We Orthodox often do not take seriously enough what it means that we are fallen and damaged. It is true that we do not believe in various forms of total depravity. However, all too often we react against extreme forms of total depravity by going to the other extreme and almost denying that we are damaged.
We do reject those forms of total depravity that use philosophical arguments to aver that a non-Christian is incapable of doing any good. Those arguments take the form of arguing that the motivations of every person are tainted, however slightly, by some form of self-interest. The next part of the argument is that any form of self-interest means that our good acts are always tainted. The next step is to argue that since God cannot tolerate any sort of evil, then our good acts are not ever acceptable to God. Of course, the people who make that type of argument will also go on to piously state that even the good acts of a Christian are also thus tainted and that the only reason that God accepts them is because we are his children, in spite of their filth. (That this immediately contradicts their statement that God cannot tolerate any sort of evil seems to go right by those who make this argument.) This type of argumentation is also used to show that good works do not truly exist, and thus Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Methodists, Nazarenes, Pentecostals, etc., must all be wrong in their theology. Not surprisingly, this type of argumentation also tends to go with a strong theology of election, because this argument tends to be paired with an argument against free will.
Let me note in passing that the type of philosophical argumentation used against good works is the same type of argumentation used by those who follow utilitarian philosophy and suffers from the same critiques as does utilitarian philosophy. This type of argument makes all good works to be merely some type of self-interest in the same way that utilitarians will argue that all moral decisions are really the result of some type of self-interest (or pleasure). In fact, those who make this argument against good works have to do the same thing as utilitarian philosophers. They have to assume that the good work has some self-interest or some sin in it, even if it is not discernible in any way. That is, they must argue that even if we do not see the sin in the good work, it must be there, and God is seeing it. In fact, the way they argue, there is no way of disproving their contention. They, however, forget that they have no way of proving it. In other words, this is an entire theology of there being no good works based on nothing provable, even by Scripture. (Yes, I know about the vastly overused “filthy rags” verse.)
Not only are there no such things as good works, it is also argued that there is no such thing as free will. But, it is an odd definition of free will. The only free will we appear to lack is the free will to choose to do good (see paragraph above) and the free will to choose God. Apparently we have all the free will we wish when we choose evil, thus we are fully guilty of each and every sin we commit. So, Adam’s sin made it impossible for us to choose good or to choose God, but left us quite free to choose evil. It is a very interesting definition of free will. In fact, that definition only begins to make a glimmer of sense if one does not believe in “once saved always saved.” You see, if one believes in “once saved, always saved,” then all anyone needs is to choose God even one time for that person to be saved. To argue that no one has even that much free will is to begin to make God guilty of punishing people for the sin of being incapable of choosing God. And, yes, I have heard sermons that clearly state that the only unforgivable sin is not accepting Jesus as Lord. Since a lack of free will makes it impossible to accept Jesus as Lord, then that means that God punishes us for what is impossible for us. This begins to twist our definition of God. And, no, using the line that with God all things are possible does not even begin to solve the moral dilemma.
In fact, the argument against free will only makes sense if choosing God is not a one time event, but a lifetime event. But, that definition starts bringing one much closer to the theology of Methodists, Nazarenes, Pentecostals, etc., and brings us to the concept of common grace. So, the commonly used arguments about good works and free will all depend on philosophical definitions. The problem is whether those definitions are in accord with the witness of Scripture and Holy Tradition. The answer is that they are not.
===MORE TO COME===
These be fightin’ words! 😉
It looks like you’re gearing up for a most interesting conversation. I cannot wait to see what happens 😀
Fr. Ernesto…
Thanks so much for an insightful, clear response to the concept of total depravity. I’m in the process of training to become an Anglican priest, have traveled extensively throughout Eastern Europe, have a very healthy respect for the Orthodox Church, and many friends who are a part of the Bulgarian Orthodox tradition.
