Orthodox Apologetics

Overview of Romans

2012-02-18T01:19:00.000-04:00

By Fr. Thomas Hopko

Part 1:Play Audio

Part 2:Play Audio

Christology and Recapitulation

2012-02-18T01:10:00.001-04:00

from pages iii-x

Quote:
"At the center of St. Maximus' theological and christological universe is the doctrine of Recapitulation. It is this doctrine which forms the basis of all that the New Testament and the Fathers have to say in connection with the Incarnation. While the term "recapitulation" itself appears only twice in the New Testament, the concept itself occurs repeatedly; one has only to recognize its principles of operation in order to know when it is being applied. These may be categorized as fellows: 1) preeminence 2) repetition and recontextualization, 3) reversal, and 4) fulfillment.

The Confessor elegantly summarizes this doctrine and its principles of operation in compact sentence: "The One Logos is the many logoi, and the many logoi are the One Logos." In other words, in His Incarnation and enhominization, Jesus Christ possesses and is all the fulness of the universals common both to deity and humanity. In terms of the four principles enumerated above, then, this works itself out in a multitude of ways. In terms of preeminence, it means that Christ is both the presupposition, the method, the paradigm, and the summit of whatever might be said either about God or about man. God is truly, uniquely, ultimately and finally revealed in The Word Incarnate. And man, perfect humanity, is also only understood properly in its union with the Word. In Scriptural terms, Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega of all that can be said of God and man, and thus has the preeminence "in all things". Being thus preeminent in all things, Christ becomes the final context, the ultimate and perfect "recontextualization" and repetition, of the logoi, understood here as both the words of the Old Testament Scripture and the principles of nature: of creation as a whole and of man in particular. That is, not only are the typological themes of Scripture repeated in His Incarnate Economy from His conception to His Second Advent, but He also repeats all of the natural stages of humanity itself; Christ recapitulates and summarizes not only sacred history but the history of all of humanity as a whole, and the stages of life of each individual human being in particular. In doing so, He reverses the effects of the Fall. As the Second Adam, the entire drama of the Fall is replayed, this time to an opposite conclusion. Instead of a Fall into passions and corruption, mankind in Christ is raised and exalted. Deification and the spiritual life, in other words, are integral components and implications of the doctrine of Recapitulation. By thus repeating, and in some cases reversing, the typological themes of Holy Scripture and the natural laws and stages of humanity, Christ is not only preeminent in all things, but fulfills all Old Testament prophecy and expectation concerning His Coming, there being nothing more that canbe said about them outside of and without reference to Christ.

Consequently, the doctrine of the Recapitulation in Christ bears implications not only for the exegesis and interpretation of Scripture and the understanding of the Incarnation, but implies also a general basis on which to interpret human history and the whole created order and their principles of activity.

At this point, it would be helpful to survey how this doctrine is employed by other Fathers prior to St. Maximus before proceeding to his own use of it. The word 'recapitulation' means 'to collect several different things together under one head', or simply 'to summarize'. It occurs only twice in the New Testament, in Ephesians 1:10--"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him"--and in Romans 13:9 -- "if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." It is significent that St. Paul uses this word so sparingly, and then only in contexts having to do either with christological affirmation or with counsels on living a Christian life. In other words, the doctrinal affirmations of Christology and the principles of the spiritual life go hand in hand, they cannot be divorced fromeach other. The doctrinal principles of Christology are not mere intellectual constructs which have no force or bearing on the conduct of life, nor are the counsels of a virtuous life in love ever fully apprehended apart from Christ. Love, the union of God and man in Christ and the love of man for God and his neighbor, are the essence of the doctrine. This union was to play an important role in St. Maximus' own theology, as we shall see.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons is the name most often associated with recapitulation. For him, the two natures of Christ along with their various properties, establish His preeminence in both heavenly and earthly things and thus Christ fulfills them in Himself, ie., fills them with Himself:

"He was invisible and became visible; incomprehensible and made comprehensible; impassible and made passible; the Word, and made man; consummating all things in himself. That, as in things above the heavens and in the spiritual and invisible world the Word of God is supreme, so in the visible and physical realm he may have pre-eminence, taking to himself the primacy and appointment himself the head of the Church, that he may 'draw all things to himself' (St. John 12:32) in due time.

Here not only is Christ's recapitulation taken to refer to His preeminence in deity and humanity, but, since His divine nature is spiritual and invisible, it also includes "the spiritual and invisible world", the world of the angels and also of man's soul and mind. And by the same token, for St. Irenaeus the fact that Christ's humanity is physical and part of the physical creation, all of "the physical realm" is also effected by His Incarnation. Thus, the "one Christ Jesus our Lord" came "in fulfillment of God's comprehensive design and consummates all things in himself." In other terms, as the Word Himself in conjunction with His everlasting Father created "all things visible and invisible", so His Incarnation effects all things visible and invisible.

The double entendre of the word 'effects' is intentional, for Christ's Incarnate Economy affects all invisible and visible things both in the sense of accomplishing and even causing them to be, as well as in the sense of influencing them. The Recapitulation consequently effects the very design of time and history itself, since it pertains to "the mystery which hath been hid from the generations" of the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Recapitulation is the christological basis, then, of a proper understanding of the history of creation and of humanity from its inception to its consummation:

He was incarnate and made Man; and then he summed up in himself the long line of the human race, procuring for us a comprehensive salvation, that we might recover in Christ what in Adam we lost, namely, the state of being in the image and likeness of God.

This constitutes the allegorical or typological basis on which Irenaeus and other Fathers read the Old Testament. On the basis of the Pauline precedent of the parallelism between them: Adam is fashioned of virgin untilled earth, Christ is born of the Virgin Mary. As the Fall occurred through a (fallen) angel, and the disobedience of Eve and Adam, so the restoration is effected not only by a repetition of these elements in the Annunciation by an angel, but by a reversal of disobedience by the obedience of Christ the Second Adam and Mary the Second Eve.

(This is) the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which those bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again liberty.

That is, in order for there to be a fulfillment of the Old Testament, their must be a repetition and recontextualization of its themes in the Life of Christ, and where necessary, a reversal of them. This presupposes certain principles in order for typological exegesis to take place. Types are like leitmotifs in music; they are repeated, and with each repetition, recontextualized, reaching their fulfillment in Christ.

Not only does this repetitional fulfillment of types occur in reference to the events of the Old Testament, but also in reference to the principles stages of human life itself, i.e., in reference to the observed phenomena of nature:

Therefore he passed through every stage of life, restoring to each age fellowship with God.......He sanctified each stage of life by [making possible] a likeness to himself. He came to save all through his own person: all, that is, who through him are re-born to God: infants, children, boys, young men and old.
Therefore he passed through every stage of life. He was made an infant for infants, sanctifying infancy; a child among children, sanctifying childhood, and setting an example of filial affection, of righteousness and of obedience; a young man among young men, becoming an example to them, and sanctifying them to the Lord.....And thus he came even to death, that he might be 'the first-born from the dead, having the pre-eminence among all [or in all things].'

But this recapitulation of humanity is not merely by repetition of its laws and stages, as the reference to Holy Baptism suggests. There is an ecclesiological and sacramental dimension in which it takes place.

With these principles of the doctrine in mind -- the preeminence of Christ in all things pertaining to deity and to humanity, and to the invisible and visible worlds, the repetition and fulfillment in His Incarnate Economy of the laws of human history, collective and individual, as well as of the repeated typology of the Old Testament -- we may now see how they operate in two other Fathers writing in entirely different times and for different purpose: St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria, and St. Ambrose of Milan.

For St. Athanasius as for St. Irenaeus the Incarnation recapitulates all of humanity:

Through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word's indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all.

That is, in His human nature which is consubstantial with all men, the Son and Word effectively bestows incorruption, with a certain irresistible determination, on all of humanity.

In the rest of the created order, St. Athanasius like St. Irenaeus sees that the salient events of the Incarnation life of Christ have the result of effecting and filling all of Creation, being above by virtue of His coming down from heaven and His bodily Ascension and return there, being present in this world in virtue of His Incarnation in it, and below it in virtue of His Descent into Hades prior to the Resurrection:" The Self-revealing of the word is in every dimension--above, in creation; below, in the Incarnation; in the depth, in Hades; in the breath, throughout the world. All things have been filled with the knowledge of God." Thus thus the sensible world itself, in virtue of the Word becoming man, has been made the vehicle of the knowledge of the Word, because "He, as Man," centers "their senses on Himself."

.

from pages iii - x in the book "The Disputation with Pyrrhus of our Father among the Saints Maximus the Confessor: Translated from the Greek by Joseph P. Farrell

Redemption or Deification?

2012-02-17T06:10:00.000-04:00

Why Did God Become Man?The Unconditionality of the Divine Incarnation by Panagiotes Nellas (†1986)

. quote:
"4. The View of the Mystery of the Incarnation in Relation to
the Fall, and Its Significance.
Man’s temporal Fall, however, created two other impediments,
which in a tragically real way obstruct the outpouring of the Spirit and the full realization of salvation (or completion, recapitulation,
deification, or whatever we may call it). And these real impediments,
which exist within time, need to be dealt with in a way which is
equally real and temporal.

This is why the Son of Man comes
as a giant to run the course of our... nature and through
suffering to make His way to death, and to bind the strong
man and plunder his goods... and lead the erring sheep
back to the heavenly land,
as St. John of Damascus writes poetically.13
And, as the Divine Cabasilas says,
This is what happens, then. God makes His own the
struggle on behalf of men, for He is man. Man, being pure
from all sin, overcomes sin, for he is God (513B).

Thus we arrive at the postlapsarian, historical view of the mystery of the Divine Incarnation, and the postlapsarian application of
the passage of Cabasilas which we quoted at the beginning of the
theological section of our study.
We shall not concern ourselves in detail here with this postlapsarian view of the mystery of the Divine Incarnation—not because it does not bear on our subject, but for the sole reason that
space is limited.
For it is a truth just as fundamental as that previously stated that
man, broken, degraded, and enslaved to sin, the Devil, and death on
account of the Fall is in need of redemption. And he cannot achieve
redemption on his own. Man was obliged to “retrieve his defeat,”

Cabasilas says. But he was unable to win the battle.
Indeed, no human wisdom, strength, virtue, or righteousness
could overcome death, a boundary which, by historical standards, is
fundamental and decisive. On the other hand, God, Who could have destroyed sin, the
Devil, and death by a single thought did not do so, because that
would have been unjust; it was man, and not God, who had been
defeated, and man had to retrieve the situation.
It is at this point that Cabasilas sums up the second aspect of
the mystery of the Incarnation, that “God makes His own the struggle
on behalf of men, for He is man,” and its corollary: “Man, being pure
from all sin, overcomes sin, for he is God.”

Cabasilas dwells at length on this postlapsarian aspect of the
mystery, and in my book Ἡ περὶ δικαιώσεως τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
διδασκαλία τοῦ Καβάσιλα [Cabasilas’ teaching on the justification of man] I expounded it in detail.
It would truly be a grave spiritual, pastoral, and also theological
error to ascribe a secondary importance to the reality of sin and the
need for redemption. From this standpoint, we would not have had
the right to treat the subject as we do here if we had not previously written an entire book on the Sin-Redemption dimension. Yet it
would be an equally grave error to limit salvation, that is, deification,
to redemption alone.

In the first case, Christianity would be transformed into an unrealistic mysticism; in the second, it would be degraded to a legalistic ethical system.
As a true theologian of the Catholic Church, Cabasilas took into
account both of these truths; and, in contrast to Anselm, who restricted Christianity and man to the Fall-Redemption polarity, he
gave this polarity the attention that it merits and, at the same time,
placed it in its proper context, at the same stroke giving man his
true scope.
After this crucially important observation, to which we ask the
reader to pay special attention, it is time to return to studying more
directly the problem that we posed at the outset, that of narrowing
the axis of the Divine Œconomy from Creation-Deification to FallRedemption.III. The Significance of Cabasil.

Quote:
"4. Overcoming the Fear of Sin as the Central Motive of Spiritual Life. Christ, the Beginning, Middle, and End of Spiritual
Life.
BUT Cabasilas’ correct answer to “Cur Deus homo?” also brings
the liberation of man from evil and sin. No matter how terrifying
evil may be, since it, and not Christ, is merely an episode and an
event, it proves, in the final analysis, insignificant. The understanding of man—of salvation, spiritual life, and so forth—is disjoined
from evil and joined to Christ.
Ascesis, charity, etc. are not the “good works” that will counterbalance our sins before God’s justice and in that way offer Him satisfaction.

God is not a “sadistic father” who takes satisfaction in torturing
his children. Ascesis is a vigorous struggle against evil. And man can
throw himself into this struggle much more easily, with hope and
joy, if his aim is to develop the seeds of godlikeness that he has within him, a longing for all the elements of his being to be united with
Christ, and not simply fear of sin.
The real sin, for Cabasilas, is for man to remain outside Christ,
to consider that he is sufficient on his own, i.e., autonomy. Adam’s
greatest sin, the sin that engendered all of the others, was that he
wanted to live with the life of his nature, to exist independently of
God. This led him to death.

Cabasilas is unambiguous on this point. If man is not alive with
the life of Christ, he is dead, even if he is a fine and good person socially or religiously, even if he formally observes the prescriptions
of the law. On the axis of Fall-Redemption, justice and law are
dominant. On the axis of Creation-Deification, sin consists in making oneself autonomous, in self-sufficiency. And this, according to
the ascetic Fathers, was the greatest danger lurking even for the redeemed. The dominant figure on this axis is Christ.
Therefore, the ethos of Orthodox believers is not legalistic, but
theocentric. Any virtue in man has value to the extent that it is a
virtue of Christ, says Cabasilas. For only what is incorporated in
Christ and, consequently, spiritual (“born from above”) is able to sur-mount the biological boundaries of corruption and death. “In this
way the Saints are blessed, because of the blessed One Who is with them”
(613A).
The holiness of the saints is due to the fact that they have united
their will to the will of Christ. The wisdom of the truly wise, those
who uncover the truth by Divine inspiration, is due to their having
united their mind with the mind of Christ. “From themselves and
from human nature and effort there is nothing whatever... Rather, they
are holy because of the Holy One, righteous and wise because of the righteous and wise One Who abides with them” (613A).

For this reason, Cabasilas advises, “be merciful” not in a human
way “but as your Father is merciful.”
The faithful are called to love “in the love with which Paul ‘yearned
with the affection of Jesus Christ’” (Philippians 1:8), and to have the
love “with which the Son loved the Father,” and the peace that is not
human, but of Christ. For, as the birth is “Divine and preternatural,”
so also “the new life, its regime and philosophy, and all these things are
new and spiritual” (616A).

This Pauline Christocentricity which places Christ as the beginning, middle, and end of the world and of history is the core of Cabasilas’ work. This is the basis on which he gave a correct answer to
the question, “Cur Deus homo?,” confined the Fall-Redemption
axis to its proper bounds and revealed the true breadth of the Divine Œconomy, which begins from Creation and reaches to Deification, that extension without end of created man within the uncreated God.
As has become evident from the few examples that we have been
able to give within the scope of this study, Cabasilas placed on this
axis all the realities of faith, spiritual life, and the Church, and revealed their true nature and their extraordinary transformative dynamism."

Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity

2012-02-09T02:01:00.002-04:00

Just started to get into it:

Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity

Something I thought was interesting:

Quote:
"Two Judaism and Rhetorical Culture
b. Midrash
Th e second group of texts which refl ect biblical interpretation dating from
the Amoraic period in Eretz Israel is called midrash. Th e term ( מִדְרָשׁ , from
דָּרַשׁ , darash, “to seek,” “inquire,” “investigate”) refers to a method of expounding
the text and to a collection of such texts. Th ese texts are commentary and
elaboration on the Written Torah. Th e various collections which fall under
the head of midrash, however, can focus on deriving rabbinic halakah based
on Scripture, or provide elaborations on narrative passages in the Bible. Th ey
may be organized according to the order of the biblical text, or arranged as
homilies corresponding to the lection on Sabbaths and Holy Days.
In midrash we can discern some of the interrelationship of Judaism
and Christianity during the early Christian period. Th ere are some remarkable
parallels in hermeneutical method between the midrashim and Greek
and Syriac patristic literature. Origen and Jerome are explicitly aware of
midrashic traditions. Moreover, in the third century tensions between Jews
and Christians (including Origen and Eusebius) living in Eretz Israel rose
to a level of confrontation. Th ese debates can be discerned in the pages of
midrash from this period, and the development of midrash in Eretz Israel
(not in Babylonia) may in part be the result of Jewish eff orts to confront their
Christian counterparts regarding interpretation of the Scriptures.

