Yes both life and immortality are gifts, but the Fathers are very clear that mortality is an integral aspect of our human nature as God created it. Therefore we need to read Simeon the New Theologian in terms which agree with the Fathers such as St Cyril and St Severus. I tried to do so in the last post because I do not believe there is a difference.
To be clear about what our Orthodox Faith teaches however, I will post a couple of short references from St Cyril and St Severus - too many and it switches people off!
St Severus - Adam did not lose a single natural blessing, neither did our race because of him. However the rule is as follows. [St Cyril] For we have lost nothing of that which we possessed by nature.
St Severus - That it is by grace indeed that Adam possessed incorruptibility from the beginning - which consists in immortality and impassibility - enriched as he was with a blessing that was beyond nature by the liberality of Him who had created him, we have learned from the word of the Fathers instructed by God. If he had conserved the grace then the mortal character conforming to nature, would have remained hidden along with the corruptibility of the human body.
St Cyril - Man is a rational animal, but composite, meaning of a soul and of this earthly and temporal flesh. Because he has been made by God, and has come into being, without holding in his own nature either incorruptibility or indestructibility - these indeed belong by nature to God alone - he had been marked with the spirit oflife, enriched, by an intimate relationship with God, with a blessing which surpassed nature.
St Severus - In addition, that the incorruptibility of Adam which preceded the transgression of the commandment, meaning immortality, is a matter of grace and not of nature, the eminent Cyril also demonstrates in the first book of the exposition of the Commentary of the Gospel of St John.
St Severus - Therefore it is due to the disobedience of Adam to the commanment, and to his sin, that he lost the grace of immortality, a life free from sorrow and the happiness of paradise.
St Severus - .. the sin of Adam was not mixed naturally with our substance,,; but it is because they had lost the grace of immortality.
St Cyril - It belongs only to the supreme nature to have the ability of bringing the dead to life; the supreme nature alone possesses immortality.
St Cyril - Indeed, all that which has been made is corruptible, even if it is not yet corrupt, because by the will of God it is preserved in incorruptibility. But God is incorruptible and eternal according to his nature.
St Severus - The created beings are maintained in immortality only by His will, and the grace which emanates from him.
These passages are not presented by way of an argument. Indeed there can be no argument with the teaching of St Cyril and St Severus for those who are Orthodox. But they are to suggest how the words posted by Simeon the New Theologian should be understood. He is clearly speaking of the state in which Adam found himself - that of being immortal - not the condition of his nature, which was created mortal.
St Cyril and St Severus are very straightforward and clear. Adam and Eve had a natural mortality, and this was enriched by their relationship with God so that they were granted the gift of immortality as long as they were in this life-giving relationship with God. When they decided to go their own way they lost the gift but their humanity was not changed, it simply reverted to how it had been created.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8778.msg110194#msg110194 date=1265647557] Hi Mixalhs,
Yes both life and immortality are gifts, but the Fathers are very clear that mortality is an integral aspect of our human nature as God created it. Therefore we need to read Simeon the New Theologian in terms which agree with the Fathers such as St Cyril and St Severus. I tried to do so in the last post because I do not believe there is a difference.
To be clear about what our Orthodox Faith teaches however, I will post a couple of short references from St Cyril and St Severus - too many and it switches people off!
Its not that it switches people off; but, we are not theologians. You have clearly mastered your faith. I mean, when I ask a question, I'd like to know the answer, but not necessarily the intricacies.
Most of the problems arise because you have been accurate (this is not a criticism), yet I would tend to just "generalise". I'd never have worded the creation the same way as you. That's for sure!
I'm not sure on everyone's level, but mine is VERY basic. I mean, REALLY REALLY basic. Now, I'm not doing a degree in Theology, but I think it is important to understand our faith, so I just ask.
Could you perhaps remember that the level of the audience may not always be at the spiritual level you imagine them to be?
At least the person asking. I mean, I know I'm always asking questions, and I'm telling you now, it would be a HUGE benefit for me if I could have the short and sweet version compared to the accurate and detailed. I know details are important, but - as you said: it will just be confusing. Im only on tasbeha.org from the small breaks I have.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8778.msg110218#msg110218 date=1265663637] I will try to summarise my answers in a final sentence.
Is the final sentence of the last post clear enough?
Father Peter
Fr.PLEASE do not be upset with me, I just ask a question, and then as soon as I get the answer, I feel I'm done. I even made that abundantly clear.
More than this is too much for my brain to absorb. I just know that Mixalys may have stumbled over semantics as from the gist of the conversation, it seemed you are both saying the same thing, yet you are always adding a lot of accuracies.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8778.msg110223#msg110223 date=1265665655] Theology requires us (those who study theology) to be very accurate. A small error can become a great heresy.
But I understand that there is also a need for simplicity.
Father Peter
THanks Fr.
