Reasons not to be Eastern Orthodox #237: "Aerial Toll Houses"

Wait… So are you saying that the toll-houses ARE in fact the way that Christ judges us?

If you’re saying that God uses the aerial toll-houses to enact his judgment of mankind, then okay. But are you saying that? Because that would be incredible.

No but that’s precisely the point, it’s because I don’t collapse the natural with the supernatural that I can still believe in God even though man has risen above all of the celestial spheres.

The aerial toll-houses idea which you defend, Father, advocates a tight coupling between the natural and the supernatural. To them, the higher off the ground you go, the closer you are to heaven. You will interpret the Devil being the Lord of the Air (Eph 2:2) in an eschatological sense: that there is something unique and special about the air, where traversing it has something to do with salvation. I deny that conflation of the natural and supernatural, which lets me believe in God no matter how high we rise in the air.

 

This is what I said about Eph. 4:

Much of the biblical passage is quite mystical, but it seems clear to me (as it did to Chrysostom) that oneness is something we strive for, not something that "just is".

That's it: oneness is something we strive for and should strive for, full stop. How any of that tiny sentence amounts to "eisegesis" or is "ahistorical" (gasp!) or "at odds with the Fathers" (the horrors!) escapes me. In fact, you are the only person in this thread who has brought up the "branch theory" at all. I certainly never advocated it. So it seems you are committed to engaging in a little eisegesis yourself.

 

You have been trained from a young age, I feel certain, to think of 'the Church' as the gathered members under the organizational umbrella of the EO Church. It's the same with the Romans; they are taught that 'the Church' is equal to the Roman Catholic Church, meaning its hierarchy and magisterium and baptized, on-the-rolls members. I was raised RC, so I get that.

However, a person can be a member of the EOC or of the RCC, baptized and partaking of the Eucharist every Sunday, and yet not be truly a believer. Going through the motions of religious routines does not ensure that one is actually reborn into God's Kingdom, spiritually rebirthed, and having the indwelling Holy Spirit. Humans can be quite good at 'looking good,' don't you agree? So we see that membership in the one true Church is not a matter of outward signs, nor is membership created by outward behaviors or a name on a church roll. Rather, membership in the one true Church is an affair of the heart, a question of whether the person has faith unto salvation to which God has responded by bestowing saving grace. This inward change transcends denominational boundaries altogether, for those boundaries, hierarchies, emblems, and buildings are the works of fallible humans, but God sees the inward man and acts accordingly.

Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

It doesn't say that the Church added daily to its membership rolls. It says that every day people were getting saved (which we know is by grace through faith and not of works), and when they got saved the Lord added them to the Church. Huge difference!

When the thief on the cross believed, he became (or was destined to become, depending on the viewpoint) a member of the Church. In my hypothetical, the relatively ignorant (of God and doctrine) man became a member of the Church when he believed. As Jesus said (Mark 9:23), If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And in John 6:47, Jesus said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. And again in John 7:38, He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. It is often helpful to notice what Jesus never said; He never said, 'he that joins the ABC Church has everlasting life.'

Romans 10 doesn't say, 'if you confess with your mouth, believe in your heart, and are a member in good standing of the ABC Church, you will be saved.' Galatians 3:2 doesn't say, 'Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by joining the XYZ Church?' No, we received the Spirit "by hearing with faith."

The true ecclesia is the worldwide group of redeemed-by-grace human beings, regardless of (and often in spite of) the religious trappings associated with whatever visible church group they're involved in.

 

What the verse in Hebrews shows us is that, after death, the next event of spiritual significance is the judgment. the dead do go to a temporary destination (no soul sleep), but these destinations surely align with our eternal ones. Are you proposing that our just, loving God would permit a deceased soul who died in a state of saving grace to be tormented in death by demons or to suffer in some way? Or do you use the term "Hades" to represent both the pleasant and the unpleasant compartments? If the former, and if you suppose that some measure of purgation occurs in this afterlife period, then we do not agree on this as this concept is not supported by the Bible and I'm confident that any such major doctrine would find its roots in the word of God. The early church writings give interpretative aid and support to the Bible, but they do not make new doctrines.

