Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 426
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 295
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 607
- Hymns 2.6K
- Hymns Discussion 2.6K
- Technicial Difficulties 369
- Technical Topics 369
Comments
Funny, I was under the impression you said you would no longer engage in dialogue. Anyway...
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143075#msg143075 date=1313155320]
I am not sure what does the phrase "living in a heightened state of Grace" mean?
What this means is that Adam and Eve lived in a greater state of Grace then fallen man currently lives in. Fallen man has the potential to live in a higher state of Grace than Adam and Eve (by inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven). But currently, that is not so.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143075#msg143075 date=1313155320]
There is a fundamental question that we need to answer: Did Adam and Eve live in a better state, having "more" grace, than us who live in the New Testament?
The answer is no. Yes
Fixed that.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143075#msg143075 date=1313155320]
We have the grace of the Holy Spirit inside us, we have the grace of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of the Son, we have the grace of God dwelling in us, we have the grace of being the bride of Son.
Everything you've just said, Adam and Eve also had. The Holy Spirit was in Adam and Eve. Partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ is called communion and the means for us to have communion with God. Adam and Eve had direct communion with God (seeing as how they walked with God and spoke with God face to face). Adam and Eve had the grace of God dwelling in them as they were in His presence. Adam and Eve were also 'brides' of Christ as well. In addition to everything we currently have in this age of Grace, Adam and Eve had the added grace that they were incorruptible. We cannot make that claim. We are still corruptible. After the final Judgment and general Resurrection, we will become incorruptible and enter a state of grace higher than what Adam and Eve had (seeing as how the righteous will inherit the kingdom of Heaven, a higher state than Paradise). However, in our current state, that is not the case.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143075#msg143075 date=1313155320]
In summary, we have everything that Adam and Eve had in addition to the aforementioned. Thus, the premise that Adam and Eve would not have tasted physical death because of the so called "heightened grace" is a false premise.
I've illustrated how it is not a false premise. However, I figure you will still somehow misrepresent what I say and disagree.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143079#msg143079 date=1313156302]
[quote author=anba bola link=topic=9585.msg143048#msg143048 date=1313114742]
“But the contrary,” it may be said, “hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.” Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.
But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this in no respect injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little. -St. John Chrysostom, 1st Homily on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (section 6)
I don't want to enter this conversation, mainly because I know extremely little. I had just read this quote before and thought it had something to do with this thread, so I decided to post it. I am not on either of the two sides right now; I'm in the middle and I'm trying to learn.
Thanks Anba Bola. These are excellent quotes that shows how the Church views the Scriptures as inerrant.
Actually, it shows how the Church views the Scriptures as infallible and not inerrant. The bolded section in particular highlights that concept.
The reason I respond is because I see it an obligation on my part to clarify, not just for you, but for whomever reads these posts the true belief of our Church.
Obviously You and I have a very different approach to the Scriptures; I believe it is inerrant as I have received from the Church, you do not (based on your previous comments) and this is a big gap in the way we approach the Scriptures.
Now let's get on with your comments: Because I do not want to put words in your mouth, by this statement, are you suggesting that we still have the fallen nature though we received the new birth through baptism?
I will comment after you reply to my question in my last post.
I'm getting a strange sense of déjà vu. This topic has already been covered in this very thread. Feel free to go back and see what I had to say about it.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
I'm getting a strange sense of déjà vu. This topic has already been covered in this very thread. Feel free to go back and see what I had to say about it.
Very well.
Here is what I have deducted from reading your posts, feel free to correct:
You do not believe that baptism changes the nature of the baptized
This is against the Church teaching for the baptized does receive an incorruptible nature instead of the fallen nature the person was born in.
You believe that the Bible contains the truth but still has inconsistencies that do not pertain to the faith
This is also against the Church teaching for the Scriptures are the breath of God containing the absolute truth and are inerrant.