An example of rabbinic response to Christianity can be found in Genesis
Rabbah on the sacrifi ce of Isaac (the Akedah, Gen :–). Th e account
begins with the command to Abraham to go to the place he would be told,
and sacrifi ce his son (Gen :). He took two slaves and Isaac on the journey.
Th en he “saw the place from afar” (Gen :; מָקוֹם (maqom), meaning “place”
also serves as a euphemism for God. Th e midrash asks, “What did he see?”
“He saw a cloud attached to the mountain”—i.e., a manifestation of the divine
presence, which made it clear to him that this mountain was the place which
God had commanded as the appropriate place to off er up Isaac.
He [Abraham] said: “It would appear that is the place upon which the
Holy one, blessed be He, commanded me to sacrifi ce my son.” He said
to Isaac: “My son, do you see what I do?” He told him, “Yes.” He said
to his two young men, “Do you see what I do?” Th ey said to him, “No.”
He said: “Since you do not see it, REMAIN HERE WITH THE ASS
[Gen :], for you are like the ass [which also does not see].” (Gen.
Rab. .–)
We learn from other sources that the Gentiles are “a nation resembling an ass.”
Christians and Jews debated vehemently in the third and fourth centuries
about the possibility of how, aft er the destruction of the Second Temple, that

BblRieba ltebo b ttoihn teihc S eLe Sipteteupratautguainrgetin t 
one could verify divine revelation, and whether divine revelation to a non-
Jew was possible at all. In the above passage we observe the denigration of
the two non-Jewish servants. Th ey do not have any perception of the divine.
As non-Jews they are like the ass, a dumb animal incapable of perception.
Modern scholars may have some disagreement about whether or not the
“people who is like an ass” refers specifi cally to Christians or more generally
to pagans. Nonetheless, there are many passages in midrash literature which
focus on the theme of Verus Israel and God’s continued covenant with the
Jewish people in their exile.

i. Tannaitic Midrashim
Th e oldest group of midrashim are the so-called Tannaitic midrashim, sometimes
called halakic midrashim or מִרְשֵׁי הֲלָכָה (midreshei halakah, meaning
“midrashim of the halakah”). Th e works included in this subgroup are the
Mekilta d’Rabbi Ishmael and the Mekilta de Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai on Exodus,
Sipra on Leviticus; and Sipre on Numbers and Deuteronomy. Th e Tannaitic
midrashim may be said to form a continuous commentary on the Pentateuch
from Exodus to Deuteronomy. In these midrashim there is extensive use
of rabbinic hermeneutics to demonstrate how various expansions of the
Oral Law are grounded in Scripture. Despite the use of the name halakic
midrashim, these collections all contain commentary on narrative passages
in their respective biblical books.

ii. Exegetical Midrashim
A second set of midrashim consists of those referred to as “exegetical” and
“homiletic.” Th e “exegetical” midrashim are later than the midreshei halakah, but
a number were compiled during the fi ft h century. It is important to remember
that the midreshei halakah are exegetical, but modern scholars refer to them as
“exegetical” because these collections are organized according to the biblical
verse order. Th e term “exegetical midrashim” merely distinguishes them from
the next group to be described, which are called “homiletic midrashim.”
Genesis Rabbah explicates the book of Genesis. Scholars postulate that
it was redacted in the fi ft h century. It is considered by some to be the best
example of the exegetical midrashim because the rabbis reveal deep layers
of meaning within the text. Th e meanings the rabbis sought in the Scriptures
included truths which pertained to their own age. Genesis Rabbah provides
many examples of rabbinic apologetic against pagan and Christian arguments.
In the narratives about the patriarchs and matriarchs, it is possible

Two Judaism and Rhetorical Culture
to discern their veiled arguments against Christian claims that these biblical
fi gures reached their true fulfi llment only in Christ.
In this period exegetical midrashim were also edited on the fi ve books
in the Hebrew Bible called the Five Megillot, or “Five Scrolls.” Th ese biblical
books were read as part of the synagogue liturgy for the three pilgrimage festivals:
Passover (Canticles), Pentecost (Ruth), and Tabernacles (Ecclesiastes);
and on Purim (the Feast of Esther) and the Ninth of Ab commemorating
the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (Lamentations). Th e earliest
description of the liturgical role for these books is in the Mishnah, tractate
Megillah.
Th ese midrashim would include Canticles Rabbah; Midrash Ruth (also
called Ruth Rabbah); Lamentations Rabbah; Midrash Qoheleth (also called
Ecclesiastes Rabbah); and the fi rst half (§§ –) of Esther Rabbah.

iii. Homiletic Midrashim
“Homiletic” midrashim are so called because the order of their composition
follows the readings for Sabbaths and for special Sabbaths, or Holy Days, in
the liturgical year. Th ese collections do not follow the order of the biblical
text. Rather, they develop thematically. As we have them, these homilies have
sometimes been subjected to abbreviation or other editorial reformulation.
Th e most signifi cant collections dating to the Amoraic period include Leviticus
Rabbah, containing thirty-seven homilies, which dates to the fi ft h century
(perhaps later); the Pesiqta de Rab Kahana, a collection of homilies for feasts
and special Sabbaths, redacted in the fi ft h century, though subject to later additions;
and the Tanhuma on the Pentateuch, which contains some material
from the Amoraic period but was not redacted until the medieval period.
Modern scholarship has concentrated considerable eff ort on the structure
of these homilies, especially the formal conventions for their beginning
and conclusion. Th e petiah, which is generally understood to be a kind of
proem or introduction to the homilies, is the most common rhetorical form
in midrashic literature. Petiot aim at artfully leading the hearer from verses
in other parts of the Hebrew Bible, such as Psalms or Proverbs, to consider
the opening verse(s) of the Pentateuchal reading of the day. Th e atimah, or
peroration of the homily, has also been studied. Particularly in the Pesiqta de
Rab Kahana, and Tanhuma, these atimot lead to an eschatological teaching
which concludes the homily with a message of hope in the messianic deliverance
of the Jewish people from the harshness of its exile. Th ese atimot may
off er students of patristic literature some understanding of the development
of early Christian typological exegesis." [1]

[1] pages 130-132 from the Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity by Charles Kannengiesser

Another Look at Romans Chapter 9

2012-02-04T12:03:00.000-04:00

A conversation I had with someone else:

I see Thee Elect One as being Jesus Christ and so the Elect group are all those Elected In Christ. In this sense I believe in corporate election.

Originally Posted by lonehunter

Right. Just wondering, but what makes you think that Christ is being elected as opposed to those in Christ being elected?

Because Christ is the starting point. Let's look at some Old Testament prophesies about Christ being chosen:
Isaiah 42:1
"“Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will bring justice to the nations."

For a fuller typological context you can read to verse 7. But this shows that the Messiah is also Chosen or seen as Thee Chosen One. Let's look at another passage in Isaiah:

Isaiah 49:1
"Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the LORD called me;
from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name."

To get the fuller typological context read all the way to verse 13. In this we see He is thee Called One. He is also a Nation, the True Nation of Israel, but I don't want to get into that right now. But yes, Jesus is the Elect One! This is seen more clearly in the New Testament.

1st Peter 1:20(read verses 18,19, and 21 too)
"He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake."

and

1st Peter 2:4(you can read up to verse 6)
"As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him"

Jesus being Thee Elect/Chosen One can also be seen by Clement of Rome, one of the Apostolic Fathers

Clement of Rome
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.lviii.html
"May God, who seeth all things, and who is the Ruler of all spirits and the Lord of all flesh—who chose our Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him to be a peculia people—grant to every soul that calleth upon His glorious and holy Name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, self-control, purity, and sobriety, to the well-pleasing of His Name, through our High Priest and Protector, Jesus Christ, by whom be to Him glory, and majesty, and power, and honour, both now and for evermore. Amen."

You are(I assume) a protestant and so you may not like the Book of Wisdom and the Book of Enoch, but if you read them then you will also see what I'm saying here. Election is Christ-Centric! For there can be no Election apart from Christ. Thus, He is thee Elect/Chosen One, and it is by way of Him that we become elect. Election in Christ is primarily Corporate and secondarily individualistic because the Covenant Community is inherently pluralistic. There is no such thing as a lone ranger Christian, correct?

Jesus said:
Matthew 18:20
For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Noticed that Jesus never said wherever one is gathered in my name. Thus being In Christ is inherently Communal. It is inherently Koinonia.

Eph 2:11-19 shows that it is pluralistic. That it is covenant community based. And so it is the community that exist in Christ that is primary. The individual who is united to the community is secondary.

For more info about Christ being Thee Chosen one and how we are chosen by way of Him, well, you can listen to this mp3 if you want:
Jesus - The Chosen and Beloved

Originally Posted by lonehunter
Right, I'm not arguing that Christ is not the chosen one. I am referring specifically to Romans 9, and what it means. From what I read in the post that TheKenster posted (though I haven't read all of it quite yet) I think we were in general agreement here. That God's promise is given to those in Christ, as opposed to the literal descendants of Jacob. Now you are saying that Christ is the recipient of this promise?"

Yes, I agree with you that God's promise is given to those in Christ, as opposed to (all) the literal descendants of Jacob. However, the word Chosen is another way of saying Elect, and so Christ is the Elect One. And so I don't believe He is the recipient of the promise. What I believe is that He is the promise itself.

Christ is the promised seed as seen in Galatians.
Galatians 3:16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

Christ is also a Nation, the true Nation of Israel. If you look at the typology used by the Apostles in reference to Jesus then you will be able to see how Jesus is Israel.

Matthew 2:14-15
So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Hosea 11:1
“When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son."

The Church, which is His body, is also seen as the Israel of God:
Galatians 6:16
"Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God"

And so in this way we can see the connection between the Promised Seed(Who is Jesus) and all those who believe in the Promise.

We can see the connection between the Nation of Israel (Who is Jesus) and all those who want to be citizens of this Nation. Which is also the Kingdom of God for the Kingdom of God is connected to the Person of Christ. Christ is the very core, the very foundation of it all.

So what does this have to do with Romans chapter 9 you ask? Well, even-though there is no such thing as an infallible hermeneutic, I will make use of a common one in where Scripture is interpreted by Scripture, and so lets Interpret Romans Chapter 9 with not only other chapters from the book of Romans, but also Galatians chapter 3, Ephesians chapter 2, and maybe a few other sources from the Old Testament.

I truly believe that when we do it this way then we will see what Paul is trying to say more clearly.

Let's interpret a good portion of Romans chapter 9 through the lens of Galatians chapter 3.

Galatians 3:19
"Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator."

Galatians 3:22
"But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe."

Galatians 3:23-29
"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Now, if we look at Romans chapter 9 then we will see that there were certain periods of time in where it was about which lineage would be the one to carry the promise seed.

Romans 9:5
"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen."

Now let's look at what I quoted from Galatians with what I underlined in Romans 9:5 and let's compare them to the two examples given by the Apostle in verses 6 to 13.

For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”"

In this we see that the lineage of the promise seed would go down Isaac's family line and not Ismael's for in Galatians it says that Isaac was a son based on a divine promise while Ismael a son of a bond-servant woman. Now let's look at the next example.

"Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”"

In this we see that the lineage of the promise seed would go to Jacob instead of Esau. Why? Faith! God foresaw that Jacob would believe while Esau wouldn't. In Paul's terminology, faith is not a work. We can see this all throughout the book of Romans, and Galatians.

A couple patristic quotes about the issue:

Quote:
"God does not have to wait, as we do, to see which one will turn out good and
which one will turn out bad. He knew this in advance and decided accordingly."

Saint John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans....as quoted from the Ancient Christian commentary on scripture volume 6, edited by Gerold Bray and Thomas C. Oden page 250

Quote:
"Thus God chose Isaac and rejected Ishmael and the children of Keturah. So also
he chose Jacob over Esau, even though both were formed together in the womb. Why
be surprised then, if God does the same thing nowadays, by accepting those of
you who believe and rejecting those who have not seen the light?"

Theodoret of Cyr: interpretation of the letter to the Romans....as quoted by Ancient christian commentary on scripture edited by Gerold Bray and Thomas C. Oden page 253

"What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

God is not unjust on which lineage gets to carry the promise seed. The carrier of the promise seed is based on God's Mercy! And the Apostles already told us who God has Mercy on. He has Mercy on those who Believe!

Galatians 3:14
"He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."

Romans 9:30-33
"What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”"

Romans 11:1-10
"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, as it is written:

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”

And David says:

“May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.”"

God's Mercy and Hardening is conditional:

Romans 11:19-23
"You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."

And so, what I see in Romans chapter 9 is mostly what happens in regards to who gets to carry the promise seed in their lineage before the first advent, and then towards the end of Romans chapter 9 I see what happens after the first Advent. The one consistent theme in both pre and post 1st Advent is being embraced because of Faith.

Election is primarily corporate for me because it's all based on the Person of Christ who is also the Promise Seed and Israel! The Gentiles get a chance to become Citizens of the Nation of Israel, the Kingdom of God when they are united to Christ. And for me, this happens by way of Belief, Repentance, and Baptism(Water and Spirit).

Great blog articles at Orthodox Bridge and Classical Christianity.com

2012-01-31T04:02:00.001-04:00

From Orthodoxbridge.com:
Response to Theodore – Semi-Pelagianism, Sola Fide, and Theosis

March for Life & Great Tradition

Contra Sola Scriptura (1 of 4): Book Review: The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith A. Mathison

Contra Sola Scriptura (2 of 4): If Not Sola Scriptura, Then What? The Biblical Basis For Holy Tradition

Contra Sola Scriptura (3 of 4): Where Does Sola Scriptura Come From? The Humanist Origins of the Protestant Reformation

Contra Sola Scriptura (4 of 4): Protestantism’s Fatal Genetic Flaw: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism’s Hermeneutical Chaos

Calvin Vs. the Icon: Was John Calvin Wrong?

New Apostles or Old Heresy? An Orthodox Perspective on the New Apostolic Reformation

From Classical Christianity.com:
What is Pure Prayer?St. John of Kronstadt on Worldliness/Consumerism

On Almsgiving Saint John of Kronstadt on Theosis/Deification

Building The New City: St. Basil’s Social Vision

St. John Chrysostom on Abortion and Birth Control

Heresy as Intellectual Temptation

Eastern Orthodox View of Calvinism

On Irresistible Grace and Synergy

On Limited Atonement

The Wills of Christ II

2012-01-31T03:44:00.001-04:00

In regards to Christology, what stood out to me was a number of things. Some of which were:

201. Pyrrus: But the Fathers said this on the level of Theology and not on the level of Economy.113 Hence, no one who loveth the truth should change the appointed meaning of their statements which refer to Theology into statements that refer to the Economy, and therby introduce an absurdity.114

202. Maximus: If the Fathers say it of the Theology alone, then after the Incarnation it is not possible--so thou wouldst have us say -- to regard the Son as equally divine as the Father. And if it be not possible to regard Him as equally divine, then He hath no place in the invocation [of the Divine Name] at baptism. So both faith and preaching shall, in the last analysis, to be proven to be in vain.

203. And again, if it be not possible to regard the Son as equally divine with the Father after the Incarnation, then [how will these statements be explained]? "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work."115 Or "Whatever the Son seeth the Father doing, the Son doeth likewise"?116 Or "If ye believe not me, believe my works"?117
Or "The works which I do bear witness of me"?118 Or "For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will"?119 For all these prove that He was not only of the same essence as the Father after the Incarnation, but of the same energy as well.

204. And again, if the foreknowledge of beings be a divine energy, and if it be not only proper to the Father and the Spirit, but further, be also proper to the Son even after the Incarnation, then the Son is of the same energy after the Incarnation as the Father.

205. And again, if the miracles be a divine operation, and if we know from the miracles that He is of the same essence as the Father, then from the same energy He is shown to be of the same essence as the Father, and is to be regarded as equally divine [with Him] after the Incarnation [as He was before it].

206. And again, if the creative energy be an attribute proper to the essence of God, then the attributes of the essence are by necessity inseparable. S those who say that after then Incarnation He is not of the same energy as the Father also say that He is not of the same essence, for where the energy proper to a given nature is not found neither shall that nature be found. Conversely, those who say that He is of the same essence say that He is of the same energy as well, and regard Him to be equally divine [with the Father] after the Incarnation [as He was before it]. For wherever the natures is, there also is the energy proper to it, without diminution.

207. Pyrrhus: But we do not say "one energy" as a denial of human operation. It is said to be passable by opposition to the divine nature.120

208. Maximus: Then by the same principle those who say one nature do not say this as a denial of the humanity, but by this means oppose its passable character to the divine nature.

209. Pyrrhus: So? Did not the fathers define passibility by means of its difference from the divine operation [of impassibility]?