 

I should point out that none of the quotations which Father has submitted, support his view that there's a kind of aerial judgment which we undergo by the demons, which functions as a replacement of, or an addition to, the judgment received from God himself. The passages provided are tenuous and speculative at best.

You really need to start to go to the 7-8-9th centuries to find a properly elaborate system of aerial judgments by demons, and even that is unique to the Byzantine church (the West has been free from such theology for all of the last 2000 years, which is why it sounds so weird to us).

All that to say, that we shouldn't taint the Church Fathers reputation by accepting that they allowed this doctrine. In fact they have many passages, and I have listed some, where they directly outline the Scriptural doctrine of judgment and redemption, precisely as you describe: after death there is an "intermediate state" and then the souls are judged. And that's verbatim what we find in the Anglican divines as well.

I would argue that the Byzantine theology as presented by Fr. Whiteford is out of step with the ancient witness, the ancient Anglican witness, as well as with the post-reformation Anglican witness.

 

I had overlooked this detail. You do consider both sides of this abode to be Hades. Under this reading, I'd be inclined to say that the place we call "heaven" is identical with the pleasant side of this Hades; after all, "heaven" in my understanding is an abode of the righteous dead. But then, of course, you probably view "heaven" as a not-in-Hades place, a place for especially-pure Saints (with a capital "S") , am I correct? So I think what you're saying is that only a scant few souls make it to heaven to await the final judgment there, while the rest all end up in Hades, either the nice side or the unpleasant side. Is that about right?

Most of us probably view things differently, that Jesus 'took captivity captive' in emptying the pleasant side of Hades (which we sometimes call "Abraham's bosom") and leading all the righteous dead to heaven. They are, in some respect, in the presence of God the Father, but possibly not seeing His face. (I'd speculate that they probably can see God the Son there. And of course all Christians are in the presence of God even in this life, for God the Holy Spirit truly lives in each of us. From that standpoint, I hardly see how any deceased Christian could be relegated to a place outside of God's presence, some non-heaven Hades, after being graced with His presence during mortal life!)

 

There is a particular judgment that happens at death, but this is not *the* judgment, which can only be the final judgment. In the particular judgment, angels and demons play a role, but they do not do so apart from God's will.

You are essentially advocating that there is no supernatural, except for the God you have slapped on top of your empiricism. You have yet to explain what you think the Devil being the prince and power of the air means in your universe. Also, I wonder if you deny the ascension of the Lord, since he ascended through the air, and thus suggested this was the path to the right hand of the Father, which you must assume is a Ptolemaic view of the universe that intelligent people can no longer take seriously.

 

No where in St. John Chrysostom's interpretation is their the suggestion that we have to strive for oneness with the schismatics, who also are part of the Church. He is talking to people in the visible, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and talking about what they need to do to be fully united with the Church in a spiritual sense. You are advocating the branch theory of the Church, even though you have not brought up the phrase, but when you suggest that churches divided by doctrine and communion are all part of the one Church, what else would you call that view?

 

Death, Be Not Proud
John Donne

Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so;
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppy or charms can make us sleep as well
And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally
And death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die. ​

Faith, for us as Anglicans has content. There is that which must be believed unto salvation, and an example of that may be the Apostles Creed, and there is that which should rightly be believed and an example of that may be the Nicene Creed, There are also those thing which should not be believed and examples of that may well be seen in declared Heresies, such as Arianism, Pelagianism, Donatism, etc.

The betwixt and between of Aerial Tolls Houses, may seem a little tricky for Anglicans to navigate, for it is a concept some distance from traditional Anglican thought. I know if you discuss Purgatory with an Eastern Christian you will likely be told that they do not believe in purgatory. None the less to understand the real difference between Aerial Toll Houses and Purgatory (when understood as a period of expectation waiting and growth rather than torture punishment and capitulation) seems awkward.

