Eastern Orthodox Q&A

[Striped Leopard]

Hmm, your old church and your dad say that there would be a 1,000 year kingdom on earth that will end, meaning the Nicene Creed is wrong when it says God's kingdom will never end. Yet you have decided that there will not be a 1,000 year kingdom, how did you reach that decision?

I'm confused... I don't remember telling you that my old church and my dad believe in a literal thousand-year reign. If you're merely talking hypothetically here, you're an amazing guesser, because that's exactly my situation.

If you're seriously asking me that question, even though I have no idea how you got the information to support it, I woudl answer this way: My pastor has been very influential in my present eschatalogical views. He did a survey of the Book of Revelation in our church's morning Sunday School class, and it really cleared things up for me. Just as "a day with the Lord is as a thousand days (and vice versa)" and "the Lord owns the cattle on a thousand hills," are figurative, I believe that the 1,000 year reign described in Revelation 20 is figurative for a long period of time. The "1,000 years" began when Christ rose from the dead and established His kingdom on earth through His Church. I don't believe this reign will ever end, like the Nicene creed says.

I believe I have arrived at this position through Scripture, but indirectly through my pastor's clarification of what the Scripture says. He is an authority given to me by God, so I trust that if he can show me his beliefs clearly from Scripture, I can listen to what he tells me.

I wasn't aware you viewed the Eucharist as anything more than symbolic?

Oh, sorry. I guess I was a little misleading there. I do believe that the elements of the Eucharist are symbolic. (e.g. the bread is not the actual body of Christ) But I do believe that Christ is spiritually present in a special way when we partake of the elements. The eating and drinking is symbolic of believing upon Christ for salvation. To "eat His flesh" and "drink His blood" are to trust in Him for eternal life.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Tradition is the clarification or interpretation of Scripture by the Church through the ages based on the teachings of Christ given to the Apostles and then from them to the Church once and for always.

So even though there is a consensus among the Early Church Fathers, and even most Reformers, about the physical presence in the Eucharist you don't believe it?

[Striped Leopard]

Correct. I believe that the clear teaching of Scripture contradicts that teaching and the implications that come along with it.

And... you didn't tell me how you know about my former church and my dad's beliefs...

[Eleventh Doctor]

So you believe that the church both East and West, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and most of the Reformers didn't understand the clear teaching of Scripture until Zwingli came along and got it right? I mean I've looked, I can't find anyone that says it's just a symbol or even it's just the spiritual presence until the Reformation.

You told me, you just forgot.

[Striped Leopard]

If that is the case, then yes. I don't really want to discount the sincerity of all of those people and groups, but from my study of Scripture and my pastor's preaching, it is very clear to me that the elements of communion do not transform into the literal body and blood of Christ. Not only is Scriptural support for this viewpoint lacking, but it creates many theological problems.

Okay. I guess that would only make sense. But it's weird that I don't remember.

[Eleventh Doctor]

What theological problems do you think it creates?

Also if we can discount something so widely believed by the entirety of the Church doesn't that mean there are lots of other things up for doubt too? I mean sure the entire Church believed in what the nature of Christ's incarnation is but what if one pastor today made a good argument against the traditional belief that I think makes sense from my reading of Scripture?

[Striped Leopard]

This artical pretty much sums up my beliefs on the issue: http://www.webtruth.org/articles/theolo ... on-49.html

Well, upon further review of quotes from the early church fathers on the subject of the body and blood of Christ, I think it is not a clear-cut issue as to whether or not they believed that the elements literally transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Their words can be interpreted either way. They speak of the bread as the flesh of Christ and the wine as the blood of Christ; but so does my pastor. He speaks very clearly sometimes about how the relationship between the symbolism and the reality of what the elements do for our souls is so close that it is acceptable to identify the elements with the things they represent. He believes that Jesus is really, truly present in a different way than usual when we partake of the sacrament. From the quotes I've read (from Catholic websites, mind you), I think this is all that the church fathers taught.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I would disagree with the article that belief that the Eucharist is the literal Body and Blood of Christ encourages worship of the Eucharist as I don't see that happening in my church. As for the scientific facts and the "impossibility" of it, miracles are impossible in any other circumstance and don't obey scientific facts. As to John 6 I think the Early Church Fathers interpret it differently, do you have some quotes where you think they're teaching a spiritual non-physical presence in the Eucharist?

I think there was disagreement from the Gnostics early on about whether the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood and the Early Church Fathers very strongly confirmed that it was indeed physically real.

They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.

St. Justin lived 100-165 AD. St. Clement of Alexandria about 30 years later in 195 AD wrote this.

The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.

The Eucharist is both spiritually and physically the Body and Blood of Christ.

[Striped Leopard]

Sorry it took me a while to respond. I'm kinda weighed down with school right now.

I agree that the "scientific" argument was sort of inconclusive, since we do have a God who works miracles. But I don't think there's any other example in Scripture of the physical properties and appearances of an object remaining the same, while its substance or spiritual identity, or whatever you want to call it, changes into something entirely different. Additionally, I believe that the one sacrifice of Jesus was all that was needed for salvation; He doesn't need to be re-sacrificed scores of times in order to make us more sanctified. His initial crucifixion was all-sufficient for our entire Christian experience--His death and resurrection were enough.

