Intellect, questioning, and Orthodoxy [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

M.C. Steenberg

19-10-2002, 08:59 PM

Dear Erich and others,

In your recent post, you wrote:

Is there no place for ongoing intellectual investigation of philosophical existential questions in Orthodoxy?
I was, in fact, wondering when you might post a question of this nature, simply out of my own interpretation of your intellectual style. It's a very fair question, to which Owen has already begun an answer. It was a notion brought up in an older thread in this community, called The 'god' of reason, which was begun here and continued here. Though it is not immediately relevant to the present topic, you may find the discussion in that thread interesting.

But to the larger question: yes, there is a great deal of room for intellectual questioning and philosophical reflection in the Orthodox tradition. Our patristic corpus is filled with the writings of individuals who cannot but be considered masters in these arenas: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus Confessor, Athanasius of Alexandria, Symeon the New Theoloian, Gregory Palamas, Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, Leo the Great, to name but a few. All of these men wrote works of intricate philosophical investigation and endeavour, and not one among them preached that 'faith' equates to 'simply accepting without thinking'. Many of them suggested that true faith, ultimate faith, is an interior acceptance that goes beyond thinking, that goes past reason, dialectic and cognition; but never that it is opposed to these things.

This is a subtle but essential difference, which is absolutely foundational to an understanding of the Orthodox understanding of reason, or philosophy, as it relates to divine truth. In this tradition, reason and its use are whole-heartedly embraced (hence the oft-repeated liturgical reference to man as 'God's rational creatures', etc.), but with a proviso. Reason is a tool, in the same way that fasting is a tool, or that any other element of the ascetic endeavour is a tool: it is not the end, but a means toward obtaining the end, which is true union with God.

The kind of philosophy, or so-called philosophy, with which the Church takes issue is that which sees the philosophical endeavour as itself ultimate, or itself terminal; the kind of philosophy that sees the knowledge obtained through reason as the actual fruit of the religious life lived through this context. This type of belief is categorised in Orthodoxy under the general title of Gnosticism; and despite the fact that just about everyone who's studied Gnosticism proper would decline to support it per se as an acceptable system, nevertheless Gnostic tendencies are everywhere in modern Christianity. It is Gnostic to say that humanity is saved by coming to know Jesus, and even more so to say the one is saved by 'accepting' Him. It is Gnostic to say that one should not approach the holy Mysteries until one is of such age as to 'understand' what they 'mean'. It is Gnostic, too, to say that an aspect of the religious life is invalid for a person who does not understand it.

It is this type of 'terminal quality' to knowledge against which the Church stands quite staunchly in opposition. But a good and proper use of knowledge is whole-heartedly embraced: reason and philosophy are tools which are given that the Mysteries of God, which can never fully be understood, might be comprehended to the degree that humanity is able to approach such things, and might thereby raise up its 'reasoning intellect' to the glory of God.

If we thus approach the philosophical endeavour, not as a practice which can somehow 'explain' God and His economy, but rather as the means by which reasoning humanity can more fully enter into the mystery of both, then it is entirely a holy and blessed thing.

It is all, essentially, a matter of approach.

INXC, Matthew

Richard Domina

19-10-2002, 09:08 PM

Dear Erich, I know of no better exposition of philosophy from a True Christian perpective than the writings of Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata). His works are available on the web. It is well worth the read. Rick

M.C. Steenberg

19-10-2002, 09:16 PM

Continuing on from my previous post... Erich also wrote:

My brief experience on this forum has provisionally demonstrated that Orthodox have a penchant for pulling the plug on intellectual inquiry very early in the process. Why this penchant?

This is another very interesting comment. It is true that you will find some Orthodox who shy away altogether from the intellectual analysis of religious things, note primarily because they believe it to be 'wrong', as such, but because they feel they have better things to do with their time as relates to their religious life.

However, there is another kind of 'dismissal' that tends to arise in such discussions, and it is this kind that one is especially likely to find in discussion forums and other arenas of a similar nature. It again relates to the notion of reason as 'terminal' or itself 'the end' toward which one works; or, perhaps more precisely, of reason as generating the end (telos) in which one must believe. Such a conception of reason/philosophy goes wholly against the grain of Orthodox thinking, and one is likely to find Orthodox dismissing themselves (often rightly) from conversations where this type of philosophy has become evident.

Allow me to clarify. Orthodox philosophy is happy to address any topic, any subject, in as much detail as is desired and is possible; but it always approaches this task as an endeavour to bring to light, through reasoned reflection and inquiry, the truth that the Church proclaims. It does not attempt to 'find' the truth, for the truth is already proclaimed in the Gospel as it is handed down in the Church. Rather, it seeks to bring reasoning minds (that is, human persons with those reasoning minds) more fully into the mystery of this truth that the Church proclaims.

We might take the example of doctrinal authority in the Church. The Church emphatically and clearly teaches that such authority is preserved in the communion of the bishops. Any type of intellectual investigation that attempts to 'find out' how doctrinal purity and authority is preserved, is seen by Orthodox as inherently pointless. The answer is already among us. But intellecutal endeavours that attempt to bring comprehending human persons more fully into the mystery of how this purity is preserved in such a communion, is eagerly adopted. Reflections upon and investigations into the 'whys', 'hows', and 'whos' of such topics are commonplace in the Orthodox Church, and often take on quite detailed and intricate characters. But if such discussions give way to a philosophical tone that sees participants attempting to 'reason' their way into belief that is contrary to the truth of the Church, then faithful Orthodox will often step aside.

Again, it's largely a matter of approach. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

Richard Domina

19-10-2002, 09:38 PM

Matthew writes;"but if such discussions give way to a philosophical tone that sees participants attempting to 'reason' their way into belief that is contrary to the truth of the church, then faithful Orthodox will often step aside." It appears that Orthodoxy does not hold up to reason if what you say is true. Are Orthodox afraid that the Truth of the Church is unreasonable? (I can tell you it is very reasonable!) Why step aside when the most deciding bout is to be declared? I think the 'reason' Orthodox step aside is that to fully enter into a reasonable inquiry is to admit many contradictions (of which only true Christian philosophy can reconcile). The intellectual system of thought in Orthodoxy, the way you describe it, is dysfunctional and closed- these are signs of stagnation and immanent death. I hope I misunderstood your post(which is very possible). Please set me straight. Rick

Owen Jones

19-10-2002, 09:45 PM

I would argue, Matthew, that Reason is more than a tool. It is one of the aspects of deification. Reason is just as much evidence of God's revelation of Himself as Faith. An animal can use reason as a tool. He can fashion something from nature to assist him in acquiring food, etc. But this is reason as ratio, not as intellectus. Reason is participation in the Divine Intellect.

I would simply argue that the classical Greek understanding of REason, which is more compatible with Orthodoxy, tends to be overwhelmed by the dominance of the Latin Church in philosophy since Middle Ages. Reason in the Latin West is seen more in terms of knowledge as the result of investigation, whereas in the East it's more like seeing. It's the vision thing.

Owen Jones

19-10-2002, 09:58 PM

Richard,

There is a huge difference between Reason, classically understood (I have to use the condition -- classically understood -- because that is the standard), and what is deemed as reasonable. Christianity is certainly not reasonable. There is nothing reasonable about it. You are asking a person to forsake everything in this life that he can see, feel, enjoy, trust, benefit from, use, etc. for something that is only a far off promise that he is denied in principle any direct knowledge of. That's just totally unreasonable.

Now, back to the meaning of Reason in the classical formulation. We have to go back to the Classical formulation of REason for the same reason that we have to go to the Biblical witness to Christ. Because that's where it all comes from.

The classical formulation of Reason is a Divine tension. A tension toward existence in the beyond. It is expressed as the erotic tension of the philosopher who has been possessed by a demon (a good demon).

The Orthodox Christian tradition tends to continue along this line, especially in the more esoteric expressions of theology.

In the Aristotelian tradition, this visionary aspect of Reason is dampened considerably, and it takes on a more formulaic aspect. Aristotle was skeptical of Plato's visions. Aristotle also dominates all of Latin and Western philosophy to this day.

But I think it is safe to say that Orthodoxy has certainly preserved the aspect of theological knowledge as primarily a visionary experience given to the purified mind, more so than just a tool that we use to arrive at some objective conclusions.

M.C. Steenberg

19-10-2002, 10:02 PM

Richard, you seem to have very seriously misread my post indeed, if from it you could glean the thought that 'the Christian faith is unreasonable'. Perhaps you might try reading it again. In the system of thinking as I have described it, there is nothing stagnant: in fact, the increase of knowledge is always growing, ever becoming more full and rich. But that the moving forward into this growth must be done within a solid and unchanging frame of reference is something that simply must be accepted if one believes that there is a Christian truth that is being proclaimed. It does not work if one believes that reason defines truth; but the Church does not teach this. It teaches that truth leads reason, and from within the context of this guidance all true philosophy can take place.

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

19-10-2002, 10:03 PM

Matthew,

Certainly Justin Martyr forges the theory that Christianity has two Old Testaments, one being philosophy. Are there some links to some of his writings that you can provide? He is also one of the earliest saints, which is evidence of the great import of philosophy in the early centuries of Christian thought.

Also, there is the passage in John in which Christ is interrupted, told that some Greeks have arrived. He says that now is the time for His glorification. This has been mistranslated many times, especially in the Doue (sp?), to imply that he is irritated that the Greeks are interrupting him. But this is totally absurd. There is a reason why they enter into the text at this point. And it is because it is the Greeks, not the Jews, who will spread His Gospel. And what are the Greeks, but lovers of philosophy? They created a universal language of philosophy that made the spread of the Gospel possible.