Article 22 provides some guidance here:

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.​

The East will join us in repudiating the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory, though of course that leaves us to work out if that is any doctrine concerning Purgatory or simply the group of ideas that were current at the time (C1500-1550), where people spent a time in punishment for their misdeeds, and Masses were offered and pardons for time off in Purgatory were sold to raise funds for the new basilica in Rome.

Anyone who has faced a theology exam I know dreads the possible exam question 'what happens after death, give evidence?'. In the end I conclude that we know some things that have been revealed, and we know that there comes the judgment, and assurance of the hope of the resurrection, for we know that Christ when he ascends leads a host of captives and we pray that we may be numbered among them.

John Donne presents a view, and I am sure many of us studied the poem in school, which I believe is a wholesome Anglican view, and acknowledges that there is a lot of detail betwixt here and there which we neither know, nor need to know, save the assurance that death has lost its power and we shall all be awake in God.

 

The distinction being made is between the human constructs commonly called 'churches,' which indeed are divided by doctrine, and the Church which God created. The latter is the body of Christ on earth and it is indeed one in Christ, despite human frailties, disagreements, and misunderstandings. It's entirely too easy to conflate the two, isn't it?

God's Church has no denominational sign over the door; it doesn't say Orthodox or Roman or Anglican or Methodist or Bible Church. There's just the precious blood of Jesus on the doorposts and lintel.

 

Actually, you would be wrong. I was raised in the Church of the Nazarene, but discovered the Orthodox Faith, and became convinced of its claims after much study. I know that the Romans make similar claims. Logically, if you take the meaning of the Nicene Creed seriously, either the Roman Church is the one Church, the Orthodox Church is the one Church, or the Nicene Creed is simply false. You can take your pick, but you can't pretend the Nicene Creed says something that it clearly doesn't say.

Of course one can formally be a member of the Church and still go to hell. I never said anything to the contrary. I would even go so far as to say that someone could theoretically be outside of the Church, but might be saved, because they responded to the light that they had been given properly. However, anyone who is saved, will be part of the Church in heaven. This, however, is a matter for God to judge.

Christ also said he that believeth and is baptized will be saved. Baptism is entry into the New Covenant and the beginning of membership in the Church. The thief on the Cross was saved under unusual circumstances, and I am sure he is not the only one. However, the Church lays out the normal means of salvation, which is not confessing Christ will dying on a Cross next to Him... though that worked in his case.

Romans 6 also talks about the importance of Baptism, and baptism is not just a personal relationship with Christ... it is entry into the New Covenant Church.

 

There is a particular judgment that happens at death, but that is not the judgment -- that would be the final judgment, though the particular judgment provides a foretaste of the final. I am using Hades to represent both the pleasant and unpleasant compartments. I do not believe souls suffer to pay for their sins, and so we are not talking about purgatory, though what I am talking about is what the Roman Catholic Church twisted into purgatory. The Scriptures actually say very little about the particular judgment at all, in any direct sense. It is clearly in view, however, such as we see in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

 

That's simply not the case. Anyone who has actually read the Fathers of the Church would know that the idea of demons and angels playing a role in the particular judgment is found throughout their writings. St. Justin Martyr being just one example of that, and he clearly comes long before the 7th century. The use of imagery of the demons acting as tax collectors probably dates from around that time, but that is just one way of speaking about the same thing we consistently find elsewhere, and throughout the history of the Church.

 

I came across this statement from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, and thought it worthy of posting as it seems pertinent to the discussion.

God's Judgement
Judgement of the soul according to its faith and deeds on earth, is an unquestioned teaching of the Gospel. It is also a self-evident demand of human nature and reasoning. The Christian Church places this judgment at the very moment of the death of the individual for two reasons:

1. Any moral progress of the soul is excluded after its separation from the body; and
2. there is no hope of repentance or betterment after death.

