The Orthodox Teaching on St Paul's Justification by Faith

[CDHealy]

There is a great audio (link below is mp3 file) interview with Father Theodore Stylianopoulos on St Paul, and which focuses to a great degree on the doctrine of justification by faith.  It is a great summary of the Orthodox belief on justification by faith:

http://audio.ancientfaith.com/illuminedheart/ih_2009-01-23_pc.mp3

[Note: this is part one of a two part interview]

[extranos]

CD,
The Orthodox continue to beat me up because I believe in Sola Fide.  Yet I heard nothing in this interview that contradicts what I believe.
Sola Fide, in Lutheranism, means nothing more than what was said in the interview:  that grace precedes faith, that faith is not set against good works, that good works flow naturally from faith like heat flows naturally from fire, that there is no such thing as "Sola Fide" without good works, and that Baptism and Faith are intertwined.

So tell me, what am I missing?  Or, better yet, how has the meaning of Sola Fide been twisted to make it controversial to the rest of the Church?
Dan

[CDHealy]

What you're missing, as I've understood you, is synergy: that our works really do contribute to our salvation, though they do not accomplish our salvation.

[extranos]

that our works really do contribute to our salvation, though they do not accomplish our salvation.

Is Person A with faith saved MORE because he has more good works than Person B who also has faith?  I am unsure of what you are saying.  I believe there is synergy for believers.

When you say "our works really do contribute to our salvation", I agree with that, although I would call that sanctification, not justification.

[trifecta]

Dan,

CD,
The Orthodox continue to beat me up because I believe in Sola Fide.  Yet I heard nothing in this interview that contradicts what I believe.

Sorry, buddy, but sole fide is a pretty controversial doctrine.

Sola Fide, in Lutheranism, means nothing more than what was said in the interview:  that grace precedes faith, that faith is not set against good works, that good works flow naturally from faith like heat flows naturally from fire, that there is no such thing as "Sola Fide" without good works, and that Baptism and Faith are intertwined.

This is news to me. So, how is this different than Catholicism? 

When you say "our works really do contribute to our salvation", I agree with that, although I would call that sanctification, not justification.

The difference in Orthodoxy is that we don't separate justification and santification.  It is all part of the salvation process.   The early church thought like this.  Protestant scholars are beginning to see this too.  P. Sanders (?) is a leading proponent.  I read it in Christianity Today a year ago.

[extranos]

Sorry, buddy, but sole fide is a pretty controversial doctrine.

I understand that, but then I listened to the nice Orthodox man and I think to myself, what is controversial?  Why is justification by faith considered outrageous but I can agree with the Orthodox explanation of it?

Sola Fide, in Lutheranism, means nothing more than what was said in the interview:  that grace precedes faith, that faith is not set against good works, that good works flow naturally from faith like heat flows naturally from fire, that there is no such thing as "Sola Fide" without good works, and that Baptism and Faith are intertwined.

This is news to me. So, how is this different than Catholicism?

Trifecta, what I am saying is that any informed Lutheran would tell you that a person who says they are saved by faith but they have no need of works is NOT displaying true faith.  JBFA has NEVER meant that good works are to be despised, why would ANY Christian talk like that?  The point of JBFA is that salvation is through true and living faith, not through a laundry list of works specified by some human, and that untold good works will naturally flow from the faith that the Spirit has produced in us (Eph 2).

What is different from Catholicism is that we teach, along with Scripture, that one's faith in Christ saves you apart from the works that you do.  We trust that true faith is given by the Holy Spirit and produces good works in us as naturally, as Luther put it and I paraphrased, as heat is produced by a fire. 

What is the peace that passes all understanding?  Is it a "peace" that is subject to  approval from Church authorities?  Or is it the peace that Christ gives to those who are called to faith and are His adopted sons and daughters? 
I say that Scripture clearly teaches the latter, not the former.  I don't even consider the former to be a "peace".

Therefore I wonder if JBFA has been intentionally maligned by the Roman and Orthodox Churches.  Shouldn't I be  arguing that the Orthodox man in the interview has it all wrong?  Why am I agreeing with him, and he with me?