Owen Jones

19-10-2002, 10:10 PM

You've made an extremely important point, Matthew, regarding Truth and Method. Method does not determine Truth. This is the myth of modern science, that only a particular scientific method can arrive at any true conclusions.

M.C. Steenberg

20-10-2002, 12:26 AM

Dear all,

In response to Owen's mention of St Justin the Martyr and Philosopher, I am providing links to Justin's writings on the CCEL server:

First Apology (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3593_620967) Second Apology (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-47.htm#P3966_758753) Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325) Address to the Greeks (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-49.htm#P5246_1207437) On the Sole Government of God (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-50.htm#P5638_1297232)
Other fragmentary passages attributed to Justin are available in general from the main section on Justin Martyr (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-44.htm#P3569_611625).

All of Justin's writings together form a helpful introduction to the general notion of Christian philosophy; being, as they were, written by a man who considered Christianity to be 'true philosophy' and famously continued to wear his philosopher's robe after having converted to Christianity.

INXC, Matthew

Rick Burns

20-10-2002, 12:49 AM

I am interested in this discussion and maybe you all can help me understand the "process of being saved". I do think it starts with man and his philosophy and moves to man and God's "philosophy". I have been trying to express this in a process that could be communicated to people who inquire about the Orthodox church. If you would please look at this logical diagram of the process and see if I am expressing it in any meaningful terms I would appreciate it greatly.

http://orthotracts.org/ProjectGrowth/process.doc

Peace,
Dismas

Moses Anthony

20-10-2002, 02:14 AM

Erich,

There's something I've learned in my years as a Christian -including Orthodoxy; Holy Tradition (the Scriptures & teaching of the Fathers) is not a buffet at which you can pick and choose what is palatable to you. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being intellectual, for part of the Shema is to love God with "...all your mind". The inellect becomes a problem whenever one chooses to live by the intellect and not by faith, which Scripture says is the only way we can please God. Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Bishops, priests and deacons of the Church have as their charge, the care of our souls. And, should they be found lacking, it will be required of them by God, whom we all must bow to.

An archpriest who came to Orthodoxy from Protestantism, said that as uncomfortable as it was to accept, there were some things which he had to, and most difficult was honoring the Theotokos.

I pose this question to you; Who do you think is the most theologically smart, me, Owen, Sinjin, Matthew, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, or you? The issues you posed were decided long ago; and I thought, more than adequately exgited here by several participants. However; in spite of any answer given you seemed unwilling to accept it or say, "o.k. we agree to disagree", and move along. neither of us is smarter than the Church, the Body of Christ which is the "pillar and support of the truth". To be intellectually curious is one thing, to be arguementative however, shows a part lacking in spiritual growth, and a facination about speculations and things which are not condusive to growing into the "fulness and stature of Christ".

The things which we believe and teach in Holy Orthodoxy, have been handed down to us over hundreds of years, things which have been carried to the grave by thousands upon thousands of Holy Martyrs. If the Church has been trusted with the "words of truth", the words she has received from Christ as the tools for carrying out her role as Ambassador of God, there's every reason to be defensive. One of the reasons for such atrocities as Jonestown, is because church people cowtowed to not being 'dogmatic', and living out their faith, and so people such as Jim Jones robbed congregations of lambs without real shepards.
I usually tell people this if they will not even consider what they're being told: "You live your life they way you believe, and I'll live mine according to what I've been telling you, and at the judgement we'll see who was right". Implied in that 'tough love' statement is this , are you willing to be anathema/cut off, from the life you are at least verbally pursuing?

As I continue on this board I see that it's inevitable that questions will re-appear, as new members are added. Should the appsrent defensiveness of Orthodoxy repell you, I suggest that you cleave to anyone who will allow you to question their every move and motive.

erich von abele

20-10-2002, 10:00 PM

All -- I appreciate all your responses. I'll take a little time to digest them. I will only say for now that I regret the wall that appears erected between the Gospel and the Question with a capital Q that is never answered.

My deepest intuition of the matter experiences itself oriented to some kind of inter-relationship between the Gospel and the Question, not the supremacy of one over the other, nor their mutual cancellation.

Owen Jones

20-10-2002, 10:07 PM

Erich,

You are using Voegelinian technical philsophical terminology -- a neologism of his if I'm not mistaken -- that people cannot be expected to understand or absorb without considerable explanation. Don't be a Voegliniac.

Owen Jones

20-10-2002, 10:35 PM

Let me take a stab at answering the problem.

The late German-American philosopher Eric Voegelin studied the problem of modern politics -- i.e. the imbedded irrrationalism and mass murder of one's own people. He looked at the problem empirically and discovered certain things that pertain to all ideologies. I won't go into that in detail, but out of this inquiry he discovered the primacy of the Question.

Philosophic and theological formulations that have now been around for 2,000 plus years do not resolve the issue of the Question. The Question always lurks behind the dogmatic formulation and when they are left unaddressed, this turns religion and philosophy into warring, sectarian systems and mass movements that resort to all sorts of grotesqueries in defense of their dogmas, because that is how people have defined their very existence.

But the primacy of the Question, cannot, in principle, simply be dispensed with. Who am I? Why am I here? What is Man? Who or what is God? What is history? What is the nature of things? What is time? Memory? Consciousness?

Every man in every age has to ask these questions himself, of himself. This inner struggle cannot be circumvented simply by telling people: this is what you are to believe -- the following dogmas define who you are so therefore do not ask any questions.

The most notable case of course is Marx who explictly prohibited the asking of questions of his system because he claimed that it was scientific and therefore any question of it was deemed to be unscientific and motivated only by class consciousness.

But Marx did not invent it. It was invented by the warring religious sectarian movements. As an ersatz religion, all Marxism did was translate the problem of dogmatomachies into the immanet (secular) political realm, promising heaven on earth to its adherents.

My own view is that the problem Voegelin identified is very much with us in the Church. Most Christians are deeply troubled by the world in which they live, are alienated, and fall into the same trap as the ideologues -- if I could only change the world then I would no longer be troubled. But that is not the answer. The answer lies in struggling with the questions and realizing that living by faith is a dynamic struggle undertaken through virtue, contemplation and meditation, self-inquiry, self-judgment. The fruit of that struggle is the realization that we are not in control of reality and it is our task to conform ourselves to reality and not try to create a second reality that is more to our liking. No dogmatic formalism can serve as a substitute for this inner struggle that every man must engage in. Dogma simply is not reality. It is simply an attempt to describe certain revealed insights regarding reality. It can never serve as a substitute for reality, which is always an existential reality. That is, man, and consciousness, are components of reality. How we see things, how we feel, judge, think, behave, all of this constitutes reality. Reality is not like something that you can simply reduce to quantitative analysis.

That is not to condemn dogma. Dogma is a necessary protection of hard-fought, hard-won insights (martyrdom, asceticism). But all of those insights are the answers to the primary Question of existence.

Man cannot live dogmatically, but must live by faith. The attempt to avoid the primacy of the Question, and live dogmatically is to live according to a second reality that we have substituted for the reality of a faith existence.

We see the practical problems all the time, when people claim they know the truth (dogma as laid down by the Church) but are constantly troubled because they do not know how to live, they do not know what God's will is for them, they feel alienated as if they were dropped into the world from outer space. A hardening of positions into dogmatic certitude only compounds the problem for the individual person, typically with profound social, political consequences.
Now, a man may claim that he does not need all of this struggle. He may claim that he has found the answers. Fine. But there is something wrong -- less than human, warped, deformed -- about the "existential closure" that is required to stand on this position. It makes us all something other than what God created us to be, with dire consequences for us all.

sinjin smithe

20-10-2002, 10:58 PM

Owen, in your last post you seem to say that none of us can change the world, that we cannot save it. I agree with you here...too many times you find people in this world who believe they can make it a better place. I forgot where I heard this before, but someone once asked students of journalism why they wanted to become journalists, and many of them replied that they wanted to make the world a better place.

Chad Duskin

21-10-2002, 12:38 AM

Is there no place for ongoing intellectual investigation of philosophical existential questions in Orthodoxy?

Eric,
This is a very good question. If I am understanding you correctly you are wondering about existential questions in Orthodoxy. What questions are those exactly? I have always understood philosophy to be the love of wisdom, and as a Christian I understand that true Wisdom is Christ Himself. The early Fathers taught that Wisdom in the Proverbs was Christ.

For a Christian, philosophy then becomes the love of Christ. The Proverbs tell us not only how to think correctly but how to act correctly. One of the hardest things for me to grasp in my journey to Orthodoxy from Protestantism had been the idea of doing before understanding. I guess I should say understanding from doing. The Gospel is a call to follow Christ, not just intellectually, but with our whole being. It is a relationship that is constantly growing and changing. As I go through life I may be able to express where I am at in my relationship with Christ using philosophical terms, but it is never the sum of all that I have or will ever experience.

If I were asked to describe my relationship with my wife or with my children using the same criteria that philosophers want me to use to describe my relationship with God it would give a very poor account of what it meant to be a husband or a father. Not to mention what others' responses would look like. Whose would be right?

While the tradition of the Church prescribes certain practices for me to follow in my attempt at following Christ, my experience following the practice would be different than that of others. Philosophy that follows an existential path of thinking requires that everyone have the same experience from the same practice. That is what gives it validity.

