• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

John Calvin antidote to Council of Trent

Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
279
Reaction score
89
Points
28
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
What is the Orthodox response to this definition of sola fide? Honestly especially with the latter part of the passage it sounds like something coming from Orthodox apologetics against Protestants not Calvin himself.

Calvin antidote to the Council of Trent (where it anathemizes faith alone as justification apart from hope and love):
"I wish the reader to understand that as often as we mention Faith alone in this question, we are not thinking of a dead faith, which worketh not by love, but holding faith to be the only cause of justification. (Galatians 5:6; Romans 3:22.) It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone: just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light."
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,996
Reaction score
508
Points
113
Faith
-
Jurisdiction
-
If I understand the quote (and theology generally) correctly it is saying that faith alone is what 'justifies' us for salvation or activates it, so to speak; and since true faith is godly it will always be accompanied by godly acts (fruits); however, these fruits do not justify us since justification having already accomplished by Christ and our faith-based acceptance of his free gift. I think Orthodox would agree that we cannot 'work our way' to salvation, and that our attitude should be: "We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty." (Lk. 17:10) However, as far as I understand how many Protestants (including Calvin) would consider things beyond this, compared to Orthodox, there seems to be a couple differences. First, the EO allow more wiggle room for man's free will in cooperating or not cooperating with the grace of God, who we all agree "works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose" (Phil. 2:13) but who nonetheless the EO are more likely to see as usually coaxing in the right direction. The second thing is that the EO allow for the idea of growth within the boundaries of salvation. This can be seen in things like the idea of certain acts or repentance "purifying" us, or St. Gregory of Nyssa and his idea of theosis going on for eternity--of our growing always ever closer to God. Because of these things Protestants can see EO theology as advocating a 'works-based salvation,' or Semi-Pelagianism, or whatever.
 

Alpo2

High Elder
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
513
Reaction score
170
Points
43
Faith
Fenno-Ugric Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Senior Patriarchate
Assuming that Lutheran perspective more or less applies to Calvinism too, I think Protestant and Orthodox have completely different viewpoint on salvation. Partly contradictory too mostly just different. Protestants tend to concentrate on what happens at the beginning whereas Orthodox tend to concentrate on the whole timeline of getting into heaven. If we were talking about the absolute beginning I guess Orthodox could say too that everything stems from baptism. Free will and works are relevant too but IMO most of the differences are due to this difference on viewpoint.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
279
Reaction score
89
Points
28
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
Assuming that Lutheran perspective more or less applies to Calvinism too, I think Protestant and Orthodox have completely different viewpoint on salvation. Partly contradictory too mostly just different. Protestants tend to concentrate on what happens at the beginning whereas Orthodox tend to concentrate on the whole timeline of getting into heaven. If we were talking about the absolute beginning I guess Orthodox could say too that everything stems from baptism. Free will and works are relevant too but IMO most of the differences are due to this difference on viewpoint.
Calvin seems to treat justification and sanctification as somewhat simultaneous. He makes a distinction of justification and regeneration I think.
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Warned
Post Moderated
Muted
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,256
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
33
Website
marianapostolate.com
Faith
Ecumenical Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction
The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
From the Roman Catholic perspective, justification is not by faith alone but by "faith which works by charity". Calvin seems to come close to this yet he still insists on the potentially misleading formulation "faith alone". It is "faith and charity", not faith alone.
 

xariskai

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,757
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Faith
Orthodox
The phrase πίστεως μόνον ("faith alone") is actually only found in one verse in the Greek NT (James 2:24), where it is described as something that is not the case (however this fact is interpreted). As such it's not the best example of something derived from another Reformation axiom, "scripture alone" (sola scriptura). Neither is the phrase "faith alone" a good equivalent to "...faith and not works of the law": "X and nothing else" is not the same thing as "X and not Y" My car runs by diesel, not gasoline ...is not equivalent to it runs by diesel "and nothing else". It needs power from the battery, generator, and alternator (compare being in ontological union/communion with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Luther famously added the word "alone" (German allein) to his translation of Romans 3:28 though nothing corresponding to it exists in the Greek text. Compare no major contemporary critical Romans commentary and no English translation interjects "faith alone" onto Rom 3:28 -the Greek text simply doesn't have it.