The difference in Orthodoxy is that we don't separate justification and santification.  It is all part of the salvation process.

The point of separating them is only to point out to Christians that they are already saved once they come to faith.  They don't have to please someone in Rome or Constantinople to know that they are loved by Christ.  But you are right, they are BOTH part of the salvation process.

[trifecta]

Dan,

I think you're cool    even if I beat you up once in a while.  (Just giving you a hard time).

Trifecta, what I am saying is that any informed Lutheran would tell you that a person who says they are saved by faith but they have no need of works is NOT displaying true faith.  JBFA has NEVER meant that good works are to be despised, why would ANY Christian talk like that?  The point of JBFA is that salvation is through true and living faith, not through a laundry list of works specified by some human, and that untold good works will naturally flow from the faith that the Spirit has produced in us (Eph 2).

Again, I don't see this differently than Catholic doctrine.  The Orthodox aren't so much into salvation formulas, but I would agree with you here.   Am I missing something?

Maybe here is where you see the difference:

What is the peace that passes all understanding?  Is it a "peace" that is subject to  approval from Church authorities? 

Orthodox believe that God judges, not us.  But to be in the church is good thing, since Jesus loves His church more than just about anything. 

Catholics believed salvation in the church, although they don't so much anymore since Vatican II, which called Protestants, Orthodox, and various believers and even non-believers are invisibly part of the church.   

I think. though, that Protestants usually don't want to submit to any church authority.  I find this odd because he wants us to treat even secular authorities with respect.   So, why shouldn't we seek the approval of spiritual authorities as we do secular ones?
Don't spiritual leaders "watch over our souls?"


I think the Protestant thought process just doesn't like human authority that much.   

Therefore I wonder if JBFA has been intentionally maligned by the Roman and Orthodox Churches.  Shouldn't I be  arguing that the Orthodox man in the interview has it all wrong?  Why am I agreeing with him, and he with me?

Actually, I find this surprising, too.   

The difference in Orthodoxy is that we don't separate justification and santification.  It is all part of the salvation process.

The point of separating them is only to point out to Christians that they are already saved once they come to faith. 

But here you are separating the two with that last sentence.  Jesus says we have to be faithful to the end.   We disagree in that we are not saved once we make some sort of decision for Christ.   We still have to remain faithful.

They don't have to please someone in Rome or Constantinople to know that they are loved by Christ.  But you are right, they are BOTH part of the salvation process.

Again, one of my problems with Protestantism is its lack of respect for the church.   I can feel God's love if I am a pagan, for God loved us even then.  But I want to be in his church.

Thanks for reading.

[extranos]

Orthodox believe that God judges, not us.  But to be in the church is good thing, since Jesus loves His church more than just about anything.

Lutherans agree with this also.  I think that the Orthodox place more emphasis on the visible Church while Lutherans place more emphasis on the invisible Church, but there are reasons for that.  As you might guess, the Roman Church considers herself to be the one true visible Church, yet they teach doctrines with which both we and the Orthodox do not agree.  The Lutherans realize that people inside and outside of the Roman Church are true believers, so it is impossible to tie the Church to a visible organization.  On the other hand, I think Lutherans wish with all our hearts that there WAS true unity in the Church so that we COULD talk clearly about the visible Church.

But here you are separating the two with that last sentence.  Jesus says we have to be faithful to the end.   We disagree in that we are not saved once we make some sort of decision for Christ.   We still have to remain faithful.

I have to call you out on this one.....are you saved?  (btw, I do not believe in once-saved-always-saved, that is a Calvinist invention).   And I believe that Scripture explicitly forbids us from talking about making a decision to be a believer.

Again, one of my problems with Protestantism is its lack of respect for the church.   I can feel God's love if I am a pagan, for God loved us even then.  But I want to be in his church.