210. Maximus: God forbid! For no [father], ever defined an existence by comparison to its opposite or found the one to be the cause of the other. For if human passion is caused in such a manner by the divine energy, then doubtless human imperfection existeth because of the goodness of the divine nature. And the exact opposite may also then be stated: that through the passable human motion the divine energy existeth, and that because the human nature is evil, the divine nature is good. But enough of this! For such[conceptions are quite perverse.121

211. Pyrrhus: Why? Did the Fathers not designate passion as the human motion?

212. Maximus: Yes, but the spoke in various ways about these same propositions and conceptions.

213. Pyrrhus: How canst thou say this?

214. Maximus: They referred to the same thing as power, energy, distinctions, motion, property, quality, and passion, but not by opposition to the divine [energy]. Power they defined as that which maintaineth immutability, energy as that which characterizeth the same forms by indistinquishable productions, distinction as that which defineth a thing, motion as that which manifesteth, property as a component attributed only to one thing and not to another, quality as that which imparteth form, and passion as that which is moved. For all things that are from God and after God change by motion, for they are not self-moved beings of omnipotent power.122 Therefore, they cannot be defined by opposition, but only by means of the rational principle created and placed into them, which are the established causes in each thing.123
So[the human] energy is designated at the same time as the divine, for what else can one make of the expression "He operateth in the form of each of the two by the communion of each of the two"? Or "after He continued also for forty days fasting, He hungered, for He granted to nature when He so willed to enact those things proper to it?" Or of those who say either that there is a distinction of energy, or of those who say there are two energies, one, and another one?

___________________________________________________________

113 This would seem to explain why Pyrrhus persists in the literary spirit of St. Cyril of Alexandria, using physis in Theology and Economy differently, whereas St. Maximus, firmly within the Cyrillic Chalcedonian tradition, uses a consistent terminology, where the meanings of hypostasis and nature remain the same, whether referring to Triadology(i.e., Theology) or Christology(i.e., Economy).

114 Pyrrhus seems to object to the whole enterprise of Cyrillic Chalcedonianism itself, and to its (eventually successful) effort to use technical terms such as hypostasis and nature univocally in both Theology and Economy.

120 Pyrrhus' argument is dependent upon the Neoplatonic and Plotinian paradigm, which would define all distinctions by means of a dialectical opposition. cf. EnneadsIII:2:16,17:

"The All is in accordance with its rational formative pattern, and it is necessary that this one formative pattern should be one pattern made out of opposites, since it is opposition of this kind which gives it its structure, and, we might say, its existence..........distinction is opposition......the more it is differentiated the more opposed will it make the things it makes."(trans. A.H. Armstrong, Loeb Classical Library, No. 442, p.99)

121 Once again, St. Maximus' response is upon the implication of Pyrrhus' Neoplatonic dialectic which underwrites Monotheletism.

122 That is, created beings are self-moved, but not in the manner of God, with complete omnipotence, independence, and autonomy. In this sense, they are not "autonomous", which would be dualism, nor merely passive automatons in the face of an irresistible divine energy, which would be fatalism, nor are they mere emanations of the divine essence, which would be pantheism. rather, they are "semi-autonomous", i.e., precisely created, and therefore a uniquely different kind of being, with a different kind of free choice and activity, which nevertheless depended at all times on the divine will for their existence and activity.

123 That is, the nature of created beings is not defined by dialectical oppositions between them or between God, but by the distinguishing logoi in them.

pages 68 - 72 from the book The Disputation with Pyrrhus of our Father Among The Saints Maximus The Confessor. Translated from the greek by Joseph P. Farrel

Christ willed dually and not singly

2012-01-31T02:25:00.001-04:00

The Disputation With Pyrrhus of Our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor

7. Maximus: Yes, I truly do. For what is a more irreverent conception than that which maintains that the same person with the very same will, which before the Incarnation created everything from nothing and which maintains, provides, and orders everything for salvation, after the Incarnation desireth food and drink, changeth from one position to another, and performeth all manner of similar things that are free from blame and reproach, but which would by this means prove that the whole Economy of the Incarnation was not illusory?

8. Pyrrhus: But is Christ one or not?

9. Maximus: Yes, obviously He is one.

10. Pyrrhus: If Christ be one person, then He willed as one person. And if He willed as one person, then doubtless He hath one will, and not two.

11. Maximus: To state something and not first to distinquish the different meanings of what is being said invites confusion, and ensures that what is under investigation remains obscure, which is foreign to a man of learning. Therefore, explain this to me: If Christ be one, is He God only, or man only, or both together, God and man?

12. Pyrrhus: Obviously, God and man.

13. Maximus: Therefore, Christ existeth as God and as man by nature. Then did He will as God and as man, or only as Christ? If it were Christ who willed and initiated actions, being both God and man, then it is clear that, being one and the same, He willed dually and not singly. For if Christ be nothing else apart from the natures from which and in which He existeth, then obviously He willeth and operateth in a manner corresponding to each of his natures, in other words, as each nature is capable of operating. And if He hath two natures, then He surely must have two natural wills, the wills and essential operations being equal in number to the natures. For just as the number of natures of the one and the same Christ, correctly understood and explained, doth not divide Christ but rather preserveth the distinction of natures in the union, so likewise the number of essential attributes, wills, and operations attached to those two natures doth not divide Christ either. For throughout both of His natures there flowed the same activity and purpose, to witm our salvation. This introduceth no division -- God forbid! --but rather shows that they are preserved unimpaired, in their entirety, even in the union.

pages 3-5 from the book "The Disputation With Pyrrhus Of Our Father Among The Saints Maximus The Confessor" Translated from the Greek by Joseph P. Farrell

Christology and the Mysteries(Sacraments)

2011-12-02T13:00:00.001-04:00

The Disputation With Pyrrhus of Our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor

As with St. Irenaeus, there is an ecclesiological and sacramental dimension to the doctrine of Recapitulation. Baptism is an essential component of the mystery and for the spiritual life, since the believer must recapitulate that which Christ Himself fulfilled and repeated in His own Recapitulation. As was the case with Sts. Irenaeus and Athanasius, one cannot separate the divine and invisible nature from the works which He does in His human and visible nature, and therefore one cannot separate water and the Spirit into two separate baptisms or events, as this would be a kind of sacramental Nestorianism. [1]

[1] pages xii - xvi from the preface of the book The disputation with Pyrrhus of Our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor

The Wills of Christ

2011-12-02T12:35:00.001-04:00

We(EO) don't believe the human energy to be passive. One group of Monothelites of old believed that the Divine energy was active while the human passive. In this they were seen as marionattists(puppets). Our understanding of Free Will, and Predestination in regards to humanity starts with our understanding of Free Will and Predestination in Christology.From pages 166 - 168

Pyrrhus: But we do not say "one energy" in order to deny the human operation. It is said to be passible in contrast to the divine energy.

Maximus: Then by the same principle those who say "one nature" do not say this as a denial of the human nature, but because this [human] nature is distinguished from the divine, for this reason it is also said to be passible.

Pyrrhus: How so? Did not the fathers define human movement as passibility, in contrast to the divine energy?

Maximus: God forbid! For, to speak generally, no existent thing is known or defined through comparison with its opposite. Otherwise, [the two] things will be found to cause each other reciprocally. For if. because divine movement is an energy, human movement is passible then certainly it follows that because divine nature is good, human nature is therefore evil. And the exact opposite may likewise be said: that because human movement is termed passible, for this reason divine movement is termed energy, and that because human nature is evil, the divine nature is for this reason good. But enough of this! For such [thoughts] are altogether perverse.

and

In the words of Pierre Piret, to allow the dialectic of oppositions to define things
"circumscribes beings in a fundamental opposition, between the limits of good and evil; the implied corollary of such a contradiction between the divine ενεργεια and παθος is that the human nature is evil because the divine nature is good. And such opposition can be immediately reversed and counterposed: the divine nature is good because the human nature is evil, and this human nature thus determines, in its wickedness, the goodness of the divine nature. 22

And this is to return to the predicate of Plotinus and the problematic of Origen which we examined chapter two: as God is absolute simplicity, incorporeal, Good, Father and Creator, so there must always be a compposite, material, and evil creation standing over against Him precisely in order that He may be all those things. It is therefore the dialectic of oppositions which, in finding its way into the monothelete controversy, provides the essential link between the three moments of doctrine - Creation, Redemption and Eschatology - and therefore its refutation in the one will require its refutation in the others.

"The basic task remains what it always was: to disentangle the principle of plurality from that of oppositions, but in the case of Monotheletism, it assumes a double aspect. On the one hand, St. Maximus must show that there is no opposition of the two wills in Christ, reinterpreting what took place at Gethsemane. On the other hand, once he has established that there is a genuine human will of Christ which is not in opposition to the divine, he must go on to show how that will is not dialectically conditioned by showing what the "goods" are that it is confronted with at Gethsemane. The way in which the Confessor does this is difficult and complex, and requires us to trace his logic through step by step.

We are led almost immediately back to the fundamental distinction of person and nature. Pyrrhus asks a very illuminating question question of St. Maximus: "was not the flesh moved by the decision of the Word Who is united with it?" This might at first glance be taken as a subtle affirmation of the dyothelete position and therefore as a contradiction within Monotheletism. But upon closer inspection it is not. For Pyrrhus the essential goal was to preserve Christ's voluntary motion; therefore, the will was not natural because because what is natural is compelled. The will is therefore hypostatic and free. In turn, Christ's humanity has no will. But even more intriguing is St. Maximus' response to the question, for he seems to avoid any direct answer entirely. He remains content simply to make allusions to the earlier heresy of Nestorianism and then to launch into an excursus on nature and its natural properties:"

Maximus: You divide Christ by talking like this! For [in that case] Moses and David, and as many as were susceptible to the influence of the divine energies, were moved by His command and laid aside human and fleshy properties. But we say, following all the holy fathers in this as in all things, that, since the God of all Himself became man without [undergoing any] change, then [it follows] that the same Person not only willed in a manner appropriate to His Godhead, but also willed as man in a manner appropriate to His humanity. For the things that exist came to be out of nothing, and not to non-being; and the natural characteristic of this power is an inclination to that which maintains them in being, and a drawing back from things destructive [to them]. Thus the super-essential Word, existing essentially in a human manner, also had in His humanity this self-preserving power that clings to existence. And He [in fact] showed both [aspects of this power], willing the inclination and the drawing back through His human energy. He displayed the inlination to cling to existence in His use of natural and innocent things, to such an extent that unbelievers thought He was not God; and He displayed the drawing back at the time of the passion when He voluntarily balked at death. Wherein, then, has the Church of God done anything absurd if She confesses that along with His human and created nature, there also existed in Him, without diminution, the principles inserted creatively in that nature by Him, without which that nature could not exist?"

But it is in fact the allusion to Nestorianism that provides the key to the decipherment of this passage. If it was true that Pyrrhus' remarks disclosed a "revival of the heresy of Apollinarius" because Christ's manhood appears in them as "organon, an instrument or tool without real power of free choice - a puppet show of passive attributes, worked from outside by the divinity of the Word,"25 then it was equally true that the humanity is somehow detached from the Word precisely since it was worked from outside.26 This Division in Christ was the result of the whole monothelete dilemma.

Christ's prayer in Gethsemane - "If it be possible let this cup pass from me" - was attributed by the Monotheletes to that opposing human will. His subsequent petition - "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt" - was the denial and overriding of the human will by the divine will. Thus the one Person of Christ was willing two entirely contradictory and opposing things at the same time, and this, to Maximus, was to "divide Christ." It would therfore have to be concluded that St. Maximus is not in disagreement with the Monotheletes over the principle of excluding opposition in Christ. He is rather in disagreement over what such exclusion means. It is in his reinterpretation of the prayer at Gethsemane that one discovers how St. Maximus had applied the principles both of the distinction of logos and tropos and that of the plurality of the objects of choice." [1]

[1] pages 166-168 from the book Free Will in St. Maximus the Confessor by Joseph P. Farrell

The Western confusion of the divine energy with the divine essence

2011-12-02T12:34:00.001-04:00

From the Introduction:

The fact that God desires the salvation of all does not mean that all are saved. God saves only through love and freedom. This point is exactly what theologians under the influence of Augustine have never comprehended. Thinking that the divine essence, energy, and will are identical, they were not in a position to even suspect that free beings outside of God are capable of acting against the divine will. Therefore, it is not at all strange that Western theologians find a kind of crypto-Pelagianism everywhere in the Greek Fathers and attempt to justify themselves by inquiring if there is some unexplained reason why the Eastern Fathers were not interested in the great problems of original sin and divine grace that preoccupied the West. It is very natural for them to think this way since they have erroneous preconceptions about God's relations with the world. As a result, it is impossible for them to seriously accept that death exists in the world as a kind of parasite apart from the will of God, and that the divine will and the salvific divine energy are not one and the same thing. God does not will death. Nevertheless, He does not act to destroy it until He has prepared men to accept life.

In 431, the Holy Fathers of the Third Ecumenical Synod at Ephesus condemned Pelagianism and emphasized that death is unnatural and grace is of absolute necessity for salvation. The president of the Synod and chief polemicist against the heresies was St. Cyril of Alexandria, who wrote the following about the transmittal of the ancestral sin to the descendants of Adam: "But what can one say? Yes, Adam indeed fell and, having ignored the divine commandment, was condemned to corruptibility and death. But how did many become sinners because of him? What are his missteps to us? How could all of us who were not yet born be condemned together with him, even though God said, 'Neither the fathers shall be put to death because of their children nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sinneth shall be put to death? Surely, the soul that sins shall die. For we became sinners through Adam's disobedience in such a manner as this. He was created for incorruption and life, and the manner of existence he had in the garden of delight was proper to holiness. His whole mind was continuously seeing God while his body was tranquil and calm, and all base pleasures were still. For there was no tumult of alien disturbances in it. But since he fell under sin and slipped into corruptibility, pleasures and filthiness assaulted the nature of the flesh, and in our members was unveiled a savage law. Our nature thus became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not as co-transgressors with Adam. which they never were, but being of his nature, they fell under the law of sin...In Adam, human nature fell ill and became subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in."

The strong juridical character of Latin theology which led the West to the satisfaction theory of Anselm is absent from the Greek patristic tradition. In the East, the fall is understood to be a consequence of man's own withdrawal from divine life and the resulting weakness and disease of human nature. Thus, man himself is seen as the cause through his cooperation with the devil. In the West, all the evils in the world originate in the punitive divine will, and the devil himself is seen simply as God's instrument of punishment. The Greek Fathers look upon salvation from a biblical perspective and see it as redemption from death and corruptibility and as the healing of human nature which was assaulted by Satan. Therefore, they established the following principle as the touchstone of their christological teaching: "That which is not assumed is not healed, but that which is united to God is also saved." It is quite opposite in the West where salvation does not mean, first and foremost, salvation from death and corruptibility but from divine wrath. And the termination of the penalty of death and illnesses simply follows as a result of the satisfaction of divine justice. For the West, this is quite natural since, on the one hand, God is believed to punish all men with death while, on the other hand, it is man who provokes the punishment because he bears inherited guilt. Thus, according to the Western viewpoint, God did not become man in order "to abolish him who has the power of death," since it is God who is death's causative power, but to satisfy Himself to such a degree that He could look upon men with a somewhat more benevolent attitude and, at the Second Coming, lift the old death sentence from them.

The method of dealing with theological problems and their presuppositions is altogether different between the East and the West. The West's deluded cosmological conceptions permit the study of the divine essence by identifying it with the divine energy. Both analogia entis and analogia fidei are methods and presuppositions of the West's theology. All things in the world are simply the images in time of archetypes that exist eternally in the essence of the One. Therefore, in the Western view, the works of Satan that are found in the Holy Scriptures, in a certain sense, belong to God Who punishes man with death, corruptibility, and all of man's sufferings. Nevertheless, it is apparent that, in this manner, divine and satanic energies become dangerously confused. Precisely because the West perceives the world as an image of the divine essence, it is capable not only of distorting the biblical teaching about death and Satan but even of applying the analogia entis and the analogia fidei to the dogma of the Holy Trinity, thus introducing the teaching of the Filioque.

In determining the dogma of the fall, however, it is not simply a matter of searching in the Holy Scripture and in the Fathers for the appropriate passages that prove a preferred theory of the ancestral sin. First, the relations between God and creation must be determined according to the scriptural and patristic testimony. Is the world really an analogous copy of the ideas that exist eternally in the divine essence, as the Neo-platonists believed? In other words, can we accept the theory of Augustine and the Scholastics which says that God is creative, just, and prescient in His essence because He comprises the alleged archetypes of creation and the order among them, which constitute ingenerate, eternal, divine law? Can we accept that the creation ex nihilo, the creation from nothing preexistent, is simply a copy in time of the ingenerate archetype in the divine essence? And that sin and the fall are a temporal violation of the order in the archetypal ideas in the divine essence? Can we accept the acholastic identification of the divine essence with the uncreated divine energy yet reject the apparent pantheism, as the West does? Can we accept the West's sophism that God does not have direct and real relations with the world because this would mean that the divine essence has an essential dependence in relation to the world? And that God, therefore, has only indirect relations with the world because because He loves and knows the in its archetypes? Can we accept the idea that love of God for this world descends as a created thing, in other words, in the form of created grace, because a true divine love for the world would mean that God is dependent upon the world?