I really did gain a lot from your answer. Honestly.
But I just didnt read everything afterwards as I felt really satisfied with the answer. For me, it was "game over". In fact, I need to think about this some more, and then I'll no doubt come back with more questions -
I will learn the accuracies ONE DAY... but, bit by bit - not all at once.
1: Adam was created immortal. This was the majority view, held by Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom.
2: Adam and Eve were created mortal and were to become immortal after a period of probation in the garden. This view was held by Theophilus of Antioch. Augustine held to a variation of this view in which the bodies of Adam and Eve, though created mortal, were preserved from decay and lustful desires by being able to feed on the Tree of Life. Exclusion from the Tree of Life after the Fall therefore resulted in human death. Had Adam and Eve not fallen they would have received what we know as resurrection bodies.
...and:
3: Mortality is part of God’s plan and is not a direct result of the Fall. This view was held by Clement of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopseustia.
Right now I am reading through Athanasios' On The Incarnation to find his exact wording.
I have to say that I found it rather defective. (That is not your fault of course).
Not only does it exclude St Cyril and St Severus, the greatest of our Orthodox theologians, together with St Athanasius of course, but I find that examining the text which is provided from St Athanasius it says the very opposite to what is claimed.
St Athanasius says..
He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ: and of all these earthly creatures he reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, upon men, who as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked, .... they might contimue forever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in Paradise.
...If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain, or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray... they would come under the natural law of death...
By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Hin Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt.
St Athanasius therefore entirely agrees with St Cyril and St Severus, or rather they agree with him as their own master in the faith. Since the table is so completely wrong on this point I hesitate to consider all of the others as being significantly different.
Thus the Fathers of the Orthodox Church - St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus - are in complete agreement, indeed they use the same language and phrases. Adam was created mortal, given the gift of immortality and threw it away for the sake of satisfying his own desires.
Fr. Peter is absolutely correct in his assessment and while I cannot add to his contribution, I will just post a few quotes that support his previous posts:
“Man was mortal by the very nature of his body, but immortal by grace.” (St. Augustine)
“By nature man is mortal, since he is created from nothing,” and at their origin men “were endowed with a corruptible nature, but by the grace of participation in the Word” they could “escape their condition of their nature” since, “because of the Word present with them, the corruption of their nature could not approach them.” (St. Athanasius)
“We were preserved from illness thanks to the gifts received at our creation.” (St. Basil)
“Yet someone will say to us, ‘But wasn’t death a natural function of human nature?’ Not at all! ‘Wasn’t man therefore immortal?’ We do not say that either. They will then reply, ‘Do you mean man was nothing at all?’ No, that is not at all what we mean. Rather, by his nature man was no more mortal than immortal. If he had been created immortal from the beginning, he would have been created divine. On the other hand, if he had been created mortal, it would have appeared that God was the cause of his death. Thus he was created neither mortal nor immortal; rather, he was capable of both mortality and immortality. Had he chosen the way of immortality in following the divine commandment, he would have received the gift of immortality as a recompense, and thus he would have become like God. Since instead he turned towards works of death in disobedience to God, he became himself the cause of his own death. So it is that God created man free and master of his own destiny.” (St. Theophilus of Antioch, 2nd Cent.)
“Knowing that man’s free will could have inclined him to one choice or the other, God took the initiative and strengthened the grace that He had given man by providing him with the commandment already in the Garden. In that way, insofar as man preserved that grace and dwelt in virtue, he would know in Paradise a life free from sadness, pain and anxiety, together with the promise of immortality in heaven. But if man transgressed that commandment, he would know that in death he would experience the corruption of his nature, and that he would no longer live in Paradise but would have been expelled, to die and to dwell henceforth in death and corruption.” (St. Athanasius)
First of all, I'd like to welcome Fr. Kyrilos. I haven't seem him here before.
Out of curiosity, how many people in your respective congregations would you say knew all these quotes you are saying?
How much theology should one really know? Most of us are doctors, engineers, or accountants, or social workers (in Australia) - no one really here is a theologian.
I just asked this question simply because we were talking about this issue at a Dinner Party, and then we got into a debate. So, I just asked on here.
I mean, had it not been for a debate between a few friends, I'd have not asked. But - it is interesting to know how ignorant we are of basic truths.
Now, I'm not criticising the Coptic Church at all - but: not a lot of servants know this level of theology. How bad is that? We had one servant teach something that was complete contradiction to another servant.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8778.msg110246#msg110246 date=1265737103] St Athanasius says..
He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ: and of all these earthly creatures he reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, upon men, who as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked, .... they might contimue forever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in Paradise.
...If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain, or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray... they would come under the natural law of death...
By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Hin Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt.
St Athanasius therefore entirely agrees with St Cyril and St Severus, or rather they agree with him as their own master in the faith. Since the table is so completely wrong on this point I hesitate to consider all of the others as being significantly different.