In Orthodoxy (correct me if I am wrong, Matthew) the Church teaches those practices which have been handed down from Christ and the Apostles as the primary means of experiencing Christ and union with Him. Through those practices I will experience growth and change through faith and grace. The growth and change will be different for everyone. A look at how Holy Communion is handled in scripture testifies to this fact. Some partake and it is a blessing while others partake unto condemnation.

Existential philosophy may be a tool used to explain how God can exist, but is a poor tool to use to answer questions about an individual's relationship with God. I have to focus on where I am in my relationship with God today, not philosophize about tomorrow. That may be why you do not see a huge desire on the part of Orthodox to chase philosophical rabbit trails. How can I guess what my marriage will be like tomorrow based on today or yesterday? If I spend all my energy overanalyzing my marriage then I will have no energy left to spend on the relationship, which is the whole reason for the marriage. If I live correctly within my marriage then the need to speculate on all the other questions goes away. Obedience to the teachings of the Church is where my energy should be because it is centered on my relationship with Christ, which is the whole reason for being a Christian.

I guess I am saying all this to say simply - you must live it to believe it, not just believe it to live it.

Chad

Owen Jones

21-10-2002, 01:33 AM

Dear Sinjin,

I think it's very important to note that Christ's temptation was to change the world. To rule over the world in order to make it better. Call it public service??? This activist temptation is something to always be resisted by Christians. That is not to say we should not have high ideals that we attempt to institutionalize in the secular realm. Early Christians fought hard, for example, to affect social policy, such as the custom of abandoning unwanted children to exposure. But they did so by example, not like the modern liberal who wishes for an ongoing revolution.

this idea of constantly having to make everything better has its economic benefits, it leads to civil rights for more people, tangible goods, but it is purchased at a terrible spiritual price.

Within the Church, what we have today is a kind of defensive traditionalism vs. a kind of pathological reformism. Two sides of the same problem it seems to me. the issue comes down to control. Humans are not in control. God is in control.

The questions that arise should be in that context. Struggling with questions of existence (not to be confused with Sartrian existentialist propaganda) is not something that should be confined to teenagers. We should all engage in it but are fearful of doing so. (which is why about 98% of teenagers drop out of the Church -- because there is little or no evidence of a questioning consciousness in the Church. No opportunities for heroism either. Just -- this is what we are taught to believe.

sinjin smithe

21-10-2002, 02:57 AM

Owen, by heroism are referring to the lack of monasticism in this country? Do you think that the lack of monastics as an example of Christian life at its pinnacle has hurt the young people of this country? What exactly do you mean by a 'questioning consciousness in the Church?' Posing questions like Erich has done here?

erich von abele

21-10-2002, 03:15 AM

Owen

Your summary demonstrates a good grasp of Voegelin, which, as you rightly infer, significantly informs my philosophical questions. And the response you pose is an apparently appealing harmonization between the Gospel and the Question; however, I think there is a nodal point at bottom in this issue, revealed in a certain way Voegelin sometimes phrased the Question:

Why did the Creator create a Creation he then has to save?

Voegelin posed this only to say this is an unaswerable Question, and that the Question is more important than the thousands of final "answers" to it that come up throughout history.

The problem for me is this:

1) This question is existentially valid

2) Christian doctrine (of whatever stripe) seems essentially intolerant of this question --

leading me to wonder, is there any way to harmonize this Question with the Gospel? Or are they mutually exclusive?

My wonder, and my honest, authentic experience (to the degree I am able to tap into it) tell me that these two must be harmonizable, but only in terms of Paradox.

Andonis Saridopoulos

21-10-2002, 04:00 AM

why is the sky blue? why is the grass green? we can disect and reason via a scientific, biolgical medium. but that doesn't ever explain the why. anybody you ask in the street will tell you with conviction that the sky really is blue and grass green. are these people deceiving themselves? is anyobdy that is not a philosophy scholar or scientist, quite simply deluded and ignorant, just because they can't articulate an explanation using scientific proved knowledge, that something is the way it is. such is the realm of God and his actions.

furthermore, i know what i honour in my human existence most is my constant evolution, and my attempt to become a better person. this process is so intricate, so incredible that the only way possible it could come to being is via a power way beyond anything we can ever comprehend, that being the Lord, our God. no amount of human reasoning can ever fully explain, or arrive at some definite worldy theory that fully encapsulates the intricacy of a human's development and life. this lies in the field of miracles.

i don't think orthodox christians are at all opposed to speculation, earthly wisdom, and investigation. but all of it becomes an exercise in futility, when all this mental activity fails to lead you to God.

Rebecca

21-10-2002, 04:07 AM

St. Symeon The New Theologian, The Discourses, XV Chapter 3:

Let no one deceive you! God is light, and to those who have entered into union with Him He imparts of His own brightness to the extent that they have been purified. When the lamp of the soul, that is, the mind, has been kindled, then it knows that a divine fire has taken hold of it and inflamed it. How great a marvel! Man is united to God spiritually and physically, since the soul is not separated from the mind, neither the body from the soul. By being united in essence man also has three hypostases by grace. He is a single god by adoption with body and soul and the divine Spirit, of whom he has become a partaker. Then is fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet David, "I have said, ye are gods, and ye are all the sons of the Most High", that is, sons of the Most High according to the image of the Most High and according to His likeness. We become the divine offspring of the Divine Spirit, to whom the Lord rightly said and continues to say, "Abide in Me, that you may bring forth much fruit". He speaks of the multitudes that are being saved by them as "fruit." He adds, "Unless the branch abides in the vine it withers, and is cast into the fire", therefore "abide in Me, and I in you". How He abides in us and how we in turn abide in Him, the Lord Himself taught us when He said, "Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, and they are in Me, and I in them". Desiring to confirm this He resumes his discourse and says, "That they may be in Me, and I in them, even as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee". To assure His hearers He adds these words besides, "As Thou has loved Me, so have I loved them", and they have known that Thou has sent Me". It is evident that just as the Father abides in His own Son and the Son in His Father's bosom by nature, so those who have been born anew through the divine Spirit and by His gift have become the brothers of Christ our God and sons of God and gods by adoption, by grace abide in God and God in them.

Richard Domina

21-10-2002, 01:22 PM

Erich, These questions you ask are the questions that lead to real Wisdom for truly that is where they Originate. The answer to your question is only to be found by one,(like yourself), who truly seeks. The answer, you will find, is Living and will bring much fruit. "Oh,how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day."Psalm 119. Rick

Richard Domina

21-10-2002, 01:31 PM

Matthew,Owen, Thank you for your comments. I never said method superceded truth. I only said that truth is reasonable- meaning that reason,or intellect has the power to arrive at the threshold of truth- in fact, I believe it to be the only way to deeper understanding,(provided that ONE LIVES WHAT ONE HAS SEEN TO BE TRUE. or else there is contradiction in oneself and, as our Lord said,'you can not serve two masters'.) Rick

Richard Domina

21-10-2002, 01:43 PM

After reading my post I realize that I did not mention Faith as being the engine for the intellect's inquiry. Nothing good can happen without Faith. Maybe this is what Owen meant about Christianity being unreasonable(that faith is a prerequisite). It is the currency of eternal life.

Owen Jones

21-10-2002, 02:49 PM

Erich,

I think Voegelin's question was: What kind of God would create a world that He KNEW He would have to save? I don't think Voegelin then went on to say that it can only be resolved paradoxically. Rather, there is a transformation of consciousness when we ask the question (or some other question of existence) in an open way. It's the kind of precondition necessary for revelation to take place. Which then gets us to the question: what is revelation? God does not reveal information about Himself. He reveals Himself. God reveals His presence to the open soul.

Stephen Keeler

21-10-2002, 02:53 PM

To underscore Owen's line, true philosophical inquiry presupposes active involvement in the communal activity of the Church. A person's "nous", that part of our spirit/body/mind which is the point of contact with God, functions best, if not only, within the worship cycle of the people of God. Hence the challenges that can arise in discussion with non-Orthodox. The services are often long, purposely so to allow us to wash away the cares of this world. As my dear RC wife says, "No self respecting Orthodox does anything under an hour!" I personally find it difficult to explain the beauty; but non-Orthodox friends who go through even a baptism, or especially say The Twelve Gospels of Holy Thursday, say afterwards "Now I have a better idea of what you have been speaking about." And our discussion goes to another level, but only after the experience.

Owen Jones

21-10-2002, 03:03 PM

Not just lack of monasticism, Sinjin. But then I can't imagine anyone even asking me what I mean by my statement about the lack of heroic opportunities in the Church, since it seems so obvious on the face of it.

The idea of a questioning consciousness is so foreign today it is impossible to explain it in words. What we have is two warring camps: relativism vs. fundamentalism.

But I would say it's like becoming an empty vessel for God to fill. At least the intellectual component of that. It's not questioning as in doubt or skepticism or unbelief. It's questioning in terms of openness to troubling, unanswerable things, rather than closing ourselves off and retreating to dogmatic formulations that are supposed to provide an answer to every troubling question. Such as the Pharisees questioning of Jesus. They look for a formulaic answer in order to either 1) determine if he is friend or foe or 2) entrap him. Not because they are open. Notice He usually answers their questions with another question.

Erich posed a question which I kind of revised: What kind of God would create a world that He KNEW He would have to save? Virtually everyone I know who calls himself a Christian would immediately react negatively to that question and begin searching for a Biblical quote or quote from the Fathers that would provide a formulaic answer. But there is no answer to be found in a formula. And that is terrifying to most of us who have been trained to confuse truth with formulaic answers. Truth is a condition of the soul as well as a place that we inhabit. Not a system or formula.

Another Biblical example: We ask God who He is, and He replies, I am Who I am.