In his book Iustitia Dei, church historian Alister McGrath has shown that probably no Christians held to sola fide in the Reformation sense from the post-apostolic period to the pre-Reformation period.

Cf. Schaff:
"If any one expects to find in this period, or in any of the church fathers, Augustin himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone as the "articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae," he will be greatly disappointed. The incarnation of the Logos, his true divinity and humanity, stand most unmistakably in the foreground, as the fundamental dogma. Paul’s doctrine of justification, except perhaps in Clement of Rome, who joins it with the doctrine of James, is left very much out of view, and awaits the age of the Reformation to be more thoroughly established and understood." (History of the Christian Church, Vol. II.)

Alister Mcgrath:
"Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout. The Protestant understanding of the nature of justification represents a theological novum… It will be clear that the medieval period was astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, where the Reformers departed from it....

The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration. Although it must be emphasized that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the ordo salutis, the essential point is that a notional distinction is made where none had been acknowledged before in the history of Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification—as opposed to its mode—must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum. (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, the Beginnings to the Reformation, two volumes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 1:184-5)

From the Roman Catholic perspective, justification is not by faith alone but by "faith which works by charity". Calvin seems to come close to this yet he still insists on the potentially misleading formulation "faith alone". It is "faith and charity", not faith alone.
Calvin does indeed come as close, at least as this:
"We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them…. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.” -John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Ch 16

A few concluding thoughts...

"Faith" is described as a fruit of the Spirit. in Galatians 5:22 (often translated "faithfulness" there, Paul's word is πίστις); the Person of the Spirit is primary. Love in the same chapter is not really a "work" but a fruit, a fruit of the Spirit. But not in the sense of something separate from God. Love is a Person.

"God is love.
Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -1 Jn 4:16b

"Righteousness" (alt. translation "Justification") is also the quality of a Person, Jesus Christ the Righteous; we are not "righteous" in an alien manner as if by mere legal declaration of an ontological fiction, but because of true ontological Union with Jesus Christ (the early patristic understanding of "salvation" is Union; cf. "Justification"/"Righteousness" in St. Cyril was specifically understood to be a consequence of Union, of being "in Christ" -a "real reality in Christ" as opposed to something like a "mere declaration."

Union; indwelling; Theosis; Divine Energies.

Can one know God, in order to have faith in Him, without love?
1 Jn 4:8 “Whoever does not love does not know God…”

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware remarks:
"There is no other way of knowing God than to love Him: Faith and love, theology and life, are inseparable. In the Byzantine Liturgy, the Creed is introduced by the words, ‘Let us love one another, that with one mind we may confess Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Trinity one in essence and undivided.’ This exactly expresses the Orthodox attitude to Tradition. If we do not love one another, we cannot love God; and if we do not love God, we cannot make a true confession of faith and cannot enter into the inner spirit of Tradition, for there is no other way of knowing God than to love Him” (Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 207).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
279
Reaction score
89
Points
28
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration. Although it must be emphasized that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the ordo salutis, the essential point is that a notional distinction is made where none had been acknowledged before in the history of Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification—as opposed to its mode—must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum. (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, the Beginnings to the Reformation, two volumes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 1:184-5)
I find it to be the opposite actually, at least in Calvin. Calvin maintains that those who are regenerated are justified, and can never loose their justification i.e perseverance in the saints. In Orthodoxy we distinguish between regeneration and justification. For instance, a baptized person can lose their justification and become damned. But they never lose their quality of being baptized, i.e they are still regenerated and baptism is not done again.

I'm not sure if this passage is about baptism, but this follows St. Maximus Quaestiones ad Thessalios Q 6.2
"The mode of our spiritual birth from God is twofold. The first bestows on those born in God the entire grace of adoption, which is entirely present in potential; the second ushers in this grace as entirely present in actuality, transforming voluntarily the entire free choice of the one being born so that it conforms to the God who gives birth. The first possesses this grace in potential according to faith alone, the second, in addition to faith, realizes on the level of knowledge the active, most divine likeness of the God who is known in the one who knows Him."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but relatively speaking the first mode spoken of is regeneration and the second is justification.
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,507
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
I find it to be the opposite actually, at least in Calvin. Calvin maintains that those who are regenerated are justified, and can never loose their justification i.e perseverance in the saints. In Orthodoxy we distinguish between regeneration and justification. For instance, a baptized person can lose their justification and become damned. But they never lose their quality of being baptized, i.e they are still regenerated and baptism is not done again.

