| New thread 12-23-95 | Latest update: 12-30-95 |
Wants to know about `spiritual toll houses'
Dear Brother,
Are you familiar with the book The Soul After Death by Fr. Seraphim Rose? It teaches that the Christian soul must pass through spiritual toll-houses and that at any of them it might be convicted of a forgotten sin and condemned - at least that is how I understand it. Can you explain what the "standard" Orthodox teaching on the state of the believing soul after death is? I read somewhere that St. Gregory the Theologian said that the Christian soul went straight to paradise but I'm afraid I've lost the book.
I hope you can help; it's one of the things that puts me off becoming Orthodox (I'm an Anglican) and has caused considerable distress to a friend who converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago.
Yours in Christ, Margaretmmmmm
Theo replies:
I was aware that Fr. Seraphim Rose had written a book on the soul after death, but hadn't gotten around to reading it. It will go to the top of my list. Meanwhile, can anyone else help with this, please?
I have read nothing like this in any of the other (dozens of) Orthodox books I've read. It sounds somewhat similar to the Roman Catholic teaching of a "storehouse of merits," which is related to that church's teaching on purgatory. The only Orthodox comments I've seen on that doctrine, on several Internet email lists, have maintained that Orthodox do not generally believe in either the storehouse of merits or purgatory. Without further information, I may be far off the mark with this guess, however.
A third-party answer: toll houses are real
Hello Theophilus and God Bless!
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your columns. I too am a recent convert to Orthodoxy, though I was not in any church previously. Currently I am a tonsured reader at St. Andrew's Eastern Orthodox Church in Richmond, Virginia.
I am writing in response to the question about Fr. Seraphim's book, and the toll-houses in general. The Orthodox teaching on this is patristic in origin and quite clear: the toll-houses do exist and while the terminology "toll-house" is a description rather than a definition, it is a carefully chosen term and should be given close attention.
A quote from Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov: "For the testing of souls as they pass through the spaces of the air have been established by the dark powers separate judgement places and guards in a remarkable order. In the layers of the under-heaven, from earth to heaven itself, stand guarding legions of fallen spirits. Each division is in charge of a special form of sin and tests the soul in it when the soul reaches this division. The aerial demonic guards and judgement places are called in the Patristic writings the toll-houses, and the spirits who serve in them are called the tax-collectors" (vol. III, p. 136).
A quote from St. Athanasius the Great from his Life of St. Anthony: "at the approach of the ninth hour, after beginning to pray before eating food, was suddenly seized by the Spirit and raised up by Angels into the heights. The aerial demons opposed his progress: the angels, disputing with them, demanded that the reasons of their opposition be set forth, because Anthony had no sins at all. The demons strove to set forth the sins committed from his very birth; but the angels closed the mouths of the slanderers, telling them that they should not count the sins from his birth which had already been blotted out by the Grace of Christ; but let them present— if they have any— the sins he committed after he entered into monasticism and dedicated himself to God. In their accusation the demons uttered many brazen lies; but since the slanderers were wanting in proof, a free path was opened for Anthony. Immediately he came to himself and saw that he was standing in the same place where he had stood up for prayer. Forgetting about food, he spent the whole night in tears and groanings, reflecting on the multitude of man's enemies, on the battle against such an army, on the difficulty of the path to heaven through the air, and on the words of the Apostle, who said: "Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and powers of this air (Eph.6:12; Eph.2:2). The Apostle, knowing that the aerial powers are seeking only one thing, are concerned over it with all fervor, exert themselves and strive to deprive us of a free passage to heaven, exhorts "Take up the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day (Eph. 6:13), that the adversary may be put to shame, having no evil thing to say of us (Titus 2:8)."
A few quotes from the Canon to the Holy Guardian Angel: "When my spirit is forcibly parted from me, may I see thee, my defender and guardian, calm and radiant, standing at the right hand of my passionate soul and driving away the bitter demons who seek to seize me."
Ode 9, Troparion 1mmmmm
"My whole life I have spent in great vanity, and my end draweth nigh. I beseech thee, my guardian: be my merciful champion and defender when I pass through the toll-houses of the evil world-ruler."