Owen Jones

21-10-2002, 03:42 PM

Which is why it is so important not to degrade the liturgy into a 60 minute Sunday morning ritual. But it's still not a guarantee of anything. One still must engage inwardly, be open, avoid lapsing into a kind of liturgical phariseeism.

sinjin smithe

21-10-2002, 03:55 PM

Not just lack of monasticism, Sinjin. But then I can't imagine anyone even asking me what I mean by my statement about the lack of heroic opportunities in the Church, since it seems so obvious on the face of it.

I am sorry but your statement didn't seem obvious to me but then again I have only returned back to the church for only a year now.

Erich posed a question which I kind of revised: What kind of God would create a world that He KNEW He would have to save? Virtually everyone I know who calls himself a Christian would immediately react negatively to that question and begin searching for a Biblical quote or quote from the Fathers that would provide a formulaic answer. But there is no answer to be found in a formula. And that is terrifying to most of us who have been trained to confuse truth with formulaic answers. Truth is a condition of the soul as well as a place that we inhabit. Not a system or formula.

So what you are saying is that there are some troubling questions to which the Church does not have any real answers. The only way to find those answers is to live the life prescribed by the church and the holy fathers. In other words, truth is a state of soul attained through right living.

Owen Jones

21-10-2002, 04:16 PM

Yes, right living, Sinjin. Nicea and Chalcedon don't show us how to live. Everyone has to learn how to live right for himself. That's a struggle. There is always an element of struggle. And a necessary part of that struggle is to be open. Pastoral case in point: With three kids in diapers at one time, I hired a part-time baby sitter. The lady I hired quit after about two weeks. She had lost a child and had gone through a couple of years of anger and depression. She thought going to work caring for other children would make her better. But it didn't resolve her questions. ONly made them more painful. She was a Lutheran and her Church attendance had done nothing to prepare her for the loss of her child or to help her resolve her anger and depression. It wasn't simply a matter of normal grief but a refusal to deal with the unanswerable questions. Like what kind of God would create a world that He knew he would have to save? One answer, of course, is that God is evil, meanspirited. I think that's where she was.

I recall Mother Teresa one time addressing the UN. She devoted the opportunity to preach about the need for acceptance. Without honestly addressing the unanswerable questions, you cannot arrive at a state of acceptance. Instead, you want to control, indulge in "if only" fantasies.

Regarding heroism, if a priest were to preach to his congregation on such touchy subjects as avoiding pre-marital sex (an act of heroism in today's world), or almsgiving, or tithing, or living more simply, less materialistically, or, heaven forbid, considering a life of voluntary virginity and poverty, he would be fired.

M.C. Steenberg

21-10-2002, 06:20 PM

Erich recently wrote:

Why did the Creator create a Creation he then has to save?

Voegelin posed this only to say this is an unaswerable Question, and that the Question is more important than the thousands of final "answers" to it that come up throughout history.

The problem for me is this: (1) This question is existentially valid; (2) Christian doctrine (of whatever stripe) seems essentially intolerant of this question

Dear Erich,

I must defer on interpretations of Voeglin, as his writings lie rather outside of my field. But the question is worth examining.

I wonder if the real 'Question' might rather be, 'Why did God create at all?' This question has been addressed by countless writers from countless aspects, and is a great source of mystery all its own.

But the question of why God might create a creation which He then must save is one with which the Church has struggled less. I'm unsure what 'intolerance' toward this question you referred to in your post. Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil and others addressed it quite openly. But for these men, the answer was somewhat clearly bound up in the notion of image and freedom. Once it is accepted that God will create at all, then it is discernable of God's nature that He will create what is best; and that which is best, according to general Christian theology, is that which is most like God. This is substantiated in the creation of humankind in the 'image' of God, and for this image to be complete, it must encompass a freedom of will. Where free will exists in a true and real manner, the potential for errant application of that will must also exist. As St Irenaeus wrote, the blessing of the good, with respect to the will, exists only in the context of an existence in which turning away from that good is also possible.

For the Fathers, this essentially meant that the 'why?' behind God's creating a creation which He then had to save, was answered simply by a reference to this ultimate freedom of will. The latter represented the 'best' that creation could be; and the potential for misuse, which would then require God's correction, was no reason not to grant it.

I know of no general trend in Orthodox thought to be intolerant of this question. Perhaps the ease with which Orthodoxy answers it seems 'dismissive' by some observations; but the Orthodox response is grounded in a far more radical understanding of human freedom than one often finds elsewhere. This response only fails to be 'logically sound' if a less absolute conception of the freedom of the will is embraced. If true freedom truly is an essential aspect of the image, and if man truly is created in that image, then the potential for human sin (and thus the possibility for its later requiring to be redeemed) is an integral part of what is required in order for God to create that which is most perfect and most like Himself.

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

21-10-2002, 07:54 PM

Matthew,

I like the answer given by one of my junior high sunday school class members one time: because God likes saving people. A nice, pure, simple, God-loving answer.

Regarding freedom, I think that is more a necessary condition of creation. I'm not sure it answers the question in a complete sense.

From my perspective, I would say that the question poses several alternatives that, for some of us at least, are worthy of working through:

1) An evil, meanspirited God who wishes to toy with people the same way that a cat toys with a mouse before he finishes it off (this is frankly how many people perceive God). Perhaps his wrath can be expiated somehow but still he is a God who is primarily out to get us.

2) A Good God of radical love and freedom who's real nature is beyond our comprehension.

3) A God that really could not possibly have created anything because it's too perplexing for me to figure it out otherwise.

I would also argue that most people are terrified of exercising their freedom, as we understand it in a Christian sense. We act as if it's a curse, rather than a blessing to be free and we are anxious to surrender our freedom to some tyrant, whether that tyrant be our own passions, or some external political tyrant who will run our lives for us, or even in the Church, or perhaps especially in the Church. So we pay our dues to the Church, in time and money, as a kind of bribe. Protection money so to speak. I would suggest that there are plenty of Biblical hints at this. God gave Israel prophets and judges to guide them, but that wasn't good enough. They demanded a king to rule over them. Yet when it comes to a God who rules, they would rather have a Golden calf that they can appease. When Christ comes, they try to turn him into a political liberator. All to avoid the responsibility that comes with spiritual freedom.

NOw, as I understand it, and please steer me right if I am off track, the Orthodox tradition sees Creation as something necessary, that's a natural result of who God is. HE could not not create. He cannot go against his nature. Whereas the nominalistic and voluntaristic conception of God in the modern West is that God can do anything He wants. He could have not created if that's what He wanted. Likewise, he could make pigs fly if he wanted. But in a sense he can't make pigs fly or overturn the laws of nature because that would turn him into a magician and trickster which he most decidedly isn't. It's why he begat Christ of a virgin, because there is a fulfillment of a kind of inner necessity there which was prefigured in myth, and prophecy.

Now, God still has to have the freedom to create. WE cannot say that He was forced to create. But it seems to me -- and again I could be wrong here -- but that Creation is a natural consequence of who and what God is. Which is why the Fathers are consistent in saying that we begin to approach God through meditating on the things He has made.

Stephen Keeler

21-10-2002, 09:10 PM

I am reminded by Owen and Matthew's discourse here of what I always understood to be the classic interpretation of Andrei Rubliev's icon on the Trinity. The tilt of the heads of the angels one to another signifies the perpetual, ongoingness of the love, the communication, interaction, creation and re-creation within the Godhead.

Theosis invites us to participate in this, to accept as did the Theotokos, if I understand Orthodox theology correctly here. Or will I be like Adam instead, and reject it? Would God want me, if I could only accept involuntarily? Or, to turn this question around, why would the Creator create something that could only accept being saved involuntarily?

Richard McBride

21-10-2002, 09:30 PM

Bless you, Rebecca,
for allowing the Holy Spirit to speak through you. Your portion of Saint Symeon’s Discourse (Posted on Monday, 21 October), along with Matthew’s page on Saint Symeon, have answered much of my quandary over these words of Saint Symeon:

The Philokalia; vol.iv; p.31
Saint Symeon the Theologian: Practical and Theological Texts

“34. A blind person who undertakes to guide others is a deceiver plunging into the pit of destruction those who follow him. As the lord said: ‘If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit’ Matt. 15:14.
35. The person blind to the One is utterly blind to everything; but he wo sees in the One contemplates all things. He abstains from the contemplation of all things and at the same time enters into the contemplation of all things while remaining outside what he contemplates. Being in the One he sees all things; and being in all things he sees nothing. The person who sees in the One perceives through the One both himself and all men and all things; hidden in the One, he sees nothing of anything.
36. The person who has not consciously invested his intelligence and intellect with the image our Lord Jesus Christ, the heavenly one, man and God, is still but flesh and blood. He cannot perceive spiritual glory solely through his intelligence, just as those blind from birth cannot know the sun’s light solely through their intelligence.
37. Whoever hears, sees and feels through his intelligence will know the meaning of what has just been said, because he already bears the image of the heavenly one (cf. 1Cor 15:49) and has attained that perfect manhood which is the fullness of Christ (cf. Eph 4:13). Such a person can also guide God’s flock aright in the way of his commandments. But if someone does not understand what has been said, it is clear that the perceptive organs of his soul are neither purified nor in good health, and that it would better for him to be led than to lead others at their peril.”

It confirms that I am blind to everything and had better stop deceiving others. I should follow your lead as a quiet reader of messages, being a hearer only and not a speaker.

richard mcb

sinjin smithe

21-10-2002, 09:48 PM

Owen and Matthew have brought up some interesting points. I find myself sometimes struggling with number 1 that Owen listed...I am trying to unlearn it but it is very difficult to do especially on bad days. I will be honest with you, sometimes realizing all the suffering and pain in this in world sometimes makes me wish that God had not given us free will at all..that he just made us automatons.