That being said, do you believe that there is any hope for reconciliation, or a shared communion table between the Anglican and Orthodox faiths? I have read Metropolitan Jonah’s four requirements for this to occur, one of which is for Anglicans to denounce Calvin as a heretic. I know many won’t do this, but I am excited that the discussion is even taking place. I won’t say that I don’t value some reformed teachings, but I love the unity of the Church more than I love Calvin. One of the things that appeals to me about Anglicanism is the open table, which my Orthodox brothers and sisters can share with me. If a full unified Church made up of Orthodox and Anglican Rites isn’t possible, do you believe that a shared table amongst brothers of different theological standpoints could be?
The Western Rite in the Antiochian and ROCOR jurisdictions already uses a form of the 1662, with some small modifications, as one of the liturgies that may be celebrated. So, I see no problem with a reunion per se, but it would indeed have to be within the strictures laid out by Metropolitan Jonah. But, it is interesting to note that the Western Rite in both jurisdictions keeps a Western calendar and uses Western chant and hymns and Western vestments. So, it is not necessary for the Anglicans to become Eastern but rather to become truly Catholic. And, yes, the Orthodox are truly Catholic. GRIN.
For us the Table is an expression of communion in the faith. So, I do not foresee any type of open communion. But, the Orthodox are not monolithic in their theology, so there is already shared communion within various viewpoints within Orthodoxy.
I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the only Anglican-rooted iteration of the Western Rite in the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese is derived, not from the English Book of 1662, but from the Scottish Anglican tradition as represented by the traditional liturgy of the American BCP’s. This strain represents something of a return to the patristic structure of the Eucharistic prayer, whereas 1662 is significantly “deformed” in that area.
Also, I THINK (I am less sure about this than the above) that the Western Rite liturgy used by ROCOR is entirely derived from the pre-Reformation Roman Rite, possibly according to the use of Sarum.
Well, since I am Eastern Rite, I could quite well be wrong. So, let me say that I think I am safe in commenting that both the Antiochians and ROCOR allow one of the Anglican liturgies, slightly modified, in their Western Rite.
“…the people who make that type of argument will also go on to piously state that even the good acts of a Christian are also thus tainted and that the only reason that God accepts them is because we are his children, in spite of their filth. (That this immediately contradicts their statement that God cannot tolerate any sort of evil seems to go right by those who make this argument.)”
Let’s keep in mind is their motivation to not deprive anything from the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ. Any sense of works, as if we are contributing to what only He could accomplish, would seem to claim that we contribute (or are co-saviors) to His work.
But there’s a problem here. We re not talking about a zero-sum game. Otherwise, St. Paul could not write that he “makes up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ…”
It seems that somewhere along the line, at least on a popular level, the West bought into a notion that good works could earn favor with God. That, of course, is not the case. But we need to take this one step further: the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ ALSO does not earn us God’s favor. They are a manifestation, THE manifestion of God’s love for humanity, of the Divine favor toward humanity, which is the source of everything that God does for us, beginning with our creation in the Divine Image and Likeness. We are saved, not from the wrath of God, but from the consequences of sin, of being hostage to the world, the flesh, and the devil. Christ’s role in that is irreplaceable, but so is our coooperation with what Christ does, both what Christ HAS done, and what Christ continues to do, both through the ministry of the Church, and within us on a personal basis, both of which involve the work of the Holy Spirit.
“Christ’s role in that is irreplaceable, but so is our coooperation with what Christ does, both what Christ HAS done, and what Christ continues to do, both through the ministry of the Church, and within us on a personal basis, both of which involve the work of the Holy Spirit.”
Your focus on Christ would make them comfortable, but the “cooperation” aspect would make them uneasy, and seeing it as 1) straying from total depravity (yes, I know that is a western/Augustinian emphasis), and 2) entering that dangerous gray area of possible “works” that diminish that Christ emphasis.
Arminians would find that description more in their comfort range (I fall into that category- full disclosure).
“…the people who make that type of argument will also go on to piously state that even the good acts of a Christian are also thus tainted and that the only reason that God accepts them is because we are his children, in spite of their filth.”
Which ends up making Christ a fool and an idiot. Why would anyone want to die to redeem such Rancid Piles of Crap?