Ode 9, Troparion 3mmmmm
One more quote, this one from St. Cyril of Alexandria (444 A.D.): "What fear and trembling await you, O soul, in the day of death! You will see frightful, wild, cruel, unmerciful and shameful demons, like dark Ethiopians, standing before you. The very sight of them is worse than any torment. The soul, seeing them, becomes agitated, is disturbed, troubled, seeks to hide, hastens to the angels of God. The holy angels hold the soul; passing with them through the air and rising, it encounters the toll-houses which guard the path from earth to heaven, detaining the soul and hindering it from ascending further. Each toll-house tests the sins corresponding to it; each sin, each passion has its tax collectors and testers."
Hopefully these quotes (mostly taken from Fr. Seraphim's book) illustrate clearly the patristic teaching on this issue. The toll-houses have nothing to do with the legalistic doctrine of purgatory in the Roman church. Orthodox do not add up sins or virtues and judge here on earth. At the same time, we do believe that our faith, and therefore our works which stem from this faith, do play a role in our salvation. We are not automatically saved at baptism, unless we die immediately thereafter (an enviable condition, and one sought after during ancient times— Constantine was not baptised until he was on his death bed).
God bless, sinful Reader Seraphimmmmmm
THEO COMMENTS: Thank you, Reader Seraphim (incidentally, for non-Orthodox reading this, "reader" is an office similar to "cantor" in the Orthodox church). I'd consulted several friends and gotten basically the same answer you gave, but was reluctant to put it to writing as yet, as it still amounted to "hearsay." So you've rendered a valuable service.
As an apologetic addition to Margaret and others having problems with this, while I don't recommend picking and choosing which Patristic doctrines you will accept and reject (that's the definition of heterodoxy, after all), I do recommend continuing your journey despite the difficulty of this. As I've read and heard, all that's required to be Orthodox is good faith allegiance to the Nicene Creed. But think on this: if the fathers like Athanasius and Cyril were correct on this, your Orthodox training will help you be prepared for it. Imagine if they are right but you ignore them and continue in "ignorance," how much more vexing the after-death experiences will be. Presumably they do not exist only for those who believe in them.
Does the existence of the toll houses imply that you can be turned away from heaven if you fail to pass them? Do your guardian angels get you through sooner or later regardless, but quicker based on your level of holiness? Do you "pay" your way through, as the name suggests. I'm not sure these questions have been answered as yet; can anyone else add more?
More from `reader Seraphim'
Greetings and Blessings.
I am glad that my previous post was of any help at all, and I pray that God will clarify my miscommunications and indulgences. As far as whether or not the doctrine of the toll-houses is necessary to believe, I see nowhere that this is the case. In my limited reading and knowledge, I have not seen the teaching described as Dogma (that which is necessary to believe) in any material whatsoever, and in fact I have seen an Archimandrite on the ListServ criticize Fr. Seraphim for even writing about it.
I personally feel that an understanding of this teaching cannot be achieved before an in-depth examination of the Orthodox cosmology and teaching about the nature of the soul and its condition in and after death. I almost always find myself in the conservative side of a given theological issue, as did Fr. Seraphim, and I am certain that my opinions are not shared by all (and perhaps most) Orthodox.
If I am not overstepping my welcome, I would like to try to answer some of your questions regarding my previous post. I do not have time at the moment to give a lot of quotes, but will look them up if there is interest.
Does the existence of the toll houses imply that you can be turned away from heaven if you fail to pass them?
Yes. However, there are more examples than can be recounted of utter sinners being saved through tears and contrition of heart. That God's mercy can overwhelm and overcome the power of the demons if one has total faith.
Do your guardian angels get you through sooner or later regardless, but quicker based on your level of holiness?
No and yes, respectively. Some Saints shot like rockets past the toll-houses due to their holiness while most of us sinners will be tempted sorely and shown our sins for which we have not repented. Our angels—both the guardian given at baptism and another which joins him (there are, to my knowledge, always two) will dispute their claims on us based on our faith and repentence while we were on earth. There are those who have not repented and trusted in the Lord, and they will be taken into hell. These toll-houses are not just for Orthodox, they are the process by which souls leave our world—all souls.
Do you "pay" your way through, as the name suggests.
From what I have read and heard, the demons will tempt you as you pass their station. Also, your actions and faith from your time on earth are recounted openly. So in a way this is "paying," but in a far less legalistic and contrived manner than the Roman doctrines which eventually led to indulgences and purgatory as doctrines.