If I remember correctly from previous discussions(please correct me if I am wrong), the Orthodox version of free will makes God seem to not be as omnipotent or all powerful that people claim to be. It seems like God is a 'slave' to what he has created and cannot change anything. In other words, God cannot work outside the framework he has created. He must go along with it. This makes God to me less than all powerful and not as great as some claim he is.

Thomas Garland

21-10-2002, 11:02 PM

Isn't there a paradox of omnipotence? An omnipotent being cannot force anyone to love him (otherwise it can't be love).

Or is this an example of the Whorfian hypothesis? (briefly, our language determines our world-view).

Thomas Garland

Chad Duskin

22-10-2002, 12:20 AM

Regarding heroism, if a priest were to preach to his congregation on such touchy subjects as avoiding pre-marital sex (an act of heroism in today's world), or almsgiving, or tithing, or living more simply, less materialistically, or, heaven forbid, considering a life of voluntary virginity and poverty, he would be fired.

Not in our parish!

Chad

Owen Jones

22-10-2002, 01:27 AM

Tell me where it is, Chad, and I'll join!

Rebecca

22-10-2002, 03:04 AM

Archimandrite Vasileios, Hymn of Entry, pp42-43:

The Lord came, not to do something easy, but to do something true. He came to bring truth and life. By His obedience unto death, He rent from top to bottom the veil of corruption and rebellion that separated us from God, and He opened to us the entrance into the Holy of Holies of freedom and unity. He did not come to unite men among themselves by making light of their differences. He did not come to exhort us to mere "peacful coexistence." He came to unite us, through Himself, with His Father and our Father. "For through Him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father" (Eph. 1:18)...

...He came to give Himself, to distribute His flesh: "Take, eat My Body which is broken." He came to give His Spirit: "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22). So He created the little flock of the twelve, the Church. He brought to the world the dynamic force and health of the Trinity, the leaven of the Kingdom which will leaven the three measures which represents the whole of creation (Luke 13:21).

What the world needs is the trinitarian flock, regardless of whether it is small or large. Its greatness is to be found in its trinitarian nature. What man thirsts for is eternity, "even a tiny little part of eternity"; and this is what we have here. To have the character of the Trinity is to be eternal. "This is eternal life, that they know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent" (John 17:3). This is why the Lord, in His prayer as High Priest (John 17), keeps coming back to the same petition. He consecrates Himself that the twelve, the Church, may be consecrated in truth. He consecrates Himself so that the way of life which is beyond the world may be able to exist in the world, in history; so that the trinitarian "even as" may reign on earth, as it does in heaven: "That they may all be one, even as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee...that they also may be one in us (John 17:21,22).

There is one center and principle of the world both visible and invisible. There is one way of true unity and existence: the way of life of the Holy Trinity. And this is what Jesus asks of the Father: that the faithful may be united "even as we are," that they may be united because we are united; and there is no other way of authentic and fruitful living.

The holy trinitarian "even as" is more precious than unity. It is the one thing which is needful.

Chad Duskin

22-10-2002, 08:14 AM

Tell me where it is, Chad, and I'll join!

St Andrew's Parish in Arlington, WA

We have a great pastor, Father David Hovik. He pulls no punches!

Chad

Richard Domina

22-10-2002, 01:13 PM

Thank you Rebecca. This is the Whole Thing.

erich von abele

24-10-2002, 02:40 AM

Just a subsidiary point: the argument that free will is the source of all evil in the Cosmos (for Lucifer's sin also had its source in his free will as a creature of God) doesn't seem right: I.e., I can understand that free will would lead to a certain amount of mistakes and selfishness and even evils, but it seems quite a stretch to say that free will is the source of the magnitude and prevalence of sin and evil throughout history. Furthermore, while free will could lead to intermittent evils, it seems also quite a stretch to say that free will is the source of the consistency of evil generation after generation. There is a structural feature of evil that must be accounted for, which free will by itself does not logically satisfy, and this deficiency leads to 2 other symbolisms, to take up the slack left by the idea of free will:

1) original sin inherent to humanity, in a quasi-independent sense relative to free will.

2) the Satan symbolism.

That is to say:

1) all the evil throughout history must have a larger source than just free will;

2) hence, the Christian mythology has recourse to a Satan, whose powerful and maniacal obsession provides a second source to explain the astounding magnitude and prevalence of evil;

3) but, when #2 is confronted and analyzed, it must logically collapse back into #1 (that Lucifer became Satan out of his own free will), leading to the obvious question: how could a good creature -- not just a good creature, but the finest creature God ever created (Lucifer) -- fall so abysmally and spectacularly and become this unredeemable malignant creature Hell-bent on eternally destroying God's work?

This Satan symbolism suffers from the logical problem of the cause being way too small to account for the effects.

(As for the symbolism of original sin, this is either simply an expression for the mystery of the recalcitrant structure of evil, or it is an "explanation" intended to dogmatically solve the irresolvable question.)

sinjin smithe

24-10-2002, 05:39 AM

Erich wrote:
Just a subsidiary point: the argument that free will is the source of all evil in the Cosmos (for Lucifer's sin also had its source in his free will as a creature of God) doesn't seem right: I.e., I can understand that free will would lead to a certain amount of mistakes and selfishness and even evils, but it seems quite a stretch to say that free will is the source of the magnitude and prevalence of sin and evil throughout history. Furthermore, while free will could lead to intermittent evils, it seems also quite a stretch to say that free will is the source of the consistency of evil generation after generation. There is a structural feature of evil that must be accounted for, which free will by itself does not logically satisfy

I agree here with what Erich is saying. Who is responsible for the evil in the world, Satan or free will?

3) but, when #2 is confronted and analyzed, it must logically collapse back into #1 (that Lucifer became Satan out of his own free will), leading to the obvious question: how could a good creature -- not just a good creature, but the finest creature God ever created (Lucifer) -- fall so abysmally and spectacularly and become this unredeemable malignant creature Hell-bent on eternally destroying God's work?

Good question here Erich, why is that? Why would God let Satan become so powerful? Why? Who is in control here? Many people say that God is in control yet when something bad happens many say that it is part of God's plan or that evil just happens because of our free will, and God can really do nothing. So is God really in control in our daily lives or is free will?

Rebecca

24-10-2002, 06:08 AM

St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain. Homily on the Various Judgements of God:

"A certain Abba of the monastics had a boldness before God, and asked with tears that He show him some judgements of His which are done, and men are not aware of them but think that they are extraordinary doings. But for a long time God did not want to show him anything, because humanity can never know and understand the mysteries of god. And the ascetic did not cease from that prayer day and night. Well on one day God, wanting to fully satisfy him, placed in his heart the thought that he go to see an ascetic Elder, who was in another place many days journey away.

As the ascetic began the journey, God sent an angel in the form of a young Monk, and he met this ascetic and greeted him with, bless Father. The Elder answered, may God give you forgiveness, child. And the Angel said to the Elder: Where do you go Abba? The Elder said: I go to see such and such an ascetic. The Angel said: I also go there, let us two go on for company. And the two walking, on the evening of the first day they went and rested in a village where there was a pious man who was hospitable to them, and he brought a silver platter to the table. When they were about to depart, the Angel took the platter and tossed it into the air and it disappeared. The elder was grieved on seeing this, but he did not say anything. The second day they went and stayed over at another village, and a very pious Christian with a friendly disposition was very hospitable to them. He had an only begotten son, and he brought him so that they would bless and pray over him. The Angel, when he was to journey on with the ascetic, grasped the child by the neck and strangled it. The Elder seeing this was shaken and astonished, but he stood silent.

And walking, they went on the third day and rested in another place, but because they did not find anyone to receive them they sat in a courtyard. The courtyard had a wall which was about to fall, and the Angel loosened it by pounding and tore it down, and then he rebuilt it from the foundation.

The Elder having seen these things could no longer bear it, but he started and said to him: I adjure you by the Most High God to tell me the truth. What are these things which you did? The works which you did were not human works. The Angel said: What did I do? The Elder said, yesterday and the day before those lovers of Christ received us and were hospitable to us and you took the silver platter of the one and tossed it in the air and it disappeared, and you strangled the son of the other, and we came here and they did not give us any consolation or hospitality, and you took hold and built and benefitted them.

Then the Angel said to him: Hearked Abba and I will reveal the truth of the matters. The first one who received us is a God loving and righteous man, and he manages and governs his property according to God. But that silver platter was an inheritance from an iniquitous person, and so that he not lose the wages of the righteous, God ordered that I destroy it so that his hospitality would be pure and without guile. And the other one who was hospitable to us is a pious man of excellent virtues, and if his son had lived he would have become an instrument of satan and done many wicked things to bring to oblivion the
works of his father. Because of this, God appointed that he die while he was young so that his soul and the soul of his father be saved. And the Elder said: You have done well in all these things, but here what have you to say?
The Angel said: Know, Father, about this also, for the householder of this courtyard is a wicked man and iniquitous, and would do wickedness to many, but he cannot because of his poverty. His grandfather, when he built the wall, hid much money in it, and if I had allowed it to fall, that malicious man, in whose domain it is, would tumble it in order to build it and thus find the treasure and use it to his wicked doings. Because of this God ordered me to make the wall solid so that this malicious man would not find it, as he would use it to his wicked wants and to the harm of men. But God has a time when He will
reveal it to a man who will use it to good works.