Thus the Fathers of the Orthodox Church - St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus - are in complete agreement, indeed they use the same language and phrases. Adam was created mortal, given the gift of immortality and threw it away for the sake of satisfying his own desires.
Father Peter
Here is the part from On The Incarnation which Father Peter has so wisely chosen to omit:
Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things—namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption. This is what Holy Scripture tells us, proclaiming the command of God, "Of every tree that is in the garden thou shalt surely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ye shall not eat, but in the day that ye do eat, ye shall surely die." "Ye shall surely die"— not just die only, but remain in the state of death and of corruption.
The section Father Peter has chosen to omit points out that the grace endowed upon man above the animals is reason; logic as attributed to the Image of the Father, although in the slightest degree comparable.
I am concerned that Father Peter is suggesting that God created the cosmos imperfect, and yet "saw it was good."
I also feel compelled to point out that the Church recognizes the three greatest theologians to be St John the Theologian, St Gregory the Theologian, and St Symeon the New Theologian.
First of all, I'd like to welcome Fr. Kyrilos. I haven't seem him here before.
Out of curiosity, how many people in your respective congregations would you say knew all these quotes you are saying?
How much theology should one really know? Most of us are doctors, engineers, or accountants, or social workers (in Australia) - no one really here is a theologian.
I just asked this question simply because we were talking about this issue at a Dinner Party, and then we got into a debate. So, I just asked on here.
I mean, had it not been for a debate between a few friends, I'd have not asked. But - it is interesting to know how ignorant we are of basic truths.
Now, I'm not criticising the Coptic Church at all - but: not a lot of servants know this level of theology. How bad is that? We had one servant teach something that was complete contradiction to another servant.
CertifiedOrthodox, start a new post with this question...i think it's an important that need to be there for others to see and not confuse with the current post.
I am concerned that Father Peter is suggesting that God created the cosmos imperfect, and yet "saw it was good."
I also feel compelled to point out that the Church recognizes the three greatest theologians to be St John the Theologian, St Gregory the Theologian, and St Symeon the New Theologian.
I have shown that St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus have all very clearly and explicitly stated that Adam was created mortal. It is your own interpretation that this means the cosmos was created imperfect. In the Orthodox Church, Simeon the New Theologian is not considered a Father. And in the Orthodox Church the greatest fathers are St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus. You are most welcome here as a member of the Greek Church, but the basis of the forum is the Oriental Orthodox Faith of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
It is a principle of theological enquiry that any ambiguous statement of a father - and I do not believe St Athanasius is particularly ambiguous - should be understood in accordance with an explicit statement.
St Athanasius is very clear...
By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing
This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church, as Father Kyrillos has confirmed.
[quote author=minagir link=topic=8778.msg110261#msg110261 date=1265745054] CertifiedOrthodox, start a new post with this question...i think it's an important that need to be there for others to see and not confuse with the current post.
I really do not want to start a new thread for the purpose of just a small question; especially as it is related to this.
Please tell us, Fr. Kyrilos and Fr Farrington: if you do not mind:
* How much are we expected to know of all this detail (as Coptic Christians) * How much do your own congregations know?
It seems to me, with all due respect to the Holy Church Fathers, that if I had spare time to do some reading, it would be in this order:
* THe Bible * The philokalia * The Art of Prayer * THe books by H.H Pope SHenouda * Fr. Tadros Malaty gave 10 bOOKS free, and I need to get through them. He's extremely interesting person.
-> and finally, I'd leave the Church Fathers right at the very end. I wouldn't say to myself: "Oh.. Today I must read the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers". The last time I read that book was to find out the gory way that Arius died and the gossip that was going on at the time of his death.
I'm not trying to justify being ignorant, but as a Christian, and as a working professional, it is SO hard to find people in Church who know this, and secondly, time to go beyond this and read the fathers in order to learn more. I mean, you'd have to be doing a degree in theology to finish half these books.
I would probably expect that some people in each congregation would be theologically literate to a reasonably high degree. Ideally I would sort of expect it to be part of deacon training as much as the hymns.
The books you have listed are all good. In regards to theology though what is required is a series of introductory books which cover the theology of the Church in an appropriate level of detail. And also a formal series of podcasts etc.
I don't think that the majority of people need to be theologians, but a significant minority need to be, just as a significant minority need to have a deep knowledge of our hymns.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8778.msg110281#msg110281 date=1265752226] I would probably expect that some people in each congregation would be theologically literate to a reasonably high degree. Ideally I would sort of expect it to be part of deacon training as much as the hymns.
The books you have listed are all good. In regards to theology though what is required is a series of introductory books which cover the theology of the Church in an appropriate level of detail. And also a formal series of podcasts etc.
