Christianity: Justification & Sanctification vs Justification/Sanctification

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

By your own example, might I suggest the "Reformation" was completely unavoidable...regardless of however unwell thought out. It's not like the Catholics didn't hatch the Gun Powder plot, to blow both King James and Parliament to "living hell." For the heresy of giving the masses of illiterates, direct access to whatever the "clergy" could selectively chose to share...or shape as it suited them.

I'm not particularly fond of the Bishop of Rome and his "Church," and their many, many, many failings throughout history, BUT they kept their Church intact. The Reformers instead dropped the China plate which shattered into thousands of pieces, all of which now are claiming to be the China plate itself.

Unfortunately, the Romans fell into typically human predilections with their attempt at economy.

As noted above, economy also refers to the Church's "handling" or "management" or "disposition" of various pastoral and disciplinary questions, problems, and issues. Here again, "economy" is used in several ways.

In one sense, it refers to the discretionary power given to the Church by Christ himself to manage and govern the Church. Christ referred to this when he gave the apostles the authority to "bind and to loose".[5][6] This authority was transmitted to the bishops who came after the apostles. In this sense "economy" means, as already noted, "handling", "management", "disposition". In general then, "economy" refers to pastoral handling or discretion or management in a neutral sense.

An example in the New Testament of the application of lenient economy, or "economy according to leniency", is found in Acts chapter 15, where the Apostles decided to limit the number and degree of Jewish observances that would be required of Gentile converts. An example in the New Testament of the application of strict economy, or "economy according to exactness (or, strictness, preciseness) [akribeia]", may be seen in Acts 16:3, when St. Paul set aside the usual rule to circumcise Timothy, whose father was a Gentile, to placate certain Jewish Christians. In both instances, economy was exercised to facilitate the salvation of some of the parties involved.

In Orthodox Church history, examples and instances of economy abound. Since ancient times, converts to the Church who were coming from certain heretical groups were not required to be baptized, even though the normal path of entrance to the Church was through baptism. Thus the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided that under specific conditions, the application of economy (i.e. according to leniency) would be the norm in this matter. But since the usual rule is baptism, such leniency can easily be, and sometimes has been, suspended (usually in periods when the heretical groups in question were actively opposing the Church). In these cases, the Church returned to her customary usual rule of "exactness," not applying economy (or not applying economy according to lenience). In calling for the reception of converts into Orthodoxy through means other than baptism in certain cases, the Ecumenical Councils made no determination regarding the existence of sacraments outside of Orthodoxy, but only addressed the situation of the convert to Orthodoxy.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

gotta do lots of community service to get into a good college, difference is no one is scrutinizing those to make sure you were sincere in intent.

 

[Coriolis]

gotta do lots of community service to get into a good college, difference is no one is scrutinizing those to make sure you were sincere in intent.

If you actually helped someone, does your intent matter?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

If you actually helped someone, does your intent matter?

arghhh you blowed my mind that didn't once occure to me

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Surprisingly this is on-topic to this thread in a round-about way, so I'll address it:

gotta do lots of community service to get into a good college, difference is no one is scrutinizing those to make sure you were sincere in intent.

This is true. Community service being the means to the end of getting into a good college. Thus:

In Christ, if you even "think" about murdering your brother, you have done so in your heart. If you even "think" lustfully about someone, you have done adultery in your heart. So, even if your actions may not manifest irl, God's judgment comes upon our heart. Thus, we repent. For God does not judge us for sinning, but for not repenting. As Christians, we are called to a higher moral standard than non-Christians.

So, we are called to do "good works" out of the goodness of our hearts rather than to benefit ourselves. Of course, when you experience the goodness in your heart from your good works, that becomes the reward itself instead of the *material benefit we receive in this world. This is where the whole "don't store up riches here on earth, but rather store them up in heaven..." phrase comes to mind. By adopting the higher standard of Christ, we seek to negate ulterior motives in ourselves, but to do so instead with love. Something like that.

Of course, like I said, the Christian standard is for Christians only. You don't have to adopt these standards for yourself since you're not a "little Christ." These standards are irrational in the Darwinian sense, and to that we agree that this behavior is indeed Otherworldly:

If you actually helped someone, does your intent matter?

Not in the Christian sense, our aim is to render our intent secondary to the primary intent of helping someone. To lead by serving as our Lord did.

The thing is: Christians often fall short of this standard, and so, we are in a constant state of repentance. It's not that Christians are better people. We're often the worst offenders (by our higher standards).

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us, the sinners.

