The Nature of Christ

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Okay. I'm not a whiz at theology, and this is of no mystery to anyone here.;) There is discussion going on in the Taverna (I think...) about the nature of Christ. Can someone elaborate on what the Church's teaching is on this matter? We know that Christ was both fully human and fully God. Since He was fully human, did he have the ability to sin but chose not to? Or no ability to sin because He was also fully God?

I still have protestant theology in my brain. I've heard time and time again that Christ faced all the same temptations we do, only He did not sin. This was suppose to be an example for us. But if He didn't even have the ability to sin, this really isn't much of an example for us because CLEARLY we do have the ability to sin. This is probably erroneous thinking, which is why I wanted to start this thread. Thanks for your input.:)

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Okay, it was actually the "Word of God" thread. :D Marjorie, I'm moving this over here:

Well, just to clarify for any protestants reading this (I'm sure the people who wrote the above already know this) who would quote where the Scriptures talk about Christ being made sin for us, etc.... Christ did take on our fallen nature, yet in doing this he immediately deified it and redeemed it so that there was nothing about his body that needed to be redeemed.

In IC XC,
Marjorie
So He was not subject to temptations to sin?

[Carrye]

So He was not subject to temptations to sin?
[QUOTE=Marjorie]Christ did take on our fallen nature, yet in doing this he immediately deified it and redeemed it so that there was nothing about his body that needed to be redeemed.
Christ was tempted, but he did not give in to those temptatations (see Lk 4). Without a human will, and human freedom, he would not have been fully human. And if he wasn't fully human, then he wasn't like us. If he wasn't like us, then his death accomplished nothing. There's a saying within Christology, "what was taken on was redeemed".

Christ did take on our human nature (not our fallen nature).
There was nothing about his body that needed to be redeemed. = no original sin, no personal sin.

I believe that all of this is part of our shared theology. I ask one of you to please kindly correct me if I am mistaken.

[Marjorie]

Well, when I said he took on our fallen nature I didn't mean that he *had* a fallen nature. But in order to redeem everything, he had to take on everything-- according to the arguments of St. Maximos the Confessor. So he took on the consequences of our fallen nature-- i.e. corruption and death-- without being a sinful being. This is what is meant by Paul's assertion that he was "made sin for us" (2 Corinthians 5:21.)

In IC XC,
Marjorie

P.S. I edited my post in the other section to clarify my position.

[Carrye]

Well, when I said he took on our fallen nature I didn't mean that he *had* a fallen nature. But in order to redeem everything, he had to take on everything-- according to the arguments of St. Maximos the Confessor. So he took on the consequences of our fallen nature-- i.e. corruption and death-- without being a sinful being. This is what is meant by Paul's assertion that he was "made sin for us" (2 Corinthians 5:21.)
Of course. Thanks for the clarification Marjorie.

btw, did you ever get my paper on the Extreme Humility icon?

[Marjorie]

btw, did you ever get my paper on the Extreme Humility icon?D'oh! I did, but when I got it I was in the middle of my own paper and put it aside for "later." I will read it tonight and PM you about it!!!

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Marjorie]

In his humanity, Christ had free will, argued St. Maximos, in the sense that Adam had free will, not in the sense that we do. This is the difference between liberty and license. Of course, Christ also had a divine will which could never be in conflict with his human will. The human will was constantly subject to that divine, ineffable will. The divine will could not be changed, was immutable, so the united human will-- and not a fallen human will, but a will which is natural-- was subject to this choice made "once and for all" by Christ in choosing to become man. So, no, our salvation was not "up in the air" or something to that effect.

With a great show of finesse, St. Maximus here analyzes the concept of will. He distinguishes two sorts of will: the first, thelesis phusiki, or "natural will," is the tendency of nature towards that which suits it, "a natural force that tends to what conforms to nature, a force that encompasses all the essential properties of nature." Nature in its "natural" state, that is to say, not disfigured by sin, can only wish for the good, hence adheres to good. But the Fall has clouded this consciousness; nature henceforth tends most often to "anti-nature"; its aspiration gets bogged down in sin. But man is given another will, the thelesis gnomiki, belonging this time to personhood. It is the will of choice, the personal judgment that I bring to my natural will, either to accept, refuse or direct it towards another goal, to make it truly natural in purging it of sin.

The use of this deliberating will is rendered necessary by the adulteration of our real liberty. "Free-will" corresponds to the state to which sin has reduced us; it is because we are in sin that we must choose without ceasing. That is why, in Christ, there are two "natural" wills, but no human "free-will." The two natural wills cannot enter into conflict in His person, for this person is not a human hypostasis, who, for having tasted the fatal fruit, must ceaselessly choose between good and evil, but a divine hypostasis, one whose choice was made once and for all, that of kenosis, of a non-conditional obedience to the will of the Father.