These are some of the judgements of God which you sought to learn. Therefore go to your cell and be not concerned about the things of the world as to how and why they are done, because the judgements of God are a great abyss, and as the Prophet said, His ways are unsearchable and beyond understanding, and man cannot know all things with exactness. Therefore, Father, believe that God is just and does not do any iniquity, but all that He permits to be done is
righteously done. Having heard these things from the Angel, the ascetic glorified God and returned to his cell and no longer made inquiries into
anything."

Chad Duskin

24-10-2002, 09:12 AM

3) but, when #2 is confronted and analyzed, it must logically collapse back into #1 (that Lucifer became Satan out of his own free will), leading to the obvious question: how could a good creature -- not just a good creature, but the finest creature God ever created (Lucifer) -- fall so abysmally and spectacularly and become this unredeemable malignant creature Hell-bent on eternally destroying God's work?

I would suggest reading The Mind of the Maker by Dorthy Sayers. Though she is not an Orthodox Christian, she has one view point of why Lucifer became the way he is. The answer, of course, falls back on free will. More specifically, what free will would be like for beings that are not constrained by the physical world. Her premise is that beings without physical restraint would be able to take any form to accomplish their will. When humans have been able to see glimpses into the unseen world they have described things that are down right bizarre from our view point (beings with six wings, etc) but that perfectly fulfill their role in that world. The question with Lucifer (in Ms. Sayers' point of view) is that he wished to be "like the Most High" - God Himself. For a being that could actually become what it willed, how could that happen? What did it do to Lucifer? What kind of "god" did he become and could he will himself to stop being that "god"? Lucifer plunged himself into that chasm that stands between God and His creation. All the result of free will.

Dorthy Sayers explains it a lot better than I can here. I still do not know what I think about her conclusions, but it has made me think differently about questions like this. I guess it has made me realize (like the last post from Rebecca revealed) that there are just some questions that I cannot answer on this side of eternity and if having those answers were essential to my spiritual growth and salvation then God would have revealed them to His people.

Chad

Thomas Garland

24-10-2002, 09:41 AM

We seem to be giving free will a bad press!

Surely the other side of the coin is that free will is necessary in order to love. Love must be freely given, otherwise it becomes gratitude, return for services provided, false devotion, etc.

God is completely free: therefore he genuinely loves us and his creation. We are made in God's image: therefore we have free will in order to love.

Yet the necessary corollary of being completely free is that we are free <u>not</u> to love, and therefore to sin.

Or am I being too simplistic?

with love (I hope!)

Thomas

John Wehling

24-10-2002, 08:17 PM

Greetings one and all,

I simply don't have the time to keep up with this thread, but reading over the archives and recent posts has been enjoyable.

Regarding the question of why God would create a world that He would need to save, I refer you to a wonderful trio of homilies by St John Chrysostom that you can read here (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-09/npnf1-09-25.htm#P977_654838). Homilies 1 and 2 are especially pertinent on this subject, and are well worth your time, I believe.

Peace,
John

sinjin smithe

24-10-2002, 08:48 PM

Rebecca,
Thank you for the homily on the Various Judgements of God. It helped to answer some of my questions. I was wondering where you found it and if there are anymore homilies relating to this topic.

John Wehling

24-10-2002, 08:58 PM

Owen wrote:

NOw, as I understand it, and please steer me right if I am off track, the Orthodox tradition sees Creation as something necessary, that's a natural result of who God is. HE could not not create. He cannot go against his nature.
I know that this was addressed to Matthew, but I thought I might just say a brief word.

St Athanasius, in his dispute with the Arians, argued that the Logos, being begotten of the Father, was of the same nature and essence as the Father. Creation, on the other hand, was/is an act of the will of God and thus is not from the nature. Therefore, God creates freely, not by compulsion or necessity. This distinction between will and nature is subsequently upheld by the fathers (See particularly Florovsky, Aspects of Church History, pp42, 52-53.).

Furthermore, St Maximus and other fathers went to great lengths to refute Origen's cosmology in which creation exists essentially to God. For Origen, it was necessary for God to have beings on whom to show His goodness, love, etc. Maximus, however, rejects the belief that creation exists necessarily to God as coming from "pagan Greek philosophy." The logoi of created things are within the Logos, but they are an expression of the will, not the essence, of God. And these logoi are not merely ideas or forms of created things (in a quasi-Platonic sense), but a sort of empowered or energized will and intention of God for each created thing, so that it can achieve its goal or perfection in Christ. Therefore, we can say that God foreknew the creation that He loved and willed in His goodness to create through the logoi of created things, but creation still and always exists and has being by an act of God's free will, not by the necessity of nature. (The index to vol. 2 of The Philokalia has some good leads on St Maximus' cosmolgy under the entry "Creation"...)

Peace,
John

Rebecca

24-10-2002, 11:34 PM

Hi Sinjin,

That homily was given to me by my dad when I was in high school after he translated it from the Greek. He had an extensive library of writings of the fathers, and he translated quite a few things that hadn't been translated. Unfortunately, he passed away back in 1998, and I never thought to ask him if there were any other writings about this topic.

I myself am not very well read, but one of the books my dad left at my house has turned out to be one of my favorites: "Spiritual Homilies" of St Macarius the Great. That was the first of these types of books that I ever read that affected me strongly (not that I have understanding or ability to discuss it, but the experience of reading it affected my life very strongly). Dad also gave me my copy of Hymn of Entry.

For what it's worth, at one point, I started wondering what other books might be out there along the lines of these two, and I noticed the three icons that my dad had also left at my house: St Symeon the New Theologian, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Mark of Ephesus. Again, I don't really have much ability when it comes to discussing these things, but I know that what little I have read of these authors has had an intense effect on me. Other folks may know specific writings focused on your precise question...this is the best I can offer http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Best Regards..

Richard Domina

08-01-2003, 02:03 PM

Dear Friends in Christ, Can anyone tell me or direct me to a source where I can find out why Augustine's doctrine of the Trinity isn't Orthodox? I, myself, don't see where he was anthromoporphising (spelling?). Thank you very much. Rick

John Wilson

08-01-2003, 03:18 PM

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but you may appreciate the following orthodox defense of Blessed Saint Augustine
His Place in the Orthodox Church: A Corrective (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/bless_aug.htm)

gary jones

15-01-2003, 12:56 PM

Dear Richard...

I am new here and please forgive me for daring to give information but Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote a marvelous treatise on St. Augustine's place in Orthodoxy.

Richard Domina

15-01-2003, 01:16 PM

Dear Gary, I thank God you dared. I read it and found it helpful. Thanks, Rick

Adam Cody

13-03-2003, 06:15 AM

As anyone included these references to the issue of evil/free will?

Matt. 4:8-10
8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
9 And he said to Him,"all these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me."
10 Then Jesus said to him,"Away with you Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.'"

Matt. 16:23
But He turned and said to Peter,"Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."

John 8:44
"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it."

These are interesting verses to consider while or after reading "Deification in Christ" by Nellas and "The Person in the Orthodox Tradition" by Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos - trans. by Esther Williams.

In Christ,
Adam

Richard Leigh

16-03-2003, 02:51 AM

Hi Rick,

St. Augustine's doctrine of the Trinity is not Orthodox because it begins at the Unity on the analogy of the human tripartite soul implying the Trinity itself is the "source" of Persons, rather than the Orthodox Biblical observation that "source" is discovered in Fatherhood. Thus the opening is laid bare for the filioque clause which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father.

Also, Energy is confused with Person when Augustine teaches that because "God is Love", the Holy Spirit is the Love between the Father and the Son.

I believe this is a correct statement of the case, I invite correction if I am wrong on any of the points.

Richard

P.s., this isn't to say that Augustine didn't have any Orthodoxy at all, only that with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity he was off because he was strictly conjectural, speaking from no experience of God.

R.

Alvin Kimel

16-03-2003, 08:34 PM

P.s., this isn't to say that Augustine didn't have any Orthodoxy at all, only that with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity he was off because he was strictly conjectural, speaking from no experience of God.

To claim that St. Augustine's reflections have no basis in "experience of God" is extreme. You are talking about a brilliant doctor of the Church whose life was immersed in Scripture and Holy Eucharist. One might ultimately decide that trinitarian reflection is best accomplished by starting with the three persons rather than with the one being of the Godhead--and I would certainly agree--but Augustine's reflections are profound. Before registering an opinion on the "orthodoxy" of his reflections, one should first read deeply his De Trinitate.

Regarding the Augustinian description of the Spirit as the bond of love between the Father and the Son, which I think is a profound insight, and one that is profound developed by Richard of St. Victor, one might consider the following paragraph from Yves Congar:

The idea of the Holy Spirit as communion between the Father and the Son is exceptional in the East. In the patristic period, it is only to be found in the writings of Epiphanius of Salamis. Gregory Palamas was, however, also familiar with it and said, for example: "The Spirit of the Word is like a love (eros) of the Father for the mysteriously begotten Word, and it is the same love that the beloved Word and Son of the Father has for the one who begot him. That love comes from the Father at the same time as it is with the Son and it naturally rests on the Son." We should not therefore be surprised to find Sergey Vulgakov writing in this century: "if God, in the Holy Trinity, is Love, the the Holy Spirit is Love of that love." No more surprising is the profound comment of Paul Evdokimov on the Person in the centre of the Andre Rublevev's wonderful icon; the Holy Spirit, he says, "is in the middle of the Father and the Son. He is the one who brings about the communion between the two. He is the communion, hte love between the Father and the Son. That is clearly shown by the remarkable fact that the movement comes from him. It is in his breath that the Father moves into the Son, that the Son receives his Father and that the word resounds."