I got a heavy dose of such Total Depravity Worm Theology (hand-in-hand with “All except SCRIPTURE and WITNESSING is Forbidden by God, and what is not Forbidden is Absolutely Compulsory”) in the Seventies and the scars are still there.
My writing partner (the burned-out country preacher) runs into these types — “Hyper-Calvinists” on a regular basis. They are SO into Predestination Uber Alles that they’ve gone beyond the Islamic “In’shal’lah” into “Socratic Atheism” — God is not God, but only a puppet of Predestination, doing only what He has been Predestined to do.
Hmm, the motivation of the Pharisees was equally good. They defined each law to minutea in order to ensure that no Israelite would be in danger of breaking the Law. However, the true end result was something that did not truly reflect the mind of God. I would argue that in the zeal to guard God’s salvation from the danger of what they call “works-righteousness,” they also have ended up with something that actually requires that several Scriptures be interpreted differently from the plain sense, let alone the other meanings that Scripture might have.
In fact, history shows that the Pharisees had much more support among the people than the Sadduccees. They were likeable, but wrong. And, when Our Lord came, they gave him some of his biggest headaches precisely because they were zealous to defend God’s Law.
Among the Protestants, Methodists, Nazarenes, some Pentecostals, etc., criticized their fellow believers from other groups precisely for having thrown the baby out with the bathwater on this issue.
The problem is that the Pharisees were taking their eyes off God, and looking at the law and/or Jewish/Gentile divide. In short, they were “adding” to God’s grace.
The present day group(s) you are critical of have the opposite motivation, in that they are trying to focus just on God, and His grace. However, how some of them handle such issues may remind one of the Pharisees and their approach.
Glad you’re an Arminian. You’re moving in the right direction. 😉
Once again, this is not a zero-sum game. God wins if humanity wins and humanity wins if God wins. It was Ireneus, I believe, who wrote, “The salvation of humanity is the glory of God.”
Second, there is this tendency, very pronounced in the West, along with turning things into zero sum, to reduce humanity’s relationship with God to a matter of law. Our relationship with God is not primarily a legal issue. “The ,law is for lawbreakers.” It is a matter of love and communion. It is a relationship best modeled, within humanity, by that of the family. This is grounded in the Trinitarian communion itself.
Actually, I would argue that when one reads the Talmud, one can see that it is clear that the Pharisees were trying to focus on God, but they missed the mark. In the same way, so do those who think that they are “defending” God’s work of salvation by arguing that there really truly is no such thing as a good work.
“the Pharisees were trying to focus on God”.
I think that was their (or at least some of the Pharisees) initial intent, but as they “missed the mark” the focus strayed. That concern of straying, and the the seemingly human tendency to take pride in one own’s work, is why this becomes an issue to them. We must keep in mind that it was abuses, that developed from potentially honest beginnings, but that added to the Gospel, that lit the fire in Luther, Calvin, etc…
Anything that seems to be the Gospel plus…., is not the Gospel.
I see the Calvinists as the Gospel minus.
Somewhere in his non-fiction, Lewis makes a point that happiness or pleasure cannot be achieved by pursuing it directly, that it always comes as a byproduct or side effect of something else.
Maybe “focusing on God” works the same way?
(In the Orthodox Flakeout tradition, you sometimes post on “Monastic Wannabes”. Maybe that’s how such “focusing on God/Missing the Mark” works on your side of the Adriatic?)
Hmm, the motivation of the Pharisees was equally good. They defined each law to minutea in order to ensure that no Israelite would be in danger of breaking the Law. However, the true end result was something that did not truly reflect the mind of God.
The true end result was Micromanagement.
Especially when the “Can You Top This?” dynamic really got rolling:
“I don’t do X, as per the Commandment.”
“I don’t do X — OR Y! I’m holier!”
“No, I’m holier and Godlier! I don’t do X, Y, OR Z!”
A good Calvinist would say your denial of total depravity is evidence of the same. 😉
That’s Conspiracy Theory Logic. All evidence against The Conspiracy is PROOF of The Conspiracy.
The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs, and Won’t Be Taken In.
But, only because I freely choose not to believe in it. :0