I'm not sure if this passage is about baptism, but this follows St. Maximus Quaestiones ad Thessalios Q 6.2
"The mode of our spiritual birth from God is twofold. The first bestows on those born in God the entire grace of adoption, which is entirely present in potential; the second ushers in this grace as entirely present in actuality, transforming voluntarily the entire free choice of the one being born so that it conforms to the God who gives birth. The first possesses this grace in potential according to faith alone, the second, in addition to faith, realizes on the level of knowledge the active, most divine likeness of the God who is known in the one who knows Him."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but relatively speaking the first mode spoken of is regeneration and the second is justification
.
I somehow doubt you will hear some Orthodox saint stand up and say they are justified.
They're going to know it, but out of humility and respect would never pronounce it.
Sanctification on the other hand is a pronouncement from either a higher authority or the Church itself. Which is the proper order of acknowledgment and usually comes at a later date.
Beware of anybody that claims they are justified. You just won't see it in the context of being Orthodox.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
279
Reaction score
89
Points
28
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
I somehow doubt you will hear some Orthodox saint stand up and say they are justified.
They're going to know it, but out of humility and respect would never pronounce it.
Sanctification on the other hand is a pronouncement from either a higher authority or the Church itself. Which is the proper order of acknowledgment and usually comes at a later date.
Beware of anybody that claims they are justified. You just won't see it in the context of being Orthodox.
When we're baptized the priest says we are justified and sanctified.
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,507
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
When we're baptized the priest says we are justified and sanctified.
Yes, as I said Its declared by the Church and not the individual personally.
Just like,
In the liturgy during the offering everyone recieving communion is holy according to the priest.
"The Holy Gifts for the holy people of God".

Calling yourself justified is equal to receiving a college degree before you start your first class.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
279
Reaction score
89
Points
28
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
You said;
Sanctification on the other hand is a pronouncement from either a higher authority or the Church itself. Which is the proper order of acknowledgment and usually comes at a later date.
Firstly, the baptismal "decree" is not just sanctification. It is also justification. Secondly, it does not come at a later date. It comes right away - the reader says "Blessed is the man whose sins are covered". At baptism we were justified, we are being justified i.e made righteous in Christ. Final justification comes after we die and Christ judges us.
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,507
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
Santification is not the act of God declaring a person righteous. rather, it is the continual process by which God is actually making a person righteous.

Justification is an act of God by which those who are unrighteous in themselves are declared righteous before God while still capable of sinning.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
279
Reaction score
89
Points
28
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
Santification is not the act of God declaring a person righteous. rather, it is the continual process by which God is actually making a person righteous.
Then why does the priest say we are already sanctified at baptism?

Your definition of justification is correct more or less. And it's exactly why after baptism the reader says "Blessed is the man whose sins are covered" i.e blessed is the man who is justified.
 
Last edited:

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,507
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
Then why does the priest say we are already sanctified at baptism?
I believe its because at that particular point in time, its true. Also, sacraments are outside of time. So even if we fall away during your life, upon your return, baptism is still valid.
Just as we dont talk in past tense. We don't say, there was a time when st. Palamas wasn't a saint. We say he is a saint. Even thought technically, probably wasn't before being baptized. Sanctification permeates time though. We look at where a person is and not where they were.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
279
Reaction score
89
Points
28
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
I believe its because at that particular point in time, its true. Also, sacraments are outside of time. So even if we fall away during your life, upon your return, baptism is still valid.
Just as we dont talk in past tense. We don't say, there was a time when st. Palamas wasn't a saint. We say he is a saint. Even thought technically, probably wasn't before being baptized. Sanctification permeates time though. We look at where a person is and not where they were.
So at that particular time sanctification is not "the continual process by which God is actually making a person righteous", right? Sacraments are outside of time? Not in their application to humans. An unbaptized person that will be baptized is not baptized in eternity past.