You believe that mortal death is the result of the fallen nature and thus baptism does not change our nature (since we still experience death)
You confuse eternal death with physical death. The Church does not believe in physical death as a result of corruption and calls it sleep as she received from Christ and His holy apostles.
You believe that man through his deeds may attain incorruptibly (since baptism has no value in this regard):
Again, this is against the Church teaching. Through baptism we gain the new nature that is essential for our incorruptibility. We receive the grace of the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Chrismation which allows us to bear the fruits of the Spirit and keep the new nature we took without blemish.
You believe that people could be saved outside the Church:
This is against the Church teaching as the Church is the only vehicle by which man could be saved.
Note:
I use the "Church teaching" loosely to also mean the Bible teaching as both are intertwined.
Ahhh, where to begin...
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
Very well.
Here is what I have deducted from reading your posts, feel free to correct:
I believe the word you are looking for is 'deduced'.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
You do not believe that baptism changes the nature of the baptized
Baptism changes man in that it washes away their sin, it opens the doors to the kingdom of Heaven, it grants us adoption as children of God and it is an enlightenment (as the Fathers say). I have found nothing to indicate that our nature changes. Rather, baptism sets us on the path of Theosis. It is dying in Christ so that we may live in Him. It is putting to death the man of sin and becoming a man of holiness and righteousness.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
This is against the Church teaching for the baptized does receive an incorruptible nature instead of the fallen nature the person was born in.
Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
You believe that the Bible contains the truth but still has inconsistencies that do not pertain to the faith
As the quote from St. John Chrysostom illustrates, there are inconsistencies in the Gospels that do not pertain to the faith. However, they do not matter and, if anything, help to solidify the Truth that is preached in the Gospels.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
This is also against the Church teaching for the Scriptures are the breath of God containing the absolute truth and are inerrant.
Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
You believe that mortal death is the result of the fallen nature and thus baptism does not change our nature (since we still experience death)
I have already explained the efficacy of baptism above. If by 'mortal death' you mean 'physical death' then this may be the first thing you've gotten right.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
You confuse eternal death with physical death.
I haven't confused anything. You just don't understand a word I'm saying. Before the Fall: There was no Death (be it spiritual death of physical death). After the Fall: Death entered into the world (both types of death, spiritual death and physical death).
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
The Church does not believe in physical death as a result of corruption and calls it sleep as she received from Christ and His holy apostles.
Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
You believe that man through his deeds may attain incorruptibly (since baptism has no value in this regard):
Once again, I have illustrated the efficacy of baptism above. In light of that, St. Paul teaches us to 'work out our own salvation'. We have a synergistic relationship with God. We work out our salvation in synergy with God's grace. One does not trump the other. We must 'take up our cross and follow [Christ]'. We must walk the path of Theosis. We must get up if we fall. We have a part to play in our salvation and attaining the kingdom of Heaven (incorruptibility). God gives us the grace to do this.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
Through baptism we gain the new nature that is essential for our the means of attaining incorruptibility. We receive the grace of the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Chrismation which allows us to bear the fruits of the Spirit and keep the new nature we took without blemish.
I have illustrated the efficacy of baptism above. I have not said anything to the contrary of what is quoted above.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
Again, this is against the Church teaching.
Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
You believe that people could be saved outside the Church:
WRONG. I believe that salvation is found in the Church. What I also believe is that we know the visible boundary of the Church, but we do not know the invisible boundary of the Church. We cannot say who is in the Church and who is not. There are those who are in the visible boundary of the Church who will not be saved, and there will be those who are outside the visible boundary of the Church but within Her invisible boundary who will be saved. I believe God can save whomever He wills.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
This is against the Church teaching as the Church is the only vehicle by which man could be saved.
Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
All what you are saying is true but you left the new birth, I am not sure what you mean by " I have found nothing to indicate that our nature changes." Dogma is not limited by what you find or know. The Truth exists whether you are aware of it or not.
Let me suggest that you read the following prayers:
The Bathing of a Newborn
Holy Baptism
Consecration of the Baptismal Water
Anointing with the Holy Chrism.