The human nature of Christ is therefore complete, but what functions as "the person" in man, functions as "the Word" in Christ, whose personhood is divine. Humanity assumed by the latter thus bears a certain likeness to that of Adam before sin. But the kenosis of the Word is also kenosis of this paradisiacal humanity subjected, by the redeeming will of the Savior, to the objective conditions of sin, conditions to which it must not react by free will, but by suffering and love. On the other hand, if the will of the Son is identical with that of the Father, human will, which becomes that of the Word, is His Own: and in this His own will, resides the entire mystery of our salvation.In regards to Adam's will before the Fall:

For the difficulty about the first sin is that it must be very heinous, or its consequences would not be so terrible, and yet it must be something which a being free from the temptations of fallen man could conceivably have committed... The self-surrender which he practised before the Fall meant no struggle but only the delicious overcoming of an infinitesimal self-adherence which delighted to be overcome-- of which we see a dim analogy in the rapturous mutual self-surrenders of lovers even now. He had, therefore, no temptation (in our sense) to choose the self-- no passion or inclination obstinately inclining that way-- nothing but the bare fact that that the self was himself.And St. Maximos himself explains it well:

And it is by virtue of his assumption of this natural passibility that he became sin for our sake, though he did not know any deliberate sin because of the immutability of his free choice. Because his free choice was incorruptible, he rectified our nature's liability to passions and turned the end of our nature's passibility which is death into the beginning of our natural transformation to incorruption. In turn, just as through one man, who turned voluntarily from the good, the human nature was changed from incorruption to corruption to the detriment of all humanity, so too through one man, Jesus Christ, who did not voluntarily turn from the good, human nature underwent a restoration from corruption to incorruption for the benefit of all humanity.

Therefore the Lord did not know "my sin", that is, the mutability of my free choice. Neither did he assume nor become my sin. Rather, he became the "sin that I caused"; in other words, he assumed the corruption of human nature that was a consequence of the mutability of my free choice. For our sake he became a human being naturally liable to passions, and used the "sin" that I caused to destroy the "sin" that I commit. Just as in Adam, with his own act of freely choosing evil, the common glory of human nature, incorruption, was robbed-since God judged that it was not right for humanity, having abused free choice, to have an immortal nature- so too in Christ, with his own act of freely choosing the good, the common scourge of our whole nature, corruption, was taken away. At the resurrection of Christ, human nature was transformed into incorruption because his free choice was immutable. For God judged that it was right for man, when he did not subvert his free choice, once again to recover an immortal nature. By "man" here I mean the incarnate Logos in virtue of the fact that he united to himself, hypostatically, the flesh animated by a rational soul. For if the deviance of free choice introduced passibility, corruptibility, and mortality in Adam's nature, it only followed that in Christ, the immutability of free choice, realized through his resurrection, introduced natural impassibility, incorruptibility, and immortality.

Hence the mutation of human nature over to passibility, corruption, and death is the condemnation of Adam's deliberate sin. Man was not created by God in the beginning with such a corrupted nature; rather, man invented and knew it since he created deliberate sin through his disobedience. And clearly condemnation by death is the result of such sin. Yet the Lord took on this very condemnation of my deliberate sin, that is to say, the passibility, corruptibility, and mortality of our nature. He became the "sin" that I caused, in terms of the passibility, corruptibility, and mortality, and he submitted voluntarily to the condemnation owed me in my nature, even though he himself was blameless in his freedom of choice, in order to condemn both my deliberate "sin" and the "sin" that befell my nature. Accordingly he has driven sin, passion, corruption, and death from human nature, and the economy of Christ's philanthropy on my behalf has become for me, one fallen through disobedience, a new mystery. For the sake of my salvation, Christ, through his own death, voluntarily made my condemnation his own, thereby granting me restoration to immortality.In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Christ was tempted, but he did not give in to those temptatations (see Lk 4). Without a human will, and human freedom, he would not have been fully human. And if he wasn't fully human, then he wasn't like us. If he wasn't like us, then his death accomplished nothing. There's a saying within Christology, "what was taken on was redeemed".

Christ did take on our human nature (not our fallen nature).
There was nothing about his body that needed to be redeemed. = no original sin, no personal sin.

I believe that all of this is part of our shared theology. I ask one of you to please kindly correct me if I am mistaken.
Yep! :thumbsup: I had heard that quote before, and that's why I was a little confused by the idea that Christ did not have the ability to sin, and therefore would not have been tempted. I've heard it said this way "What was not assumed was not healed", so that would mean human nature was not redeemed by Christ's sacrifice (if he did not fully have a human nature).