For those out there who are investigating Orthodoxy and want to know the dogma of the Church, a wonderful textbook is Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protoprebyter Michael Pomazansky (available from Light and Life publishing, 4818 Park Glen Rd., Minneapolis, MN 55416, phone: 612-925-3888). This book was written by a man who was truly part of the Traditional Orthodox mind, and so it is not corrputed by ecumenism or modernism. It is also very readable and contains no untranslated Greek or Slavonic.
Hope this is helpful, and please let me know when I am posting too often, as I thoroughly enjoy this sort of exchange!
God bless, sinful Reader Seraphimmmmmm
—Thank you, reader Seraphim. I found your answer most helpful; we're here for this kind of exchange so don't worry about posting "too often." —"Theo"
A humorous addition to the spiritual 'tollhouses' discussion
I've worked in 5 toll houses. 3 in Minnesota, and 2 in Iowa. And yes, they are Hell.
Once in a Minnesota toll house, in St. Cloud, I was confronted by two guys in a pickup. They were plenty bearded, and grumpy, but I don't think they were Orthodox. Anyway, they refused to pay their toll, which was only 75 cents or something like that. And they were shouting at me to lift up the gate. I refused. And they threatened violence. Still, I refused to let them out until every penny was paid (veiled biblical reference).
Finally, the bearded guys became so furious, they started throwing things at me-- through the little window. I was just about to slam it shut and call the police, when I realized they didn't have anything in their truck to throw at me...except money. Quarters and nickles and dimes came flying through the window, until I said "Thank you, come again," and made the gate go up.
Grand total: almost 2 dollars.
Moral of the story: go figure.
Cheers, Dave "Toll Booth" Athey, ediot at largemmmmm
Likes ancient church, has problems with icons, communion 'gifts'
Dear Theophilus,
I am an evangelical who is thinking about converting to either Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. There are several stumbling blocks in my way, however, foremost among them being the veneration of icons and in RCism—though I'm not sure about the Orthodox practice—) the worship of the eucharistic elements. These practices would not bother me so much, I think, if I saw some precedence for them in the early church (i.e., the church before about the fifth century). Although I am by no means a patristics scholar, the vast majority of what I've read from the early fathers--e.g., Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Eusebius) indicate that there were no images of any kind in the church, much less veneration of them.
To the contrary, these fathers seemed to have objected to any kind of images in the church. I was wondering if you or one of your readers could provide me with some early references to this practice so that I might be one step closer to the church to which I feel drawn.
Peace, Frank Hermannmmmmm
THEO REPLIES:
The earliest apologetical writing I'm aware of in defense of icons is from the eighth century, by which time physical and material depictions of the cross, fish (the Greek name for which is an anagram for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior"), Jesus, and saints had become very common, but also controversial. The controversy grew so great that a council was called to settle the matter. St. John of Damascus wrote their most eloquent defense, On Holy Images, which is widely available in translation today. Icons were used profusely to depict Christian teaching and memorialize martyrs in the catacombs, and they are common today among all large branches of Christendom, although Protestants seldom label their fish and dove symbols, stained glass windows, "art reproductions" in Bibles, and "religious theme" Christmas cards and live or statuary nativity tableau by that word.
Nevertheless, such Protestant icons are very much in the same tradition and out of the same motivation as the icons of the early church. The seventh ecumenical council placed limits on what can be depicted in icons—the Holy Spirit and God the Father, for example, cannot be. Icons are venerated, shown respect, as representatives of the Lord and His living icons, the saints, whom they depict, but they are never to be worshipped. Orthodox would say Protestants take their icons too glibly, the depictions of anything holy should be recorded the respect due all holy things. Icons of angels and other created beings also were used to adorn the Jewish Tabernacle and Temple, as recorded in the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament). In fact, just after He forbids Moses and the Israelites from creating idols, God prescribes what kind of images are to be created for His Temple.
Churches which believe the real presence of the body and blood of Christ enter the communion elements of bread and wine through the grace-giving work of the Holy Spirit, believe that those elements are holy icons—representations and even embodiments—of Christ, so they venerate them, and reverently bless them. However, they do not worship the elements. I'm speaking as a layman based on my reading only here, of course; but it's my understanding this is true of both Orthodox and Roman Catholic believers. The elements, or gifts, are revered, but not worshipped in either case. Please, anyone with evidence to the contrary, bring it to the forum.
