our hearts. I guess your way IS better for dialogue with the non-Orthodox. It certainly gives them something they can understand.
You claim to be more clear and systematic than us. But, I ask you, what kind of Christ and what kind of Cross do you speak of? You see, if you understood the Fathers, you would know that Christ is the Way and that we are destined to be united to Him in glorification, if only we cooperate with Him. Here at Orthodox Patristics, we speak of this union at all times, but you are blind to detect it. Instead, you trace empty circles around the real Orthodox core, which is real union in glory with the Lord of glory. You use any term in the Christian book except those that the neptic Fathers use.
All in all, you’ve taught us nothing, at least nothing you would like to teach us. You are of the same stripe as those who were scandalized at Met. Hierotheos’ talks on theosis. These supposed Orthodox had the gall to suggest that Met. Hierotheos was introducing a new, strange teaching by insisting that Orthodoxy is a path to purification/illumination/glorification of the nous! And here you are, judging our Philokalial message to be lacking in depth. I wonder what you would have said to Met. Hierotheos had you been at one of his pastoral talks.
lord have mercy upon us all,
James
September 17th, 2008 at 12:08 am
James, I know exactly where you’re coming from here–it’s well-summarised in the line about talking about the Cross but not relating it to our healing, and it’s a very real problem in some quarters. I do however believe you’re failing to give Nathaniel the benefit of the doubt here, which incidentally is also what he’s done with you. Perhaps neither of you is saying exactly what the other would like, but this doesn’t mean Nathaniel is 100% wrong (the implication of the opening line of your response). For crying out loud, he says he’s not even disagreeing with you! I understand that his initial comment–due, I think, to terse language–seemed a bit impertinent and accusatory, but he’s since explained it in a much more conciliatory fashion. Back off a bit. I just don’t think it’s always a sign of heresy if someone doesn’t echo Fr Romanides at every turn…
September 17th, 2008 at 1:07 am
To echo Fr. Romanides is to echo the Fathers, so I’ll answer guilty as charged any day to that. However, I am the one who was initially accused of some “imbalance” in my theology, which is just plain false, as you know, Aaron. No one is 100% wrong, but it is not about that with the Nathaniel issue.
I’m sorry, but we cannot fudge on glorification, period. I’m willing to talk it through with anyone, but it’s not about Fr. John Romandes, it’s about Orthodoxy, and you know it. Fr. John Romanides just happens to have restated things in a way that captures the mind of the Fathers in a striking manner, inspiring us all. If I were Archimandrite Zacharias you would not tell him to shut up about Elder Sophrony (if you’ll forgive the comparison, since it is a joke to speak of these men and ourselves in the same breath, and I realize that if I were a more pious man as is Arch. Z., it would be different). You’re just tired of hearing lectures and stories about Fr. John from me, which I thought you would be inspired to hear.
Don’t you think you should give me a little more credit than to say that I equate Orthodoxy with Fr. John? Am I any less gung-ho about Fr. John Romanides than Fr. Alexsios, Met. Hierotheos, Diakrisis Logismon, J.D. Thompson, or brother Damaskinos? If not, how do they fall through the net of your criticisms, but I do not?
I think I will rest from blogging for a good while, since this blog has moved all parties to immoderate words.
God bless you all, and pray for me, the unworthy
James
September 17th, 2008 at 9:43 am
James, please forgive me if my words have offended you. I was merely trying to speak the truth in love. I don’t want you to ’shut up’ about Fr Romanides, but I do want you to recognise that there are other ways of saying the same thing. You told Nathaniel that when Orthodox say ‘faith’ they mean ‘faith in Christ’, and rightly so. Well, some Orthodox also say ‘Cross’ and mean ’saving Passion’ and even ‘ascetic struggle for purification’. They aren’t necessarily expounding a substitutionary atonement theology. All I’m saying is give Nathaniel the benefit of the doubt and allow him to explain himself rather than denouncing him in the most rhetorical prose you can manage!