Marjorie, thanks for making the point that there is a difference between fallen nature, and just human nature (independent of the consequences of the first sin).

So, what were the Monophysite and Nestorian belief about the 2 natures of Christ? And do we see these heresies still alive in contemporary heterodox churches? What about the gnostics? Did they have a particular belief on this? I'm hearing that gnosticism is making a big come-back in some protestant denoms.

[Rilian]

I'm hearing that gnosticism is making a big come-back in some protestant denoms.

One of the most interesting articles I think I've read in the last year is this (http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/homoamerrel.htm) one. It talks about how much of what is called Christianity in America is essentially gnostic, whether it is conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic. The reason is because it is centered around individual autonomy, self discovery and self fulfillment. I know this is somewhat off topic, but I thought I would add it anyway.

[Suzannah]

To be honest, I think that to say "Christ was tempted" is a misnomer, mis-understanding. It means that the Devil attempted to tempt him, not that Christ was in any way, really tempted. But the devil is so insane, that he attempted to tempt GOD. So I don't think it is quite correct to say that Jesus "was tempted." He was only approached by the Devil, whom he immediately rebuked. After all, the devil is/was His own creation....
I will have to look this up in the Fathers but I'm pretty sure we are onto something here...

[Eusebios]

Thanks Andrew. I'm printing this out to tajke a closer look at it, I can tell I'm going to find it captivating!
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.
:bow:

[katherine2001]

To be honest, I think that to say "Christ was tempted" is a misnomer, mis-understanding. It means that the Devil attempted to tempt him, not that Christ was in any way, really tempted. But the devil is so insane, that he attempted to tempt GOD. So I don't think it is quite correct to say that Jesus "was tempted." He was only approached by the Devil, whom he immediately rebuked. After all, the devil is/was His own creation....
I will have to look this up in the Fathers but I'm pretty sure we are onto something here...
According to Paul, Jesus was tempted. Hebrews 4:14-16 says:

14. Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

15. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

16. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help us in time of need.

[Suzannah]

Okay, then I stand corrected.

Thank you!

[tizziale]

It is not a sin to be tempted.

[CyberSponge]

One of the most interesting articles I think I've read in the last year is this (http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/homoamerrel.htm) one. It talks about how much of what is called Christianity in America is essentially gnostic, whether it is conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic. The reason is because it is centered around individual autonomy, self discovery and self fulfillment. I know this is somewhat off topic, but I thought I would add it anyway.
Actually, I'd add Orthodox to that list of faiths that have strains of gnosticism. However, I view it more like a parasite that's infecting us than part of who we are. For example, in Roman Catholicism, it is taught that upon bodily death, our soul is immediately sent to heaven or hell (possibly after a purgation). Many in our Church, on the other hand, don't teach that we go to heaven or hell immediately (b/c we can't without our body!), but that there is some type of immediate judgement (which, incidentaly, is never mentioned in the scriptures or in Orthodox Early Church writings) which gives our souls a foretaste of the judgement.

So in degrees, the common Orthodox teaching isn't as gnostic (IMO) as some other groups, but it can still be seen in there. In the history of our faith we can see how at one time we weren't so dualistic. And no, I don't believe it's infecting us b/c we're around Protestants/Catholics now. As can be seen from the scriptures, we've been fighting since the beginning against the "knowledge falsely called", since many human beings seem to have a tendency to seek after personal ascensions and mysticism. And gnosticism is very ascension filled and mysticism based. We must be vigilant!

[Carrye]

Many in our Church, on the other hand, don't teach that we go to heaven or hell immediately (b/c we can't without our body!), but that there is some type of immediate judgement (which, incidentaly, is never mentioned in the scriptures or in Orthodox Early Church writings) which gives our souls a foretaste of the judgement.
Interesting. I didn't know that was Orthodox teaching.

[CyberSponge]

Interesting. I didn't know that was Orthodox teaching.
Well, based on what I've read/heard over and over again, it's my understanding. Sometimes it's referred to as the "particular" or "partial" judgement. I've always scratched my head at it, though! :scratch:

[Theophorus]

When I asked my priest about paticular judgement, he said, " the soul goes to where it seems more comfortable". This was awhile ago that the subject came up, maybe now he would be more forthcoming.