I don't think that the majority of people need to be theologians, but a significant minority need to be, just as a significant minority need to have a deep knowledge of our hymns.
Father Peter
OK, so you are well versed in scripture and theology. How many people in your church would you say have this DETAIL of understanding.
I attended a CHurch once and the senior servant there said that The Holy Spirit taught Joseph that adultary was wrong when pharoah's wife wanted to sin with him. THen I went to another Church, in the SAME city, the following week, and they were discussing the same topic, and they said: "No... it was not the Holy Spirit, that only came upon the prophets and special people, it was tradition - it was what Joseph's father had taught him" -
So, i mean, i've seen a lot of stuff like this in the CoC, and actually, we are not THAT blessed with theologically minded people as you seem to think. We are blessed with some good and kind people, but they differ DRASTICALLY in their understanding of theology.
I didn't say we were blessed with many who have a deep knowledge, we don't. :) But we urgently need to seek the blessing of having many who are very well versed in theology.
I am glad to be in touch with some of those who are well versed. Father Athanasius Iskander, for instance. Father Kyrillos Ibrahim. Dr Youhanna Youssef. Dr Mina Mikhail has produced some excellent teaching in Arabic and English. There are others of course, including Father Tadros Malaty
That is not necessarily true, I know the LA Diocese is working on a theological library and many of the servants who work in it are in their early 20's late teens, who are of course overseen by priests who are well versed in theology I would presume. Theology in area's under a diocese in the diaspora(at least in the US) are generally much more advanced in their theological education. Even people who aren't necessarily in a Diocese, also mainly speaking in the US, seem to be well versed in Patristics and Theology. If you live in Europe Certified, maybe you can start a program to educate and start versing people at a young age with guidance from your bishops/priests.
I think we have 1 or 2 persons in our Church who are masters in Theology. But I doubt even that they agree amongst themselves.
I remember, they even disputed over a few issues, which for me, were quite irrelvant.
I agree with Fr. Peter, anyone teaching Sunday School, or even deacons should, by COMPULSION be well versed and study Coptic Theology.
Not anyone should go and teach in Sunday School.
During our teenage years in Sunday School, we only talked about God's love, and that's it. We never TOUCHED upon any of the issues here:
Divine Justice Incarnation Theosis Mercy
And then. although we have a pretty nice priest, I don't think he really knows about these things. I mean, I think he was even raised catholic.
This is coming to a point, for me personally, that knowing more about my faith is becoming more and more important, and the more I want to know, the more I find discontinuities or contradictions within the Church concerning a very basic concept like "WHy did Christ come and die for us".
No TWO Christians give the same answer; at least in my Church.
It's not very long, but is very important and should be the basis of our thinking on the subject. Too many of us simply share our opinions on theological questions instead of studying the Fathers, many of whom are very accessible in many languages.
When you have time I would recommend that you read this. There is no substitute for making your own acquaintance with the Fathers.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8778.msg110328#msg110328 date=1265810730] Well the best place to start is by reading On the Incarnation by St Athanasius and then taking things from there.
It's not very long, but is very important and should be the basis of our thinking on the subject. Too many of us simply share our opinions on theological questions instead of studying the Fathers, many of whom are very accessible in many languages.
When you have time I would recommend that you read this. There is no substitute for making your own acquaintance with the Fathers.
Father Peter
Yeah, ok.. but I'm not sharing anything. I just ask questions. Its faster. Its Free, and its fun.
I too have found that the focus in most sermons and religious conferences I have heard was mostly on God's love, the relationship between God and man etc. Of course, these subjects are very intersting, but I feel that a big part of Church teaching is missing here!
Personally, I would love to learn more about theology, I mean go into the deep issues, the one's that are never talked about, because I have noticed that once I got into that and started grasping a minor piece of it, the whole religious experience became so much deeper and more meaningful.
Recently, I discussed this with some youth in Egypt, who share my opinion, that few people actually know what the Holy Trinity in the understanding of the Church is for instance, few know and understand (as far as that's even possible) church dogma, theology, christology etc.
Probably not everyone would care to learn about that, and some might not be mentally capable of doing so (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but some are just better equipped for certain subjects than others), but I believe there should at least be the possiblitly of learning for those who wish from people who really know what they're talking about.
I remember once a priest who usually gives the typical coptic sermons on love and forgiveness etc. to youth, deviated once to explain more about OT symbolism, and he was very worried that the youth would be bored, but I don't think such subjects should be considered boring, and even if the majority do think they are, then at least the one's who eargerly want to learn should be given a chance. Because perserving the faith that many died for is not a marginal matter, we should understand as much as possible and try to grow in our knowledge in order to grow in our relationship with God and also so that we can answer those who question our beliefs...