Agreed.  Lutherans, like the RCC and the EO, teach that Christ conferred authority upon the Apostles at his ascension and that this authority has been passed through the generations via ordination.  I know you will fuss about Succession, that's a separate argument.  We teach pastoral authority in the Lutheran Church.  We are not thrilled with the 20,000 flavors of Protestantism, most of them cults of personality IMHO.  And, surprisingly to most, we do not consider ourselves to be Protestants.  The Calvinists and Zwinglians are the Protestants.

I think you're cool, too.  I enjoy being able to discuss this substantively and without rancor.

[trifecta]

Dan,

Lutherans agree with this also.  I think that the Orthodox place more emphasis on the visible Church while Lutherans place more emphasis on the invisible Church, but there are reasons for that. 

Yeah, I think the reasons have to do with politics (indulgences) and new theology as an outgrowth of that decision to split (invisible church.)   

The invisible church doesn't really exist in Orthodox theology and certainly not as Protestants define it.   The problem with it, as I just explained in a Theology post, is that the invisible church takes away the physicality of the church, leaving it gnostic. 

As you might guess, the Roman Church considers herself to be the one true visible Church, yet they teach doctrines with which both we and the Orthodox do not agree. 

We consider our Church to be the one true visible church too, not because we are all that, but how can there be more than one body of Christ?   The body of Christ cannot be divided.   God is one, the church must be one. 

Your thinkers couldn't agree on a church, so they created a spiritual loopside called the invisible church.   This way you can have different churches (including those in the same small city) and still be part of the one church.

The Lutherans realize that people inside and outside of the Roman Church are true believers, so it is impossible to tie the Church to a visible organization. 

Ah, now you are getting to our spiritual loophole.  You guys assume that all believers are in the church.  We say that God can save anyone however he wants (Matt 19: 24ff), so being outside of the church, people can still be saved.   Our phrase is: We know where the Holy Spirit is, we dare not say where the Holy Spirit is not.

 On the other hand, I think Lutherans wish with all our hearts that there WAS true unity in the Church so that we COULD talk clearly about the visible Church.

To do this, you, by definition have to stop establishing competing churches in the same geographical area.  This was the model of one of the councils (1st, 2nd, 3rd, ?).   To our shame, we got the same thing going in America (but not many other places).

But here you are separating the two with that last sentence.  Jesus says we have to be faithful to the end.   We disagree in that we are not saved once we make some sort of decision for Christ.   We still have to remain faithful.

I have to call you out on this one.....are you saved?  (btw, I do not believe in once-saved-always-saved, that is a Calvinist invention). 

The pat answer that I heard somewhere is I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved.  Don't like that one? Not my favorite either.    A more honest answer is I believe God is faithful, but if I will remain faithful is not as certain.  Or,  if we are required to be faithful until the end, how can I really know I am saved?

This is a difference in eastern and western thinking.  The emphasis on the west is on completion, while in the east, it is on process.  An easterner would not even ask the question.

And I believe that Scripture explicitly forbids us from talking about making a decision to be a believer.

Really?, do tell.  (Haven't thought about this in a while).

[extranos]

Trifecta:  You guys assume that all believers are in the church.  We say that God can save anyone however he wants (Matt 19: 24ff), so being outside of the church, people can still be saved.

Matthew 19
24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."  25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"  26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Surely you are leaving something out, no?  Peter says in Acts 4
It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is " 'the stone you builders rejected,  which has become the capstone.' 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

If the Holy Spirit is speaking to us through Peter and saying that only by the name of Jesus might we be saved, then it is entirely logical to conclude that the Church is made up of believers and there is no "mystery group" of pople who will be saved outside of the Church.  Besides that, Matt 19 is speaking to the fact that God saves us in spite of our unworthiness, it is not a reference to non-Christians being saved.

The pat answer that I heard somewhere is I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved.  Don't like that one? Not my favorite either.    A more honest answer is I believe God is faithful, but if I will remain faithful is not as certain.  Or,  if we are required to be faithful until the end, how can I really know I am saved?