[CyberSponge]

When I asked my priest about paticular judgement, he said, " the soul goes to where it seems more comfortable". This was awhile ago that the subject came up, maybe now he would be more forthcoming.
I'm certainly very interested in learning more about it! :)

[prodromos]

Well, when I said he took on our fallen nature I didn't mean that he *had* a fallen nature. But in order to redeem everything, he had to take on everything-- according to the arguments of St. Maximos the Confessor. So he took on the consequences of our fallen nature-- i.e. corruption and death-- without being a sinful being.
I think it is incorrect to say that our fallen nature is sinful. Adam died because he sinned, we sin because we die, "the sting of death is sin" (1 Cor. 15:56). Our sinning is the result of our mortal nature. Nothing reveals our mortality and sinfulness more so than our many bodily passions. Saint John of Damascus says that from the time of Adam to Christ, the human race has been 'subject to passion instead of dispassion, mortality instead of immortality'.

I have read something else which describes why we become subject to our passions due to our mortality but I cannot find it. A shame because I remember it stated it really well :). Oh well.

I've forgotten who it was that said the following (maybe John of Damascus), but I think we have to be careful saying that Jesus did not assume our fallen nature, for "that which is not assumed, is not healed".

John.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Actually, I'd add Orthodox to that list of faiths that have strains of gnosticism. However, I view it more like a parasite that's infecting us than part of who we are. For example, in Roman Catholicism, it is taught that upon bodily death, our soul is immediately sent to heaven or hell (possibly after a purgation). Many in our Church, on the other hand, don't teach that we go to heaven or hell immediately (b/c we can't without our body!), but that there is some type of immediate judgement (which, incidentaly, is never mentioned in the scriptures or in Orthodox Early Church writings) which gives our souls a foretaste of the judgement.

Hmm. I'll do some looking, but I'm pretty sure it was taught in the Early Church. I'll look for specific sources. St. Justin (Martyr) comes to mind.

[Rick of Wessex]

Many in our Church, on the other hand, don't teach that we go to heaven or hell immediately (b/c we can't without our body!), but that there is some type of immediate judgement (which, incidentaly, is never mentioned in the scriptures or in Orthodox Early Church writings) which gives our souls a foretaste of the judgement.

Dear CS,

The particular judgement is not a new doctrine. It is mentioned by St. Paul in his Letter to Hebrews:

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment

And hundreds of Church Fathers have written about this particular judgement, including St. Hyppolitus of Rome and St. Athanasios. See this text (http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/afterdeath.htm) by Fr. Thomas Hopko.

In XC,
Rick

[ps139]

Well, based on what I've read/heard over and over again, it's my understanding. Sometimes it's referred to as the "particular" or "partial" judgement. I've always scratched my head at it, though! :scratch: We also believe in the particular judgement. Which is before the general judgement. I can't tell you more than that though. Michelina knows a lot about this.

[Rick of Wessex]

ORTHODOX ESCHATOLOGY

The Holy Spirit of God, working through the Church and its sacramental life, leads the plan of salvation in Christ to completion and final fulfillment. The final battle with evil that operates in the world will occur just before the coming again of the Lord. In the meantime, the struggle against evil and dark forces in the world continues, with some victories on behalf of the Church, and with some failures on behalf of some of its members. This is the normal condition of the life of the Church, which is the inaugurated Kingdom of God, and which, however, has not yet come fully. Two distinct stages are to be recognized, in terms of Christian Orthodox eschatology: that of a "partial judgment," of a "partial" or "realized" eschatology, and that of a "final judgment," at the coming again of the Lord, which will come at the end of time.

a) Partial judgment - the hour of our death
Our physical death, a consequence of the first man's sin that we still suffer, can be seen in two ways:

- negatively, as a kind of catastrophe, especially for those who do not believe in Christ and life everlasting in Him; and

- positively, as the end of a maturation process, which leads us to the encounter with our Maker. Christ has destroyed the power of the "last enemy," death (1 Cor. 18:26).

A Christian worthy of the name is not afraid of this physical death insofar as it is not accompanied by a spiritual or eternal (eschatological) death.

A partial judgment is instituted immediately after our physical death, which places us in an intermediate condition of partial blessedness (for the righteous), or partial suffering (for the unrighteous).

Disavowing a belief in the Western "Purgatory," our Church believes that a change is possible during this intermediate state and stage. The Church, militant and triumphant, is still one, which means that we can still influence one another with our prayers and our saintly (or ungodly) life. This is the reason why we pray for our dead. Also, almsgiving on behalf of the dead may be of some help to them, without implying, of course, that those who provide the alms are in some fashion "buying" anybody's salvation.

Taken from Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Church (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8038.asp)

[Rick of Wessex]

And regarding the sinlessness of the human nature of Our Lord, as clskinner said, Orthodox and Catholics share exactly the same theology regarding this.