I disagree. When St. Paul persecuted Christians and blaspheme Christ he was not a saint.
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,507
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
So at that particular time sanctification is not "the continual process by which God is actually making a person righteous", right? Sacraments are outside of time? Not in their application to humans. An unbaptized person that will be baptized is not baptized in eternity past.

I disagree. When St. Paul persecuted Christians and blaspheme Christ he was not a saint.
People develop over time. Its more the perfection of character thats developed in Christ, rather than a one time event, which may or may not have anything to do with your own choosing. Baptism is the beginning of that process. If you stay true to it, you're sanctified. I would venture to say though, that more often than not. You come in and out of it. Because just like a child learning to walk, will fall before learning to perfect the art.
 

xariskai

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,757
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Faith
Orthodox
"They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." -2 Thess 2:10

Gloria Tibi Trinitas wrote:
the baptismal "decree" is not just sanctification. It is also justification
.

-Yes.

Gloria Tibi Trinitas wrote:
Secondly, it does not come at a later date. It comes right away


-Yes

Gloria Tibi Trinitas wrote:
So at that particular time sanctification is not "the continual process


It is a punctiliar/point in time event that is the fountainhead of a process. Hence baptism is justifying and sanctifying in its inception while at the same time many early (and later) Fathers speak of repentance as a renewal of baptism.

Taking justification/righteousness, the Greek NT uses the same term we translate as justification and/or righteousness grammatically to depict both point in time and process (which was also understood by the Reformers)[1] e.g.
Romans 6:16: Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience which leads to righteousness? (Gk dikaiosunen, "justification")
Romans 3:24: "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is IN CHRIST." Dikaiomeno -present/continuous passive participle -being justified- not a state/static, but an ongoing relationship).
2 Tim 2:22 "Pursue justification..."
Romans 5:1: “Therefore, since we have been justified (aorist) through faith, we have peace with God through Jesus Christ”)
Paul almost invariably uses the VERB; theology should not center on the NOUN (justification) but the verb.
God alone is good/righteous. We are "justified" (Gk. = righteous) *in Christ*.

Punctiliar and process language is often not mutually exclusive in the NT. The word"salvation" similarly appear in three tenses in the Greek New Testament depicting alternately point in time, process, and future reality. To understand this better I'll give a very brief primer that should be understandable to any non-Greek speaker of the relevant tenses followed by a final example from the usage of "believe" in the NT,

"There are therefore, three fundamental tenses in Greek: the present, representing continuous action; the perfect, representing completed action; and the aorist... representing indefinite action. (Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 178).

The Koine Greek ationsart (kind of action) is, hence, of three types: "(1) as a simple realization...without reference to continuation or repetition...: the "aorist"; (2) as a nature or kind of activity in progress or habitual (repeated) or simply as this kind of activity or activity tending to a given end: the "present" or "imperfect"; (3) as a completed act resulting in a "state of affairs" which is predicated by the verb as holding for the present time: the "perfect" (Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek, p. 77)

In Jn 8:31-59 Jesus addresses a group of Jews who had believed in him: "To the Jews who had believed [πεπιστευκότας, perfect active participle] him, Jesus said, 'If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.'" "The Perfect Participle is used of completed action. Like the Perfect Indicative it may have reference to the past action and the resulting state or only to the resulting state" (Burton, Ernest, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, p. 71). The perfect does not refer to an action which is continual.

However, as Jesus continued to address this group, they ceased to believe (vss. 45, 46), and are described as having the devil as their father and desiring to do his lusts (vs 44). Jesus further says they do not hear and are not of God (vs. 47); at the conclusion of the pericope, Christ says those who keep His word will never see death (vs. 51; a quick look at ch 8 will confirm the same group is in view from vss. 31-59:

Jn 8:45-46: "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe [πιστεύετε, continual present active indicative] Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin ? If I speak truth, why do you not believe [πιστεύετε, continual present active indicative] Me?" Notice again it is the same Jews who in vs. 31 had believed [πεπιστευκότας, perfect active participle] -but they no longer are continuing to do so.