These prayers have a common theme starting with the preparation of the baptized to be a Holy Altar for the Lord, casting away the old nature, and receiving the Grace of the Holy Spirit.
In the prayer of "Consecration of the Baptismal Water" the priest says: "Whosoever is baptized in it [the baptismal water] will cast away the old nature which is corruption"
This is the faith of the Church; a new birth and a new nature.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143129#msg143129 date=1313240163]
This is against the Church teaching for the baptized does receive an incorruptible nature instead of the fallen nature the person was born in. That is not me who says so. Rather, it is what the Church prays as I have indicated in my last post.
You need to read the liturgical prayers of the Church for in them the faith is declared and explained.
This is also against the Church teaching for the Scriptures are the breath of God containing the absolute truth and are inerrant. You keep suggesting that I am the one who says the Bible is inerrant while it is the Church. You make it so easy on yourself in arguing this point.
I can say the same thing using exactly your argument and say: "Just because you say it is not inerrant does not make the scriptures not inerrant"
If the Bible contains errors, who will decide what is error and what is not? You? Someone else?
My simple argument to you is how may God's breath contain error(s)?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Scriptures say:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is valuable for teaching the truth, convicting of sin, correcting faults and training in right living;" 2 Timothy 3:16
However, you still do not get the meaning God's warning of death in case Adam broke God's Commandment.
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
This means that the very day the commandment is broken, the death will rule. However, Adam did not die physically but spiritually.
Excellent.
But one has to receive the new nature to have the grace to be able to do what you explained. This new nature is attained through the new birth in Baptism.
I am going to use your own argument here. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
I am going to use your own argument here. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
Hi Brother,
Please allow me to interject in my normal mischievous manner, I would like to quote the highest practical authority which we have on this subject - the canons of the ecumenical council of Constantinople regarding the admission of heretics into the holy Orthodox Church:
[quote="Canon 5"]Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost. But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies— for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:— all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm
What I hope this passage emphasises is that only heretics whose baptisms were conducted incorrectly (single immersion) were rebaptised; Arians and other such heretics were anointed with laying on of hands upon renunciation of their error there was no need to perform a second baptism (or a first baptism depending on how you look at it), their earlier baptism is considered valid when they renounce their error.
Note that this 'MAY' have happened because the early heretics of the 4th century never corrupted their baptismal services despite their heretical teaching (i.e. they still performed the traditional rite in the traditional way with the same confessions, etc), it is only the later Arians (Eumonians as mentioned here) who tampered with the rites and so their sacrament is not honoured by the ecumenical council. I can't be certain because this second point is my interjection.
However this practice is consistent with how our church later went on to deal with Chalcedonians, applying something similar to this canon they used to admit them into communion after they renounced their errors and were received with laying on of hands. There is evidence that both St Severus of Antioch and St Timothy of Alexandria followed this practice (it is explicitly mentioned in one of the writings of St Severus which Fr Peter quoted previously.
Please pray for me,
LiD
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143164#msg143164 date=1313355467] Who said of the visible and invisible boundaries?
I am going to use your own argument here. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
Hi Brother,
Please allow me to interject in my normal mischievous manner, I would like to quote the highest practical authority which we have on this subject - the canons of the ecumenical council of Constantinople regarding the admission of heretics into the holy Orthodox Church:
[quote="Canon 5"]Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost. But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies— for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:— all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm
What I hope this passage emphasises is that only heretics whose baptisms were conducted incorrectly (single immersion) were rebaptised; Arians and other such heretics were anointed with laying on of hands upon renunciation of their error there was no need to perform a second baptism (or a first baptism depending on how you look at it), their earlier baptism is considered valid when they renounce their error.
Note that this 'MAY' have happened because the early heretics of the 4th century never corrupted their baptismal services despite their heretical teaching (i.e. they still performed the traditional rite in the traditional way with the same confessions, etc), it is only the later Arians (Eumonians as mentioned here) who tampered with the rites and so their sacrament is not honoured by the ecumenical council. I can't be certain because this second point is my interjection.