Because it is true that withn the Coptc Church many different thins are taught and not all that is taught about theology is necessarily right, so the importance of correct, orthodox teaching must be highlighted more, so that those who don't know enough would thnk twice before opening their mouth AND the one's who receive the wrong info can(to an extent) discern what is right and what is not..
Guys... you act as if these patristic writings, discourses, books are not readily available to the common person. If you truly want to learn, start yourself by finding these writings(which are readily available) and questions you come across, go to your FOC for clarification. And you can even start teaching by incorporating what the fathers said. Initiatives do not have to start from the clergy, they can start with you. Like I said I don't know what its like in Europe but at least in the US patristics is not a rarity these days.
jydeacon is correct, there have been Patristic conferences organised by the Church, and collections of writings have been made, and truly many of these writings are not difficult to find.
I would encourage people to read "On the Incarnation" by St Athanasius as it is an excellent and readable foundation for further study and it is not too long nor too complicated. We should not excuse our lack of commitment to study by saying that others are not teaching us - I have learned all that I have by my own study.
we should make an effort ourselves, but I don't believe that excuses the lack of attention given to this subject in the mainstream church teachings and sermons... (or maybe tht's just my impression)
Fr. Peter, what would you advise as the second step? (after having read On the Incarnation)
Comments
Yes both life and immortality are gifts, but the Fathers are very clear that mortality is an integral aspect of our human nature as God created it. Therefore we need to read Simeon the New Theologian in terms which agree with the Fathers such as St Cyril and St Severus. I tried to do so in the last post because I do not believe there is a difference.
To be clear about what our Orthodox Faith teaches however, I will post a couple of short references from St Cyril and St Severus - too many and it switches people off!
St Severus - Adam did not lose a single natural blessing, neither did our race because of him. However the rule is as follows. [St Cyril] For we have lost nothing of that which we possessed by nature.
St Severus - That it is by grace indeed that Adam possessed incorruptibility from the beginning - which consists in immortality and impassibility - enriched as he was with a blessing that was beyond nature by the liberality of Him who had created him, we have learned from the word of the Fathers instructed by God. If he had conserved the grace then the mortal character conforming to nature, would have remained hidden along with the corruptibility of the human body.
St Cyril - Man is a rational animal, but composite, meaning of a soul and of this earthly and temporal flesh. Because he has been made by God, and has come into being, without holding in his own nature either incorruptibility or indestructibility - these indeed belong by nature to God alone - he had been marked with the spirit oflife, enriched, by an intimate relationship with God, with a blessing which surpassed nature.
St Severus - In addition, that the incorruptibility of Adam which preceded the transgression of the commandment, meaning immortality, is a matter of grace and not of nature, the eminent Cyril also demonstrates in the first book of the exposition of the Commentary of the Gospel of St John.
St Severus - Therefore it is due to the disobedience of Adam to the commanment, and to his sin, that he lost the grace of immortality, a life free from sorrow and the happiness of paradise.
St Severus - .. the sin of Adam was not mixed naturally with our substance,,; but it is because they had lost the grace of immortality.
St Cyril - It belongs only to the supreme nature to have the ability of bringing the dead to life; the supreme nature alone possesses immortality.
St Cyril - Indeed, all that which has been made is corruptible, even if it is not yet corrupt, because by the will of God it is preserved in incorruptibility. But God is incorruptible and eternal according to his nature.
St Severus - The created beings are maintained in immortality only by His will, and the grace which emanates from him.
These passages are not presented by way of an argument. Indeed there can be no argument with the teaching of St Cyril and St Severus for those who are Orthodox. But they are to suggest how the words posted by Simeon the New Theologian should be understood. He is clearly speaking of the state in which Adam found himself - that of being immortal - not the condition of his nature, which was created mortal.
St Cyril and St Severus are very straightforward and clear. Adam and Eve had a natural mortality, and this was enriched by their relationship with God so that they were granted the gift of immortality as long as they were in this life-giving relationship with God. When they decided to go their own way they lost the gift but their humanity was not changed, it simply reverted to how it had been created.
Father Peter
Hi Mixalhs,
Yes both life and immortality are gifts, but the Fathers are very clear that mortality is an integral aspect of our human nature as God created it. Therefore we need to read Simeon the New Theologian in terms which agree with the Fathers such as St Cyril and St Severus. I tried to do so in the last post because I do not believe there is a difference.
To be clear about what our Orthodox Faith teaches however, I will post a couple of short references from St Cyril and St Severus - too many and it switches people off!
Its not that it switches people off; but, we are not theologians. You have clearly mastered your faith. I mean, when I ask a question, I'd like to know the answer, but not necessarily the intricacies.
Most of the problems arise because you have been accurate (this is not a criticism), yet I would tend to just "generalise". I'd never have worded the creation the same way as you. That's for sure!
I'm not sure on everyone's level, but mine is VERY basic. I mean, REALLY REALLY basic. Now, I'm not doing a degree in Theology, but I think it is important to understand our faith, so I just ask.
