Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I have been far too busy to read every post. I glad you repeated this as I missed it. Dr. E has a knack for posting these gems.
So is the Incarnation an "uncreated energy" or one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity? Or both?
Regards
A person is not formally Christian if he is not baptized, ESPECIALLY if he is aware of it! This person is rejecting what is clearly in Sacred Scriptures - that baptism remits sins and brings us into contact with the Paschal Mystery of Christ's Redemptive Work. Of course, I do not judge what God will do with such people. But one wonders why they are not baptized...
Do you think God makes that many exceptions, or are most of them lost BECAUSE their sins were never remitted through a proxy baptism?
I don't know if there is a proxy baptism for an adult. That is reserved for infants, although Paul talks about baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians. Not sure what he means except applying Christ's work to the already dead. I don't think Christianity has accepted this as doctrine, although there it is...
BTW, what church was John the Baptist a part of when he did his baptisms? How does the Church now get credit for effecting the work of Jesus on the cross? How could JTB effect work that hadn't been done yet?
The same Church that believing and faithful Jews of the OT and Christians of the NT and subsequent later Christians are part of. There always has been only one Church, when broadly defined as the People of God. This Church is catholic (not Roman!) in that it is universal. The Jews were the visible manifestation of this in the OT, and the Catholic Church is the visible manifestation of it now - although there are many sheep outside its visible doors.
Except this rarely happens in practice, right? In normal practice there is no believer, there is no faith, and there is no "taking" into the heart. These are supplied on the side, and are wholly apart from the baptizee. It seems an odd situation for something so important to take place.
That's where we have Confirmation, which is normally a teenager "confirming" the sacrament of Baptism under his own volitional desires. The graces received are strengthened, but no new mark is placed on the Christian.
And by "personally saved", you mean unto that person is no longer saved.
Not sure what that means...
Regards
I've noticed that you asked a couple of times about the Incarnation vis a vis uncreated energies. I'm not sure what exactly you are asking.
At the Incarnation, God the Son became man as well, taking on human flesh and our human nature. In this hypostatic union, both natures were uniquely enhypostasized into a single hypostasis/person. Christ's human nature is, by definition, created, since he took it on from a created being -- his mother. Our hymnology is filled with wonder that the Creator became a creature. God the Son is not created (as in Arianism), nor is there a separate created human hypostasis (as in Nestorianism). All that pertains to his Divine nature is uncreated and is of one essence with the Father and the Spirit.
Energies are similar to the Western concept of attributes -- except that they are active, dynamic and living, and not static and descriptive objects of contemplation.
When we receive, for instance, the grace of the Holy Mysteries, this is participation directly in the life of God's uncreated energies. If they were created, gnostic-like emanations and what=not, then they would not be Divine. They would be from God, but not *of* God.
Sorry, I was being technical.
we would never imagine that when we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mystical Supper that we become divine by nature, let alone in essence/substance.
When I say "share", that doesn't mean I become divine. I think we mean the same thing, using different words. It means that my human nature is raised up so that I am enabled to love my enemies and so forth, something only God can do, not human nature sans grace.
But again, the fundamental relationship between the Father and the Son is not that they share a common essence or nature -- it is that the Father begets the Son and the Son is begotten of the Father. This is the starting point of what we know about their relationship.
Yes, that is Scriptural and from the Fathers. Again, though, that is the language used by the Fathers (essence and nature) to describe the differences between the Father and Son. We don't have a relationship with an essence, but a person - but this is only terminology. That person consists of a particular existence, and essence. And by Him abiding within us, we come into contact with it, although our "sight" of it is very limited.
The personal and the practical are the starting points -- and the Incarnation is of course at the center of that: "he who has seen me has seen the Father."
The metaphysical terms are just an attempt to objectify the experience of the mystic. Otherwise, we cannot ground our individual experiences into one common theme.
I would say, though, that the terminology of the uncreated energies is a way of expressing a number of truths that are throughout Scripture and the patristic writings, none of which began with St. Gregory and the hesychasts: I would say it is not clear that the Cappadocians were not talking about "uncreated energy" in the same way that Gregory Palamas later discussed them and then took on a dogmatic understanding with subsequent Orthodoxy. Palamas' is one interpretation of the Patristic tradition - but St. Thomas and the West do not interpret the Cappadocians as saying "uncreated" energies. However, I would like to do more reading on this subject.