However this practice is consistent with how our church later went on to deal with Chalcedonians, applying something similar to this canon they used to admit them into communion after they renounced their errors and were received with laying on of hands. There is evidence that both St Severus of Antioch and St Timothy of Alexandria followed this practice (it is explicitly mentioned in one of the writings of St Severus which Fr Peter quoted previously.
Please pray for me,
LiD
Very good LID.
But the debate is not about those of the Chalcedonians.
Kephas uses this quote from Kalistos Ware to suggest that there is somehow salvation outside the Church (emphasis is mine):
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
This notion that there an "invisible Church" is against the Church and the Scriptures teachings. It is a Protestant idea developed during the Reformation to justify their existence outside the Latin Church.
7 separate posts?! Seriously?! Are you incapable of putting all your thoughts in one coherent post?
All I have to say is that the sacrament of baptism is for the remission of sins. There is no indication that our nature is transformed as you seem to keep insisting. I have read the prayers for baptism and they also do not indicate that our nature is transformed. We put off corruption as a result of the remission of sins we receive in baptism. Now, from the article by HH Pope Shenouda that you linked to in another thread on the Transfiguration I quote: Source
Clearly, the transformation of our nature will occur after the general Resurrection. Baptism sets us on the path for this to occur.
EDIT: If there are any other points you wish me to address, compile them in a single coherent post and I'll address them. You do not need to create khoorshoomeet posts to address everything I've been able to say in a single post.
My insistence is that we put off the old man and put on the new one as St Paul explains.
You crossed out that we receive a new nature in post #129: In baptism, our corrupt nature is changed to an in-corrupt one as I pointed out in the liturgical prayers of Baptism.
If you agree with the above then we have no problem.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143250#msg143250 date=1313552879]
In baptism, our corrupt nature is changed to an in-corrupt one as I pointed out in the liturgical prayers of Baptism.
I do not agree with the italicized word. Our corrupt nature does not change until after the general resurrection as per the highlighted passages in my previous post.
Here is the full prayer you referenced: Source
Note the bolded portion. Where does it say anything about an incorruptible nature? You're reading far too much into that. The Apostle Paul is clear in his epistles: human nature does not become incorruptible until after the transformation at the general resurrection. Look at the quotes here from the Church Fathers that I posted earlier in this thread. Nowhere do they speak about receiving the incorruptible nature. Let it go. You're wrong.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143250#msg143250 date=1313552879]
In baptism, our corrupt nature is changed to an in-corrupt one as I pointed out in the liturgical prayers of Baptism.
I do not agree with the italicized word. Our corrupt nature does not change until after the general resurrection as per the highlighted passages in my previous post.
Here is the full prayer you referenced: Source
Note the bolded portion. Where does it say anything about an incorruptible nature? You're reading far too much into that. The Apostle Paul is clear in his epistles: human nature does not become incorruptible until after the transformation at the general resurrection. Look at the quotes here from the Church Fathers that I posted earlier in this thread. Nowhere do they speak about receiving the incorruptible nature. Let it go. You're wrong.
I will never let anything of the Church dogma go misrepresented.
In baptism we rise with Christ and we do put on the new man. By definition new birth, new man, casting off the corrupt nature is an ACTUAL change.
What you are referring to is the transformation of the our earthly nature into the heavenly as Christ transfigured on mount Tabor. This only concerns the bodily form and a confirmation that the inward man has overcome sin. But for outward form to overcome corruption, the inward must also be in-corrupt. The incoruptibility of the inward man starts at Baptism through the new birth.
"He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." Titus 3:5
Go back to the prayer of "Consecration of the Baptismal Water" the priest says: "Whosoever is baptized in it [the baptismal water] will cast away the old nature which is corruption"
If we do not receive a new nature then what does the rebirth mean? What does the renewal mean? They mean the old nature is cast off and instead we receive the new one.