Even when Fr Romanides is at his most patristic, you must admit that he has a specific terminology and a specific set of concerns that are not explicitly present in all of the Fathers’ writings. You yourself say that he ‘restated things’. I don’t want to ‘fudge on glorification’, and I don’t really think that’s what Nathaniel is trying to do either, but Fr Romanides himself points out that is a teaching given by different Fathers in different ways in different places. St Paul says he preaches ‘nothing but Christ, and Him crucified’, but his is very much a ‘glorification-theology’. I don’t think St Silouan ever refers explicitly to the threefold spiritual path, but this doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have exactly the same theology as the Neptic Fathers. Surely you would admit that one can echo the Fathers without having clearly echoed Fr Romanides? Fr Romanides’s approach in some ways, faithful though he may well be in restating Patristic themes, is not equally inspiring to all, if only because he has not played the same role in everyone’s spiritual/theological development that he has in yours.
Finally, perhaps you’ve forgotten how quick I was to respond in your defense to Nathaniel’s initial post. I agree with you that there are problems with some of what he’s said since then as well, but maybe you also missed that I’ve continued to engage him on some of these issues (though, I hope, without the ‘acerbic tone’ that rankled him). Even the above post that you took so amiss, was not without criticism of Nathaniel. But it is not ‘gung-ho-ness’ about Fr Romanides that I criticise (and this is how the above persons have fallen through my net!), only failure to be a gentleman in dealing with those with whom one disagrees, and particularly when they are brothers in Christ. As mere students of theology, and particularly as Christians who have not ourselves been purified, illumined, and deified, we should be extremely careful not to identify directly our own theological statements with Orthodoxy itself, or to take all criticism of us as a criticism of the Fathers. I personally do not believe you’ve misstepped theologically on this blog, but this doesn’t mean you haven’t misstepped personally.
I have a lot of respect for you, my friend, and I always find you inspiring. But perhaps you are right to rest from blogging. Maybe I should rest from blog-reading and commenting!
forgive me,
aaron
September 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Aaron, I think if you re-read the contents of this site, you will find that I am stridently opposed to “terminological fundamentalism,” at one point even referring to a chapter in my book which is about the subject. I am not disagreeing with Nathaniel because I think we have to say “glorification” or “3 fold path” to be Orthodox. How you got this idea I will never know.
I simply outlined the undisputed truth that Orthodoxy is theosis and I used neptic terms to explain it. When I do this quite clearly and without equivocation, I’m not looking for an Orthodox to jump up and object. Such a respone leads a real Orthodox Christian to rend his clothes and beat their breasts, calling upon the Lord to, in the words of St. John of Damascus, “Let it not be!” Next I get Mr. McCollum insinuating that I have deviated from Holy Tradition. Thus the issue was never terminology, it was always theology. Thus your point about me supposedly thinking that anyone who does not speak like Fr. John is in heresy is inaccurate and just plain shocking. How could you think such a thing about me?
Somewhere in there you shifted your ground to suggest that it is really my “tone” that is the problem, even laying it out there that I have caused people to sin. How can you verify this? Are you speaking about yourself? Even if you are only speaking about your own sins, how can you lay the blame at my door? Do you think Mr. McCollum was sinning? Was I sinning? At the very least, there are ambiguities in this area, and it does nothing but cloud the real issue to jump in and demand that people stop sinning. I’ll break down the real issue here:
1) The theology of theosis is non-negotiable dogma, and my “neptic” exposition of it is lacking in nothing, since it is taken directly from the Philokalia and those who follow it.
2) The theology of theosis as I presented it was attacked by Mr. McCollum, who then seemed to change his mind by saying he really agrees with me, though he never removed the ambiguities from his thinking, actually adding more by going on about the Cross and the kerygma.