Regards
Here are a few examples, there are several dozen others...
"Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, *goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." Rom 11:20-23
"Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified." 1 Cor 9:24-27
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Cor 6:9-10
"Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain." 1 Cor 15:1-2
"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Gal 5:19-21
"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." Heb 10:26-27
These are just SOME from Paul, many others from Jesus and other writers of the NT. And of course, the OT is rife with the wicked not inheriting the "Kingdom".
A person takes on the Work of Christ from his POV at the point of belief.
And is THAT "saving faith", that minute you "take on the work of Christ"? I look on this as more preparation for the Spirit's fuller entrance into our lives during Baptism - where we become children of God and partakers of the Divine Nature. One must be born anew by the Spirit. God calls for a response of faith - Baptism.
What is "Baptized by blood"?
a martyr is considered baptized when he dies for the faith willingly, even if he was merely prepared by the Spirit and not formally baptized. The Spirit enters into the martyr in a way that achieves the effect of baptism to the non-martyr.
I mean, I think that our sins are remitted by the blood of Christ, as it says in the Bible
They are! Baptism and the Cross are united together. What did Paul say to the Romans:
"Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin." Romans 6:2-6
Through our baptism, we are buried with Christ, united with the Passion and its effects. As a result, we have "died" to sin and now can partake in the glory of God, even now, although incompletely.
Does the Bible speak of the two-step method as applied by the Church, or of these other methods you mention.
It is not a two step process. Christ's death is called Redemption. It is enough and efficacious for each and every man ever created. However, it is NOT APPLIED to each and every man. This is where faith and baptism come into play. When we respond to God's gracious gifts, we receive the effects that God has promised to those who turn to Him (I hope you realize that we are not turning by our own power!)
If it helps, think of Christ's Work as liquid soap stored in a great big vat. It is available for free to anyone who wants to wash themselves. All you have to do is go to the spigot and draw some out. If you don't draw some out, you won't get cleaned...
Regards
You won't be saved without any fruits...
"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit...If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned" John 15:2,6
"because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear, For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." Romans 11:20-22
A tree without fruit will be condemned, just as Christ did to the fig tree with only leaves and no fruit...
Works (of love) do not save by themselves, but if you don't have them, you won't be saved.
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith [WITHOUT WORKS] save him?" NO! James 2:14
Regards
According to your explanations of "uncreated energies" and the related doctrine, man cannot contact God's essence directly. He must do so through this "uncreated energy". Thus, is Jesus Christ, the Incarnation who comes to our hearts - is HE an uncreated energy - NOT GOD HIMSELF - OR is He God Himself AND a man (the Mediator), in other words, man DOES contact God's self (which throws the doctrine upside down)?
Or am I still misunderstanding the distinction between "uncreated energy" and God?
Regards
These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. John 15:11
I'm reminded of Mary and Martha.
I don't disagree with it at all! That is why I used the Lord's description of the relationship between Jesus and man. There is no doubt an interaction between God and man, one led and initiated by God, but participated in by man nonetheless. Note, a BRANCH WITHOUT FRUIT is cut AWAY. Thus, the vine provides the necessary nourishment and ability to grow fruit to the branch. It is the branch that "decides" whether to respond or not. If we provide fruit, it is from God, but it doesn't bypass us...
Christ wants us to abide in Him simply so that we will have His joy. This joy manifests itself though our works.
No doubt. And without these works, you won't be saved, as your joy will not be complete and you will be cut away (and Paul says the same to the Romans).
I'm reminded of Mary and Martha.
Immediately before the Lucan story of Martha and Mary, note the Sacred Writ describes the Good Samaritan. BOTH means are necessary to come to God - our contemplation and faith in God and our love for our neighbor.