See this excerpt from Fr. Michael Pomazansky's book, "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology":

The Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned the false teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which stated that the Lord Jesus Christ was not deprived of inward temptations and the battle with passions. If the word of God says that the Son of God came: "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3), it is thereby expressing the idea that this flesh was true human flesh, but not sinful flesh; rather, it was completely pure of every sin and corruption, both of the ancestral sin and of voluntary sin. In His earthly life, the Lord was free of any sinful desire, of every inward temptation; for the human nature in Him does not exist separately, but is united hypostatically to the Divinity.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Dear CS,

The particular judgement is not a new doctrine. It is mentioned by St. Paul in his Letter to Hebrews:



And hundreds of Church Fathers have written about this particular judgement, including St. Hyppolitus of Rome and St. Athanasios. See this text (http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/afterdeath.htm) by Fr. Thomas Hopko.

In XC,
Rick
Thanks, Rick! I was having trouble finding sources. I knew you'd come through for us. :thumbsup:

[Michael the Iconographer]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Suzannah again.

Darn rep nazi's are at it again!

[Suzannah]

But someone else indicated that i was wrong... I accepted their criticism....which is it???^_^

[Marjorie]

But someone else indicated that i was wrong... I accepted their criticism....which is it???^_^You were both right in a sense, at least according to Lossky and St. Maximos (as quoted in my earlier post)... Christ was tempted, but his (not fallen) human will was always subject to his divine will due to his once and for all choice to become man and to be obedient to the Father. So it's not like Christ could have sinned.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Suzannah]

You were both right in a sense, at least according to Lossky and St. Maximos (as quoted in my earlier post)... Christ was tempted, but his (not fallen) human will was always subject to his divine will due to his once and for all choice to become man and to be obedient to the Father. So it's not like Christ could have sinned.

In IC XC,
Marjorie
Right...okay...I read St. Maximos the Confessor's work on the "two wills" issue. To me, saying that Christ was tempted, as though he were every other human, seems to me to fall into that category. Lossky quotes St. Maximos often on this...now I'm very confused.

[CyberSponge]

Hi Rick,

I realize that this is off topic, so I shall create a new topic at some point (perhaps in a couple of months during winter break) so we can discuss this more. But one quick (off-topic) quote from the link you posted:

"The dominion of the devil was overcome by Christ's descent into Hades (Hell)."

See, there's that Hades = Hell thing again. :P BTW, I already am quite familiar with that article by Fr. Thomas Hopko (which I read at least a year ago when I was first learning about Toll Houses).




ORTHODOX ESCHATOLOGY

Taken from Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Church (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8038.asp)

[Theophorus]

Hi Rick,



See, there's that Hades = Hell thing again. :P BTW, I already am quite familiar with that article by Fr. Thomas Hopko (which I read at least a year ago when I was first learning about Toll Houses).


There are three words for hell in the NT;

Hades, Gehhena, and in one instance 2 Pet 2:4 tartarus.

Gehenna being associated with judgement, hades being assocsioated with death. And tartarus being associated with a "hellish" place within hades.

[katherine2001]

I'm going to ask my priest about this. If Christ didn't have the ability to choose to sin or obey and didn't have the capability to sin, then I have to question whether we are really saved. Because it seems to me that if He didn't have those abilities/capabilities, then He really was not really like us. If the theory that what is not assumed is not healed, can we really be healed if Christ didn't have the free will to choose whether or not to obey God and to choose not to sin? If Christ couldn't sin, then He really wasn't like us. It is my understanding that the teaching of the Church is that he had both a full human will and a full divine will and that He chose to submit His human will to His divine will.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

I'm going to ask my priest about this. If Christ didn't have the ability to choose to sin or obey and didn't have the capability to sin, then I have to question whether we are really saved. Because it seems to me that if He didn't have those abilities/capabilities, then He really was not really like us. If the theory that what is not assumed is not healed, can we really be healed if Christ didn't have the free will to choose whether or not to obey God and to choose not to sin? If Christ couldn't sin, then He really wasn't like us. It is my understanding that the teaching of the Church is that he had both a full human will and a full divine will and that He chose to submit His human will to His divine will.
This is my "issue" as well, Katherine. Let us know what your priest says.:)

[Marjorie]

If Christ couldn't sin, then He really wasn't like us. It is my understanding that the teaching of the Church is that he had both a full human will and a full divine will and that He chose to submit His human will to His divine will.That is exactly the teaching of the Church in my limited understanding. But that choice was once-and-for-all in the kenosis of the Incarnation, so it's not like he could have succumbed to the temptation of disobedience once he had already decided to be obedient in all things and bend the human will to the will of the Father... or something to that effect.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[katherine2001]

GDE, maybe it would be a good thing for each of us to ask our priests about this. My priest doesn't particularly like my passing on what he has to say since he thinks that we each need to talk to our own priests if we have questions and concerns. Each person needs to be dealing with the shepherd whose flock God has put him or her in.