The moral progress of the soul, either for better or for worse, ends at the very moment of the separation of the body and soul; at that very moment the definite destiny of the soul in the everlasting life is decided. (see Androutsos Dogmatics p. 409). It will be judged not according to its deeds one by one, but according to the entire total results of its deeds and thoughts. The Orthodox Church believes that at this moment the soul of the dead person begins to enjoy the consequences of its deeds and thoughts on earth - that is, to enjoy the life in Paradise or to undergo the life in Hell. There is no way of repentance, no way of escape, no reincarnation and no help from the outside world. Its place is decided forever by its Creator and judge.

The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory (a place of purging), that is the intermediate state after death in which the souls of the saved (those who have not received temporal punishment for their sins) are purified of all taint preparatory to entering into Heaven, where every soul is perfect and fit to see God...​

Source: https://www.goarch.org/en/-/death-the-threshold-to-eternal-life

The statement seems to agree with what I've said previously: believers do not go to a place separate from heaven. If they were truly Christians, unconfessed sin will not prevent them from going to heaven; they don't go someplace else to be purified or purged or to repent, for the redemption of Jesus Christ is completely efficacious in bestowing or imputing God's own righteousness to them. No matter the individual, we are all sinners saved by grace and our own personally-achieved righteousness would obviously be like soiled menstrual rags to our Lord, so the big sinners saved by grace don't get treated differently from the little sinners saved by grace; we all go to the same place, by the power of God's grace.

 

The Fathers teach that what is described in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not heaven, but the abode of the righteous prior to Christ's resurrection. It is not the case that only a few make into heaven before the final judgment. But it is the teaching of the Church that many do not go there immediately, and that the prayers of the Church benefit them as they grow in grace and are prepared to enter into heaven.

St. Augustine's mother's last request from St. Augustine was that he would pray for her after her death, particularly at the altar. Why do you suppose she made such a request, if to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, and it is all either one way or the other, and nothing is subject to any change after death?

 

The Church is not a human construct. Christ came, not to establish a philosophy, but to establish a Church which the gates of hell cannot prevail against. And while you might think the Nicene Creed is ridiculous or naive, it in fact affirms that there is only one visible Church that has a common faith and shares a common communion, and so if you don't believe that, you don't believe the Creed.

 

There’s that eisegesis again. I never said anything about schismatics. The fact that you are defining us as “heretics” or “schismatics” does not make it so. But yes, St. Paul is absolutely telling us we should individually and collectively do our best to heal breaches in communion, and your denial of the plain sense not only of that passage but also of St. Chrysostom’s commentary is quite mistaken. You are reading Orthodox ecclesiology back into the New Testament, rather than deriving an orthodox ecclesiology from it.

In your methodology, only a later stage of “Tradition” within a particular communion can tell you what the “legitimate” representatives of the Tradition were at an earlier stage. Orthodoxy’s definition of the Church is irretrievably circular in theory and authoritarian in practice.

 

I agree with what you're saying about that parable. However, while we can be confident that the description Jesus gave in that parable was apropos at the time He spoke it (prior to the resurrection), we have some reason to think that Christ emptied the pleasant side of that abode ('Abraham's bosom') and led its occupants (including Abraham, David, Solomon, etc.) to heaven at some point, either after he died on the cross or after he rose from the dead. Christ's death and resurrection had immense ramifications in the spiritual realm.

Are you suggesting that Augustine's mother had perfect doctrinal and theological perspective just because she was Augustine's mother? Quite likely she was not feeling the assurance of her salvation when she made that request, which is very unfortunate; one who is communing with the indwelling Holy Spirit should perceive His reassurance that 'it is well with your soul.' "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" A dying Christian is meant to leave this world in peace and joyful expectation.

 

Which church do you refer to as "not a human construct"? Do you mean the EO Church? Or the OO Church? Or the Russian Orthodox Church? Or the RCC? Seems like every one of those is a human construct!

But I agree, Christ's genuine Church is not a human construct. And it is "none of the above."