Pax,
Alvin+

M.C. Steenberg

16-03-2003, 08:58 PM

Dear Alvin,

I've enjoyed reading your post. Indeed, to claim that Augustine's thought is not based in 'experience' is common fare on some fronts; though it is today becoming more and more accepted (among Orthodox and others) that it is less valid a criticism than it has often been taken to be. It certainly has its merits with regard to some of Augustine's more philosophical speculations on the nature of the Trinitarian persons, or angels, or pre-creative activities of God, etc; but it also fails to apply in many regards, where Augustine can be see directly to promote a knowledge of God and the truth based upon experience and a manner of deification.

With regard to the notion of the Holy Spirit as the 'love' between the Father and the Son: the discomfort with which the Orthodox generally have viewed (and continue to view) this idea is grounded in the thought that it threatens to depersonalise the Spirit -- to make the Spirit an 'emotion' or 'effect' rather than a distinct person in the manner that the Father and Son are persons. Note that I say it threatens so to depersonalise the Spirit: this need not always be so, and for that reason we do find some Orthodox Fathers who take up this language (you have already mentioned St Gregory Palamas, along with some modern Orthodox thinkers). But in the overall picture of the patristic witness, this language is far rarer in Orthodox (i.e. 'Eastern') Fathers than in those of the West.

What appeared essential to the Cappadocian Fathers, with many others, was that the three persons of the Trinity must, in fact, be three persons - three unique hypostases of the divine nature. In some sense, this is a more straightfoward proposition with regard to the Father and the Son (both personal, even in pure linguistic definition) than it is with regard to the Spirit. Hesitancy has always been shown towards any discussions of the Spirit which threaten to minimise its Personhood -- and this has long been a 'charge' levelled against Augustine for such descriptors as that you've mentioned here.

There is actually a great deal of 'fruit' to be had in this very area, vis-a-vis a comparison of the respective spiritualities of the Western and Eastern churches. The absolute and definitive insistence on the immediate personhood of the Spirit has had a great deal more consideration, overall, in the East; and for this reason, the spirituality of the worshipping life of the community has been duly effected by it in a manner that has taken, at times, a strikingly different form in the West.

INXC, Matthew

Richard Leigh

16-03-2003, 09:57 PM

Before registering an opinion on the "orthodoxy" of his reflections, one should first read deeply his De Trinitate.

As a member of a church that is confesionally bound to Augustine's doctrine of the Trinity, I retract any judgment as to its "orthodoxy" (real or implied) that I made. I was intending simply to answer the question as to what about it was not "Orthodox" in the official sense in the Eastern churches.

As to Augustine's "experience of God," again, I was thinking in terms of Eastern Orthodox terminology, as I have been learning it, which makes "theology" an aspect of the maturation process in the Christian life, the goal of which is "divinization." Hence, St. John the Divine, is so called because he has grown through the first two stages of spiritual life (to paraphrase Archimandrite Hierotheos Vlachos in The Illness and Cure of the Soul in Orthodox Perspective), purification of heart, and illumination of the "nous" (which is more than just "mind," but "the eye of the heart", the organ intended at creation to be one's direct apprehension of God) to the third, which is divinization.

Augustine admitted he did not know, nor could anyone know the correct way to think of God, that all that was left to people was conjecture. The Orthodox Fathers will say, to the contrary, that one experiences God as one is cured of the disease which keeps separates, which is the darkness of the "nous" which, in darkness, substitutes cogitation and logical discourse for direct apprehension. When this is cured the way is cleared for such direct apprehension, and one can know God, at least to some degree, experiencially. It looks to me as though Augustine himself denies arrival at any state of dinization. Thus my statement that Augustine's doctrine of the Trinity did not come from any experience of God.

Peace and Grace,

Richard

Alvin Kimel

16-03-2003, 10:43 PM

Hi, Richard. I wonder how many of the Church fathers reached the spiritual level of which you speak, and did they reach that point before they dared to write theology?

I did not note that you were a Lutheran. May I ask why you say that your tradition is confessionally bound to Augustine's trinitarian theology. Not even Rome is so bound. If you are simply referring to the filioque, well, there are many ways of formulating the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, and not all of them require an Augustinian formulation of the trinitarian doctrine. Witness the explosion of theological treatises during the past thirty years by Catholics and Lutherans! Among Lutherans, you have Wolfhart Pannenberg, Robert W. Jenson, and Ted Peters--all of whom are non-Augustinian, and they each begin their trinitarian reflections with the three persons of the Trinity, not with the divine being.

Pax,
Alvin+

Richard McBride

17-03-2003, 12:33 AM

Dear Richard Leigh;

From my viewpoint, you have no need to apologize, re. your very reserved commnets on Orthodoxy. I have found your sensativity to Orthodoxy to be higher than most non-Orthodox.

Particularly, I have appreciated the way you hesitate to throw your own questioning into "theological attack mode" -- as a battering ram, so to speak. By your softer approach, you seem to me to be carefully gathering a greater love for the Church, as well as more factual/historical information -- the latter methods being obvious for producing all too little of the former. To the simple Orthodox mind, these things stand out.

Indeed, I may heap even greater prasies on you in this regard, without fear of increasing pride in your own knowledge. That is because I am no judge at all of theological matters.

richard mcbride

Richard Domina

17-03-2003, 01:29 PM

Dear Matthew and Richard, I think if you will read Augustine's work (or re-read) on The Trinity you will see that he has grasped something intellectually that we write off as mystical or unknowable. We forget that when talking about spiritual qualities or qualifiers we have no tanglible point of referance- for example- in eternity there is no time as we know it. The Father begets the Son. Did the Father come first? No. Is the Son less than the Father? No. (I know you might refer to Jesus' statement 'I go to the Father because He is greater than I') but this is referring to our possibility through Him. Without the Father there can be no Son and without the Son there can be no Father. As to the comment on the west not personalizing the Spirit my experience has been very much the opposite. Our book rack in church has many titles about praying to the Holy Spirit or getting in tune with the Holy Spirit. If the Father and the Son are One how can the Spirit only proceed from the Father only? Rick

M.C. Steenberg

17-03-2003, 03:28 PM

As to the comment on the west not personalizing the Spirit my experience has been very much the opposite.

Actually, this claim was never made. Regarding a depersonalisation of the Holy Spirit in a discussion that describes Him as the 'love' of the Father and the Son, note that I said 'it threatens so to depersonalise the Spirit: this need not always be so'. With regard to the relationship of East and West in the theology of the Spirit, my words were:

'The absolute and definitive insistence on the immediate personhood of the Spirit has had a great deal more consideration, overall, in the East; and for this reason, the spirituality of the worshipping life of the community has been duly effected by it in a manner that has taken, at times, a strikingly different form in the West.'

There is no claim here that the West has not 'personalised' the Spirit. Obviously the western churches do have a theology of the distinct personhood of the Spirit. But if we examine the patristic witness overall, it becomes very evident that, over the course of history, the distinct and immediate personhood of the Holy Spirit has been an issue given far greater space in Eastern Fathers than in those of the West after the division.

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

17-03-2003, 04:17 PM

Dear Richard,

My reading of the Fathers, but especially the desert Fathers, is that we cannot have any knowledge of God in His Essence, only in and through His Creation. This "direct apprehension" that you speak of is very indirect.

There is a speculative tradition in Orthodoxy as well. I think the difference is really the approach and method and spirit of that speculation. There is nothing more "intellectual" than some of Maximos' speculative writings. But it is not just a result of his "direct apprehension." There is a systematic logic to it. A mystical logic to be sure. But geometry, mathematics and astronomy -- i.e. the classical sciences, play a large part. He is almost Kabballistic in his view that there is a geometric logic and beauty behind Holy Scripture. I would argue that it's difficult to theologize in ORthodoxy without Euclid.

I think that many attempts to juxtapose or contrast EAstern and Western theology by focusing on one thing typically fail. The missing ingredient I think is practical. One assumes in the East that a theologian is also an ascetic. The idea of an academic theology is more of a Latin development, it seems to me.

John Curtis Dunn

18-03-2003, 01:40 PM

Richard Domina asked: "If the Father and the Son are One how can the Spirit only proceed from the Father only?"
---

One might also then be inclined to ask, "How could the Father begat the Son without the Holy Spirit?"

I, however, am not so inclined. I have accepted the Orthodox faith and therefore I simply do not find Richard's question to be intelligible. His question is "out of bounds" or "foul" of the Revelation we have received from our Fathers.

It is often this latter point, which exposes what is sometimes referred to as a "westernization" of the intellect. We can't accept a limit to knowledge, and the search for a living tradition means a continual re-evaluation of the logic of the tradition we have received. If there is no reconciliation between our logic and tradition, it is the tradition which must be altered. This latter is easier to accomplish than to simply change our thinking.

M.C. Steenberg

18-03-2003, 01:59 PM

Earlier in this thread it was asked:

If the Father and the Son are One how can the Spirit only proceed from the Father only?

To which the response was offered:

I have accepted the Orthodox faith and therefore I simply do not find [this] question to be intelligible. [The] question is "out of bounds" or "foul" of the Revelation we have received from our Fathers.