[katherine2001]

Also, I just e-mailed him to ask him about this (his parish is 90 minutes away and he isn't coming to serve at our mission til next month), and I know he is out of town a lot this month due to the diocesan assembly held earlier this month and for out of state meetings for his full-time job, so I don't know if he'll really have time to answer my e-mail in the next few days. I have a feeling this is not a one word or one sentence answer e-mail.

Another good place to ask would be to send Fr. John Matusiak that question on the OCA site. He is the priest that handles the question and answer section. I've sent him questions before and he always answers them, even if he doesn't choose to put them in the question and answer section. I'm really tempted to ask him about this as well.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

GDE, maybe it would be a good thing for each of us to ask our priests about this. My priest doesn't particularly like my passing on what he has to say since he thinks that we each need to talk to our own priests if we have questions and concerns. Each person needs to be dealing with the shepherd whose flock God has put him or her in.
Well, my parish priest is not so great about replying to my e-mails promptly. He stays pretty busy. However, the priest whom I consider to be more of a spiritual father is VERY good at replying to my e-mails (unfortunately he lives out in CA, so I can't go to his pairsh). I'll go send one now. There's a chance he may even reply yet tonight.:)

[katherine2001]

My priest is usually very good about answering his e-mails within a day or so, but he's been out of town a lot this month, and it is hard for him to find the time to answer them when he is out of town. He always has his lap-top with him (his full-time job is in the computer field), but this may very well not be a quickie-answer matter.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Fr. George comes through again.:thumbsup: Basically, Katherine, what you stated previously is correct. I won't paste Fr.'s personal words, but he pasted some info. from Bp. Ware and Fr. Hopko. It helped clarify some things for me. Here it is:

Jesus the Christ, the God-Man


http://us.f610.mail.yahoo.com/ym/us/ShowLetter?box=Inbox&MsgId=160_3709218_54327_1465_56000_0_4150_80644_3668551542&bodyPart=2&YY=37475&order=down&sort=date&pos=0ICON OF THE NATIVITY


Anointed by the Holy Spirit of God since its conception, Christ's humanity is the humanity of the Messiah (the Anointed one) since the beginning of its existence.

Christ is at the same time the son of the Virgin, but also the natural Son of God, by His very nature. His humanity is a real humanity, with a body and soul, which suffered hunger and thirst, which suffered humiliation and the Cross.
Humanity and divinity are hypostatically united together: the two natures exist in the one person of the Word who became flesh, a divine person (or hypostasis). Christ exists "in two natures," without being of two natures; the two natures exist united together "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." (Council of Chalcedon). The first two adverbs are addressed against the heresy of Eutyches and the monophysites who confused the natures and the last two against the Nestorians, who separated and divided humanity and divinity in Christ.

Consequently, Christ has two wills also and two operations, one human and one divine; the two work together "to achieve man's salvation"; however, the human will and operation is always subjected to the divine (Third Council of Constantinople, the Sixth Ecumenical, against Monothelitism).

The consequences of this hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ are the "coinherence" of human and divine nature, the communicatio idiomatum, the natural sonship of Christ's humanity, one worship of the two natures in Christ, deification of Christ's human nature, Christ's double knowledge and power (however, attributed to one person), Christ's absolute unsinfulness, and the Mother of God being truly Theotokos and Virgin before, during, and after she gave birth to the only-begotten Son of God.


The Fourth Ecumenical Council

http://us.f610.mail.yahoo.com/ym/us/ShowLetter?box=Inbox&MsgId=160_3709218_54327_1465_56000_0_4150_80644_3668551542&bodyPart=3&YY=37475&order=down&sort=date&pos=0In 451, another council was called, this time in the city of Chalcedon, to solve the problem of the doctrine of Christ. This council, now recognized in the Church as the [b]Fourth Ecumenical Council, succeeded in defending the teaching of Saint Cyril and the Ephesian Council of 431. It also satisfied the demands of the Eastern bishops that the genuine humanity of Jesus would be clearly confessed. In its definition, the Council of Chalcedon closely followed the teaching, formulated in a letter, of Pope Saint Leo of Rome.