Jn 8:51: "I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

Also note Greek continual present does not necessarily mean action perceived as continuing into infinity. Action which *was* continuous for a time can also later cease.

_____________________
[1] That justification in the Greek NT is often depicted as a process by the Greek present/continuous tense was known to the Reformers; Luther maintained his axiom of justification as a mere declaration by cordoning off usages which didn't fit the thesis as a separate process category of "justification"/"righteousness" (from the same term in Greek), -i.e. Luther's "two kinds of righteousness":
"Luther uses the terms 'to justify' ... and 'justification' ... in more than one sense. From the beginning [of Luther's writings], justification most often means the judgement of God with which he declares man to be righteous ... . In other places, however, the word stands for the entire event though which a man is essentially made righteous (a usage which Luther also finds in Paul, Romans 5), that is, for both the imputation of righteousness to man as well as man's actually becoming righteous. Justification in this sense remains incomplete on earth and is first completed on the Last Day. Complete righteousness is in this sense is an eschatological reality. This twofold use of the word cannot be correlated with Luther's early and later theology; he uses 'justification' in both senses at the same time, sometimes shortly after each other in the same text" (Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, (Philadelphia Fortress Press, 1966), p. 226).
Hence concluded "Our justification is not yet complete... It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead" (Luther's Works, 34, 52, cited in ibid/Althaus , p. 237, n. 63).

As alluded to earlier St. Cyril, foremost proponent of Theosis, presents a quite different view of justification/righteousness. It is particularly valuable because three is very little patristic discussion of justification/righteousness, and also because some Orthodox and Reformed scholars have regarded that his understanding could function as a bridge between conflicting paradigms of justification. If time permits I will document St. Cyrils view.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
279
Reaction score
89
Points
28
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
"They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." -2 Thess 2:10

Gloria Tibi Trinitas wrote:
the baptismal "decree" is not just sanctification. It is also justification
.

-Yes.

Gloria Tibi Trinitas wrote:
Secondly, it does not come at a later date. It comes right away


-Yes

Gloria Tibi Trinitas wrote:
So at that particular time sanctification is not "the continual process


It is a punctiliar/point in time event that is the fountainhead of a process. Hence baptism is justifying and sanctifying in its inception while at the same time many early (and later) Fathers speak of repentance as a renewal of baptism.

Taking justification/righteousness, the Greek NT uses the same term we translate as justification and/or righteousness grammatically to depict both point in time and process (which was also understood by the Reformers)[1] e.g.
Romans 6:16: Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience which leads to righteousness? (Gk dikaiosunen, "justification")
Romans 3:24: "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is IN CHRIST." Dikaiomeno -present/continuous passive participle -being justified- not a state/static, but an ongoing relationship).
2 Tim 2:22 "Pursue justification..."
Romans 5:1: “Therefore, since we have been justified (aorist) through faith, we have peace with God through Jesus Christ”)
Paul almost invariably uses the VERB; theology should not center on the NOUN (justification) but the verb.
God alone is good/righteous. We are "justified" (Gk. = righteous) *in Christ*.

Punctiliar and process language is often not mutually exclusive in the NT. The word"salvation" similarly appear in three tenses in the Greek New Testament depicting alternately point in time, process, and future reality. To understand this better I'll give a very brief primer that should be understandable to any non-Greek speaker of the relevant tenses followed by a final example from the usage of "believe" in the NT,

"There are therefore, three fundamental tenses in Greek: the present, representing continuous action; the perfect, representing completed action; and the aorist... representing indefinite action. (Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 178).

The Koine Greek ationsart (kind of action) is, hence, of three types: "(1) as a simple realization...without reference to continuation or repetition...: the "aorist"; (2) as a nature or kind of activity in progress or habitual (repeated) or simply as this kind of activity or activity tending to a given end: the "present" or "imperfect"; (3) as a completed act resulting in a "state of affairs" which is predicated by the verb as holding for the present time: the "perfect" (Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek, p. 77)

In Jn 8:31-59 Jesus addresses a group of Jews who had believed in him: "To the Jews who had believed [πεπιστευκότας, perfect active participle] him, Jesus said, 'If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.'" "The Perfect Participle is used of completed action. Like the Perfect Indicative it may have reference to the past action and the resulting state or only to the resulting state" (Burton, Ernest, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, p. 71). The perfect does not refer to an action which is continual.