I think "I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved" is an entirely appropriate answer.  My suggestion to you is to take the Promise to heart.  Paul writes in Ephesians 2:8-10
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Paul does not write "For it is by grace you might be saved if you are still faithful when you die", he addresses this to those who HAVE BEEN saved.  Might some of these people fall away?  Yes, but at the moment of Paul's letter, they are saved people.  Further, this section of Eph is a key component of JBFA -- through the grace of God, we have been given faith as a gift.  It is not from ourselves, and our being saved is not by works because none of us can boast.  But we are the work of God, created in Jesus to do good works - and even our GOOD WORKS are not from us, but rather they have been prepared by God in advance for us to do.

This is a difference in eastern and western thinking.  The emphasis on the west is on completion, while in the east, it is on process.  An easterner would not even ask the question.

I highly doubt this - all Christians want to be assured that they will rise to life on the Last Day.  There is no east/west difference here.  And, moreover, the topics of justification and sanctification are topics addressed in Scripture, they are not artificial constructs from Luther or the Roman Church. 

If the Orthodox cannot agree with Paul, then that surely is a pity.  However, I doubt that they disagree with Paul and I know that we Lutherans do not disagree with Paul, either, so again I have to ask - why is JBFA considered so controversial? 

[trifecta]

Dan,

I'm going to have to be brief, but let me make some fast remarks.

There is a logical problem with sola fide.    To quote you:

"what I am saying is that any informed Lutheran would tell you that a person who says they are saved by faith but they have no need of works is NOT displaying true faith."

If A is faith and B is works and S is salvation.    You say  A plus B does not equal S but  A alone equals S.  But add the above quote--you are saying A is not A without B. Or  B is a subset of A.  The conclusion must be B has something to do with salvation.  Therefore,  sola fide is false.   

Or, if you prefer,  my own Reese's analogy.   If the chocolate is faith and peanut butter is works and entire peanut butter cup is salvation.  You look at the outside and say "See chocolate is salvation."   But peanut butter is a component of the entire product, so both peanut butter and chocolate make the Reese's.    You can't (as Luther tries)  then say, no, peanut butter as nothing to do with it.
 

Surely you are leaving something out, no?  Peter says in Acts 4
It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is " 'the stone you builders rejected,  which has become the capstone.' 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Yes, we are saved by Jesus, but my quote still stands.  You limit its meaning, while Jesus is expanding on it.   This in a nutshell is what Protestants - especially Luther- do wrong.  You choose verses that support your point, and discard this rest.  As did Luther with James. 

If the Holy Spirit is speaking to us through Peter and saying that only by the name of Jesus might we be saved, then it is entirely logical to conclude that the Church is made up of believers

Only if you believe in an invisible church, which we don't.   You are equating believers with the church.   The problem with that is the church is no longer physical but ethereal.
Please look at my Trekkie analogy on page 40 or so  in not all have sinned thread.  In brief, fans of Star Trek never have to meet to be a Trekkie even though there are conventions to attend.  I equate Trekkies with the Protestant view of the church.  The problem is there is no gathering with this definition, and at its most minimal definition a church is a gathering.  There is no physicality to the church which we see in Scripture can not be, because the church is incarnational as is its head Jesus Christ and therefore has physical component.

  No church father bought into the invisible church and none believed in sole fide either.  This is why, I now realize, church history is never emphasized in Protestantism.
As you may remember, I was a Protestant for many years.

and there is no "mystery group" of pople who will be saved outside of the Church. 

but you guys do have a group of believers that are not in any church that are saved, so they are indeed a "mystery group."

The pat answer that I heard somewhere is I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved.  Don't like that one? Not my favorite either.    A more honest answer is I believe God is faithful, but if I will remain faithful is not as certain.  Or,  if we are required to be faithful until the end, how can I really know I am saved?

I think "I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved" is an entirely appropriate answer.  My suggestion to you is to take the Promise to heart. 

Dan, I'm glad you liked the first answer.  The reason I didn't so much is it does not answer your question "Are you saved?"   If salvation is a process, we can't know until the end, since Jesus says to be faithful to the end. 

Paul does not write "For it is by grace you might be saved if you are still faithful when you die", he addresses this to those who HAVE BEEN saved.  Might some of these people fall away?  Yes, but at the moment of Paul's letter, they are saved people.