Mr. Herman replies:
Dear Theophilus,
In response to a recent question of mine concerning whether or not Orthodox and Roman Catholics worship the eucharistic elements, you said that, based on your knowledge, neither church does. I cannot speak for the Orthodox church, but it is a practice encouraged in the Roman Catholic church, thus the words of John Hardon, S.J., in The Catholic Catechism:
[I]t was only logical for the church to worship the Blessed Sacrament as it would be the person of Jesus himself. As a result, he is to be adored in the sacrament of the Eucharist with the worship of latria, including the external worship. (P. 463)
========================
I stand corrected.—"Theo." mmmmm
Aren't Roman Catholics, Orthodox basically the same?
Greetings!
I recently found your columns on the WWW and have found them interesting. The trend of Evangelicals considering (and choosing) Orthodoxy is indeed noteworthy (the news media has certainly noticed it).
One thing that puzzles me somewhat is that many of the "converts" (I hesitate to use that word since these people were for the most part already Christian) retain most of their hostility to the RC Church, which for the most part has doctrines that are nearly identical to those of the Orthodox Church. I have read passages that state that the Orthodox Church is more similar to the Protestant Church(es) than the RC Church. I find that hard to accept.
I do understand that Protestants carry a great deal of psychological "baggage" against the RC Church (which may have influenced them into chosing Orthodoxy over Roman Catholicism). I just find it amusing to meet former Protestants that used to poo-poo on Holy Traditions (like the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the authority of the Church to interpret the scriptures, the communion of saints (plus prayers, intercession, etc.) Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, etc, etc.) that are now Orthodox and agree with the Church and yet they still feel that it is necessary to discredit the Western Church. What will these folks do if East and West can fully reconcile and as JP II says "the two lungs of the Church can once again breathe as one"?
Perhaps in your column you could discuss what East and West have in common and what they are doing to bring about full reconciliation. Any "Rumor Mill" information would be indeed interesting (Like what changes is the Orthodox Church demanding of the Papacy? Is it willing to accept the Patriarch of Rome as a "first among equals?" What other roadblocks are the negotiators working on?)
I am looking forward to future columns appearing.
Yours in Christ, Frank Kuruczmmmmm
THEO REPLIES--You seem to be writing from a Roman Catholic perspective, and apparently don't realize that the biggest rub to evangelicals about Roman Catholicism is the RCC's doctrine of papal authority and infallibility. For most of this century, all evangelicals have accepted each other in full communion across the spectrum from the most charismatic Pentecostals to the most high-church Anglicans, who are closer to Orthodoxy than to Rome not only in liturgy but by virtue of having spent a century discussing union.
The Orthodox church does not teach and most of the Orthodox I've seen writing on the subject do not accept the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness and immaculate conception, which is one of the "infallible papal" additions to Tradition, first codified in the late 19th century, that makes that whole system disagreeable to both Protestants and Orthodox. Ironically, however, most evangelicals I know admire Pope John Paul II as a great man and Christian, and seem to me to esteem him even higher than most of our Catholic acquaintances do, as a fellow believer, not as an infallible authority.
My own finding, in making the journey from evangelical to Orthodox, was that once you accept the doctrine of the apostolic episcopacy (which in Orthodoxy is not magisterial, as it is in the RCC), the rightness of doctrines like venerating saints and icons, the Theotokos and the true presence in the eucharist merely take a little reading to straighten out perceptions.
As for the rumor mill, I don't want to be a participant, but Orthodox writers like Bishop Kallistos Ware of England have been emphatic that Orthodoxy has never had a problem with accepting the Pope of Rome (the head bishop in Egypt is also a "pope" by title) as the first among equals in the college of bishops. It is his right to make tradition independent of the other bishops which is a hangup, a seemingly small one, but one that has existed for a millenium now and proably will not be mended - unless the Pope is willing to accept that that is all he is - before the Second Coming.
Others' views on these questions are, of course, welcome, and perhaps we shall do a whole column on it in the near future.
To which Frank replied:
His quotations from above, embedded below, are in italics.