The Chalcedonian definition states that Jesus Christ is indeed the Logos incarnate, the very Son of God "born of the Father before all ages." It affirms that the Virgin Mary is truly Theotokos since the one born from her "according to the flesh" in Bethlehem, is the uncreated, divine Son of God, one of the Holy Trinity. In His human birth, the Council declared, the Word of God took to Himself the whole of humanity, becoming a real man in every way, but without sin. Thus, according to the Chalcedonian definition, Jesus of Nazareth is one person or hypostasis in two natures - human and divine. He is fully human. He is fully divine. He is perfect God and perfect man. As God, He is "of one essence" (homoousios) with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. As man, He is "of one essence" (homoousios) with all human beings.

The union of divinity and humanity in Christ is called the hypostatic union. This _expression means that in the one, unique person of Christ, divinity and humanity are united in such a way that they are neither mixed together and confused, nor separated and divided. Christ is one person Who is both human and divine. The Son of God and the Son of Mary is one and the same person.
Christ has the fullness of the divine will, energy, action, operation, and power which is the same as that of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christ also has the fullness of the human will, energy, action, operation, and power which is the same as that of every other human being. Salvation consists in the fact that Jesus Christ, being a true human, freely and voluntarily submitted his human will (which is exactly the same human will that all men have) to His divine will (which is the will of God). Thus the divine Son of God became a real man with a real human will so that as a real man He could "fulfill all righteousness" in perfect, voluntary obedience to His Father. It is through His genuinely human action that Jesus Christ frees all men from sin and death as the New and Final Adam. [Fr Thomas Hopko]


Sin, having cut man off from God, the source of life, has rent man himself asunder, violated union of spirit, soul and body, and death has entered into him. The soul, not surrounded now by the streams of life, could no longer transmit them to the body which became corruptible, and languor became the lot of the soul.

Christ came to earth to restore anew the fallen image and return it to union with Him Whose image it is. Uniting man unto Himself, God thus restores him to his original goodness in all its fullness Granting grace and sanctification to the spirit, Christ also purifies, strengthens, heals and sanctifies the spirit and the body.

[katherine2001]

I got an answer from my priest, and it looks like Marjorie interpreted it correctly. I won't go into detail (it was quite a long response), but the way he described it is that (as Orthodox like to say) Jesus was the New Adam. He took on the human body, will, nature, etc. as God had created it in the beginning before the Fall. He does stress that Christ was tempted (and he quoted the verses written by Paul that I quoted above) but never struggled with whether to obey or not (in the way we would not if we had the human will and nature that God created us to have before the fall). He had true free will and freedom to be a slave to righteousness (as Paul also talks about). In freely choosing to submit His human will to His divine will, he perfected and healed our humanity. He talked about how proud he is of one of his children when they immediately know that something they are being tempted to do is not right and immediately refuse to do the act. That's how God created us to be and is basically what Jesus did when He was tempted.

So, again, if you ever have questions, especially if you're really struggling with it, ask your priest. I have to admit that I've tried to read Lossky and I may as well be trying to read something in a language that I don't know. His stuff is usually way over my head.

[Marjorie]

I have to admit that I've tried to read Lossky and I may as well be trying to read something in a language that I don't know. His stuff is usually way over my head.Well some of that may be the fact that you really are kind of reading something in a different language, as Lossky's writings are translated from French. I haven't read the originals in French (I am pretty proficient but not fluent enough to read theology en français :)), but sometimes when I read the translations it seems awkward to me, like it must have made more sense in the original. That being said I find Lossky a little less difficult than some theologians (Zizioulas is the most difficult I have ever read.) Even so, I generally stick with less confusing writers...

---

Also, your priest's answer was great!

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Suzannah]

I got an answer from my priest, and it looks like Marjorie interpreted it correctly. I won't go into detail (it was quite a long response), but the way he described it is that (as Orthodox like to say) Jesus was the New Adam. He took on the human body, will, nature, etc. as God had created it in the beginning before the Fall. He does stress that Christ was tempted (and he quoted the verses written by Paul that I quoted above) but never struggled with whether to obey or not (in the way we would not if we had the human will and nature that God created us to have before the fall). He had true free will and freedom to be a slave to righteousness (as Paul also talks about). In freely choosing to submit His human will to His divine will, he perfected and healed our humanity. He talked about how proud he is of one of his children when they immediately know that something they are being tempted to do is not right and immediately refuse to do the act. That's how God created us to be and is basically what Jesus did when He was tempted.