Saying you agree with me and in the same breath saying you are dissatisfied with the theology of theosis taken from the Philokalia is contradictory at best and dastardly at worst. The neptic-theosis theology of Orthodoxy can be expressed in many ways, as the Fathers evince. I have always said this, but Mr. McCollum objects to the language used by the Fathers of the Philokalia, which happens to be the same language used by Fr. John Romanides. It is he who has oppuned me, and for him to say he agrees with me without clarifying his adherence to theosis theology is akin to the winks and nods of the Arians at Nicea, though I choose to believe that Mr. McCollum is merely misguided and not intentionally causing distress to us.
So, since the truth is that it is not me, but rather Mr. McCollum who is the “terminological fault-finder”, and since it is presumptuous at the least and spiritually dangerous at the most to call me out as a “sinner and inspirer of passions” because you think I’m a “meany,” and since, finally, Mr. McCollum has presented strange, unclear teachings IN PLACE OF my clear presentation of theosis-glorification theology, I see no reason why I should be the one to “back off.” I asked Mr. McCollum to back off a week ago, when it became clear to me that he did not like our way of speaking about Orthodoxy, but be stuck around anyway.
This goes for everyone: If you don’t like the way I communicate, it’s a big cyberworld out there, so find somewhere else to discuss theology. I have a spiritual father and we’ll work out my “personal missteps” together. This does not mean that I do not love each and every one of you. My fervent prayers prove that I do. However, my entreaties to the Lord cannot cover my black heart, so I remain
the unworthy James
September 17th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
By the way, to speak like Romanides IS to speak like the Fathers, for they both use words that lead men to glorification, they both follow the Philokalial Way. It is fallacious to assume that by saying the above I am implying that to speak in any other terms than Fr. John Romanides is to speak UNlike the Fathers. Every Father speaks different words to implement the proper method of therapy for those he/she is addressing. However, to speak words that do not lead one to glorification is to speak UNlike Fr. John and the Holy Fathers.
The above surely cannot be gainsaid. But I’ve been flabbergasted already twice this week…
James
September 17th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
James, forgive me. I’m an idiot. I do not think any of the things you say I think. You’ve misunderstood me because of my poor words. Please forgive me.
aaron
September 17th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Jerry: You have no idea what an idiot is… Elaine just gave me a chance to get out, and I didn’t take it. THIS is an idiot.
George: Is that right? I just threw away a life time of guilt-free sex and floor seats for every sporting event in Madison Square Garden. So please, a little respect, for I am Costanza, Lord of the Idiots.
[See the Video]
September 18th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Orthopraxy, this is wonderful. I love these lines, and to be reminded of them is heart-warming.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
A little culture sometimes is just the right thing.
September 20th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I think James’ first two sentences (#2) in reply to Nathaniel’s initial question at the top addressed it the best.
When Fr. Michael says “true faith” I assume he means the Orthodox faith, which is summarized in the Creed.
This is my first encounter with this site so I don’t know the previous history and context that Nathaniel and James refer to.
But from what I read above from Nathaniel, his question and concern seem to me to be completely valid and not at all unOrthodox.
The incarnation, Cross, Resurrection… along with the other dogmas in the Creed, are the heart of the kerygma of salvation. I don’t think we can take for granted that they have been fully appropriated by most of the baptized. Nor are they to be regarded as conflicting with the teachings on theosis, glorification, the passions, ascesis, etc.
We need to be taught ALL of it. We do need to hear the core Kerygma preached regularly and renew our minds by contemplating their meaning (along with prayer and fasting).
Is not this what the Church Fathers did? This is basic Christianity. Nothing particularly “Protestant” about the Gospel, as far as I know.
I assume that Fr. Michael (or any Orthodox person) would agree, and that this is implied in his expression “true faith” which he listed first, before worship and fasting perhaps to indicate the priority of the dogmatic teachings. (Heretics worship and the devil fasts, right? But I don’t think they confess the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in communion with the Orthodox Church.)
I doubt I’ll be visiting here much in the future, but felt I should express my support of James’ first two sentences and of Nathaniel’s concern, whom I think got unfairly hammered by James’ later remarks.
Be good, brothers!
Dcn. Markos