You are correct, as I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome (and hopefully someday with your Bishop as well). I am aware of the "Pope problem" for Protestants. To be fair though there have only been two infallible Papal pronouncements in history, and it is unlikely that there will ever be another (which I think makes it easier to do away with it for Ecumenical purposes). As far as Petrine authority goes, it will always be controversial I am afraid
Also, as for all Protestants being in communion with each other, I am afraid that I must disagree. If a high-church Anglican were to join a Charismatic Pentecostal Church there is little doubt in my mind that the Pentecostal Pastor would insist in rebaptizing the "convert," this implying that he wasn't already a Christian. Since the RCC does not rebaptize Protestant "converts" (what do Orthodox do?) I would argue that the RCC is in closer communion with Protestants than Protestants are with each other.
Also, hasn't the Anglican Church been dialoging with Rome as well? Does that make it more RC than Orthodox? The Cof E broke away from Rome, not from Orthodoxy, but I am not so sure that I would want the bragging rights to "the Anglicans are more like us," given some of the lack of backbone it has been showing (and as you mentioned in one of you columns).
The Orthodox church does not teach and most of the Orthodox I've seen writing on the subject do not accept the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness and immaculate conception, which is one of the "infallible papal" additions to Tradition, first codified in the late 19th century, that makes that whole system disagreeable to both Protestants and Orthodox. Ironically, however, most evangelicals I know admire Pope John Paul II as a great man and Christian, and seem to me to esteem him even higher than most of our Catholic acquaintances do, as a fellow believer, not as an infallible authority.
And the other "infallible" pronouncement was the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Rest assurred that Catholics at the time were uncomfortable with these pronouncements. Again to be fair, if we can accept Theotokos, which did not appear for a few centuries and did so more than anything to explain the true nature of our Lord Jesus, as opposed to Nestorianism and Monophysitism, then the concept of the Immaculate Conception is not so much more far fetched (and the Blessed Virgin did identify herself as the Immaculate Conception at Lourdes to Bernardette. Note: None of the Marian Apparitions are deemed "Infallible" by the RCC). (By the way, what position do the Orthodox take on Marian Apparitions?)
My own finding, in making the journey from evangelical to Orthodox, was that once you accept the >doctrine of the apostolic episcopacy (which in Orthodoxy is not magisterial, as it is in the RCC), the rightness of doctrines like venerating saints and icons, the Theotokos and the true presence in the eucharist merely take a little reading to straighten out perceptions.
I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Perhaps you could describe the difference between Magisterial and Non Magisterial episcopacy. As far as "all it takes is a little reading" goes, it might be agreeable to you and me, but no so much so for Protestants.
As for the rumor mill, I don't want to be a participant, but Orthodox writers like Bishop Kallistos Ware of >England have been emphatic that Orthodoxy has never had a problem with accepting the Pope of Rome (the head bishop in Egypt is also a "pope" by title) as the first among equals in the college of bishops. It is his right to make tradition independent of the other bishops which is a hangup, a seemingly small one, but one that has existed for a millenium now and proably will not be mended --unless the Pope is willing to accept that that is all he is -- before the Second Coming.
This is a good question. What is known publicly is that JPII wants to reconcile with Orthodoxy, very much so. What is not known is what is on the bargaining table (from both sides). A theologian friend of mine told me that reconciliation was almost achieved not too long ago, and was blown by an overzealous prince that kicked out the Orthodox clergy from his domain and brought in RCC clergy to replace them (I believe that this was less than 200 years ago, but my memory on this is very, very fuzzy on this one).
Peace of Christ be with you, Frank Kuruczmmmmm
THEO AGAIN: You make some good points, many of which I won't attempt to answer. I disagree on the point about pentecostals requiring rebaptism of high-church Anglicans (most Protestants, even on converts from Catholicism, have required only a credible profession of faith), but I could be wrong; would like to hear from anyone with first-hand experience.
Most Orthodox do not require rebaptism, but they chrismate (anoint with oil--the sacrament of imparting the Holy Spirit) converts. There is a tendency toward rebaptism especially among Russian Orthodox Churches Outside Russia, however. My understanding as to the meaning of magisterial is that it is a governing episcopacy, as opposed to a serving episcopacy. It may sound like a nondistinction, but I've heard Catholic converts to Orthodoxy say Catholic bishops are chosen more for their business acumen, Orthodox ones for their reputations for spirituality.