If, however, it is both by essence and energy, since these are said to be identical, that God knows the archetypes and truly loves only these directly, how does He have knowledge of evil or, at least, of the need to send His Son into the world for the salvation of fallen mankind? If God's essence, energy, being, will, knowledge, and omnipotence are all identical, what place does the creation ex nihilo have in this scheme? What place has the Holy Trinity? Was it the divine essence that received flesh from the Virgin? If God is truly actus purus yet He is also able to have knowledge of evil or of mankind's need of salvation, then the ideas of evil, need, the fall, and nonbeing must also be among the archetypes in the divine essence. It follows that the idea of evil must be of the same essence as the idea of goodness because, if it is separate or independent of it, the scholastic theory of divine omniscience falls apart--unless we accept that that evil does not exist and that the need for true salvation from evil is nothing more than an empty myth.

The confusing of the divine energy with the divine essence only leads to the introduction of some of predestination into Christian theology. This in fact happened with Augustine with the Anselmian redemptive theory, with Calvinism, and finally with liberal Protestant which generally inclines toward the acceptance of the nonexistence of evil and the final restoration or salvation of all.

A detailed examination of the scholastic and Protestant confusion of essence and energy of God is beyond the bounds of our subject. Nevertheless, we are required to examine certain aspects of it that relate to the problem of the ancestral sin. This will be done in connection with the necessary examination of some of the general characteristics of Greek philosophy that have a direct bearing on our subject and on the period in question. In this way, the overall similarity between the Western view of God's relation with the world and the view of Greek philosophy will become apparent. Likewise, the magnificence of the Greek Fathers will come to light all the more, especially their ability to transfer their forefathers' subtle and analytical thought from paganism to Chhristianity in order to fortify the evangelical faith instead of overtuning it as the West did.
Once we have determined what the relation is between God and the world according to the theologians of the period underexamination and have taken into account certain understandings of the Fathers about God, then we will be in a position to examine objectively the biblical patristic teaching regarding Satan, the destiny of man, justice, and the fall." [1]

[1] pages 33-38 from the book The Ancestral Sin by Fr. John Romanides, translation by George S. Gabriel

More about the Western confusion

2011-12-02T12:31:00.001-04:00

From pages 207-211

"The opposition of Christ's human will to the divine will was seen to occur for two reasons: one, because of the confusion of person and nature implied in the Augustinian understanding of original guilt; and two, because fallen humanity is the same humanity to be found in Christ, inclusive of its opposing will. Christ's predestination is therefore the same as ours because it is by grace: the divine will overcomes Christ's human will in an irresistible manner, much as the divine will overcomes the human will in the case of those predestined to salvation. But this led the Spanish Adoptionists to assume two sons, one of nature, the other of grace. And this in turn implied that they confused a personal characteristic, that of sonship, with that of nature and have thus come full circle back to the confusion which began the process. It is this whole vast and intricate matrix which related Spanish Adoptionism and its underlying predestinational Christology to the filioquist controversies of the ninth century. This would suggest that the Spanish Adoptionist predestinational Christology and the filioque share a common ancestry. That ancestry is Neoplatonism, and it is this consideration which incites, indeed, compels, comparison between St. Maximus and St. Augustine. The filioque is ultimately derived from the philosophical and neoplatonic definition of simplicity and its accompanying dialectic of oppositions. Each of the problems that attended Neoplatonism - the identity of being and will and its consequences of an eternal generation of the Son indistinguishable and indivisible from an eternal creation, the dialectical opposition of the simplicity and the dialectic in collapsing into an infinite series of beings as in the neoplatonic system of Iamblichus, or in erasing all distinctions between beings as in the Neoplatonic Pantheists, the structural subordination of all pluralities to the One-all these implications are to some extent present in the trinitarian theology of St. Augustine.

St. Augustine assumed that if there could be common ground between theology and philosophy there could be common definitions as well. He found this common definition in the neoplatonic definition of the simplicity of the One. Appropriating this definition as an understanding of the divine essence of the Christian Trinity, as a definition of the unity of the Christian God, he made of it the ultimate basis of his attempted synthesis. Consequently it is at the Augustinian doctrine of God that the point of contact between theology and philosophy occurs, and it is through this doctrine of God that the Augustinian conception of predestination must be approached. A proper understanding of Augustine Triadology will yield a proper understanding of the logic and structure behind its predestinational doctrine.

When he appropriated the definition of simplicity as a definition of the divine essence of the Trinity, he accepted it uncritically, and thus made his "philosophical first principle one with his religious first principle" to such an extent that as the French Roman Catholic Etienne Gilson observed, even his notion of divine being "remained greek," that is, ultimately pagan. Therefore, insofar as his doctrine of predestination is derived from this pagan definition of the divine essence, it is to that extent that it is pagan in its roots. It is at the point of this definition that the divine essence begins to be abstracted from the plurality of attributes and persons as a prolegomenon to theology. In other words, once he had assumed the simplicity as a definition of the divine essence in its full Neoplatonic sense, the essence becomes increasingly singled out ans strictly distinguished from all the divine "pluralities," the attributes and the persons. The dialectic of opposition between the One and the many is already in evidence in this step, and two things occur because of it. First, the unity of God is seen in impersonal and abstract terms. St. Augustine states it this way: "The divinity is the unity of the Trinity." But more important is the fact that, at this stage at least, the persons and the attributes are accorded the same logical status. And thus St. Augustine can say that

He is called in respect to Himself both God, and great, and good, and just, and anything else of the kind; and just as to Him to be is the same as to be God, or as to be great, or as to be good, so it is the same thing to Him to be as to be person.

Underlying these mutual identities is the simplicity, once again functioning as a great metaphysical "equals" (=) sign, and consequently the conclusion that the person are attributes or that the attributes are persons is inescapable.

But when he turns to consider the attributes themselves, they become identical with the divine essence and alternative names for it: "The Godhead," he writes, "is absolutely simple essence, and therefore to be is there the same as to be wise. And this leads to the further implication that since the attributes are identical to the essence, they are identical to each other: "In regards to the essence of truth, to be true is the same as to be and to be is the same as to be great....therefore to be great is the same as to be true." A=B and B=C, ergo A=C. Reason, logic, and simplicity are the very essence of the divine essence. It is this identity of attributes amongst themselves which led to three very different conclusions, conclusions which are nevertheless related, for they depend upon this identification of the attributes amongst themselves.

First, it is this identity of the attributes with themselves and with the divine essence that allowed Thomas Aquinas, who inherited this definitional understanding of the divine simplicity from St. Augustine, to assert the identity of the divine essence with the divine will. The simplicity is absolute; therefore God's will is not other than His essence," a proposition common with Plotinus, and a proposition at the root of the Origenist problematic. Unlike the Athanasian response to this problematic, which depended upon the distinction between essence and attributes being a formal one, this understanding of the simplicity is a definitional one, and it is this which is the ultimate root of the Western difficulties with Palamism: there cannot be ultimate and equal goods which are really distinct from the divine essence as well as being really distinct from each other.

Second, the Augustine doctrine of predestination must, to a great degree, be referred to this identity of attributes amongst themselves, in other words, to this identity of attributes amongst themselves, in other words, to predestinate is the same as to foreknow. If God foreknows the damned and the elect, He also predestines them. The evaluation of Jaroslav Pelikan is therefore not entirely correct. It is in regard to this identification of the attributes of predestination and foreknowledge that he wrote "what was needed to correct and clarify the Augustinian doctrine was a more precise definition of predestination that would distinquish it from grace." But since the deterministic aspects of Augustinism appear to be not so much biblical as neoplatonic and logical, as they are rooted in a particular dialectically-derived definition of the divine essence, it would appear that what is needed is precisely not another definition, but a non-definitional understanding of the divine simplicity, one which would not permit the term to function as an "equals" (=) sign which identifies the pluralities of attributes.

Finally, this identification of the attributes amongst themselves plays an important role in the derivation of the filioque. Because the categories of the persons and attributes, as multiplicites contrasted to the simple essence, all serve as logically interchangeable definitions of the simple divine "something", the question for St. Augustine then became one of securely maintaining the real distinction of persons in the face of a simplicity which had already nullified the real quality and distinctions of the attributes amongst themselves. Here the subordination of the persons and attributes to the essence in the ordo theologiae also provides St. Augustine with the means to attempt to distinction the persons from each other. Having assumed an absolute, definitional simplicity, the person can no longer be absolute hypostases, but are merely relations, since the names Father, Son, and Spirit are terms relative to each other. Here again there is a subtle but nevertheless real play of the dialectic of oppositions. One no longer begins with the three persons (since one has already began theology at the divine essence) and then moves to consider their relations, but begins more with their relative quality, with the relation between the persons, itself. In other words, there is an artificial opposition of any given person to the other two. It is at this point that the flexibility of St. Augustine's neoplatonic basis begins to surface in a more acute form." [1]

[1] pages 207-211 from the book Free Will in St. Maximus the Confessor by Joseph P. Farrell

On the Person of Christ: The Christology of Emperor Justinian

2011-11-05T04:16:00.000-03:00

Translated by Kenneth P. Wesche

On the Person of Christ: The Christology of Emperor Justinian

From the preface:

"The documents of Justinian included in this volume represents a Cyrillian interpretation of the Christology of the Council of Chalcedon upheld by Orthodox theologians even today. For that reason these documents are important as a source for understanding the philosophical principles of Orthodox theology, particularly as Orthodox and other christian theologians come together in ecumenical dialogue. The principles of Orthodox philosophy find their starting point in the confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, the Divine Logos himself. The consequences of this confession of faith as a philosophical starting point are presented in brief both in the General Introduction and in the notes scattered throughout the text. Sixth century thought presents the student of christian doctrine with a dogmatic philosophy still in the process of attaining full clarification. The principal contribution made by sixth century thought towards a fully articulated "Christological philosophy" is the clear, unambiguous affirmation that the hypostasis or prosopon used in Chalcedon's definition of faith is not the product, but the foundation of the union between God and man in Jesus Christ: this is because the hypostasis of Jesus Christ is none other than the eternally existing Divine Logos, the Second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. These documents, therefore, are also of historical interest for they provide us with a glimps of christian philosophical thought moving closer to a full articulation of its belief in Jesus Christ." [1]

From the General Intoduction

Quote:“Nestorius was vigorously opposed by Cyril of Alexandria who insisted that the one who was born of Mary, Jesus of Nazareth, was none other than the Divine Logos himself. For that reason, Mary must be called “Theotokos” for Jesus whom she bore is himself God by nature and by hypostasis. This is the same as Justinian’s view and provides the background for understanding his freguent charges that the Nestorians call Christ a mere man. In fact, Nestorian Christology can indeed call Christ Christ God and man, but this is because “Christ” is the meeting point of the human and divine natures, and if we look at Christ in one direction we see the Divine Logos, or the divine nature, and if we look in another direction we see Jesus, or the human nature. The crucial point, however, is that in the Nestorian way of thinking, Jesus is the human nature in Christ and is therefore not himself identical to the Divine Logos. This latter point is what Justinian has in mind when he makes his charge, for with St. Cyril he wishes to emphasize that Jesus is not someone else than the Divine Logos but that he is one and the same Divine Logos; “Christ,” in other words, is the Divine Logos only who as the incarnate Divine Logos is both human and divine in nature, but divine only in identity or person.” [2]

quote:“It is most important to note how this view of Christ’s particularity distinquishes Justinian’s “Cyrillian Chalcedonianism from Nestorianism and from many Christologies one encounters in Western Christian thought. At issue is “who” lies inside the particular prosopon of Christ, and what is the starting point for determining that. Both Nestorianism and Cyrillian Chalcedonianism acknowledge that there is one Christ who is one particular or hypostasis or prosopon, and that furthermore this one Christ is divine and human in his natures. Many contemporary theologians who have sought to vindicate Nestorius from his condemnation at the Council of Ephesus in 431 base their defense of Nestorius precisely on this point: Nestorius, as also the Council of Chalcedon in 451, taught that Christ is one particular who is both God and man. But many of these scholars fail to grasp the significance of the fundamentally different starting points characterizing these two Christologies which lead to radically different notions of hypostasis and the content and identity of Christ.” [3]

Quote:“These different starting points yield radically different confessions concerning the philosophical content of the particular or hypostasis of Christ: the former understands hypostasis in terms of identity, i.e the subjective core, the “self” (autos in Greek) or “who” of Christ, which is one, and is seen to be the Divine Logos himself so that the terms “Jesus,” “Christ,” and “Divine Logos” are identical, referring to one and the same subject. The hypostasis, then, is the foundation, not the product, of the union, for it is the eternally existing Divine Logos, the one through whom all things came into being in the first place. The latter, on the other hand, starting from the “undivided appearence” of the historical Jesus, understands hypostasis as the product rather than the foundation of the coming together of the two natures. These two natures, moreover, are each seen as two fully intact subjects: Jesus is the human nature and so is a “someone other” than the Divine Logos, for the Divine Logos is the divine nature. On the basis of this Cyrillian Christology Justinian published the condemnation of the Three Chapters in 543, which was confirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 553. The Three chapters were “Nestorian” documents from the late fourth and fifth centuries. They included the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (and Theodore himself was included in the condemnation, which proved to be so controversial that Justinian was compelled to justify posthumous condemnations, which he does in the second and third documents presented here):” [4]

>[1] page 9,[2] pages 16-17,[3] page 17,[4] pages 18-19 from the book "On the Person of Christ: The Christology of Emperor Justinian" as translated by Kenneth P. Wesche

Finding The New Testament Church : Fr Peter Gillquist

2011-10-30T16:37:00.001-03:00

GRATIA ET CERTAMEN - by D. OGLIARI

2011-09-18T23:30:00.001-03:00

I am really enjoying this book. It's going to be an awesome resource!

Gratia et Certamen: The Relationship Between Grace and Free Will in the Discussion of Augustine with the So-Called Semipelagians

As seen from Amazon.com

"Product Description
The issues involved in the discussion between the monks of Hadrumetum/Marseille and Augustine range from questions of initium fidei and naturae bonum, to the understanding of predestination. The monks' reaction to Augustine's doctrine of absolute sovereign grace must be seen as a plea in favour of a harmonizing approach, where human commitment is also envisaged as playing, at times, a primary role. In the light of a dialogical synergism, of a unitarian and cosmic view of God's oeconomia salutis, and relying on a strong ascetic framework, the monks biggest fear was that the implications of Augustine's predestinarian view would jeopardise the importance of the struggle for perfection, the meaning of God's universal salvific will, of Christ's redeeming action, and finally of the Church. The different theological traditions to which Augustine and the monks appealed play also a significant role, as do the specific social and religious context in which they respectively moved."

Answer to Doug Wilson

2011-09-18T23:15:00.004-03:00

The link:
Answer to Doug Wilson 13 June 2011 YouTube Video

This is from the Orthodox Bridge blog.

Yes, the Orthodox Church is the true Church

2011-09-18T23:12:00.001-03:00

In response to Doug Wilson:

Orthodoxy IS Biblically Orthodox: A Response to BereanBeacon Part One

2011-09-18T22:24:00.002-03:00

Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification

2011-09-04T20:14:00.000-03:00

By the Anglican Alister Mcgrath Is now on Kindle and at a more affordable priceIustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification

Deification in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition: A Biblical Perspective

2011-07-20T15:10:00.000-03:00

I just got it yesterday

Deification in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition: A Biblical Perspective

A review of the book:

This leads on to the final chapter of the book where Thomas engages with the event in the Gospels which scripturally reveals the hope of our deification in the story of Christ's transfiguration on Mount Tabor in which the three Apostles see what true restored humanity looks like in the vision of Christ's human body radiating with divine light. Thomas' exegesis of this passage is made even more interesting through the way in which he constructs a multi-faceted perspective on the Transfiguration through narrating the viewpoints of the three Apostles and eye-witnesses that Christ took with him up the Mountain, St. Peter, St. James and St. John. Thomas then goes on to show how their witness of this extraordinary vision, together with Paul's vision of the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus, transformed their theology and their lives through analysing the epistles that the apostles wrote after Christ's Resurrection. Thus, to take just a few examples that Thomas explores in greater depth, in his second Epistle St. Peter writes that through Christ we might 'escape from the corruption … and become partakers of the divine nature' (2 Pet. 1:4) and John the theologian's speaks more poetically of our 'abiding in the light' of Christ to become children of light bearing the same light that Christ showed on Mount Tabor and finally St. Paul, after his Damascan vision of Christ's light, speaks of our being 'changed into his likeness from one degree of glory into another' (2 Cor 3:18). As these few examples indicate, through his full analysis of the writings of the New Testament Thomas demonstrates, against certain Protestant concerns, that the Orthodox belief in deification is clearly biblically grounded.