However, as Jesus continued to address this group, they ceased to believe (vss. 45, 46), and are described as having the devil as their father and desiring to do his lusts (vs 44). Jesus further says they do not hear and are not of God (vs. 47); at the conclusion of the pericope, Christ says those who keep His word will never see death (vs. 51; a quick look at ch 8 will confirm the same group is in view from vss. 31-59:

Jn 8:45-46: "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe [πιστεύετε, continual present active indicative] Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin ? If I speak truth, why do you not believe [πιστεύετε, continual present active indicative] Me?" Notice again it is the same Jews who in vs. 31 had believed [πεπιστευκότας, perfect active participle] -but they no longer are continuing to do so.

Jn 8:51: "I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

Also note Greek continual present does not necessarily mean action perceived as continuing into infinity. Action which *was* continuous for a time can also later cease.

_____________________
[1] That justification in the Greek NT is often depicted as a process by the Greek present/continuous tense was known to the Reformers; Luther maintained his axiom of justification as a mere declaration by cordoning off usages which didn't fit the thesis as a separate process category of "justification"/"righteousness" (from the same term in Greek), -i.e. Luther's "two kinds of righteousness":
"Luther uses the terms 'to justify' ... and 'justification' ... in more than one sense. From the beginning [of Luther's writings], justification most often means the judgement of God with which he declares man to be righteous ... . In other places, however, the word stands for the entire event though which a man is essentially made righteous (a usage which Luther also finds in Paul, Romans 5), that is, for both the imputation of righteousness to man as well as man's actually becoming righteous. Justification in this sense remains incomplete on earth and is first completed on the Last Day. Complete righteousness is in this sense is an eschatological reality. This twofold use of the word cannot be correlated with Luther's early and later theology; he uses 'justification' in both senses at the same time, sometimes shortly after each other in the same text" (Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, (Philadelphia Fortress Press, 1966), p. 226).
Hence concluded "Our justification is not yet complete... It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead" (Luther's Works, 34, 52, cited in ibid/Althaus , p. 237, n. 63).

As alluded to earlier St. Cyril, foremost proponent of Theosis, presents a quite different view of justification/righteousness. It is particularly valuable because three is very little patristic discussion of justification/righteousness, and also because some Orthodox and Reformed scholars have regarded that his understanding could function as a bridge between conflicting paradigms of justification. If time permits I will document St. Cyrils view.
I would be interested in St. Cyril's view. What did you think about what I said regarding st. Maximus and regeneration viz a viz baptism. I think i might be misusing some terms but I'm trying to say someone can be born again (by baptism) and not be saved. The regeneration is permanent but justification isn't.
 

Katechon

Elder
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
385
Reaction score
152
Points
43
Location
Germany
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROC-MP
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
279
Reaction score
89
Points
28
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
Very good debate on Kabane's side. I wish there would be a debate with a sola fide magisterial Protestant, a Lutheran, Methodist or Anglican, who believes in the sacraments and so doesn't make a dialectic between baptism, Eucharist vs faith alone. There would be a lot more nuance than with a reformed baptist type of denomination like Matt Slick and CARM which is a caricature of the Reformation but even the Reformers would consider them at best sectarians and probably heretics.
 

copticorthodoxboy

High Elder
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
650
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Very good debate on Kabane's side. I wish there would be a debate with a sola fide magisterial Protestant, a Lutheran, Methodist or Anglican, who believes in the sacraments and so doesn't make a dialectic between baptism, Eucharist vs faith alone. There would be a lot more nuance than with a reformed baptist type of denomination like Matt Slick and CARM which is a caricature of the Reformation but even the Reformers would consider them at best sectarians and probably heretics.
Does anyone know if Kabane is a member on this forum? If so, what is his username?
 

Katechon

Elder
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
385
Reaction score
152
Points
43
Location
Germany
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROC-MP
Top