The Orthodox generally believe the Virgin Mary has appeared to certain saints, notably Seraphim of Sarov in the past century, though no doctrine is based, so far as I know, on revelations made during such apparitions. Hopes, perhaps, but not doctrines.
As for Anglicans vis the RCC and Orthodoxy, though they broke away from the RCC, it's my understanding that they attempted to recover and use the Celtic liturgy, which had been a preschizm Orthodox liturgy and which is now used in some Orthodox parishes, upon breaking away, thus identifying more closely with Orthodoxy. Princess, now Queen, Elizabeth married an Orthodox prince, but would not have been permitted, legally, to marry a Roman Catholic one. Or did Phillip convert to Anglican before their marriage, or was it considered a transferral of membership between jurisdictions rather than conversion? I'm not sure. But you got me on the bragging rights; I can't have it both ways and should not have tried.
FRANK AGAIN :-):
The issue of rebaptism is a touchy one indeed. My personal observation is that while Denonminational Protestants do not rebaptize (execpt for Baptists) "nondenominational" protestants (charismatics, fundamentalists, etc) will often require it. When I have asked them why they rebaptize it generally falls into one of the following categories: they do not accept baptism of infants as valid, and in some cases they do not accept nonimmersion baptisms.
An interesting observation about RCC Bishops. In some cases it is true. I must say that some of the Bishops are chosen for spiritual reasons. Perhaps the RCC Bishops should take a closer look at their Orthodox brethren (and maybe learn something). Personally, I think that they sould have both roles. As St. Ignatius said, the Bishops are the representatives of Christ, therefore I think that they should both lead and serve (Just as our Lord did).
The Orthodox generally believe the Virgin Mary has appeared to certain saints, notably Seraphim of Sarov in the past century, though no doctrine is based, so far as I know, on revelations made during such apparitions. Hopes, perhaps, but not doctrines.
Agreed. As I mentioned earlier apparitions are not deemed "infallible" and thus should not be used for issues of doctrine. Incidentally the apparitions at Lourdes occurred after the "infallible" pronouncement of the Immaculate Conception, so they were not used "as proof," however, it is most interesting that it did happen that way.
First of all I would like to apologize to any Anglicans or Episcopalians that might have found offense with my comment regarding bragging rights. As JPII said the Anglican Communion has a special place in the heart of the RCC, and thus my remark was out of line.
Insofar as what Prince Phillip did, who knows. I know that he had to recognize the Monarch as the head of the CofE (I don't know if an Orthodox Christian can do so in good conscience?) My guess: He joined the CofE. The CofE is in an intersting situation. On one hand it is decidedly Protestant, and yet it is also very Orthodox/Catholic. The real question is what is it becoming?
Peace, Frank Kuruczmmmmm
Views on Orthodox doctrines of salvation and ecumenism
My brother:
I am not an Orthodox theologian...but I would like to respond to some of the issues that you are expressing over the internet. First, concerning an Orthodox Soteriology, a very sound Orthodox response is that we don't know who God will save, and who he will not save...God saves who He wills...and nobody knows but him. No person can put God in a box. But we Orthodox do believe that the Church is salvation in that she is the mystical body of Christ. The escape clauses are scholastic attempts at explaining a fundemental mystery.
Secondly, concerning the ecumenism. In the history of the Byzantine Church, there have always been other comunions that HAVE CHOSEN to be a separate family, and therefor break that special union, which finds itself realized in the Eucharistic sacrifice. These groups include the Copts, the Syrian Orthodox, Nestorians and a host of others. This is a matter of people's choicing to go in another direction. As Christ says in the Gospel of John many times, "I have come not to judge you;" so, Orthodox Christians are not to judge...how can the servant judge if the Master does not? What we Orthodox say is this...we are all pilgrims walking along a way...we Orthodox have walked a path for 2,000 years, that was initiated by Jews and fulfilled and completed by the Master Jesus Christ. We have been killed and martyred and humbled, but have not changed or diluted our practices. We are a Way comprised of 14 sister churches around the world, held together by a common faith, tradition, the Holy Scriptures and most importantly, experience of the All-Mighty and Transcendent God. If you want to join us, then come. All we know is that this is what Christ told us to do, and that; because of Holy Tradition and the practice of our anscestors we would not change this for anything in the world...So be protestant, Roman Catholic or whatever: you are still the image of God and our brother. But you have chosen a different path...as we have chosen ours...God have mercy on us all.