Thus although from the dust jacket, scholarly ring of the title and formal presentation of the text it might be easy to overlook Thomas' study as another arcane academic tome, I found Thomas' study to be an ideal introductory book to the faith for interested Orthodox lay people, catechumens and non-Orthodox enquirers. For in the course of exploring the Biblical grounds of the Orthodox understanding of deification, Thomas' provides an accessible and luminously clear account of many basic theological and practical issues of Orthodox belief and practice. Moreover, at the end of the book he has also usefully provided a lengthy appendix with helpful bibliographical suggestions of where the interested enquirer can look next.

To read the rest please visit St. GEORGE ORTHODOX INFORMATION SERVICE

Orthodox For Scripture and Holy Tradition

2011-07-11T05:43:00.000-03:00

The link:
http://www.orthodoxforscriptureandholytradition.com/

.

Free Orthodox Material in both Greek and English

2011-07-10T21:47:00.000-03:00

The link:
Pantocrator: Destributing Christian Orthodox Spiritual Material for free.

.

Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy - by Fr. Andrew Damick

2011-06-30T15:49:00.003-03:00

I just ordered mine today

You can also get it at Conciliar Press.

As seen from the website:

"Quick Overview

Are you an Orthodox Christian who wonders how to explain to your Baptist grandmother, your Buddhist neighbor, or the Jehovah’s Witness at your door how your faith differs from theirs? Or are you a member of another faith who is curious what Orthodoxy is all about? Look no further. In Orthodoxy & Heterodoxy, Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick covers the gamut of ancient heresies, modern Christian denominations, fringe groups, and major world religions, highlighting the main points of each faith. This book is an invaluable reference for anyone who wants to understand the faiths of those they come in contact with—as well as their own."

For more information and opinions about the book go to Amazon.com

.

My secondary sources for the book I'm working on

2011-06-30T15:33:00.000-03:00

The secondary sources:

1.) Gratia et Certamen: The Relationship Between Grace and Free Will in the Discussion of Augustine with the So-Called Semipelagians (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium) (an academic and lead authority about the subject, and so it was only right that I use him as a resource)

2.) Grace and Christology in the Early Church (Oxford Early Christian Studies) (another academic resource about the subject that will be used as a reference, I could be wrong but I think the author is a Reformed protestant)

3.) The Ancestral sin (an academic source about the early fathers on the issue of original sin)

4.) Free Choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor (an academic source about the Post Augustine 7th century Christian East view about free will and the theology behind the 6th ecumenical council)

5.) The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (a pro-reformed and calvinistic bias by one of their well known scholars that I will be fighting against in the book)

6.) Putting Amazing Back into Grace: Embracing the Heart of the Gospel (another pro-reformed and calvinistic bias by one of their well known scholars that I will be fighting against in the book)

7.) What's So Great About the Doctrines of Grace? (a pro-Calvinistic and Reformed resource in regards to what TULIP is. I will use this as a resource in my book)

8.) Why I Am Not an Arminian (a pro-Calvinistic and Reformed resource in regards to Calvinism that I will use as a resource for the book)

9.) Reconsidering Tulip (an anti-Calvinistic and Reformed bias that I will use as a resource for my book)

10.) Why I Am Not a Calvinist (an anti-Calvinistic bias by Arminian scholars that I will use as a resource)

11.) Against Calvinism (an anti-Calvinistic bias by a well known Arminian scholar that I will use as a resource once this book comes out in October)

12.) Grace, Faith, Free Will (an anti-Calvinistic bias by an Arminian scholar that I will use as a resource in the book)

13.) Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (an Arminian source that I will use as a resource)

14.) Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue (a resource about the history of Calvinism and non-Calvinism in the SBC. I have the book and I found somethings in it that will be useful to what I'm writing)

15.) A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (A resource with an Anglican and Anabaptist bias)

16.) A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography (a scholarly resource with an Anglican and Augustinian bias)

17.) Early Christian Doctrines: Revised Edition (a scholarly resource with an Anglican and Augustinian bias)

18.) The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (a scholarly resource with a Lutheran and Augustinian bias)

19.) The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) (a scholarly resource with a Lutheran and Augustinian bias)

20.) The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300) (a scholarly resource with a Lutheran and Augustinian bias)

21.) The Orthodox Way (a scholarly resource with an Orthodox bias)

22.) Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (a scholarly resource with a Charismatic evangelical protestant bias: the protestant author taught at Moscow university for 5 years)

23.) Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader (a scholarly resource with a Charismatic evangelical protestant bias: the protestant author taught at Moscow university for 5 years)

24.) Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament & Contemporary Contexts (an anti-Reformed and Calvinistic bias)

Books I still need to get:

25.) Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (a pro Calvinistic and Reformed view)

26.) Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement (a pro Lutheran[one Lutheran school of thought] and Eastern Christian view, as well as the historic Christian view in general)

There are a number of other books, articles, and online material that will be used as well. If there are more books you think I might need just let me know. If I have the time and money then I might buy them. It all depends on the content of the books and if they are saying something not already said in the books I listed above.

Reconsidering Tulip - by Alexander Renault

2011-06-04T00:11:00.000-03:00

Lulu.com

From the book.

Preface
Once upon a time I was a Calvinist. It was a happy time. It was a
time of enormous growth and learning. And having come from an
evangelical tradition that emphasized individualism and emotion, I
found that Calvinism now presented me with a veritable feast for the
intellect. I met many other Calvinists who loved the Lord their God
with all their heart, soul, strength, and mind—Christians whose faith
and piety continue to inspire me to this day.
I felt like the Bible was making more and more sense every day.
I saw things I never saw before. I learned that Christianity was far
bigger than I had originally suspected, having grown up in an isolated
evangelical bubble. The Reformed doctrines of predestination, which
before seemed abhorrent and strange to me, now became crystal clear.
I read Reformed materials voraciously—everything from Calvin
and Luther to Berkhof and Warfield; from John Owen and Jonathan
Edwards to N.T. Wright and John Piper; from Boettner, Van Til, and
Spurgeon to Sproul, Wilson, and Leithart, not to mention the countless
articles, debates, and podcasts I found online. I studied the works of
dispensationalists, premillennialists, amillennialists, postmillennialists,
preterists, futurists, theonomists, reconstructionists, presuppositionalists,
Federal Visionists, and any other “ists” that had a voice in
the world of Reformed Christianity. And in addition to memorizing
many of the Bible verses that supported Calvinism, I even spent a year
memorizing the entire Westminster Shorter Catechism while in training
to be an elder at my local Presbyterian church.

Something else that I found to be new and exciting in my Reformed
journey was the respect that they seemed to have for the early Church
Fathers. I would occasionally hear preachers quote from some ancient
saint who actually lived before the Reformation. I had always just
assumed that once the ink dried on the book of Revelation, the Church
fell apart and went completely apostate until Martin Luther recovered
the truth in the 16th century. I would hear Reformed teachers say that
there was a “thread of consistency” that reached from the Reformation
all the way back to the earliest Christians. This gave me a degree of
comfort I never had before as a modern evangelical, when I suspected
that my faith looked absolutely nothing like the faith of those “early
Church Fathers,” whoever those guys were anyway.

It was around this time that Dan Brown wrote his infamous book,
The Da Vinci Code. The premise of Brown’s book was that the early
Christians essentially invented their faith—that the divinity of Christ
wasn’t even developed until the council of Nicea in 325 AD. No sooner
did Brown’s book make the best-seller lists than a slew of apologetic
articles appeared on the Internet. And of course, wanting to defend
my faith and encourage those who were being negatively influenced
by The Da Vinci Code, I read several of these articles. I found out
that there were a bunch of people called the “early Church Fathers”—
genuine Christians who lived during the first few centuries of the
Church.
I heard names like Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Irenaeus, and
countless others that were new to me. I read what they had to say
about the divinity of Christ. I read about how they were influential in
the early Church, and how so many of them were martyred for their
beliefs. Slowly but surely, I started to like these guys.
And that’s where all my trouble began. I had absolute respect
for the Reformers and for the confessions they created, especially
the Westminster Standards, which were particularly important to
my Presbyterian denomination. I also had absolute and unshakeable
respect for the Holy Scriptures. And now I was beginning to have a
growing respect for the early Church Fathers. These were the three
different spheres of influence in my Christian life: the Westminster
Divines, the Bible, and the early Fathers.

The problem, however, was that I couldn’t get all three spheres
to line up! I was beginning to realize that the early Church Fathers
taught things that were vastly different than what my Reformed faith
was teaching me. Yes, there were certainly disagreements among
them on minor doctrinal issues, but by and large, the early Fathers
were all in agreement on things that I had just assumed were Roman
Catholic inventions: things like the salvific efficacy of the sacraments,
the necessity of works for salvation, the ever-virginity of Mary, the
importance of tradition and apostolic succession, the rejection of
sola scriptura, etc. But the big kicker was that virtually every early
Church Father taught against all five points of Calvinism (summed up today by the acronym TUL IP: Total Depravity, Unconditional
Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of
the Saints). So, of these spheres that I so desperately wanted to hold
onto, I realized I could only pick two out of the three. It was either the
Divines’ interpretation of Scripture or it was the Fathers’ interpretation
of Scripture. I simply couldn’t have it both ways.

I suppose many Calvinists would say at this point, “What’s the
problem? Simply accept the Divines’ interpretation of Scripture and
throw out the Fathers. What did they know anyway?” And that was
exactly the question that began to haunt me: What did they know
anyway? When I read little bits and snippets from the Fathers during
my time as a Calvinist, I sensed deep down that they had a fervor
and a zeal that the Reformers seemed to be lacking. They spoke
with authority, like people who had genuinely experienced a direct
encounter with Almighty God."

To read the rest please buy the book.

I'm halfway through the book and most of what I read so far is really good. I've noticed a few areas where I would differ or disagree, but over all I think this is a great effort by Alexander Renault. It's the first book of it's kind that I am aware of. And this is something we need. And so I would like to thank Alexander Renault for taking the time to write something like this.

Substitutionary atonement and the Church Fathers

2011-05-28T11:48:00.002-03:00

Substitutionary atonement and the
Church Fathers:
A reply to the authors of Pierced for Our
Transgressions - Derek Flood

Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

2011-05-11T22:44:00.000-03:00

Another interesting apologetic website:

http://orthodoxbridge.com/?page_id=20

quote:

"It was while I attended a Reformed seminary — Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary — that I first became interested in Orthodoxy. I was drawn to the staunch orthodoxy of the early Church Fathers, the deep sense of worship in the Orthodox liturgy, and the strong sense of historical continuity. However, my journey to Orthodoxy was hampered by the fact that the Orthodox Christians I met were not able to address the questions I had as a Calvinist: What about icons? What about sola scriptura (the Bible alone)? What about sola fide (justification by faith alone)? What about Mary? What about TULIP?

I needed good reasons for converting from the Reformed tradition to Orthodoxy. Eventually, I did my own theological and historical research, and bible study, and developed reasons why Eastern Orthodoxy is truly biblical and grounded in the historic Christian faith; much more so than the Reformed tradition.

The major challenge lies in the fact that Calvinism and Orthodoxy operate from two different theological paradigms. There is a need for theological translators who can explain the differences and commonalities between two great Christian theological traditions. It is my hope that I can help Calvinists interested in Orthodoxy come to a better understanding of Orthodoxy and perhaps cross over to the other side."

The Orthodox Revolutionary

2011-05-02T04:45:00.007-03:00

I like their style. Check out the webpage:

The Orthodox Revolutionary

quote:
We also intend to foment revolution outside the walls of Eastern Orthodoxy. Multitudes of Catholics recoil from the “guitar Masses” and “liturgical dance” that pass for worship since the Second Vatican Council. But unwilling to leave mainstream Catholicism for Marcel Lefebvre’s Traditionalists or flaky splinter groups like the Old Catholics, today’s Catholics are forced to endure patiently while the mainstream church makes shipwreck of the Mass and Catholic theology. What a revolution we would have if we brought these multitudes of unhappy Catholics into Eastern Orthodoxy!

Likewise, we must foment revolution within Protestantism. Today, increasing numbers of Protestants find themselves alienated from the vacuous mega-churches that bear more resemblance to a rock concert than to a house of prayer. Yearning for a more historical worship service, these disaffected seekers often find themselves gravitating to the stability and historical continuity that traditional “Reformed” denominations offer. Sadly, this means that they now have to swallow the unpalatable dogmas of Calvinism. Were we to show these uprooted Protestants the ancient, unchanged truths of Eastern Orthodoxy, what a torrent of converts would flood into our churches!"

To read the rest please visit The Orthodox Revolutionary

An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics

2011-05-02T02:40:00.009-03:00

An Outline Of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics by Fr. John S. Romanides

About the author and book: (As seen from St. Johns book store)

Quote:
Author: John S. Romanides

The late Professor John Romanides, a graduate and, subsequently, a Professor of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts (1958-1965), and a Professor of the Aristotle University of Thessalonica, Greece (1968-1984) was one of the most original theologians of Eastern Orthodox Christianity worldwide in the second half of the 20th century. Raised in America and having become familiar with Western Christians, Roman Catholics and Protestants, as well as Western theological scholarship, both through his upbringing and his involvement in the modern Ecumenical Dialogues, he developed a critical and highly original Eastern Orthodox approach to Christian theology. He identified his approach with the Christian Roman ecumene that was centered in Constantinople, New Rome. His views on Christian "Romanity" and "Roman Orthodoxy" have earned him the title of "Prophet of Roman Orthodoxy" and have given rise to a school of committed followers and to much discussion. This book is Romanides' first Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics, which is published for the first time in the original Greek and in English translation. It represents a concise introduction into his understanding of the basic tenets of the Eastern Orthodox Faith and its fundamental differences from those of Western (Augustinian or Franco-Latin) Christian theology. It covers such doctrines as God's relation to the world, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine of the Church, the Church's Holy Tradition and the restoration and perfection of humanity in and through this Tradition. It will serve as an introduction into this theologian's original vision of Patristic Orthodoxy, which is the basis of his reappraisal of Christian theology and history. Its value lies in its concise, coherent and comprehensive character.

The Outline:

Part One: God and the World
1.) God's Relation to the World
2.) Distinction of "Created" and "Uncreated", How and From Where Do We Know It
3.) The Distinction between Essence (Being) and Energy (Act) in God
4.) A General Account of the Church's Doctrine about the World

Part Two: The Holy Trinity
1.) The Gnostics
2.) Monarchianism
3.) Paul of Samosata and Lucian: Forerunners of Arius
4.) Arianism
5.) Orthodox Anti-Arian Doctrine
6.) The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
7.) The Franco-Latin Doctrine of the Filioque
8.) The Political Reasons for the Impositions of the Filioque

Part Three: Christology
1.) Introduction to Christology
2.) The Early Christological Heresies and the Orthodox Doctrine
3.) Nestorianism and the Third Ecumenical Council (431/3)
4.) The So-called Robber Council of 449
5.) The Fourth Ecumenical Council (451)
6.) The Fifth Ecumenical Council (553)
7.) The Sixth Ecumenical Council (680/1)

Part Four: Ecclesiology

A) The Church in General Perspective

B) The Church's Holy Tradition
1.) The Deposit of the Faith and Holy Tradition
2.) The Recipients, Guardians and Transmitters of the Holy Tradition
3.) The Deposit of the Faith and Holy Scripture
4.) The Deposit of Faith, the Glory of God and the Friends of God
5.) The Glory of God, the Love of God and the Torments of Hell
6.) The Torments of Hell in the Western Augustinian Tradition

C) Christian Perfection
1.) Perfection and the Mystery of the Cross in the Bible and the Fathers
2.) The Mystery of the Cross and the Boldness and Mediation of the Saints
3.) The stages of Perfection and the Mystery of the Cross
4.) The Knowledge of Those Who Have Reached Theosis
5.) The Distiction between Direct and Indirect Knowledge of God
6.) Apostolic Succession and Christ's Presence in the Sacraments

D) The Last Things(Eschatology)
1.) First Resurrection, Second Resurrection and Partial Judgment
2.) The Franco-Latin and Orthodox Patristic Views on the Last Things

It's the Time to Say Good-Bye!

2011-04-28T05:55:00.008-03:00

Elvis... has left the building!

I'll... soon be gone now!

I Know You're Glad That Lent Is Over...

2011-04-27T13:40:00.003-03:00

...but what you don't quite seem to understand just yet is that the Kingdom of Heaven has NO end...

Eastern Orthodoxy: Taking All the Fun Out of Holidays Since 1,500 BC

2011-04-26T14:50:00.002-03:00

Exodus 19:15 And he said unto the people: Be ready against the third day: come not at your wives. 16 ¶And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled. 17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount. 18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. 19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice. 20 And the LORD came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the LORD called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.