Yeah, but the same author Paul says "To work out your salvation with fear and trembling." (Phil 2:12).  We are not to rest in our assurance of salvation, which, as you also say, may be lost.

Again, another example of Luther's problem.  He favors one scripture over another.

This is a difference in eastern and western thinking.  The emphasis on the west is on completion, while in the east, it is on process.  An easterner would not even ask the question.

I highly doubt this - all Christians want to be assured that they will rise to life on the Last Day.  There is no east/west difference here. 

Dan, with due respect, you do not understand the eastern mind.  The Protestant mind wants to dwell in the fact that they are saved, even though, as we both agree, once-saved-always-saved is not a valid doctrine.    In the Protestant mind, salvation is a completed act.  We can now revel in it.

The eastern mind is more process-oriented.  Salvation is not a completed act, it is a work in progress just as Paul says Phil 2:12.  We don't count those chickens too soon.  Humility is perhaps the highest attribute in Orthodoxy, again in agreement in Phil 2:12.  Remember the Publican and the Pharisee.  Who was justified?  The humble one.

And, moreover, the topics of justification and sanctification are topics addressed in Scripture, they are not artificial constructs from Luther or the Roman Church. 

But the west started to separate the two, in a way Paul never meant it.  This is what Protestant theologian  P. Sanders says in Christianity Today, while the eastern church never strayed from it.   

If the Orthodox cannot agree with Paul, then that surely is a pity.  However, I doubt that they disagree with Paul and I know that we Lutherans do not disagree with Paul, either,

Of course, we agree with Paul.  But Luther's exgesis is lame because he never seems to leave the Book of Romans (which we don't think Luther quite got right either).

so again I have to ask - why is JBFA considered so controversial? 

I hope I've answered your question.   Well, now I really got to go. 

Blessings to you!

[extranos]

If A is faith and B is works and S is salvation.    You say  A plus B does not equal S but  A alone equals S.  But add the above quote--you are saying A is not A without B. Or  B is a subset of A.  The conclusion must be B has something to do with salvation.  Therefore,  sola fide is false.

Trifecta, you've invented a definition for Sola Fide and then argued against it.  So let me try to clear this up with the real definition....

Without faith, there is no salvation.  I think we can agree on that.  In addition, Lutherans have never defined faith as some type of intellectual assent.  Faith is childlike trust in God to honor His promises. 
We can have all the good works in the world, without faith, and it does us no good.  Only with faith are the works pleasing to God (without faith, it is impossible to please God).
Even with faith, there is not a single good work we can do which requires  God to save us (all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags) - and the number of good works we do has no bearing upon our being saved.  If they did, then God becomes a respecter of persons, which Scripture says is not the case. 
If Person A has faith and Person B has faith, but Person A does 100 good works while Person B does only 95 good works, God does not look at Person A and say "Boy, Person A really worked harder at being faithful, I will save him "'more'".  Our rewards in heaven may differ based upon our works, I do not know for sure, but both Person A and Person B will be in heaven because they are believers who lived their faith and trusted God.
This is what Sola Fide is all about - we  have no good works to point to, but we have our faith given as a gift.  And God, who has never promised to save us based upon our good works, HAS promised to save us because of our gift of faith.

So we are saved because of our faith (Sola Fide) and our good works flow from that living faith.  Good works are proof that our faith is real, but they play no part in making us acceptable to God.

Yeah, but the same author Paul says "To work out your salvation with fear and trembling." (Phil 2:12).  We are not to rest in our assurance of salvation, which, as you also say, may be lost.

Again, another example of Luther's problem.  He favors one scripture over another.

Paul cannot contradict himself (really, the Spirit cannot contradict Himself).  So this "working out" cannot refer to doing good works in a state of fear, but it certainly can mean reverence and humility for the great gift of faith that we have been given.  Luther does not favor one verse from Scripture over another, he and his colleagues were very good about that.  They showed great respect for the wholeness of Scripture and let it interpret itself when there was any possibility of an unclear meaning.