Now, to the on-topic portion: Reformed theology of Justification without good works would garuantee "salvation" apart from Regeneration, whereas in Apostolic theology, Justification is the result of Regeneration leading to Theosis/Salvation. Therefore, Theosis/Salvation is not garuanteed in Apostolic theology. Just because you "believe in Christ, doesn't mean you'll be saved." Apostolic Theosis/Salvation is best visualized by the ascending of a ladder:

The Slothful Me would prefer Justification by faith alone as the Reformers insisted, but my standards would risk falling to the lowest common denominator.

James 2:18-24
18) But someone will say, “You have faith and I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19) You believe that God is one. Good for you! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20) O foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is worthless?e 21) Was not our father Abraham justified by what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22) You see that his faith was working with his actions, and his faith was perfected by what he did. 23) And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”f and he was called a friend of God. 24) As you can see, a man is justified by his deeds and not by faith alone.

So James is saying that just because you believe in God doesn't justify you, for even the demons believe in God and they are not justified. You need good works/to serve also, and those good works/service must come from the heart.

 

[Coriolis]

By adopting the higher standard of Christ, we seek to negate ulterior motives in ourselves, but to do so instead with love. Something like that.

Of course, like I said, the Christian standard is for Christians only. You don't have to adopt these standards for yourself since you're not a "little Christ." These standards are irrational in the Darwinian sense, and to that we agree that this behavior is indeed Otherworldly:


Not in the Christian sense, our aim is to render our intent secondary to the primary intent of helping someone. To lead by serving as our Lord did.

So you agree that Christians should follow the example of Christ? The only place that can be found is in the Bible.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

So you agree that Christians should follow the example of Christ? The only place that can be found is in the Bible.

Should, yes. What is Baha'ullah's personal interpretation of the Bible? What are his teachings about the Bible?

 

[Coriolis]

Should, yes. What is Baha'ullah's personal interpretation of the Bible? What are his teachings about the Bible?

There is the whole doctrine of progressive revelation, but if I want to emulate Jesus, that's all irrelevant. I will read accounts of Jesus' life that are as close to the source (i.e. him) as possible, and use those as a guideline. Sort of like giving priority to primary sources over secondary. Since Jesus apparently left no writings of his own, we are going with secondary over tertiary references or those even further removed.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

There is the whole doctrine of progressive revelation, but if I want to emulate Jesus, that's all irrelevant. I will read accounts of Jesus' life that are as close to the source (i.e. him) as possible, and use those as a guideline. Sort of like giving priority to primary sources over secondary. Since Jesus apparently left no writings of his own, we are going with secondary over tertiary references or those even further removed.

You might want to consider the Didache, but that may actually be later than the Epistles of St. Paul, iirc.

 

[Coriolis]

You might want to consider the Didache, but that may actually be later than the Epistles of St. Paul, iirc.

This looks like an interesting document, but I'm not sure how much it would tell me about the example of Jesus. I might find more in the Gospels that were not included in the official Biblical canon, such as from Thomas, Mary Magdalene, or the Sayings Gospel.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

gnostic gospels are not canon, they're basically fan fiction.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

This looks like an interesting document, but I'm not sure how much it would tell me about the example of Jesus. I might find more in the Gospels that were not included in the official Biblical canon, such as from Thomas, Mary Magdalene, or the Sayings Gospel.

Happy hunting. I wonder why the rejection of the apocrypha to the canon?

 

[Coriolis]

gnostic gospels are not canon, they're basically fan fiction.

Sorry, neither.

Happy hunting. I wonder why the rejection of the apocrypha to the canon?

One might well wonder. From what I have read, it had everything to do with politics and empire building, and nothing to do with Jesus, morality, or seeking spiritual inspiration.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

One might well wonder. From what I have read, it had everything to do with politics and empire building, and nothing to do with Jesus, morality, or seeking spiritual inspiration.

So, a conspiracy theory? Now, I'm wondering how the gerrymandering of a religious canon would effect politics. Very interesting thought exercise nevertheless.

 

[Coriolis]

So, a conspiracy theory? Now, I'm wondering how the gerrymandering of a religious canon would effect politics. Very interesting thought exercise nevertheless.

Not a theory, and not gerrymandering. I suppose one might consider it an early example of censorship, or perhaps of cherry picking. History is written by the victor, even the history of people's relationship with God.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Not a theory, and not gerrymandering. I suppose one might consider it an early example of censorship, or perhaps of cherry picking. History is written by the victor, even the history of people's relationship with God.

What were who censoring, and from what was who cherry picking? To which war was a victor declared? These are very interesting perspectives. I wonder if all religions are like this, and if so how would these claims effect that of "Progressive Revelation?"

The answer: Russians.

 

[LightSun]

When the church put itself higher than the Bible?