1 Samuel 21:4 And the priest answered David, and said: There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread ; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. 5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him: Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. 6 So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

Fasting Is Dead !

2011-04-25T13:50:00.002-03:00

Long live abstinence!

Speaking Of Resurrections...

2011-04-24T12:55:00.003-03:00

( You may wish to turn up the volume on your computer ).

See You In Hell !

2011-04-23T15:20:00.002-03:00

...to save you from Gehenna!

God Is Dead !

2011-04-22T15:33:00.003-03:00

...and we have killed Him...

Friedrich Nietzsche

People like to wash their hands of the violence. But we all wash our hands in blood.

Arturo Vasquez

Fasting: Bringing Out the Worse in People Since 1,500 BC

2011-04-21T15:30:00.004-03:00

In vain were you brought out of Egypt, if Egypt wasn't brought out of you...

Exodus 16:2 And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness: 3 And the children of Israel said unto them: Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.

Numbers 11:5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick: 6 But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.

Psalm 95:8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. 10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said: It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: 11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

Job 2:9 Then said his wife unto him: Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Curse God, and die!

The Price Is Right !

2011-04-20T16:15:00.009-03:00

We interrupt our usual series of boring, ethereal Lenten posts to provide those of you struggling with the current economic recession and financial crisis with a few practical, down-to-earth business tips, which we believe to be right on the money :

Judas sold Christ for thirty silvers.

Adam and Eve traded Paradise for apples.

Esau gave up his birthright for a plate of porridge.

What price tag do you put on your soul?

The Waxing and Waning of Ascetic Enthusiasm During Great and Holy Lent

2011-04-19T16:30:00.004-03:00

Luke 22:33 And [Simon Peter] said unto [Jesus]: Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. 34 And [Christ] said: I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

Jesus Christ is NOT the Reason for the Lenten Season !

2011-04-18T16:20:00.001-03:00

Whom does the Church mourn during this particularly holy and especially sacred period of the year? For whom has the whole interior of the church-building been dressed in dark funeral gowns? Why do Priests wear such pitch-black clerical vestments this time of the year? Whom are they mourning? Christ, perhaps? God forbid! He's seated in glory, at the right hand of the Father! We're mourning for our own souls and wicked deeds, for we're all dead in our sins!

Luke 23:27 And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. 28 But Jesus turning unto them said: Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.

On the Forty Days of Great and Holy Lent

2011-04-17T16:00:00.002-03:00

In forty days has all sinful flesh been destroyed by the waters of the Great Flood in the days of Noah.

In forty years has the wicked, ungrateful, and rebellious generation of Israelites that came out of Egypt, and gnashed their unthankful teeth against Moses and the Lord, been wiped out in the wilderness, without ever entering into the Promised Land.

For forty days stood Moses with God on top of Mount Sinai, without touching any food or water, to receive the Law of the Old Covenant, being kept alive only by the power of God, and when he came back down the mountain, his face shone brighter than the Sun.

For forty days after His Baptism by John in the Jordan has Christ fasted in the wilderness, to defeat the devil, before beginning His Messianic activity here on earth.

Lazarus Saturday

2011-04-16T05:05:00.002-03:00

Romans 7:24 Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

On the Sixth Week of Fasting, the Savior Said to Me...

2011-04-15T15:33:00.002-03:00

Luke 21:34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

Why Calvinists Should Definitely Fast

2011-04-14T17:55:00.010-03:00

To be confirmed and (re)assured of the truthfulness of their teachings,
by letting fasting, abstinence, and ascetic efforts expose and bring out to light the Total Depravity and Inability hiding in their fallen nature... because you'll never know just how estranged you truly are from God, and how far you actually lie from the Kingdom of Heaven, or how much filth there really is in your heart, and how enslaved you are by sin or just how much power passions have over you, until you'll start seriously engaging in this kind of spiritual endeavors.

Just Because There Will Be No Sin, Sex, Meat-Consumption, Tobacco, and Alcohol in the After-Life...

2011-04-13T14:40:00.007-03:00

...doesn't mean that the insatiable and asphyxiating craving for such things will be absent
from the souls and bodies of the damned...

The Hideous Sins for Which God Wiped Out All Humanity in the Great Flood

2011-04-12T13:00:00.002-03:00

Luke 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Fasting: It's Heaven on Earth!

2011-04-11T14:30:00.006-03:00

There was no intercourse and meat-consumption in Paradise, before the Fall,
nor will there be any in the Kingdom of Heaven:

Genesis 1:29 ¶And God said: Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Genesis 2:16 ¶And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.

Genesis 3:6 ¶And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 ¶And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him: Where art thou? 10 And he said: I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 ¶And he said: Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

That again: Heaven itself may be Hell for some...

Mid-Lent Crisis

2011-04-10T08:00:00.008-03:00

Empty bellies... what are we living for?

Hold the line: does anybody want to take it anymore?...

Lent must go on!

I'll top the bill, I'll overkill: I have to find the will to carry on...

They've Done A Movie About My Life, And Josh Hartnett Is Playing My Role!

2011-04-09T08:25:00.003-03:00

The Subtle, Subliminal Message of My Last Five Weeks of Postings

2011-04-08T15:10:00.005-03:00

1 Corinthians 15:50 Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Possible Reactions to the Utterly Absurd and Outright Impossible Fasting Demands of the Orthodox God

2011-04-07T16:15:00.015-03:00

Job 2:9 Curse God, and die.

Matthew 25:18 But he that had received one talent went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. 19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. 24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said: Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

Matthew 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying: Who then can be saved?

Mark 10:26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves: Who then can be saved?

Luke 18:26 And they that heard it said: Who then can be saved?

Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Christology

2011-04-06T22:46:00.005-03:00

Christology Workshop by Dr. Jeffrey Macdonald

Part 1:
Play Audio

Part 2:
Play Audio

Part 3:
Play Audio

Power Point presentation:
Show Snapshots

Sylvester Stallone Illustrating the Hardships of Lent

2011-04-06T16:10:00.002-03:00

Why does the Orthodox Church impose such heavy, unbearable burdens on the feeble and fragile shoulders of its poor, innocent followers?

About the Longings of our Hearts, the Passions in our Lives, and the Desires of our Souls

2011-04-05T16:10:00.001-03:00

Luke 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

Deep down inside, we're all starved and craving for something...

Contra LDS on Deification

2011-04-05T05:14:00.005-03:00

Contra Mundum: Athanasius and the LDS on Deification by Perry Robinson

A Personal Relationship with God

2011-04-05T04:55:00.005-03:00

Credit to Mike Spring from Classical Christianity

I know that the Immovable comes down; I know that the Invisible appears to me; I know that He who is outside the whole creation Takes me within Himself and hides me in His arms, and then I find myself outside the whole world.

I, a frail, small mortal in the world, behold the Creator of the world, all of Him, within myself;and I know that I shall not die, for I am within the Life, I have the whole of Life springing up as a fountain within me.

He is in my heart, He is in heaven: both there and here He shows himself to me with equal glory.

- St. Simeon the New Theologian

Hunted Down by Sins and Devoured Alive by Passions

2011-04-04T15:30:00.026-03:00

The sad story of my life...

1 Peter 5:8 ¶Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.

Fasting in the Struggle against Fallen Spirits

2011-04-03T23:29:00.008-03:00

The Significance of Fasting in the Struggle against Fallen Spirits by St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov)

Hell: It's Nothing, Really...

2011-04-03T17:20:00.007-03:00

...just plain emptiness...

What God's Love for Sinners Does Not Mean
It doesn’t necessarily mean you are going to be saved. Yes, He will save every alcoholic in the sense that eventually He will bring each one to a “place” beyond the grave where there is no alcohol, but whether any given alcoholic will be grateful for that or be tortured by it remains to be seen. He will bring you and me to where there is no sin, but whether we feel delivered or deprived, indeed destroyed, depends upon us.

Anastasia Theodoridis

Blessed is the One Who Will Smash Your Babes Against the Rock

2011-04-02T17:25:00.005-03:00

Sins and passions must be killed while still in their infancy:

Psalm 137:9 Blessed be he that shall take and dash thy little ones against the Rock.

1 Corinthians 10:4 And that Rock was Christ.

"The Matrix" and the Gospels on the Burden of Lent, Fasting, and Abstinence

2011-04-01T15:40:00.010-03:00

The Matrix.

( You may wish to turn up the volume on your computer ).

The Gospel:

Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3 And when the tempter came to him, he said: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said: It is written: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God". 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 And saith unto him: All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him: Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve".

Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered. 3 And the devil said unto him: If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. 4 And Jesus answered him, saying: It is written: "That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God". 5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said unto him: All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. 7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. 8 And Jesus answered and said unto him: Get thee behind me, Satan, for it is written: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve".

The Hold That Passions Have On A Man

2011-03-31T19:05:00.006-03:00

Only because you know just how bad they actually are for you, doesn't mean you can quit.

( You may wish to turn up the volume on your computer ).

Synergy in Christ According to Saint Maximus the Confessor

2011-03-31T05:06:00.005-03:00

Synergy in Christ According to Saint Maximus the Confessor, by Daniel Photios Jones

The Heart of the Matter

2011-03-30T15:30:00.006-03:00

One night I had a dream. Outside, the sky was made into a single being. I couldn't look at it because of its brightness. I fell with my face to the ground, because I understood that it was a divine power. I heard a voice telling me: Look at this! Who does not know what this is will never see the Kingdom of Heaven! As I was lying with my face to the ground, I lifted up my head a bit, to look at what it was showing me. About where its face was, I could see only lightnings, and when it spoke, it was as if it thundered. Looking towards the frightfully-large hand, I saw that it held a human heart wherein there was much filth. I heard that thundery voice again: Look and know that whosoever does not know what this is will not see the Kingdom of Heaven! The dream scared me greatly. For three days I was not able to do anything. I shook the whole time, and stood in great fear, although I haven't understood too much of it.

Norica Ion, The Escape from Hell

The Author of "Basic Instinct" Repents of a Life-Time of Sins, Addictions, and Debauchery

2011-03-29T16:25:00.007-03:00

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

During the summer of 2001, Eszterhas was diagnosed with throat cancer. His doctors worked to remove 80 per cent of his larynx and told him to immediately quit drinking and smoking. Eszterhas was 56. He lived a wild lifestyle and knew that changing his habits would not be easy.

His Conversion
On a day Eszterhas describes as “hellishly hot,” he was walking through a tree-lined neighborhood when he realized he had hit rock-bottom.

Eszterhas described his frame of mind: "I was going crazy. I was jittery. I twitched. I trembled. I had no patience for anything. … Every single nerve ending was demanding a drink and a cigarette.”

He sat on the curb and began to cry. In between fits of crying he began to pray, “Please God, help me.” He hadn’t prayed since he was a child. "I couldn't believe I'd said it. I didn't know why I'd said it. I'd never said it before," he wrote.

God reached out His hand
Eszterhas was immediately overwhelmed with peace. His twitching stopped. He no longer trembled. He saw a "shimmering, dazzling, nearly blinding brightness that made me cover my eyes with my hands." Similar to Saul seeing a blinding light on his way to Damascus, Eszterhas had seen the light of Christ.

Eszterhas described the experience as “absolutely overwhelming."

He went from doubting if he could make it through life without tobacco and alcohol, to knowing that he could "defeat myself and win."

Catholic News Agency

Psalms 34:6 This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.

Psalms 120:1 ¶In my distress I cried unto the LORD, and he heard me.

After years of smut and violence, Joe Eszterhas says he found God one hot summer day in 2001 as he desperately battled to survive throat cancer and his addictions to alcohol and cigarettes.

“I didn’t even really know how to pray,” Eszterhas writes in his upcoming book Crossbearer: A Memoir of Faith. “I didn’t know what to say, so one of the first things I said was ‘I’m sorry. I’ve acted like a colossal A-hole. I’m really, really sorry. I don’t deserve to be forgiven, but please try to forgive me.’”

In their effort to prolong Eszterhas’ life, doctors at the Cleveland Clinic removed 80 percent of his larynx, put a tracheotomy tube in his throat, and told him he must quit drinking and smoking immediately.

While Eszterhas wanted to change his ways, after a lifetime of wild living, the 56-year-old Hungarian native knew it would be a struggle to do so. And it was.

In the summer of 2001, Eszterhas reached a breaking point and for the first time since he was a child, he prayed for God’s help.

"I was going crazy. I was jittery. I twitched. I trembled. I had no patience for anything. … Every single nerve ending was demanding a drink and a cigarette," he writes in Crossbearer.

After his prayer, however, he felt an overwhelming peace.

It was "an absolutely overwhelming experience," he recalled to the Toledo Blade earlier this month.

Eszterhas went from doubting if he could make it through life without tobacco and alcohol to knowing that he could "defeat myself and win."

The Christian Post

What Does God Even Want From Us Anyway!?

2011-03-28T13:05:00.008-03:00

Why does He demand so much of us? Who does He even think He is!? GOD !?

Well... yeah!
Remember our father Abraham, who was righteous in the sight of the Lord, fulfilled all His laws, and never broke any of His commandments? Well, now, ask yourself this: Was God satisfied by that? Or did He ask for more?

Genesis 22:2 And [God] said [to Abraham]: Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Or the rich young man, who kept all the commandments from his youth? Was Christ satisfied by this? Or did He demand more?

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him: If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow Me. ²² But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him: Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me. ²³ And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

There's a very special Lenten Prayer that we frequently say during this particularly sorrowful time of fasting and repentance: it begins with the simple words Lord, and Master of my life – is God really the Lord and Master of your life?

Kicking the Habit: The Struggle With Sin Continues

2011-03-27T09:50:00.009-03:00

Exodus 20:2-3, Deuteronomy 5:6-7
I am the LORD thy God: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Proverbs 23:26 My son, give me thine heart.

Matthew 6:21, Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Embracing the Emo Subculture: Depressing Orthodox Lenten Songs

2011-03-26T14:35:00.009-03:00

Orthodox Zionism 101

Psalm 137:1 ¶By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. 6 Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember thee, Zion.

Why I'm Writing a Book

2011-03-25T23:21:00.021-03:00

It's because of stuff like this floating around online: Calvinism Declared By The Church Fathers.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY

Barnabas (A.D. 70): "Learn: before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak."

Ignatius (A.D. 110): "They that are carnal cannot do the things that are spiritual... Nor can the unbelievers do the things of belief."

Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): "Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; we are born sinners... No good thing dwells in us... For neither by nature, nor by human understanding is it possible for me to acquire the knowledge of things so great and so divine, but by the energy of the Divine Spirit... Of ourselves it is impossible to enter the kingdom of God... He has convicted us of the impossibility of our nature to obtain life... Free will has destroyed us; we who were free are become slaves and for our sin are sold... Being pressed down by our sins, we cannot move upward toward God; we are like birds who have wings, but are unable to fly."

Clement Of Alexandria (A.D. 190): "The soul cannot rise nor fly, nor be lifted up above the things that are on high, without special grace."

Origen: "Our free will... or human nature is not sufficient to seek God in any man."

Eusebius (A.D. 330): "The liberty of our will in choosing things that are good is destroyed."

Augustine (A.D. 370): "If, therefore, they are servants of sin (2 Cor. 3:17), why do they boast of free will?... O, man! Learn from the precept what you ought to do; learn from correction, that it is your own fault you have not the power... Let human effort, which perished by Adam, here be silent, and let the grace of God reign by Jesus Christ... What God promises, we ourselves do not through free will of human nature, but He Himself does by grace within us... Men labor to find in our own will something that is our own, and not God's; how can they find it, I know not."

(To read the rest, visit their website).

As you can see, they provide zero links directly to the Fathers and early Christian witnesses themselves. I don't think they want people to actually read them in context. And so I'm working on a book. It started out as a paper in response to several of my Christian hip-hop Calvinistic friends, but it's turning into a book. Below are some quotes of some of the Fathers and early Christian witnesses that they won't quote. And unlike a number of Calvinistic websites out there, I give direct links for all to see.

If we start with their belief about Free Will, then the rest should fall into place:

FREE WILL

Saint Ignatius (110 A.D.)

"For when ye are desirous to do well, God is also ready to assist you."

Saint Justin Martyr (150 A.D.)

"But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made."

Tatian (160 A.D.)

"How, then, shall I admit this nativity according to Fate, when I see such managers of Fate? I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command; I detest fornication; I am not impelled by an insatiable love of gain to go to sea; I do not contend for chaplets; I am free from a mad thirst for fame; I despise death; I am superior to every kind of disease; grief does not consume my soul. Am I a slave, I endure servitude. Am I free, I do not make a vaunt of my good birth. I see that the same sun is for all, and one death for all, whether they live in pleasure or destitution. The rich man sows, and the poor man partakes of the same sowing. The wealthiest die, and beggars have the same limits to their life. The rich lack many things, and are glorious only through the estimation they are held in; but the poor man and he who has very moderate desires, seeking as he does only the things suited to his lot, more easily obtains his purpose. How is it that you are fated to be sleepless through avarice? Why are you fated to grasp at things often, and often to die? Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it. Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature. We were not created to die, but we die by our own fault. Our free-will has destroyed us; we who were free have become slaves; we have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God; we ourselves have manifested wickedness; but we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it."