So, again, if you ever have questions, especially if you're really struggling with it, ask your priest. I have to admit that I've tried to read Lossky and I may as well be trying to read something in a language that I don't know. His stuff is usually way over my head.
I'm much impressed with this....this helps me immensely....it is basically what my own Priest teaches, but this is well written for me, the idiot. :) Thanks so much Katherine!!!! :hug:

[katherine2001]

I wonder though if Lossky originally wrote his works in French or maybe wrote them in Russian and the works were then translated into French. I think I tried to read something by Zizioulas and he was way over my head too. I need a book called "Patristics for Dummies". Maybe we could get Fr. Hopko or someone to write a whole series called "The Orthodox Faith for Dummies" and have volumes on theology, Christ, Mary (which would be great for many of us--we could hawk it on the Heresies R Us board), Patritics, Asecticism, the Saints, etc.

As far as the nature of Christ, we must remember that the human nature that He inherited from His mother was the purest human nature that could have been passed on from a "mere" human being. His mother came from a very good lineage and was raised in a very Godly family, unlike many of us.

[Oblio]

I need a book called "Patristics for Dummies". Maybe we could get Fr. Hopko or someone to write a whole series called "The Orthodox Faith for Dummies" and have volumes on theology, Christ, Mary (which would be great for many of us--we could hawk it on the Heresies R Us board), Patritics, Asecticism, the Saints, etc.


Having seen some of the other 'Theological' for Dummies and the other book series, I am not so sure I would champion that. The one on Saints was especially :sick: , or at least the parts I perused. I suppose if one could get Fr. Thomas or another respected Orthodox Theologian, it might work ...

[CyberSponge]

Having seen some of the other 'Theological' for Dummies and the other book series, I am not so sure I would champion that. The one on Saints was especially :sick: , or at least the parts I perused. I suppose if one could get Fr. Thomas or another respected Orthodox Theologian, it might work ...
Yes, I'm not too fond of a "Dummies" book either. There are already plenty of intro to Orthodoxy books out there. But most of those are targetted for the protestant inquirer. Is it even possible to create a good and effective book for people of most mainstream backgrounds? (Orthodox, Catholic, protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic, atheist). I think it would also be very interesting to see books on Orthodoxy targetted for groups that aren't so mainstream (New Age, Wicca, etc.). I wonder what the approach would be!?

[Marjorie]

I think it would also be very interesting to see books on Orthodoxy targetted for groups that aren't so mainstream (New Age, Wicca, etc.). I wonder what the approach would be!?YES, YES, YES!

Sorry for the over-enthusiasm but this is exactly what is needed. So many American youths are rebelling against the bland rationalism of the past few centuries and searching for something "more"... in the wrong places. If only someone could write something for them showing how Orthodoxy answers this need in a way manufactured spiritualism and vague pantheism cannot.

It's great that so many protestants have found their home in the Historic Church of Christ, but I also agree that the outreach towards them is perhaps a little over-done in English-speaking Orthodoxy.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[CyberSponge]

I'm not entirely sure why there are so many books targetted towards protestants. The reasons I could think of so far are:
1) Most Christian Americans identify themselves as protestant.
2) There was a large influx of protestants some time ago. Many of those converts then wrote books explaining Orthodoxy to other protestants.
3) There's sort of an unwritten principle not to actively convert TOLAC members.

But my own personal take on all this is:
1) Most of those protestants from that original influx were, well, conservative. Now many protestants have a quite liberal bent towards morals, ethics, and the identity of the Church. So all those books aren't quite as useful, anymore.
2) For crying out loud! Protestants are Christian! I welcome their conversion to the Orthodox Church, but I think we should focus a lot more on those who are currently agnostic/non-Christian.
3) We actually need books on explaining Orthodoxy to "cultural Orthodox". Right now they must make due with books targetted for protestants, but wouldn't it be nice to have a book for the lapsed Orthodox?

CS


YES, YES, YES!

Sorry for the over-enthusiasm but this is exactly what is needed. So many American youths are rebelling against the bland rationalism of the past few centuries and searching for something "more"... in the wrong places. If only someone could write something for them showing how Orthodoxy answers this need in a way manufactured spiritualism and vague pantheism cannot.

It's great that so many protestants have found their home in the Historic Church of Christ, but I also agree that the outreach towards them is perhaps a little over-done in English-speaking Orthodoxy.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[katherine2001]

I mentioned to my priest that Lossky makes to sense to me, and his response was "[What] Lossky is to us, St. Paul was to Peter;)". I should put that one in my signature line! I love my priest.

[katherine2001]

I should have said that Lossky makes *no* sense to me.

[Marjorie]

I mentioned to my priest that Lossky makes to sense to me, and his response was "[What] Lossky is to us, St. Paul was to Peter;)". I should put that one in my signature line! I love my priest.Hahaha! That's great.

In IC XC,
Marjorie