Regards
But perhaps they consulted Cavarnos, who in his Guide to Byzantine Iconography, Volume One, writes:
In traditional Orthodox iconography, there are several ways of representing the Resurrection of Christ. The most official one is called "The Resurrection" and also "The Descent into Hades." This way of representing the event shows its inner, mystical, cosmic significance. Other depictions are "The Touching of Thomas," "The Myrrh-bearing Women," "Christ Manifesting Himself to the Myrrh-bearing Women," and "The Apostles Peter and John at the Tomb".[...]
The upper part of the icon is inscribed E ANASTASIS ("The Resurrection") or E EIS ADOU KATHODOS ("The Descent into Hades").
Note that regardless of the inscription chosen, it is the same icon can be called in two ways. The second name, however, makes the icon comprehensible to a casual spectator, who may otherwise conjecture that Christ is depicted rising from His own grave.
In an exhibit dedicated to Byzantine influences in the West it is entirely appropriate to translate Hades as Limbo, which designates the same thing.
Hmmmm...I didn't know a "branch" could decide anything. I thought it was a natural shoot that drew it strength from the roots. I would interpret a "branch without fruit is cut away" as meaning the tares of the church; those who cry, "Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name...." who the Lord, "never knew". The branches that bear fruit are the true Christian who our Lord tenderly watches over, pruning us so that we bear more fruit.
BOTH means are necessary to come to God - our contemplation and faith in God and our love for our neighbor.
While we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, that is a very hard task to do; one that we fail in. I doubt if many of us have love for Bin Laden or Adolf Hitler. Love is a very complicated process; never seeming to be administered equally or misunderstood. I certainly hope my coming to God is not dependent on my love for my neighbor because I will fail miserably.
I agree. The fruitless ones will not be saved. They will be CUT OFF. This implies they were ONCE part of the "vine". Thus, salvation is not assured, is it? A fruitless branch will be cut off. Salvation without fruit is impossible.
I certainly hope my coming to God is not dependent on my love for my neighbor because I will fail miserably.
With God, all things are possible, Harley. God doesn't require perfection on earth, that is only for those who place themselves under a system of Law. We are under Grace, and as long as we don't refuse God's gifts, we will produce fruit. When I say "we", note I am not speaking of myself producing the fruits alone. I just got done reading St. Augustine's commentary on these very verses, and HE TOO makes that distinction. God's graces enable us to do the formerly impossible.
Regards
"Again, though, that is the language used by the Fathers (essence and nature) to describe the differences between the Father and Son."
I don't understand this sentence. Essence and nature are precisely things that do *not* describe differences between the Father and the Son. They are of one essence, and share a common Divine nature, and they also have the same Divine energies. This essence, this nature, and these energies are uniquely enhypostasized in the 3 distinct hypostases of the Holy Trinity.
"We don't have a relationship with an essence, but a person - but this is only terminology."
Agreed. At the heart of a relationship with a person is that it is, well, personal -- terminology doesn't really come into play at all at that point. This is why the Scriptures and early Fathers didn't begin to spell out all of this terminology from the beginning. They had that personal relationship with God, participated in the divine energies, etc... For those who experience this life in Christ, there is no need for definition and terminology.
"That person consists of a particular existence, and essence."
Not quite true. Again, in the case of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, there is a unique enhypostasization as I described above. It is only through personal relationships and interactions with God in his 3 persons that we have any apprehension at all that there even *is* a Divine essence. The Divine essence is not the Person.
"And by Him abiding within us, we come into contact with it, although our "sight" of it is very limited."
Christ reveals himself to men "as far as they can bear it" -- to paraphrase the troparion for the Feast of the Transfiguration. We understand that the process of theosis involves an increasing of our ability to bear participation in the Divine energies of God -- and that this process will, in the next life, continue without end, with a multiplicity of choices in how to proceed in this ongoing life of theosis -- *all* of which will then be good choices.
"The metaphysical terms are just an attempt to objectify the experience of the mystic. Otherwise, we cannot ground our individual experiences into one common theme."
True. You are probably meaning to say this, but I think that the purpose of "objectifying" and describing the spiritual life is to prevent what we in the Orthodox world call "prelest," or spiritual delusion by the demons or by ones self. An experience can be compared to that of those whom the Church knows to be saints and those experienced in the spiritual life.