Saint Irenaeus (180 A.D.)

"They will find in our dispensation, that "many are called, but few chosen"; and that there are those who inwardly are wolves, yet wear sheep’s clothing in the eyes of the world (foris); and that God has always preserved freedom, and the power of self-government in man, while at the same time He issued His own exhortations, in order that those who do not obey Him should be righteously judged (condemned) because they have not obeyed Him; and that those who have obeyed and believed on Him should be honoured with immortality."

Saint Irenaeus (180 A.D.)

"For He who makes the chaff and He who makes the wheat are not different persons, but one and the same, who judges them, that is, separates them. But the wheat and the chaff, being inanimate and irrational, have been made such by nature. But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect like to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself the cause to himself, that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff."

Saint Irenaeus (180 A.D.)

"God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do. 2. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,—some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets."

Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

"Whether, then, the Father Himself draws to Himself everyone who has led a pure life, and has reached the conception of the blessed and incorruptible nature; or whether the free-will which is in us, by reaching the knowledge of the good, leaps and bounds over the barriers, as the gymnasts say; yet it is not without eminent grace that the soul is winged, and soars, and is raised above the higher spheres, laying aside all that is heavy, and surrendering itself to its kindred element."

Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

"Notwithstanding then since to obey or not is in our own power, provided we have not the excuse of ignorance to adduce. He makes a just call, and demands of each according to his strength. For some are able as well as willing, having reached this point through practice and being purified; while others, if they are not yet able, already have the will."

Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

"But application to the training of ourselves, and subjection to the commandments, is in our own power; with which if we will have nothing to do, by abandoning ourselves wholly to lust, we shall sin, nay rather, wrong our own soul."

Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

"And as the physician ministers health to those who co-operate with him in order to health, so also God ministers eternal salvation to those who co-operate for the attainment of knowledge and good conduct; and since what the commandments enjoin are in our own power, along with the performance of them, the promise is accomplished."

Tertullian (207 A.D.)

"I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God’s image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature. For it was not by his face, and by the lineaments of his body, though they were so varied in his human nature, that he expressed his likeness to the form of God; but he showed his stamp in that essence which he derived from God Himself (that is, the spiritual, which answered to the form of God), and in the freedom and power of his will. This his state was confirmed even by the very law which God then imposed upon him. For a law would not be imposed upon one who had it not in his power to render that obedience which is due to law; nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will. So in the Creator’s subsequent laws also you will find, when He sets before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God’s calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and this on no other ground than that man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance."

Origen (225 A.D.)

"But as the preaching of the Church includes a belief in a future and just judgment of God, which belief incites and persuades men to a good and virtuous life, and to an avoidance of sin by all possible means; and as by this it is undoubtedly indicated that it is within our own power to devote ourselves either to a life that is worthy of praise, or to one that is worthy of censure, I therefore deem it necessary to say a few words regarding the freedom of the will, seeing that this topic has been treated by very many writers in no mean style. And that we may ascertain more easily what is the freedom of the will, let us inquire into the nature of will and of desire."

Origen (225 A.D.)

"The result of our reasoning, therefore, is to show that those things which happen to us from without are not in our own power; but that to make a good or bad use of those things which do so happen, by help of that reason which is within us, and which distinguishes and determines how these things ought to be used, is within our power."

Origen (225 A.D.)

"In the Psalm, too, it is written: “If My people had heard Me, if Israel had walked in My ways, I would have humbled her enemies to nothing;” by which he shows that it was in the power of the people to hear, and to walk in the ways of God. The Saviour also saying, “I say unto you, Resist not evil;” and, “Whoever shall be angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment;” and, “Whosoever shall look upon a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart;” and in issuing certain other commands,—conveys no other meaning than this, that it is in our own power to observe what is commanded. And therefore we are rightly rendered liable to condemnation if we transgress those commandments which we are able to keep. And hence He Himself also declares: “Every one who hears my words, and doeth them, I will show to whom he is like: he is like a wise man who built his house upon a rock,” etc. So also the declaration: “Whoso heareth these things, and doeth them not, is like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand,” etc. Even the words addressed to those who are on His right hand, “Come unto Me, all ye blessed of My Father,” etc.; “for I was an hungered, and ye gave Me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink,” manifestly show that it depended upon themselves, that either these should be deserving of praise for doing what was commanded and receiving what was promised, or those deserving of censure who either heard or received the contrary, and to whom it was said, “Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.” Let us observe also, that the Apostle Paul addresses us as having power over our own will, and as possessing in ourselves the causes either of our salvation or of our ruin: “Dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and of His patience, and of His long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But, according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou art treasuring up for thyself wrath on the day of judgment and of the revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to every one according to his work: to those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and immortality, eternal life; while to those who are contentious, and believe not the truth, but who believe iniquity, anger, indignation, tribulation, and distress, on every soul of man that worketh evil, on the Jew first, and (afterwards) on the Greek; but glory, and honour, and peace to every one that doeth good, to the Jew first, and (afterwards) to the Greek.” You will find also innumerable other passages in holy Scripture, which manifestly show that we possess freedom of will. Otherwise there would be a contrariety in commandments being given us, by observing which we may be saved, or by transgressing which we may be condemned, if the power of keeping them were not implanted in us."

Origen (225 A.D.)

"If, then, God promises to do this, and if, before He takes away the stony heart, we are unable to remove it from ourselves, it follows that it is not in our power, but in God’s only, to cast away wickedness. And again, if it is not our doing to form within us a heart of flesh, but the work of God alone, it will not be in our power to live virtuously, but it will in everything appear to be a work of divine grace. Such are the assertions of those who wish to prove from the authority of Holy Scripture that nothing lies in our own power. Now to these we answer, that these passages are not to be so understood, but in the following manner. Take the case of one who was ignorant and untaught, and who, feeling the disgrace of his ignorance, should, driven either by an exhortation from some person, or incited by a desire to emulate other wise men, hand himself over to one by whom he is assured that he will be carefully trained and competently instructed. If he, then, who had formerly hardened himself in ignorance, yield himself, as we have said, with full purpose of mind to a master, and promise to obey him in all things, the master, on seeing clearly the resolute nature of his determination, will appropriately promise to take away all ignorance, and to implant knowledge within his mind; not that he undertakes to do this if the disciple refuse or resist his efforts, but only on his offering and binding himself to obedience in all things. So also the Word of God promises to those who draw near to Him, that He will take away their stony heart, not indeed from those who do not listen to His word, but from those who receive the precepts of His teaching; as in the Gospels we find the sick approaching the Saviour, asking to receive health, and thus at last be cured. And in order that the blind might be healed and regain their sight, their part consisted in making supplication to the Saviour, and in believing that their cure could be effected by Him; while His part, on the other hand, lay in restoring to them the power of vision. And in this way also does the Word of God promise to bestow instruction by taking away the stony heart, i.e., by the removal of wickedness, that so men may be able to walk in the divine precepts, and observe the commandments of the law."

Saint Hippolytus (225 A.D.)

"But God, who created it, did not, nor does not, make evil. He makes what is glorious and excellent; for He who makes it is good. Now man, that was brought into existence, was a creature endued with a capacity of self-determination, yet not possessing a sovereign intellect, nor holding sway over all things by reflection, and authority, and power, but a slave to his passions, and comprising all sorts of contrarieties in himself. But man, from the fact of his possessing a capacity of self-determination, brings forth what is evil, that is, accidentally; which evil is not consummated except you actually commit some piece of wickedness. For it is in regard of our desiring anything that is wicked, or our meditating upon it, that what is evil is so denominated. Evil had no existence from the beginning, but came into being subsequently. Since man has free will, a law has been defined for his guidance by the Deity, not without answering a good purpose. For if man did not possess the power to will and not to will, why should a law be established? For a law will not be laid down for an animal devoid of reason, but a bridle and a whip; whereas to man has been given a precept and penalty to perform, or for not carrying into execution what has been enjoined. For man thus constituted has a law been enacted by just men in primitive ages. Nearer our own day was there established a law, full of gravity and justice, by Moses, to whom allusion has been already made, a devout man, and one beloved of God."

Saint Hippolytus (225 A.D.)

"This Logos we know to have received a body from a virgin, and to have remodelled the old man by a new creation. And we believe the Logos to have passed through every period in this life, in order that He Himself might serve as a law for every age, and that, by being present (amongst) us, He might exhibit His own manhood as an aim for all men. And that by Himself in person He might prove that God made nothing evil, and that man possesses the capacity of self-determination, inasmuch as he is able to will and not to will, and is endued with power to do both. This Man we know to have been made out of the compound of our humanity. For if He were not of the same nature with ourselves, in vain does He ordain that we should imitate the Teacher. For if that Man happened to be of a different substance from us, why does He lay injunctions similar to those He has received on myself, who am born weak; and how is this the act of one that is good and just? In order, however, that He might not be supposed to be different from us, He even underwent toil, and was willing to endure hunger, and did not refuse to feel thirst, and sunk into the quietude of slumber. He did not protest against His Passion, but became obedient unto death, and manifested His resurrection. Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own manhood, in order that thou, when thou art in tribulation, mayest not be disheartened, but, confessing thyself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer), mayest dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this Son."

Saint Cyprian (250 A.D.)

"That the liberty of believing or of not believing is placed in free choice.

In Deuteronomy: “Lo, I have set before thy face life and death, good and evil. Choose for thyself life, that thou mayest live.” Also in Isaiah: “And if ye be willing, and hear me, ye shall eat the good of the land. But if ye be unwilling, and will not hear me, the sword shall consume you. For the mouth of the Lord hath spoken these things.” Also in the Gospel according to Luke: “The kingdom of God is within you.”"

Saint Cyprian (250 A.D.)

"That every one is tempted so much as he is able to bear.

In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: “No temptation shall take you, except such is human. But God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”"

Arnobius (305 A.D.)

"But, my opponents ask, if Christ came as the Saviour of men, as you say, why does He not, with uniform benevolence, free all without exception? I reply, does not He free all alike who invites all alike? or does He thrust back or repel any one from the kindness of the Supreme who gives to all alike the power of coming to Him,—to men of high rank, to the meanest slaves, to women, to boys? To all, He says, the fountain of life is open, and no one is hindered or kept back from drinking. If you are so fastidious as to spurn the kindly offered gift, nay, more, if your wisdom is so great that you term those things which are offered by Christ ridiculous and absurd, why should He keep on inviting you, while His only duty is to make the enjoyment of His bounty depend upon your own free choice?"

Methodius of Olympus (311 A.D.)

"Because there is nothing evil by nature, but it is by use that evil things become such. So I say, says he, that man was made with a free-will, not as if there were already evil in existence, which he had the power of choosing if he wished, but on account of his capacity of obeying or disobeying God.

For this was the meaning of the gift of Free Will. And man after his creation receives a commandment from God; and from this at once rises evil, for he does not obey the divine command; and this alone is evil, namely, disobedience, which had a beginning.

For man received power, and enslaved himself, not because he was overpowered by the irresistible tendencies of his nature, nor because the capacity with which he was gifted deprived him of what was better for him; for it was for the sake of this that I say he was endowed with it (but he received the power above mentioned), in order that he may obtain an addition to what he already possesses, which accrues to him from the Superior Being in consequence of his obedience, and is demanded as a debt from his Maker. For I say that man was made not for destruction, but for better things. For if he were made as any of the elements, or those things which render a similar service to God, he would cease to receive a reward befitting deliberate choice, and would be like an instrument of the maker; and it would be unreasonable for him to suffer blame for his wrong-doings, for the real author of them is the one by whom he is used. But man did not understand better things, since he did not know the author (of his existence), but only the object for which he was made. I say therefore that God, purposing thus to honour man, and to grant him an understanding of better things, has given him the power of being able to do what he wishes, and commends the employment of his power for better things; not that He deprives him again of free-will, but wishes to deprives him again of free-will, but wishes to point out the better way. For the power is present with him, and he receives the commandment; but God exhorts him to turn his power of choice to better things. For as a father exhorts his son, who has power to learn his lessons, to give more attention to them inasmuch as, while he points out this as the better course, he does not deprive his son of the power which he possessed, even if he be not inclined to learn willingly; so I do not think that God, while He urges on man to obey His commands, deprives him of the power of purposing and withholding obedience. For He points out the cause of His giving this advice, in that He does not deprive him of the power. But He gives commands, in order that man may be able to enjoy better things. For this is the consequence of obeying the commands of God. So that He does not give commands in order to take away the power which He has given, but in order that a better gift may be bestowed, as to one worthy of attaining greater things, in return for his having rendered obedience to God, while he had power to withhold it. I say that man was made with free-will, not as if there were already existing same evil, which he had the power of choosing if he wished, ... but that the power of obeying and disobeying God is the only cause."

Archelaus (320 A.D.)

"The judges said: He has given demonstration enough of the origin of the devil. And as both sides admit that there will be a judgment, it is necessarily involved in that admission that every individual is shown to have free-will; and since this is brought clearly out, there can be no doubt that every individual, in the exercise of his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he pleases."

Also, I've noticed that I'm not alone in trying to fight this. Our friend Maximus Scott over at Classical Christianity was tackling this issue at the same time I was. And he is doing a great job at gathering quotes.

I've noticed the Holiness Movement Arminians doing something similar. They are working on a movie/documentary called Beyond Augustine:

And so, it's not just me trying to do something about this: which is good.

Why the Mother of God was Ever-Virgin

2011-03-25T14:00:00.010-03:00

Because the following statement makes no sense coming from the lips of an already-engaged and soon-to-be-married young woman:

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

We've already been told several verses earlier, in Luke 1:27, that she was "espoused to a man whose name was Joseph ".

Thus, the usual reaction one would normally expect from her in such a situation would be: "Are you telling me that mine and Joseph's future child will be the Messiah of Israel ?"

Hence why the Church's "unbiblical" interpretation of their engagement as being one of paternal protection is more tenable than the equally-unbiblical ¹ Protestant belief that their betrothal was meant for future wedding and child-bearing.

¹ Unless one can show me just where exactly in the Bible the brethren of the Lord are called "children" or "sons of Mary"...

Al Pacino on God, Guilt, Fasting, Abstinence, and Morality

2011-03-24T15:30:00.006-03:00

- What do you want from me?

- I want you to be yourself. You know, I’ll tell you, boy: guilt... it's like a bag of bricks. All you got to do... is set it down. I know what you're going through: I’ve been there. Just... Let it go.

- I can't do that.

- Who are you carrying all those bricks for? God? Is that it? God!? I’ll tell you... Let me give you a little "inside information" about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster ! Think about it! He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift... and then what does He do? I swear, for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition ! It's the goof of all time ! Look... but don't touch ! Touch... but don't taste ! Taste... but don't swallow ! And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' !... He's a sadist! He's an absentee landlord ! Worship that? Never!

Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves in The Devil's Advocate

Tom Cruise On Lent, And Its Effects On People

2011-03-23T14:25:00.004-03:00

Poor guy: he sure seems worn out by all the fasting... :-(
(Looks like all that asceticism and abstinence really got to him... big time!)

The First Words From The Savior's Lips:

2011-03-22T23:15:00.002-03:00

Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mark 1:14 ¶Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Protestants Are Right! The Orthodox Are Idolaters And Worship Pagan Gods !!!

2011-03-21T15:15:00.005-03:00

Before, there were idols, pagan temples and those who offer sacrifice to the idols. And now, they exist as thoughts in the soul. He who is a slave to debauchery worships the idol of Aphrodite. He who becomes angry and enraged worships the idol of Ares. He who is avaricious and closed to the pain and misery of his neighbor worships the idol Hermes. If you refrain from all of this and preserve yourself from passions, you have overcome idols, you have rejected an evil belief and have become a martyr for the True Faith.

Abba Athanasius

Second Sunday of Lent: Saint Gregory Palamas, Apophatic Theology, and the Essence vs. Energies Distinction

2011-03-20T14:45:00.015-03:00

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware talks about Saint Gregory Palamas, Apophatic Theology,
and the Essence vs. Energies Distinction

Apophatic Theology

Audio:

St. Gregory Palamas - 2^nd Sunday of Lent, by Fr. Thomas Hopko

God: Essence and Energies, by Kevin Allen, Steve McMeans, and Dr. David Bradshaw, professor of Philosophy and the Philosophy of Religion at the University of Kentucky.