My name is Hlebka Paglaiccetti: you can contact me through e-mail at Inglis@voicenet.com
THEO REPLIES--I asked for clarification on which column the writer was responding to and received:
Yes, my letter was written in response to one of the articles that you had written...entitled "Theophilus analyzes migration of Protestants to Eastern Orthodoxy." I responded most specifically to the 7th and 8th paragraghs.
Have you seen the Christian Activist on Line Yet?
If you do not know, it is published by Frankie Schaeffer...Search under Orthodoxy,
if not...the articles concerning Orthodox thought and practices are wonderful.
Again, thank you...Hlebka The Christian Activist, a journal or Orthodox Opinion,
is linked indirectly from the Theophilus home page (the one listing the articles,
followed by links to other religious sites). From there you can choose the first
link to the Orthodox Christian Foundation, which then will link to the Christian
Activist. Or, to make it easier, click on: Christian
Activist. Check it out.
Evangelical vs. Orthodox views of salvation
Theophilus
I am involved in several discussions in the Religions/Debate conference on eWorld, trying as best I can, to bring an Orthodox perspective to the ecclectic discussions. One interesting thread has been on "salvation", particularly "saved once, saved always." I am trying to explain the Orthodox view that salvation is a journey, not an event, but I keep getting those same old Bible verses thrown in my face. I hope, with your multifaceted background that you can help me. Are there places in the Bible that support the "process" vs the "event" viewpoint? What are some good Orthodox writings?
That this idea of salvation as an event is very foreign to Orthodox thought is shown by the lack of discussion of the concept in any of the reference material I have immediate access to. Perhaps I am in over my head, but the discussion so far has been good. (not near as acrimonius as the "Orthodox" list ;-}) .
I really enjoy your column and your contributions to the Orthodox lists. Thank you for your consideration.
reader hermanmmmmm
THEO REPLIES: Thank you for the kind words. I'm hardly a theologian or expert on Orthodox teaching. My understanding is that salvation or justification is not "progressive" in Orthodoxy, as you seem to think, but that literally it is the same as the evangelical understanding; if you truly believe, you are saved. The only difference I see is our confidence about whether we truly believe or not. As one traveler in the Orthodox classic, The Way of A Pilgrim, says, (words to this effect), If I truly believed I would never forget God, or neglect my duty to Him.
Since we all do these things (I believe I did even more as an evangelical than now as Orthodox), who among us can say, yes, I truly believe? There's the rub. I believe, Lord help thou my unbelief! Both evangelicals and Orthodox may truly say this; they understand it a bit differently. To Orthodox, presumption is a major sin (called prelest in Russian and in many Orthodox writings). Many passages of Scripture speak of working out your salvation, though admittedly some do seem to assure us that no one can pluck us out of the Savior's hand once we have believed. I think if evangelicals lived today as they did in Jonathan Edwards' day, trembling in fear of the Lord if they make any slight step off the straight and narrow, it would be harder to press our claim. But where do you find lifestyles of repentence? I find the Orthodox emphasis on never resting as though you've arrived very helpful in my persevering, to use the term of my former Calvinism for the walk of sanctification.
I hope this helps and hope others will contribute further.
Wants documentation on Wesley's view of Mary
I was reading some of Theophilus's work, and I noticed he mentioned some of the Protestant reformers' views on the fact that Mary remained a virgin throughout her earthly life. I had heard that Calvin & Luther believed that, but this is the first time I've seen John Wesley's name linked to this belief. I was just wondering if somebody could point me to a reference on Wesley's views on Mary.
Lisa (Elizabeth) Gassin,
Department of Psychologymmmmm
Email:
LGASSIN@olivet.edummmmm
Olivet Nazarene University Kankakee, IL 60901-0592mmmmm
NOTE FROM "THEO": In Discovering the Rich Heritage of the Orthodox Church, Fr. Charles (Seraphim) Bell attributes this quote to Dale Bruner, page 37, though I can find no book citation:
- It is a fact worth mentioning that the major
Protestant church fathers, from Luther to Wesley, believed in Mary's perpetual
virginity. Thus this particular topic does not usually appear on the agenda of
Catholic-Protestant talks.
Perhaps someone else has Bruner's book(s) or access to them in a library, and can supply a reference to his source?