You choose verses that support your point, and discard this rest.  As did Luther with James. 

I know that Luther disliked James, but that is Luther, not Lutheran teachings.  We never discard verses.  Never.  However, as noted above, we insist that unclear verses must be interpreted through verses that are clear.

but you guys do have a group of believers that are not in any church that are saved, so they are indeed a "mystery group."

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  If you mean the believers who constitute the "invisible" Church, then this is true to a small degree but it is Christians who are involved, not unbelievers.  At the same time, there is a big hole in the Visible Church which is that membership does not guarantee true faith.

[katholikos]

....good works flow naturally from faith like heat flows naturally from fire....

Thats the part I disagree with. God may give you the grace to do good works, but it is still an act of your will to respond to that grace and actually do them. That is why we say that God's free grace demands man's free response. Works are a cooperation with Gods grace, they just don't "flow" - we are not puppets on a string.

[extranos]

Thats the part I disagree with. God may give you the grace to do good works, but it is still an act of your will to respond to that grace and actually do them. That is why we say that God's free grace demands man's free response. Works are a cooperation with Gods grace, they just don't "flow" - we are not puppets on a string.

Ephesians 2:8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

K,
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I know how all this works - I don't.  Repentance, being granted faith, and being strengthed by the Spirit are a bit mysterious to me.  I am not afraid to admit it, it's just the way it is.
However, there are a few comments I would like to make.  I don't know why you disagree that works are a natural byproduct of a living faith.  A living faith is one where the believer realizes the tremendous love that God had for us, that while we were yet sinners, He sent His Son to die for us, in our place.  That produces a few fruits of the Spirit - you have surely read of them in Scripture.  Love for others, humility and gratitude are most definitely the result of learning about how much God loves us.  Do you know a lot of people who are loving, humble, gracious, meek, peaceful, gentle, and can control themselves, but they inexplicably hate other people and are unwilling to help?  I don't.
It comes back to things you want to do versus things you have to do.  Do you have kids?  Maybe not, but I do, and I can tell you that they are so much nicer to be around when they WANT to do good works instead of when they HAVE to do good works.

But even when considering good works, we cannot point to our good works and say to God "See how much good I have done - you MUST allow me into heaven!".  That's ridiculous - we humbly say that our righteousness is like a filthy rag and that we are beggars, all, leaning totally on the righteousness of Christ and not on anything we have done.  THAT is being justified by faith ALONE, without any works to which we can point.

[ole Jake]

CD,
The Orthodox continue to beat me up because I believe in Sola Fide.  Yet I heard nothing in this interview that contradicts what I believe.
Sola Fide, in Lutheranism, means nothing more than what was said in the interview:  that grace precedes faith, that faith is not set against good works, that good works flow naturally from faith like heat flows naturally from fire, that there is no such thing as "Sola Fide" without good works, and that Baptism and Faith are intertwined.

So tell me, what am I missing?  Or, better yet, how has the meaning of Sola Fide been twisted to make it controversial to the rest of the Church?
Dan

Ideas have consequences. In other words, all philosophic expressions (and a theologial construct is jst that) has an inherent telos toward which it moves.

Luther assumed that his concoction sola fide would have no real value, save in (1) making him more secure in being saved, (2) bringing a swift end to indulgences (which had been opposed, increasingly so, for 2 decades before Luther, and (3) and keeping the simple-minded from thinking they could work their way to Heaven on their own efforts.

But Luther failed to discern all that was inherent in the simple novel concoction.

The best way to see what all that was is to ask, how quickly did Protestants arise whose interpretation of what sola fide meant differed markedly from what Luther taught? Today, what % of Protestants interpret sola fide the way Luther did and what % interepret it in ways that Luther would have declared heretical?

Johann Eck was not alone in seeing Luther's concoction #1 as heretical because it was preganant with multiple heretical implications, which the Protestant world has been birthing and nursing since then.

Add that to sola scriptura, which formulation the vast majority of Protestants also use in ways that Luther would have denounced as heretical, and you get chaos.