Some years ago there was a popular saying: "What would Jesus do?" The Church/churches over time have exhibited all too human behavior that seems hard put to meet this test.

Jesus was a reformer. He would not be recognized by Christians today. His reform for fairness, mercy etc would not be embraced by Christians. To many times through the centuries mankind has done all manner of evil in God's name. I'm sick of Evangelicals speaking for Jesus and in his name. To many times these Evangelicals have made pronouncements like, "Hurricane Katrina happened because New Orleans was a sinful city.

Two pet peeves that I do find hard to stomach is 'self righteous' wrath. There doesn't happen being self righteous wrath. A person is blind and acting out of sheer emotional reasoning and a whole host of cognitive distortions in reasoning. It is true that we must hold those accountable to justice but we do it with the use of reason and acting in accordance with the law. Instead of taking matters in your own stead you contact an authority figure. A parent, teacher, principle, boss, lawyer or the cities police force.

What is not known as common reality is if you become angry, it is a temporary psychosis. One's brain is flooded with chemicals and hormones. One is not acting with reason or common sense. (the caveat is if you are in physical pain or are in danger of your life or a loved one, then negative defensive emotions are more rational).

The other problem I have is that we are 'sinners' and beyond redemption except by the divine grace of some supernatural being. We all have failings. To identify in using all or nothing words plus black or else white thinking puts a barrier to human understanding and hampers human beings in using rational dialogue. We compartmentalize humans into categories when we all are similar and not dissimilar. Jesus was for the poor, mercy, forgiveness and peace.

Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven was inside. This does not mean pursuing the idols of fame, power, beauty and wealth. This is glorification of one's ego. Those who do not want to be bothered by taxes are neglectful of the unfortunate. This isn't in line with Jesus teachings. It is not a world view where we all are the children of God. We are one great world community. Jesus did not touch on the rights of our animal brethren. They are life and deserve respect with humanitarian stewardship.

 

[Mole]

we are 'sinners' and beyond redemption except by the divine grace of some supernatural being.

This is an interesting dogma, but three thousand years ago in Ancient Greece we found that supernatural beings were natural forces, and since then we have found no evidence for supernatural beings.

 

[LightSun]

This is an interesting dogma, but three thousand years ago in Ancient Greece we found that supernatural beings were natural forces, and since then we have found no evidence for supernatural beings.

I am in full concurrence. I have witnessed science TV documentaries which stipulate that the human species has a genetic component towards superstition. Every religion since the dawn of time has tried to make the inexplicable understandable. Hence humans do fill in the pieces that are not yet understood by metaphor. These metaphors are taken as gospel truth even barring scientific evidence. Additionally the religions happen being a historic repetition and revision with new embellishments from predecessor religious beliefs.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Jesus was a reformer. He would not be recognized by Christians today. His reform for fairness, mercy etc would not be embraced by Christians. To many times through the centuries mankind has done all manner of evil in God's name. I'm sick of Evangelicals speaking for Jesus and in his name. To many times these Evangelicals have made pronouncements like, "Hurricane Katrina happened because New Orleans was a sinful city.

Two pet peeves that I do find hard to stomach is 'self righteous' wrath. There doesn't happen being self righteous wrath. A person is blind and acting out of sheer emotional reasoning and a whole host of cognitive distortions in reasoning. It is true that we must hold those accountable to justice but we do it with the use of reason and acting in accordance with the law. Instead of taking matters in your own stead you contact an authority figure. A parent, teacher, principle, boss, lawyer or the cities police force.

What is not known as common reality is if you become angry, it is a temporary psychosis. One's brain is flooded with chemicals and hormones. One is not acting with reason or common sense. (the caveat is if you are in physical pain or are in danger of your life or a loved one, then negative defensive emotions are more rational).

The other problem I have is that we are 'sinners' and beyond redemption except by the divine grace of some supernatural being. We all have failings. To identify in using all or nothing words plus black or else white thinking puts a barrier to human understanding and hampers human beings in using rational dialogue. We compartmentalize humans into categories when we all are similar and not dissimilar. Jesus was for the poor, mercy, forgiveness and peace.

Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven was inside. This does not mean pursuing the idols of fame, power, beauty and wealth. This is glorification of one's ego. Those who do not want to be bothered by taxes are neglectful of the unfortunate. This isn't in line with Jesus teachings. It is not a world view where we all are the children of God. We are one great world community. Jesus did not touch on the rights of our animal brethren. They are life and deserve respect with humanitarian stewardship.

Interesting. "Good for me, but not for thee" comes to mind. What else did the Lord Jesus Christ say?

(Are you able to call Him the Christ? Are you able to call Him the LORD?)