No, I don't have any quotes from the early fathers where they specifically refer to the sacrament as merely a spiritual reality. But, like I said, I think each one of these statements can be interpreted either way. At the time, there wasn't much controversy (apart from the Gnostics, but that was more along the lines of whether or not Jesus actually came in human flesh) about the nature of the elements, so the fathers didn't address it very specifically. All of their statements can be interpreted to be representative and symbolic. Just as baptism is closely related to, and sometimes spoken of as if it is our salvation, the bread and the wine are closely related to, and sometimes spoken as if they are the actual body and blood of Christ.

If you took some of my pastor's words out of context (or sometimes even in context), you could probably accuse him of being both a baptismal regenerationist and a transubstantiationist, just because of his strong choice of words at times. However, if you directly addressed him about it, he would tell you clearly that he is neither.

I have another question for you: I came across these verses in my devotions today, and I was wondering what you think about them.

"Since, therefore, we have now been justified by His blood, much more shall we be saved by Him from the wrath of God." Romans 5:9

"For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ," 1 Thessalonians 5:9

I'm not totally clear about what your beliefs on "the wrath of God" are, but what you've said in the past wouldn't seem to flow well with these verses. Could you explain to me what you think about it?

[Eleventh Doctor]

So miracles have to happen in pairs? No unique miracles?

I totally agree Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed, I'm not saying that He does.

I think the quote from St. Justin really can't be interpreted any other way. "THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST" if the Eucharist was just spiritual then the Gnostics would have no problem partaking of the Eucharist. But because "THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST" they have a problem. There's really no way getting around that context.

And the Church Fathers are very, very clear that this is not just spiritual. From St. Irenaeus of 177 AD.

"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ."

From St. Cyril 348

"Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.

The Holy Fathers took this issue on very directly and confirmed the very real physical presence in the Eucharist.

This is a bit long but worth the watch as it explains my position better than I ever could: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8

[Striped Leopard]

You have a valid point. But I don't believe that there is ample evidence in Scripture that this "miracle" is what occurs in the Eucharist. And the fact that the Bible has no other examples of it strengthens that belief.

You can post all of the quotes you want to, but I still see the same thing in every one. The Word of God enables the elements to become something more than they naturally are--they become substances that nourish the body and soul, called the Body and Blood of Christ. I don't disagree with that; but that's all I see. I don't see them saying that the actual physical properties of the elements become the physical body and blood of Christ, such that we could rightly be called cannibals because we are actually eating human flesh and drinking human blood. I just don't see that there.

Thank you for linking to that video. It was very helpful. And I'm very appreciative of the way that the man depicted Protestant theology. He was spot on, and I was impressed. I don't agree with your view, but I definitely have a better understanding of it now.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I can't see any other way to interpret these quotes so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Glad the video could help.

[Striped Leopard]

One thing I didn't really get from the video was a clear definition of "the wrath of God." Would you just describe it like the priest did, as God's love demonstrated as a "consuming fire"?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Yes that is how I would describe "the wrath of God"

[Striped Leopard]

Okay, thanks. I think I've told you before that I don't entirely disagree with that point of view. I believe that, by His very nature and character, God is under obligation to love at all times, because He is love. So, in a sense, even the wicked, while they experience the torment of His wrath in hell will still be under His love. I know you don't agree with the torment part, but that's how I would explain it.

How would you interpret Matthew 5:20, which says, "I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven"?

How do we attain to or receive that righteousness?

[Eleventh Doctor]

To use a slightly different word for righteousness I would say that acquisition of the Holy Spirit is done through obedience to God.

However prayer, fasting, vigil and all the other Christian practices may be, they do not constitute the aim of our Christian life. Although it is true that they serve as the indispensable means of reaching this end, the true aim of our Christian life consists of the acquisition of the Holy Spirit of God. As for fasts, and vigils, and prayer, and almsgiving, and every good deed done for Christ's sake, are the only means of acquiring the Holy Spirit of God.

So good works in of themselves don't constitute the aim of the Christian life but they are how we acquire the Holy Spirit.

[Striped Leopard]

Ah, okay. So you wouldn't have any doctrine regarding the righteous life of Christ being imputed to the Christian, or anything like that.

What do you do with 2 Corinthians 5:21, "God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" ?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Christ lived a perfect life and that is the life we strive to live. Eastern Orthodox have a very developed theology on the Incarnation. This is The Incarnation of the Word of God by St. Athanasius with an introduction by C.S. Lewis http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/a ... tion.c.htm

An often quoted phrase from The Incarnation is "God became man so that man could become God." That is what we would do with the verse.

[Striped Leopard]

Could you elaborate on "man could become God"? I seem to remember you explaining this to me a very long time ago, but could you refresh my memory?

[Eleventh Doctor]

To quote C.S. Lewis who can say it better than me.

The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods’ and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.

So in a sense this is similar to your doctrine of imputed righteousness?