ZOMG!!!!1111!! I truly believe you do not understand a word I've been saying. You have misrepresented the Church's teachings if you insist on saying that our nature becomes incorruptible after baptism. You have now changed that in your most recent post and said:
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143252#msg143252 date=1313556380]
The incoruptibility of the inward man starts at Baptism through the new birth.
That is what I've been saying. We do NOT become incorruptible at baptism. We begin down the path of incorruptibility at baptism.
Once again, a summary of the efficacy of baptism:
a) remission of sins
b) putting to death the old man (the man of sin) and putting on the new man (the man of righteousness)
c) dying in Christ (and thus dying to sin)
d) enlightenment
e) opening of the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven
f) adoption as children of God
g) the start of our path towards Theosis
Where, in any of the things I have listed, does it say ANYTHING about our nature becoming incorruptible? St. Paul is explicitly clear: We do NOT become incorruptible until after the general resurrection. Our nature does NOT transform until after the general resurrection. I have already linked to the the prayer for the consecration of the baptismal water above. In fact, I posted more of that exact prayer to show how you misrepresent it.
I'm done with this thread. If you can't fully comprehend what I'm saying, then stop talking to me. It is you who are misrepresenting the teachings of the Church by insisting that we become incorruptible after we are baptized. We do not become incorruptible but are set on the path of incorruptibility. Everything points to that fact. If you do not want to take the blinders off, that is your prerogative. I don't care. Toz feek.
"whoever spreads slander is a fool" Proverbs 10:18
A fool vents all his feelings, But a wise man holds them back. Proverbs 29:11
+ Irini nem ehmot,
ZOMG!!!!1111!! I truly believe you do not understand a word I've been saying. You have misrepresented the Church's teachings if you insist on saying that our nature becomes incorruptible after baptism. You have now changed that in your most recent post and said:
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143252#msg143252 date=1313556380]
The incoruptibility of the inward man starts at Baptism through the new birth.
That is what I've been saying. We do NOT become incorruptible at baptism. We begin down the path of incorruptibility at baptism.
Once again, a summary of the efficacy of baptism:
a) remission of sins
b) putting to death the old man (the man of sin) and putting on the new man (the man of righteousness)
c) dying in Christ (and thus dying to sin)
d) enlightenment
e) opening of the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven
f) adoption as children of God
g) the start of our path towards Theosis
Where, in any of the things I have listed, does it say ANYTHING about our nature becoming incorruptible? St. Paul is explicitly clear: We do NOT become incorruptible until after the general resurrection. Our nature does NOT transform until after the general resurrection. I have already linked to the the prayer for the consecration of the baptismal water above. In fact, I posted more of that exact prayer to show how you misrepresent it.
I'm done with this thread. If you can't fully comprehend what I'm saying, then stop talking to me. It is you who are misrepresenting the teachings of the Church by insisting that we become incorruptible after we are baptized. We do not become incorruptible but are set on the path of incorruptibility. Everything points to that fact. If you do not want to take the blinders off, that is your prerogative. I don't care. Toz feek.
You keep twisting my words and change the topic to prove that you are the All Knowing Mighty Kephas. Be that way. As for me I will abide by this verse:
The mouth of a fool is a rod of pride, But the lips of the wise will preserve them. Proverbs 14:3
Why do you guys make things so complicated and talk across each other and against each other?
The teachings of the Fathers could be made so simple using an analogy:
The Christmas tree, by its own nature, is bare. When it is taken and planted in your homes, it is adorned with light. In the same way, humanity by nature is corrupt and mortal, but when God first created us and placed us in Paradise, he adorned us with the grace of incorruption and immortality. In the same way that the tree, before and after it is adorned, needs water and nutrition, you can also learn that humanity before the Fall and after the Fall needed food and water for nutrition and had biological functions, except that before the Fall we were protected by grace from disease and death. With the incarnation of the Lord, by his salvific work on the cross and resurrection, and through our participation in the sacraments he instituted for our salvation, we are once again adorned like the Christmas tree - but now it's even better: we receive the grace of the Holy Spirit and are capable to become in the image of God.
