The Well of Questions

Commenting on John 10:48-50, St. Cyril of Alexandria gives us insight into the patristic understanding of final judgment:

48 The word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day.

They will be self-condemned therefore, He says, who refuse to hear Him and do not accept the saving faith. For He that came to illumine, came not in order to judge, but to save. He therefore that disobeys and thereby subjects himself to the greatest miseries, let him blame himself as justly punished.” For I am not the cause thereof, Who desire to save those that are going to fall into judgment, and Who came for this end. For he that makes a law punishing the disobedient, makes it not for the sake of punishing them that transgress it, but in order that they that hear may take heed of it and be safe. (more…)

In this post, I (1) distinguish Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura as distinct doctrines about Scripture and tradition; (2) argue that, given Orthodoxy’s theological approach, it is consistent to claim both “Scripture is the sole source of doctrine” and “it is Orthodox doctrine that icons are a necessary part of the Church”; (3) answer objections to the Orthodox teaching that icons are necessary; and (4) argue that in order to show that the Fathers believed Sola Scriptura, a Protestant would have to argue that the Fathers taught the doctrine of private judgment (which they do not).

(1) Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura

I was recently asked by Catz to answer this rather interesting question:

Can you tell me where icons are upheld in Scripture to the same degree as the 7th council does? Even going so far as declaring anathema those who do not venerate icons? Where in Scripture is the veneration of icons (in the Eastern Orthodox sense) required? (more…)

Romans 8:28 is usually translated roughly as follows:

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (KJV)

An often overlooked fact about this passage is the absence of the word “his” in the Greek. The passage can be read as talking about human free choice, so that we are “called according to our purpose/choice”. (more…)

Dear Readers,

I wish it were not needful that I draw your attention to the recently implemented comment policy, but a recent string of provocative comments seems to make this necessary. Please, have a quick look at the comment policy. If you feel that your comment will be at odds with our policy, save us the trouble of reading and deleting it.

To the few of our readers who were targeted by these comments, I apologize on behalf of the Well of Questions. We do our best to cut this kind of thing off at the nub, but we are, of course, still only human. Please, bear with us as we work to implement our new comment policy and make this a good place for all people to converse.

Mournfully,
Ø

Ad Thalassium 42

Q. How is it that we are said to commit sin and know it (cf 1 John 1:8), while the Lord became sin but did not know it? How is it not more serious to become sin and not know it, than to commit sin and know it? For the Scripture says, For our sake God made him become sin who knew no sin (2 Cor 5:21).

A. Having originally been corrupted from its natural design, Adam’s free choice corrupted along with our human nature, which forefeited the grace of impassibility. Thus came sin into existence. The first sin, culpable indeed, was the fall of free choice from good into evil; the second, following upon the first, was the innocent transformation of human nature from incorruption into corruption. For our forefather Adam committed two “sins” by his transgression of God’s commandment: the first “sin” was culpable, when his free choice willfully rejected the good; but the second “sin,” occasioned by the first, was innocent, since human nature unwillingly put off its incorruption. Therefore our Lord and God, rectifying this reciprocal corruption and alteration of our human nature by taking on the whole of our nature, even had in his assumed nature the liability to passions which, in his own exercise of free choice, he adorned with incorruptibility. (more…)

His grace, Met. Jonah laid some much needed smack down on the subject of Orthodox Unity in America and how we should proceed forward with that task.  This is a VERY important Homily!

“Since a relation, insasmuch as it is something real in God, is the divine essence itself, and the essence is the same as a person, as we have already made clear, it must be that the relation is the same as a person.”

(ST Ia.40.I, response)

In a recent post here, David Nilsen of the A-Team argued that Evangelicals should accept the essence-energies distinction. The reasons he offers are related to the doctrine of God, and the need to maintain a biblical understanding of who God is and avoid philosophical extremes. My intention is not to criticize his arguments per se, because they seem alright.[i] What I am interested in asking is whether or not Reformed Protestants—including Reformed Evangelicals—can consistently hold to essence-energies without giving up some of the most important Reformed distinctives.[ii] Can someone believe in the essence-energies distinction, maintain the distinctives of Reformed theology, and not adopt the distinctives of Orthodox theology?

In the first part of this multi-part series, I will give three (of several) reasons to think that the essence-energies distinction is incompatible with some of the most important distinctives of Reformed theology: the doctrine of effectual calling and regeneration, the denial of the communication of divine attributes to Christ’s human nature, and the retributive nature of the punishments of hell. (more…)

Over the next few months blog activity on The Well of Questions will be lower than usual.  Several of the contributors will be busy finishing up with their undergraduate work.  Please bear with us as we try to get our degrees, and trust that we will have new and interesting material for our readers soon.

Feel free to continue to comment on posts, and contact us with questions; but keep in mind that we may not answer until late May or early June (depending on the questions–if they are easily answered, expect something soon).

–MG

The following is a response to David Nilsen about the exegesis of Romans 12:19. David was trying to argue that Romans 12:19 is a clear case of Pauline teaching that God retributively punishes sin. You can see the first portion of the exchange here. Below is my non-retributive exegesis of the passage, written as a response to one of David’s comments. (more…)