Could you perhaps remember that the level of the audience may not always be at the spiritual level you imagine them to be?
At least the person asking. I mean, I know I'm always asking questions, and I'm telling you now, it would be a HUGE benefit for me if I could have the short and sweet version compared to the accurate and detailed. I know details are important, but - as you said: it will just be confusing. Im only on tasbeha.org from the small breaks I have.
Thanks
Is the final sentence of the last post clear enough?
Father Peter
I will try to summarise my answers in a final sentence.
Is the final sentence of the last post clear enough?
Father Peter
Fr.PLEASE do not be upset with me, I just ask a question, and then as soon as I get the answer, I feel I'm done. I even made that abundantly clear.
More than this is too much for my brain to absorb. I just know that Mixalys may have stumbled over semantics as from the gist of the conversation, it seemed you are both saying the same thing, yet you are always adding a lot of accuracies.
But I understand that there is also a need for simplicity.
Father Peter
Theology requires us (those who study theology) to be very accurate. A small error can become a great heresy.
But I understand that there is also a need for simplicity.
Father Peter
THanks Fr.
I really did gain a lot from your answer. Honestly.
But I just didnt read everything afterwards as I felt really satisfied with the answer. For me, it was "game over". In fact, I need to think about this some more, and then I'll no doubt come back with more questions -
I will learn the accuracies ONE DAY... but, bit by bit - not all at once.
http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter4.htm
Here it discusses the views that were held: ...and: Right now I am reading through Athanasios' On The Incarnation to find his exact wording.
I have to say that I found it rather defective. (That is not your fault of course).
Not only does it exclude St Cyril and St Severus, the greatest of our Orthodox theologians, together with St Athanasius of course, but I find that examining the text which is provided from St Athanasius it says the very opposite to what is claimed.
St Athanasius says.. St Athanasius therefore entirely agrees with St Cyril and St Severus, or rather they agree with him as their own master in the faith. Since the table is so completely wrong on this point I hesitate to consider all of the others as being significantly different.
Thus the Fathers of the Orthodox Church - St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus - are in complete agreement, indeed they use the same language and phrases. Adam was created mortal, given the gift of immortality and threw it away for the sake of satisfying his own desires.
Father Peter
“Man was mortal by the very nature of his body, but immortal by grace.”
(St. Augustine)
“By nature man is mortal, since he is created from nothing,” and at their origin men “were endowed with a corruptible nature, but by the grace of participation in the Word” they could “escape their condition of their nature” since, “because of the Word present with them, the corruption of their nature could not approach them.”
(St. Athanasius)
“We were preserved from illness thanks to the gifts received at our creation.”
(St. Basil)
“Yet someone will say to us, ‘But wasn’t death a natural function of human nature?’ Not at all! ‘Wasn’t man therefore immortal?’ We do not say that either. They will then reply, ‘Do you mean man was nothing at all?’ No, that is not at all what we mean. Rather, by his nature man was no more mortal than immortal. If he had been created immortal from the beginning, he would have been created divine. On the other hand, if he had been created mortal, it would have appeared that God was the cause of his death. Thus he was created neither mortal nor immortal; rather, he was capable of both mortality and immortality. Had he chosen the way of immortality in following the divine commandment, he would have received the gift of immortality as a recompense, and thus he would have become like God. Since instead he turned towards works of death in disobedience to God, he became himself the cause of his own death. So it is that God created man free and master of his own destiny.”
(St. Theophilus of Antioch, 2nd Cent.)
“Knowing that man’s free will could have inclined him to one choice or the other, God took the initiative and strengthened the grace that He had given man by providing him with the commandment already in the Garden. In that way, insofar as man preserved that grace and dwelt in virtue, he would know in Paradise a life free from sadness, pain and anxiety, together with the promise of immortality in heaven. But if man transgressed that commandment, he would know that in death he would experience the corruption of his nature, and that he would no longer live in Paradise but would have been expelled, to die and to dwell henceforth in death and corruption.”
(St. Athanasius)
In Christ,
Fr. Kyrillos
First of all, I'd like to welcome Fr. Kyrilos. I haven't seem him here before.
Out of curiosity, how many people in your respective congregations would you say knew all these quotes you are saying?
How much theology should one really know? Most of us are doctors, engineers, or accountants, or social workers (in Australia) - no one really here is a theologian.
I just asked this question simply because we were talking about this issue at a Dinner Party, and then we got into a debate. So, I just asked on here.
I mean, had it not been for a debate between a few friends, I'd have not asked. But - it is interesting to know how ignorant we are of basic truths.
Now, I'm not criticising the Coptic Church at all - but: not a lot of servants know this level of theology. How bad is that? We had one servant teach something that was complete contradiction to another servant.