Perhaps everytime we decorate our Christmas trees from now on, we could remind ourselves of the how Christ adorned our nature with the glory of his own light in his incarnation.
Agape,
Why do you guys make things so complicated and talk across each other and against each other?
The teachings of the Fathers could be made so simple using an analogy:
The Christmas tree, by its own nature, is bare. When it is taken and planted in your homes, it is adorned with light. In the same way, humanity by nature is corrupt and mortal, but when God first created us and placed us in Paradise, he adorned us with the grace of incorruption and immortality. In the same way that the tree, before and after it is adorned, needs water and nutrition, you can also learn that humanity before the Fall and after the Fall needed food and water for nutrition and had biological functions, except that before the Fall we were protected by grace from disease and death. With the incarnation of the Lord, by his salvific work on the cross and resurrection, and through our participation in the sacraments he instituted for our salvation, we are once again adorned like the Christmas tree - but now it's even better: we receive the grace of the Holy Spirit and are capable to become in the image of God.
Perhaps everytime we decorate our Christmas trees from now on, we could remind ourselves of the how Christ adorned our nature with the glory of his own light in his incarnation.
Bobboy,
I like your analogy.
We are born in sin. In it but not of it.
We state one baptizim for the remission of sins. I think its like when they say someones cancer is in remission. The cancer is gone but it may come back.
That is why we must keep in communion with God to keep sin away.
Justice is not guaranteed to anyone.
God richly bless u all!!!
We are born in sin. In it but not of it.
We state one baptizim for the remission of sins. I think its like when they say someones cancer is in remission. The cancer is gone but it may come back.
That is why we must keep in communion with God to keep sin away.
Justice is not guaranteed to anyone.
God richly bless u all!!!
This is true but our nature changes or regenerates, in baptism, from being corrupt to being incorrupt capable of inheriting the kingdom of heaven.
[quote author=Severian on OC.Net]
You see, the problem with this is that far too many OO Clergy and Theologians argue in favor of the wrong beliefs of total depravity and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin. Met. Bishoy has argued for it, I have been told that Pope Shenouda (memory eternal!) has argued for it. And an encyclical letter from Pat. Mar Ignatius Zaka also seems to show support for this erroneous innovation. How do we address the spread of this wrong belief within our Communion? My whole life I have believed in this Augustinian teaching; until a few years ago I listened to an EO speaker say that Orthodoxy denies it. When I talked to my own Priest about the issue, he confirmed what I had heard. That is, we do not believe we inherit Adam's guilt. How do you suggest we prevent this wrong belief from leading others astray?
Mar Ignatius' letter:
http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/patriarchal-encyclical-letters/true-repentance/
And forgive me if this post seems to be written out of emotion, I am just sort of in a bad mood today.
P.S. [b]Thread resurrection!
How do you all suggest we deal with this innovation in our Church?
Ancestral Sin:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Ancestral-Sin-Comparative-Augustinian/dp/0970730314
Also, Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos did a good work on Romanides:
http://findingthewaytotheheart.blogspot.com/2011/08/empirical-dogmatics-by-fr-john.html
Patristic Theology is also required reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Patristic-Theology-Protopresbyter-John-Romanides/dp/B0029D6XNY/ref=pd_sim_b_1
There are a lot of converts to the Eastern Orthodox Church right now who are coming from either a Protestant/Evangelical or a Roman Catholic background, and are fleeing these types of teaching: Original sin and original guilt, moralism, Penal substitutionary atonement, scholasticism, intellectualism, and so on and so forth. I think OO could benefit from talking to us, like, in real life, not just on a message board. And I think we could benefit from you guys and the simplicity of the spiritual life and faith found in not only Coptic Orthodoxy, but all of Oriental Orthodoxy.