Incidentally, this is why Orthodoxy has grave reservations, to say the least, about the post-schismatic ecstatic Catholic mystical tradition, which involves things that had never before been described -- except in descriptions of prelest in the desert fathers and others. We don't need to go into this, since much e-ink has been spilled on that subject on previous threads.
My point in bringing it up is to try to convey the serious practical implications for Palamite theology, and why we Orthodox do not at all view this as a speculative matter. We don't engage in speculation for the sake of speculation -- there is always a practical spiritual matter at stake that means the difference between spiritual health and spiritual sickness.
"I would say, though, that the terminology of the uncreated energies is a way of expressing a number of truths that are throughout Scripture and the patristic writings, none of which began with St. Gregory and the hesychasts: I would say it is not clear that the Cappadocians were not talking about "uncreated energy" in the same way that Gregory Palamas later discussed them and then took on a dogmatic understanding with subsequent Orthodoxy."
I would agree 100% with that statement. I believe that it is a certainty that the Cappadocians, and indeed all saints, regardless of where geographically one was in the undivided Church, experienced what St. Gregory described. The experiences that St. Gregory described were not new, but the terminology was. The terminology and metaphysical constructs of Barlaam were incorrect and had the very real potential to point people down the wrong spiritual path.
"Palamas' is one interpretation of the Patristic tradition - but St. Thomas and the West do not interpret the Cappadocians as saying "uncreated" energies. However, I would like to do more reading on this subject."
There may be other ways of describing the same phenomena and realities (and Aquinas may have ways of doing so -- Kolokotronis is the Aquinas expert on the Orthodox side around here), but there are *not* multiple realities in the spiritual life. St. Gregory's descriptions explain very well the realities of the spiritual life, from those in the Garden of Eden, to the patriarchs and prophets, and throughout the Christian era. We cling to them and know that they are a sure and safe guide in the spiritual life.
Hey, hey, you know I was just poking at you, Alex!
Cavarnos is absolutely correct that "The Descent into Hades" is a proper description of that icon. There are many who believe that this is properly *only* a Holy Saturday icon, and not a proper icon for the Resurrection of Christ, since Christ is not rising from the tomb in that icon. They believe, with good justification, that the proper icon of the Resurrection is the one with the angel pointing at the empty tomb with the Myrrhbearing Women looking on.
If Catholicism believes that all of the OT Righteous were in Limbo prior to Christ's resurrection, and that Limbo is the exact equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol, or place of the dead, then their labelling it "Descent into Limbo" can be justified.
My only association with Limbo as a Protestant was regarding it as a place for unbaptized babies to go -- neither heaven nor hell. Do you think that Westerners would have a broader conception of Limbo than that?
The vividness of the Descent into Hades icon explains its popularity as the icon of the Resurrection.
"According to your explanations of "uncreated energies" and the related doctrine, man cannot contact God's essence directly."
We cannot know, apprehend, become, or become joined with the Divine Essence. He is God and we are not.
"He must do so through this "uncreated energy"."
The uncreated energies of God are not separate from God. That is the whole point to insisting that they are uncreated, and not something that God creates to be an intermediary. When we participate in the divine energies, we are directly participating in the life of God. The uncreated light at Mt. Tabor that enveloped the apostles was the energies of God, and the Apostles saw it and participated in the life of God at that time.
"Thus, is Jesus Christ, the Incarnation who comes to our hearts - is HE an uncreated energy - NOT GOD HIMSELF - OR is He God Himself AND a man (the Mediator), in other words, man DOES contact God's self (which throws the doctrine upside down)?"
Of course Jesus Christ is God Himself. He is both God and man, with both human and divine natures enhypostasized into a single person. Chalcedon says that in Christ the divine and human natures are found in union, "without mingling, without change, without confusion."
I'm not sure what you mean by "the Incarnation that comes to our hearts." That is unfamiliar terminology to me, unless I'm not firing on all cylinders...
"Or am I still misunderstanding the distinction between "uncreated energy" and God?"