St Athanasius says.. St Athanasius therefore entirely agrees with St Cyril and St Severus, or rather they agree with him as their own master in the faith. Since the table is so completely wrong on this point I hesitate to consider all of the others as being significantly different.
Thus the Fathers of the Orthodox Church - St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus - are in complete agreement, indeed they use the same language and phrases. Adam was created mortal, given the gift of immortality and threw it away for the sake of satisfying his own desires.
Father Peter
Here is the part from On The Incarnation which Father Peter has so wisely chosen to omit: The section Father Peter has chosen to omit points out that the grace endowed upon man above the animals is reason; logic as attributed to the Image of the Father, although in the slightest degree comparable.
I am concerned that Father Peter is suggesting that God created the cosmos imperfect, and yet "saw it was good."
I also feel compelled to point out that the Church recognizes the three greatest theologians to be St John the Theologian, St Gregory the Theologian, and St Symeon the New Theologian.
Fr. Kyrilos , & Fr. Peter:
First of all, I'd like to welcome Fr. Kyrilos. I haven't seem him here before.
Out of curiosity, how many people in your respective congregations would you say knew all these quotes you are saying?
How much theology should one really know? Most of us are doctors, engineers, or accountants, or social workers (in Australia) - no one really here is a theologian.
I just asked this question simply because we were talking about this issue at a Dinner Party, and then we got into a debate. So, I just asked on here.
I mean, had it not been for a debate between a few friends, I'd have not asked. But - it is interesting to know how ignorant we are of basic truths.
Now, I'm not criticising the Coptic Church at all - but: not a lot of servants know this level of theology. How bad is that? We had one servant teach something that was complete contradiction to another servant.
CertifiedOrthodox, start a new post with this question...i think it's an important that need to be there for others to see and not confuse with the current post.
You have said.. I have shown that St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus have all very clearly and explicitly stated that Adam was created mortal. It is your own interpretation that this means the cosmos was created imperfect. In the Orthodox Church, Simeon the New Theologian is not considered a Father. And in the Orthodox Church the greatest fathers are St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Severus. You are most welcome here as a member of the Greek Church, but the basis of the forum is the Oriental Orthodox Faith of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
It is a principle of theological enquiry that any ambiguous statement of a father - and I do not believe St Athanasius is particularly ambiguous - should be understood in accordance with an explicit statement.
St Athanasius is very clear...
By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing
This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church, as Father Kyrillos has confirmed.
Father Peter
I am most glad to welcome you hear to the tasbeha forum and hope that you will be able to bless us often with your presence and contributions.
Seeking your prayers
Father Peter
CertifiedOrthodox, start a new post with this question...i think it's an important that need to be there for others to see and not confuse with the current post.
I really do not want to start a new thread for the purpose of just a small question; especially as it is related to this.
Please tell us, Fr. Kyrilos and Fr Farrington: if you do not mind:
* How much are we expected to know of all this detail (as Coptic Christians)
* How much do your own congregations know?
It seems to me, with all due respect to the Holy Church Fathers, that if I had spare time to do some reading, it would be in this order:
* THe Bible
* The philokalia
* The Art of Prayer
* THe books by H.H Pope SHenouda
* Fr. Tadros Malaty gave 10 bOOKS free, and I need to get through them. He's extremely interesting person.
-> and finally, I'd leave the Church Fathers right at the very end. I wouldn't say to myself: "Oh.. Today I must read the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers". The last time I read that book was to find out the gory way that Arius died and the gossip that was going on at the time of his death.
I'm not trying to justify being ignorant, but as a Christian, and as a working professional, it is SO hard to find people in Church who know this, and secondly, time to go beyond this and read the fathers in order to learn more. I mean, you'd have to be doing a degree in theology to finish half these books.
The books you have listed are all good. In regards to theology though what is required is a series of introductory books which cover the theology of the Church in an appropriate level of detail. And also a formal series of podcasts etc.
I don't think that the majority of people need to be theologians, but a significant minority need to be, just as a significant minority need to have a deep knowledge of our hymns.
Father Peter
I would probably expect that some people in each congregation would be theologically literate to a reasonably high degree. Ideally I would sort of expect it to be part of deacon training as much as the hymns.
The books you have listed are all good. In regards to theology though what is required is a series of introductory books which cover the theology of the Church in an appropriate level of detail. And also a formal series of podcasts etc.
I don't think that the majority of people need to be theologians, but a significant minority need to be, just as a significant minority need to have a deep knowledge of our hymns.
Father Peter
OK, so you are well versed in scripture and theology. How many people in your church would you say have this DETAIL of understanding.
I attended a CHurch once and the senior servant there said that The Holy Spirit taught Joseph that adultary was wrong when pharoah's wife wanted to sin with him.