Articles:

The Bradshaw Papers, by Dr. David Bradshaw

The Concept of Divine Energies, by Dr. David Bradshaw

The Distinction Between Essence and Energies and its Importance for Theology, by Christos Yannaras

Chapters 68-76 from the One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, by St. Gregory Palamas

Notes on the Palamite Controversy, by John S. Romanides

What's Holding You Back?

2011-03-20T10:35:00.008-03:00

Here's what's holding me back...

Exodus 20:2-3, Deuteronomy 5:6-7
I am the LORD thy God: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Proverbs 23:26
My son, give me thine heart.

Matthew 6:21, Luke 12:34
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Philippians 3:19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.

The Difference Between Orthodoxy and Jainism

2011-03-19T12:00:00.001-03:00

Hey, don't look at me, I don't got all the answers...

The Difference Between Lent And Ramadan

2011-03-18T14:40:00.003-03:00

None, if you're not willing to give up on the one thing that truly counts and really matters...

Fasting = Castration + Evisceration

2011-03-17T11:35:00.002-03:00

Just do the math, if you don't believe me...

If You Think Catholics Are Evil For Not Allowing Their Priests To Marry...

2011-03-16T15:50:00.009-03:00

Think again!
At least they have the decency, common sense, and courtesy to restrict such impossible demands to clergy alone! In Orthodoxy, on the other hand, everybody's canon-fodder, and no one's safe...

P.S.: I can't help thinking about the poor Catholic Priest as some sort of scapegoat or 'sacrificial victim', whose "Vicarious Chastity" and Celibacy is meant to atone for the general half-heartedness, superficiality, and lukewarm-ness of his parishioners... Speaking of being in persona Christi !

Heaven as Hell: The Gospel According to Mark (Twain)

2011-03-14T12:30:00.003-03:00

For instance, take this sample: he [mortal man] has imagined a heaven, and has left entirely out of it the supremest of all his delights, the one ecstasy that stands first and foremost in the heart of every individual of his race -- and of ours -- sexual intercourse!

It is as if a lost and perishing person in a roasting desert should be told by a rescuer he might choose and have all longed-for things but one, and he should elect to leave out water!

His [man's] heaven is like himself: strange, interesting, astonishing, grotesque. I give you my word, it has not a single feature in it that he actually values. It consists -- utterly and entirely -- of diversions which he cares next to nothing about, here in the earth, yet is quite sure he will like them in heaven. Isn't it curious? Isn't it interesting? You must not think I am exaggerating, for it is not so. I will give you details.

You know what the human race enjoys and what it doesn't enjoy.
1. First of all, I recall to your attention the extraordinary fact with which I began. To wit, that the human being, like the immortals, naturally places sexual intercourse far and away above all other joys -- yet he has left it out of his heaven! The very thought of it excites him; opportunity sets him wild; in this state he will risk life, reputation, everything -- even his queer heaven itself -- to make good that opportunity and ride it to the overwhelming climax. From youth to middle age all men and all women prize copulation above all other pleasures combined, yet it is actually as I have said: it is not in their heaven; prayer takes its place.

That rich gift [intercourse] which, possessed as we possess it, makes all other possessions trivial and not worth the trouble of invoicing.

Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth, pp. 8-11

Romans 9 and Reformed Theology

2011-03-14T05:29:00.006-03:00

Holy Scripture and the Church

2011-03-13T23:54:00.006-03:00

"Christ founded the Church. The Church existed even when there was not yet a single book of New Testament Scripture. The books of the New Testament were written by the Apostles later, over the course of more than half a century after the beginning of the historical existence of the Church. In the books written by them, the Apostles left behind testimony of their oral preaching of the Gospel. They wrote for a Church already in existence, and entrusted their books to the Church to serve as perpetual edification. It is evident that the books of Holy Scripture do not constitute the essence of Christianity, since Christianity itself is not a teaching but a new life, established in mankind by the Holy Spirit on the basis of the Incarnation of the Son of God. Thus, it would not be impertinent to say that it is not by Holy Scripture, as a book, that man is saved, but by the grace of the Holy Spirit, Who lives in the Church. The Church guides people to perfection. In the Church there are also other ways, other means to that effect, besides the books of Holy Scripture. St. Irenaeus of Lyons writes: “Many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ” have “salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, carefully preserving the ancient tradition... Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom.” In order to become a follower of a particular philosophical school it is necessary to assimilate the philosophical works by the father of that school. But is it sufficient to know the New Testament in order to become a Christian? Would this knowledge be enough for salvation? Certainly not. It is possible to know the entire New Testament by heart, it is possible to know perfectly the entire teaching of the New Testament, and still be very, very far from salvation. For salvation it is necessary to be added to the Church, just as it is said in the Book of Acts that those who were being saved were added to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13–14). This was when there were no Scriptures, but there was the Church, and there were those who were being saved. Why was it essential to be added to the Church? It is because special grace-bearing power is needed for salvation, and this power can only be possessed by those who participate in the life of the Church, in the life of the single and indivisible Body of Christ. The grace-filled power of the Holy Spirit acts in the Church in many different ways: in the Mysteries and rites of the Church, in common prayer and mutual love, in church services; and, as the divinely inspired Word of God, it also operates through the books of Holy Scripture. Here we are coming close to the definition of Holy Scripture. The books of Holy Scripture are one of the means in the Church through which the grace-filled power of God acts upon people. The Spirit of God gives life only to the body of the Church, and therefore Holy Scripture can have meaning and significance only within the Church. “Flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures. For the Church has been planted [like a Paradise] in this world; therefore says the Spirit of God, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat (Gen. 2:16), that is, Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord.” Thus, Holy Scripture is one of the manifestations of the common grace-filled life of the Church. Holy Scripture is the property of the Church, precious and priceless, but precisely the Church’s property. Holy Scripture cannot be torn away from the overall life of the Church. Only the Church gives meaning to the existence of Scripture. Holy Scripture is not an independent quantity; it cannot be considered a law given to the Church that she can fulfill and from which she can deviate. Holy Scripture arose in the midst of the Church and for the sake of the Church. The Church possesses Holy Scripture and uses it for the benefit of her members."

New Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Verey,
Holy Scripture and the Church

Why Orthodoxy is the True Faith (Extended Version)

2011-03-13T14:50:00.012-03:00

Antiquity. Universality. And Consensus.

These are the three marks of truth, according to Saint Vincent of Lerins, and -among all Christian denominations- only Orthodoxy possesses all three of them, as we shall easily show in the following paragraphs:

Protestantism lacks all three of them, primarily antiquity, the first Protestant denominations dating back to no sooner than the 16^th century, or -more precisely- to 1517 AD. Even the so-called Pre-Reformers did not exist prior to the 12^th, 14^th, or 15^th centuries.

Among the remaining four¹ ancient and apostolic churches, only Orthodoxy possesses universality, as we shall now demonstrate:

Catholicism is distinguished by its unique, local belief in the Filioque, completely unknown to all other ancient and apostolic churches.

Monophysitism or Miaphysitism is distinguished by its unique, local belief in the one nature of Jesus Christ, completely unknown to all other ancient and apostolic churches.

Nestorianism is distinguished by its unique, local belief in the two persons of Jesus Christ (Jesus the man, and Christ our God), completely unknown to all other ancient and apostolic churches.

	Protestantism	Catholicism	Orthodoxy	Monophysitism	Nestorianism
Antiquity	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Filioque	-	Yes	No	No	No
One Nature in Christ	No	No	No	Yes	No
Two Persons in Christ	No	No	No	No	Yes

Therefore –among all the ancient and apostolic churches– Orthodoxy is the only one that possesses catholicity, being thus "the one holy catholic and apostolic church" of the Nicene creed.

¹ I did not take into account artificial hybrids, or unification movements, such as Eastern Catholicism (between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy), Oriental Catholicism (between Catholicism and Oriental Orthodoxy), and Monothelitism or Monoenergism (the Maronites of Lebanon: between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy), all of which lack both antiquity, as well as universality.

"Atheism & Morality" Debate and Other Announcements

2011-03-12T19:17:00.003-04:00

"Atheism and Morality" Debate

Halloween on the Old Calendar: When "Tales from the Crypt" Meets the Menaion

2011-03-12T13:55:00.007-04:00

Today is the Saturday of Saint Theodore.
He was an early Christian Martyr and Military Saint, along with Saint George and Saint Demetrius. He was killed by being tied to running horses, and dragged by them for miles, until he died exhausted from severe wounds and bleedings. His celebration is especially honored among the Slavs: i.e., working on this day would be forbidden. My maternal grandmother is of Slavic (Bulgarian) background: her family-name is Putin. (Sounds all really sweet and innocent until now, doesn't it?...)

Now I'm gonna tell you a creepy little horror-story, that my granny used to tell me back when I was a little kid, and which scared the living life out of me: it's the kind of stuff that they don't tell you in Convert-Land. (If you have enough trouble dealing with the Ascension of Mary, then you better hold your horses [pun intended], 'cause this one's gonna give you a heart-attack...)

Saint Theodore's Horses
It was Saint Theodore's day. Everybody was supposed to rest. But, in a small remote village, an old mother and her young daughters had still a lot of unfinished business around the household... lots and lots of chores to be done... The younger sibling was feeling a bit sick and under the weather (plus, she was weak, and way too young), so her mother decided she better stay at home, while the others go and wash all the clothes and bed-sheets down by the river... While they were doing that, a group of handsome and fine-looking young men approached them, dressed in nice festive clothes, and wearing long boots. The girls started giggling, as they considered them strong and attractive... The lads approached the young women, and asked them why they work on Saint Theodore's day. They answered that they didn't really want to, but -that again- they didn't have much choice in the matter either, since there was all this work that still had to be done... But -as the lasses looked closer at the fine, handsome young men- they saw hair coming out of their curiously-long boots... It looked strange... like a horse's tail... and their manly laughter sounded like neighs... As evening drew close, and the day became darker and darker, the elderly mother was beginning to worry about the daughters she sent away to wash bed-covers down at the river, as they didn't seem to be coming back, nor was any shadow to be seen at the horizon... So she prepared some food, and sent the youngest away to bring them dinner... As the young maiden approached the place where her older sisters were supposed to be, she saw no sign of them, but only what from a distance appeared to be bed-clothes, hanging out to dry. As she came closer and closer, a frightening sight began to slowly reveal itself to her young and innocent eyes: what she at first thought resembled clothes left out to dry on a wire, were actually human guts and bowels, dripping with blood... Terrified to death, and barely able to hold her breath, the young child ran desperately home; her agonizing flight seemed to last an eternity... As she finally arrived, with tears running down her cheeks, and with her white dress all soaked in cold sweat, she told her mother the gruesome news: -- but the night was far from over!... Quickly, in fear, shock, and sheer terror, the old woman left everything that she was working on, locked everything up, and turned everything in the house upside-down, save for the egg and the rasp (which are symmetrical). Then they just sat there... waiting quietly, in the dark... all alone, just the two of them... frightened and scared to death... shivering, and holding their breath... As midnight drew near, strange whickering sounds began to be heard in the distance... As the disturbing noises drew closer, footsteps of boots (or were those hooves?...) resounded on the ground, near the door of the house... Knock, knock... "Open the door!" No answer. The door-latch clanked and clicked and turned... but the door was locked! "Open the door!" All the things in the house were turned upside-down, so they were unable to respond the call... except the egg and the rasp. The first fell, being round and slippery, and crashed, splashing on the floor... the second also slipped, and cracked as it hit the ground, breaking into pieces. -- And this is how the two helpless women were able to escape the avenging wrath of... Saint Theodore's Horses !

And you thought the Jews were harsh for stoning people who broke the Sabbath...

Sweet dreams, everyone!

(And sleep tight!)

Welcome on Board, Thom!

2011-03-12T13:49:00.002-04:00

We've just accepted a new member on the team!

The Joy of Lent !

2011-03-11T13:45:00.003-04:00

You just want to SCREAM for joy!

Matthew 8:29 What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Apostolic Succession: The Pre-Augustinian View

2011-03-10T21:45:00.008-04:00

"In Augustine’s mind, therefore, the Donatists were within the apostolic succession. Their bishops had been consecrated by bishops who had been validly consecrated, and because the sacrament confers an indelible grace, they retain valid orders. Further, the Donatist bishops retained the ability to pass on valid orders to those they ordained. A subtle shift has taken place in the concept of apostolic succession. In the earlier patristic view the Church itself, the eucharistic community, was the bearer of the succession. The individual bishop participated in and carried the succession because of his office as head of the apostolic community. For Augustine, each individual bishop carries within himself the indelible mark of apostolic succession and is able in and of himself to pass it on, whether or not he has remained in communion with the Catholic Church. Thus, apostolic succession becomes a matter of episcopal “pedigree,” of who ordained whom, rather than of integration into a community which is itself apostolic. Continuity was disconnected from community. If the validity of the apostolic succession resides in the individual bishop, whether or not he is connected to the community, some means needed to be developed to determine whether or not a particular bishop is within the succession. In the Western Church four criteria were developed to determine the validity of a consecration. Three are exoteric (exterior) criteria. The fourth is esoteric (interior).

(1) Form: The consecration must be done in the context of the eucharistic liturgy to be valid. This emphasizes the connection of the ordination with the community. A consecration done secretly in the bishop’s study, for example, would not be a valid consecration.

(2) Matter: There must be an actual laying on of hands by a bishop during the liturgy. Prayer is not sufficient in and of itself.

(3) Minister: The one who performs the consecration must himself be a validly consecrated bishop within the apostolic succession.

(4) Intention: The intent of the laying on of hands and the prayer within the liturgy must be to ordain or consecrate the person to holy orders. One could conceivably lay hands on someone during the liturgy for prayer for healing, for blessing, or for some other worthy purpose, without intent to ordain. This criterion removes the possibility of someone claiming to be a bishop or priest simply because he had received the “laying on of hands” in the liturgy. The intent must be to ordain.

In modern Western Christian thinking, if these criteria were met in a consecration, a bishop is within the apostolic succession and may ordain others who are within the succession, whether or not he remains in communion with the Church. This has led to the proliferation of numerous groups, usually small, who claim to be in the apostolic succession but are in communion with no one. These bishops are called episcopi vagantes, wandering bishops. The Orthodox Church, following the earlier patristic tradition, holds that apostolic succession is carried by the community. To be within the succession, a bishop must be properly elected by the diocese he is to administrate, be approved by the legitimate governing synod to which he will be accountable, be consecrated by bishops within the Orthodox Church, and remain faithfully in communion with the Orthodox Church. Once a bishop leaves the Church in schism, the Church is not obligated to recognize any consecrations or ordinations he performs. Thus, for the Orthodox, the episcopi vagantes are not within the succession. Nor are the Anglicans or the Roman Catholics necessarily seen as fully in the succession, although in practice the Church has received Catholic priests without requiring them to be ordained in the Orthodox Church. For the Orthodox, to be a part of the eucharistic community of the unbroken One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is to be in the apostolic succession. To separate from it is to be outside the succession, no matter by whom one was ordained."

Fr. Gregory Rogers, Apostolic Succession, pages 32-34.

The First Two Rules Of Fasting

2011-03-10T14:02:00.004-04:00

Matthew 6:16 ¶Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; 18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

1 Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

2 Timothy 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

1 Corinthians 9:24 ¶Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: 27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Protestantism: Giving Up Fasting For Lent Since 1517 AD

2011-03-09T15:00:00.001-04:00

Whoever said Protestants don't give up anything for Lent!?...

The Faith that Established the Universe!

2011-03-09T04:14:00.008-04:00

Christ Refutes One of the Solas !

2011-03-08T15:50:00.003-04:00

Matthew 4:4 It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 4:4 It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Are you an adept of Sola Pane ? Do you believe that man shall live by bread alone ?

What Would Jesus Do?

2011-03-07T12:55:00.002-04:00

He'd fast.

Matthew 4:1 ¶Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

Luke 4:1 ¶And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

Matthew 9:14 ¶Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not? 15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

Mark 2:18 ¶And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not? 19 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

Luke 5:33 And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink? 34 And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? 35 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

Lenten Prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian

2011-03-06T14:19:00.027-04:00

Lord and Master of my life¹,

The spirit of laziness, and of the care for many things, of the lust for power, and of idle-talk, take away from me.

But the spirit of purity and meekness, of patience and love, grant unto me, Thy servant.

Therefore, Lord and King, grant that I may realize my own mistakes, and keep me from judging my brother,

For You are blessed forevermore,

Amen.
____________________________________
¹ Is God really the Master of your life ?...

Our One True God

2011-03-05T16:45:00.006-04:00

A guy can change anything: his face, his home, his family, his girlfriend, his religion, his God... But there's one thing he can't change... He can't change his passion...

I said our one true God, NOT the one true God...

A Short Summary of Over Five Years of Apologetic Efforts

2011-03-03T18:50:00.002-04:00

Romans 10:21 All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Fasting: The Entrance-Gate Into A Sexless Eternity

2011-03-01T13:45:00.002-04:00

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.