I think you are still trying to separate the uncreated divine energies from God himself, which we most emphatically do not do. I think that you are trying to get behind the energies and Persons of the Holy Trinity, behind the divine nature, and get to the one divine essence, and say "now *this* is what is really God, and unless we are in union with that essence, we really can't say that we are "partakers in the divine nature."
To the extent that I am right -- that it is the divine essence that is "really God" -- then this is an outworking of the implications of the filioque.
If by Westerners you mean residents of Greater Los Angeles, then the answer is no, they would not have conceptions of anything of any appreciative breadth, present company, if any, excluded. If you mean reasonably informed Catholics, then absolutely, there are two interrelated concepts:
Limbo
(Late Lat. limbus) a word of Teutonic derivation, meaning literally "hem" or "border," as of a garment, or anything joined on (cf. Italian lembo or English limb).
In theological usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (the "limbus patrum"); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the "limbus infantium" or "puerorum").
In literary usage the name is sometimes applied in a wider and more general sense to any place or state of restraint, confinement, or exclusion, and is practically equivalent to "prison" (see, e.g., Milton, "Paradise Lost," III, 495; Butler, "Hudibras," part II, canto i, and other English classics). The not unnatural transition from the theological to the literary usage is exemplified in Shakespeare, "Henry VIII," act v, sc. 3. In this article we shall deal only with the theological meaning and connotation of the word. [...]
The Johannine baptism was not the same as the baptism onto remission of sins that Christian churches perform. The confusion between the two was anathemized by Trent.
Canons On BaptismCanon 1. If anyone says that the baptism of John had the same effect as the baptism of Christ,[8] let him be anathema.
Sure, if we can choose to sin, it follows that we can choose not to sin. Therefore, between two saved people, the one who chooses to sin "less" might very well have a greater reward in heaven.
God's standards EXCEEDS man's standards. You seem to say that God's standards do not even REACH man's standards, but that's OK, since God is God, YET, evil is good, justice is injustice, love is selfishness, and all this makes sense because God's ways are not our ways??? This defies any common sense.
Man's justice says it is perfectly fine for a woman to murder her baby. God's does not, it holds the opposite view. So is this what you call God exceeding man's justice? I call this a different sense of justice altogether. God is not exceeding, He is restricting. ... I do not know what you mean at the end.
Thus, we are pretty sure that our idea of good is SURPASSED by God, rather than God's idea of good being our idea of EVIL! God doesn't work in opposites, but transcends our understanding.
Man says it is good for a mother to be able to kill her baby. God says the opposite. Man says that it is good to tolerate and accept homosexuality. God says the opposite. Man says that pornography is free speech and should be protected. God says the opposite. Man says that it is good that people should be prevented from praying out loud in public. God says the opposite.
You would have me believe that God's mercy does not even maintain man's idea of mercy!
Man's idea of mercy is for one man to euthenize another. Man's idea of mercy is to allow a woman to kill her baby if she would be depressed by having her. Man's idea of mercy is giving child rapists light sentences.
God said you were of the elect? Do I dare ask how or what Scripture you base this self-determination?
I don't have anything new, just the same boatload of assurance verses that Catholicism either rejects or interprets beyond all recognition.
God's Church is only the elect? Is that what you are saying? The Bible would disagree with that over and over again...Only the angels during harvest time will select out who is the wheat and who is the weed - AND THE WEEDS WILL BE BURNT!
Yes, that's what I'm saying. God's Church is the full community of true believers. What does the Bible have against that? (I skipped talking about John 10 because I'm almost certain I just did that in a recent post to you on another line. If not, just let me know.)
What is this about angels selecting who is the wheat?
If you believe that the Scriptures are from God, then you'd be hard pressed to deny that the Church is NOT from God! You can't have one while denying the other.
I do believe that God's Church comes from God. However, I saw nothing in 1 John 1:1-4 that implied that Popes can make infallible declarations from God, or that a priest today can forgive sins.
Incarnation is an exception, inasmuch that the divine nature and human nature are joined, but remain unconfused and separate, in one Person. The Church at no time taught that the divine nature and human nature could mix or become part of each other, not even in Christ.
It has been Church teaching from the beginning that we can become by grace what God is by nature. Therein lies the difference between theosis and divinity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.