THen I went to another Church, in the SAME city, the following week, and they were discussing the same topic, and they said: "No... it was not the Holy Spirit, that only came upon the prophets and special people, it was tradition - it was what Joseph's father had taught him" -
So, i mean, i've seen a lot of stuff like this in the CoC, and actually, we are not THAT blessed with theologically minded people as you seem to think. We are blessed with some good and kind people, but they differ DRASTICALLY in their understanding of theology.
I am glad to be in touch with some of those who are well versed. Father Athanasius Iskander, for instance. Father Kyrillos Ibrahim. Dr Youhanna Youssef. Dr Mina Mikhail has produced some excellent teaching in Arabic and English. There are others of course, including Father Tadros Malaty
Father Peter
God Bless and Pray for me and my weakness
I remember, they even disputed over a few issues, which for me, were quite irrelvant.
I agree with Fr. Peter, anyone teaching Sunday School, or even deacons should, by COMPULSION be well versed and study Coptic Theology.
Not anyone should go and teach in Sunday School.
During our teenage years in Sunday School, we only talked about God's love, and that's it. We never TOUCHED upon any of the issues here:
Divine Justice
Incarnation
Theosis
Mercy
And then. although we have a pretty nice priest, I don't think he really knows about these things. I mean, I think he was even raised catholic.
This is coming to a point, for me personally, that knowing more about my faith is becoming more and more important, and the more I want to know, the more I find discontinuities or contradictions within the Church concerning a very basic concept like "WHy did Christ come and die for us".
No TWO Christians give the same answer; at least in my Church.
Here is an edition of it...
http://www.archive.org/stream/stathanasiusonth00athauoft#page/n11/mode/2up
It's not very long, but is very important and should be the basis of our thinking on the subject. Too many of us simply share our opinions on theological questions instead of studying the Fathers, many of whom are very accessible in many languages.
When you have time I would recommend that you read this. There is no substitute for making your own acquaintance with the Fathers.
Father Peter
Well the best place to start is by reading On the Incarnation by St Athanasius and then taking things from there.
Here is an edition of it...
http://www.archive.org/stream/stathanasiusonth00athauoft#page/n11/mode/2up
It's not very long, but is very important and should be the basis of our thinking on the subject. Too many of us simply share our opinions on theological questions instead of studying the Fathers, many of whom are very accessible in many languages.
When you have time I would recommend that you read this. There is no substitute for making your own acquaintance with the Fathers.
Father Peter
Yeah, ok.. but I'm not sharing anything. I just ask questions. Its faster. Its Free, and its fun.
You would not consider yourself knowledgeable in Accounting if you asked an Accountant 5 questions, however interesting they were.
There is a great blessing from studying theology and a double blessing from reading the actual words of our Fathers.
Father Peter
I too have found that the focus in most sermons and religious conferences I have heard was mostly on God's love, the relationship between God and man etc. Of course, these subjects are very intersting, but I feel that a big part of Church teaching is missing here!
Personally, I would love to learn more about theology, I mean go into the deep issues, the one's that are never talked about, because I have noticed that once I got into that and started grasping a minor piece of it, the whole religious experience became so much deeper and more meaningful.
Recently, I discussed this with some youth in Egypt, who share my opinion, that few people actually know what the Holy Trinity in the understanding of the Church is for instance, few know and understand (as far as that's even possible) church dogma, theology, christology etc.
Probably not everyone would care to learn about that, and some might not be mentally capable of doing so (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but some are just better equipped for certain subjects than others), but I believe there should at least be the possiblitly of learning for those who wish from people who really know what they're talking about.
I remember once a priest who usually gives the typical coptic sermons on love and forgiveness etc. to youth, deviated once to explain more about OT symbolism, and he was very worried that the youth would be bored, but I don't think such subjects should be considered boring, and even if the majority do think they are, then at least the one's who eargerly want to learn should be given a chance. Because perserving the faith that many died for is not a marginal matter, we should understand as much as possible and try to grow in our knowledge in order to grow in our relationship with God and also so that we can answer those who question our beliefs...
Because it is true that withn the Coptc Church many different thins are taught and not all that is taught about theology is necessarily right, so the importance of correct, orthodox teaching must be highlighted more, so that those who don't know enough would thnk twice before opening their mouth AND the one's who receive the wrong info can(to an extent) discern what is right and what is not..
I would encourage people to read "On the Incarnation" by St Athanasius as it is an excellent and readable foundation for further study and it is not too long nor too complicated. We should not excuse our lack of commitment to study by saying that others are not teaching us - I have learned all that I have by my own study.
Father Peter
we should make an effort ourselves, but I don't believe that excuses the lack of attention given to this subject in the mainstream church teachings and sermons... (or maybe tht's just my impression)
Fr. Peter, what would you advise as the second step? (after having read On the Incarnation)
Although don't let that stop anyone else making suggestions.
Father Peter