I think we ought to be a bit careful of dismissing fair questions out of hand as 'foul'. This question in particular has been one that, in the course of Christian history, has come up time and again and has, in a very real way, been an historical and ongoing 'bone of contention' between the East and the West (even though many of the dialogues between them have ended in both sides seeing eye to eye after qualifications). It is also a question on which many Orthodox Fathers have dwelled extensively - because it is, in fact, a question that naturally arises in the logical mind that God has given His children. Our possession of finite reason means that we will not always comprehend rightly or fully what is revealed purely; we thus question, and through the questioning verify the truth of the revelation and our own understanding of it. Hence the entire tradition of the Fathers and the Councils.

As to the question itself, the response comes through the Cappadocian discussion on the relationship of the ousia and hypostases of the godhead, and how their and later Fathers' developments of this conception enables the intellect to conceive of a unity which in fact preserves fully the distinct personhood of the Father, Son and Spirit. Remember that it is not only the Father and the Son that are one, but also the Father and the Spirit, as well as the Spirit and the Son. There is a perfect unity of divine essence, shining forth the the three distinct persons of the Trinity.

INXC, Matthew

Richard Domina

18-03-2003, 06:43 PM

John and Matthew ,thank you both for your response. John said "We can't accept a limit to knowledge and the search for a living tradition means the continual re-evaluation of the logic of the tradition we have received." If this be the case than what more logical question than the one I ask? Is the faith of orthodoxy so precarious as to outlaw such an inquiry? Peace, Rick

Owen Jones

18-03-2003, 07:55 PM

Dear Richard,

I don't know the intent of John's comment. What I do know is this. Orthodoxy is precarious. It's a precious gift that we are to nurture and keep alive or else it will be taken away from us. This was Our Lord's message to the Jews and to us as well. Orthodoxy must be relearned in every generation. It cannot simply be passed down in terms of a lot of rules and regulations or concepts. It can only be re-learned by living it, and that calls for constant struggle, and part of that struggle is for each generation anew to struggle to seek, among other things, the "logic of the tradition." There is an unfortunate assumption among many in the Church, and many in the clergy, that God's promise of the Holy Spirit somehow absolves us of any responsibility for keep the faith alive. So many clergy just assume that coming to Church is enough. I had an honest priest one time tell me that all of his (Greek) parishioners were protestants.

I think we would all do well to be terrified of Christ's warnings to the Jews about what happens when you fail to guard the spiritual underpinnings of belief, and turn religion into something that is mechanical, or worse, a noose around people's necks. That applies to us as well. So there is a healthy form of intellectual inquiry. The Bible tells us that we should be able to give a good (intellectual) accounting of our faith, instead of just saying, in effect, I believe what the Church says I'm supposed to believe. Faith is putting that belief into action, and that's when we come to question, (not deny or doubt in the negative since, but actively question as part of our spiritual seeking) because the action part of it inevitably invovles struggle. We should not fear the element of searching in our faith. This is one reason why the concept of spiritual pilgrimage is a fundamental one in any true Christianity.

Rebecca

19-03-2003, 12:43 AM

Owen wrote..(emphasis mine)

"we cannot have any knowledge of God in His Essence, only in and through His Creation. "

Quote from "The Ancient Fathers of the Desert" by Archimandrite Chrysostomos:

"It is impossible for a monk to have Christ continuously in his heart without silence, humility, and unceasing prayer"

Daniel Jeandet

29-04-2003, 04:14 PM

Owen, you wrote,

"we cannot have any knowledge of God in His Essence, only in and through His Creation. "

Forgive me Owen, but it is my understanding that we can, if it be his will, know God, by partaking in His uncreated energies. I dont think any Fathers have taught that God can only be known through what he created. The uncreated is totally other than the created. According to the Holy Fathers, there is nothing in creation that can be compared to God in any way. That is why, in order to know Him, we struggle to become worthy of participation in his energies. Uncreated energies.

It is my understanding, though I may be wrong, that the Roman Catholic religion teaches that God's grace is created. This is utterly wrong and one of the errors that St Gregory Palamas refuted with the evidence of the Holy Orthodox Church's experience of the uncreated energies of the Holy Trinity (i believe this is known as Theoria) in the lives of her Deified Saints.

I feel a bit strange talking like this, you may have meant something entirely different to the way i have read it, but this is a most important point, and absolutely vital to any understanding of the Orthodox way. And the Orthodox way is, of course, the ONLY TRUE WAY. And reading, understanding, and attempting to put into practice the traditions and instruction handed down by our Holy Fathers is the only way to the knowledge of God they testify to in the theology they lived.

Owen Jones

29-04-2003, 04:52 PM

I'll have to defer to better qualified people on this forum to respond to this with patristic sources. But some brief comments.

My statement is not attributed but it's gleaned from my reading of the fathers, especially the desert fathers, i.e., that we cannot know God in His essence.

This is not to say that God does not reveal Himself to the world in His fullness -- i.e. "the fullness of divinity dwelt within Him." And we participate in Christ's divinity. But I think that is of a different order than saying that we can know God in His essence. I don't think the Palamite theology of the uncreated light negates this principle.

Interestingly, it was Hegel who defined the Protestant principle as "the mind of God and the mind of man have become one." Hegel announced the end of history because God's mind had become one with Hegel's mind.

Richard Leigh

29-04-2003, 05:29 PM

Gentlemen, please :-)

(Sorry,no referrences but) R. Catholicism, indeed teaches that Grace is created. Eastern fathers will I think agree that there is a created grace of God, but that this is distinct from uncreated grace.

I believe that Rome teaches that the beatific vision is of God's essence, and that Palamas' distinction between this essence and uncreated (as opposed to created) energies provides a way to say that God is indeed apprehended really, without violating the distinction God's uncreated essence has from our created essence. The former, apparently is seen philosophically to be anihilative of the second, necessitating the gnostic proposals of sucessively less and less refined created essences of the "aeons", a teaching deplored by the True Apostolic Faith, which teaches that there is direct contact between the Creator and his creation, especially in Jesus Christ the God-Man.

The bottom line is supposed to be, at least as I understand it, that both East and West teach that there is direct contact and knowledge of God (there is a caveat on that word "direct" but there is no time nor space for it here), the RC (hence all of Western Christendom) fails to distinguish "uncreated energies" from "uncreated essence" and so there is opening for some , shall I say, "diabolic confusion" regarding the issue amongst those of us in the West, but the Fathers teach that God is fully in his eneries.

Richard

Richard Leigh

29-04-2003, 05:46 PM

Well, well, well,

I see by reading all the posts available here to this thread that I have been out of touch! It looks like I have a lot of mail to answer which I cannot do in one fell swoop.

Thank you all for your plaudits. I will explain myself further in a very near future post.

Thanks again,

Richard

Richard Leigh

29-04-2003, 06:40 PM

To all and sundry who responded to my much earlier post,

My approach to Theology (in the Western use of the term) is primarily historical. I was taught to believe (i.e., to be of opinion) that the religion, or rather, that the variety of the religion I was converted into had its historical source in the scriptures, which meant that the history of which scripture spoke was the source of Christianity, and that Luther “got the church back” to the scriptures. I don’t mean to start another thread here, I am only explaining my point of departure.

Well, I’ve come a long way since then, and I have learned the historical issues behind the difference in Trinitarian teaching, east and west.

To Alvin, I’ll say that by “ confessionally bound to Augustine” I referred to the so-called Athanasian Creed, which is particularly Augustinian, and as unAugustinian as Jensen and company may want to be, to be confessionally Lutheran, one has at least to subscribe to the proposition that all three of the so-called (by us) ecumenical creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian) correctly teach scriptural (and therefor Holy Spirit inspired and therefor absolute) Truth. The historical reason for this is that in the dispute with the Papists, we attempted to show that we were truly Catholic in asserting the Creeds the Catholic church asserted --- even IF we reformulated the reasons behind them. IOW, though they each were documents addressing heresies that had come up, and were formulated to meet the demand of the time in language that addressed the times they were written in, still the fathers were really attempting to express the truth God had given in scripture. But their real problem, looking back on it, is that they were trying to remain “Catholic” as expressed in the earlier Frank dominated Carolingian new Roman empire inspired western church which arose in direct opposition to the Church of the True Roman empire as it was continuing in the east. I am following the late Father John Romanides et al. in all this. The best construction that can be put on the Continental reform in all this is, I think, that it was being done in “good faith”.

In my personal opinion there is not defense for the propositional filioque to start with, such that all attempts to rescue it from its origin in Augustine are wasted. As far as I can tell, all defense of the filioque falls to the essential unity of the Son to the Father, and this is precisely not what discussion of any one particular hypostasis can be about. Yes, all hypostases are essentially one, but one hypostasis? No (we all agree), one essence. Is the Logos the Son of the Father in essence? No, he is Personally the Son of the Person of the Father, which may be why he is essentially what the Father is, God, (God from God means God the Son from God the Father, it cannot be reversed, except in the sense that God’s fatherness is logically dependent on their being direct offspring, of which, btw, the Spirit is not ).

What we in the west have available to us is the possibility of interpreting the filioque concept in terms of economy, i.e., in time.

Again, thank you all for your kind considerations.

Yours and with you in the Faith,

Richard

Ps., Next will come something avbout the psychology, my sexond great love. --R.

Owen Jones

29-04-2003, 10:25 PM

Dear Richard,

This is not intended as carping, but there are some problems inherent in modern historical approaches to the Gospel and to theology. What we cannot lose sight of is this: history is not just a formulation of facts generated on a time line that progressively advances. History is a symbolic form of consciousness. It is iconic. The Church'e theology, therefore, cannot be understood in terms of a historical phenomenon, or historical development or progression, but rather is a function of spiritual consciousness --in its fullest differentiation one might say. Without that differentation of consciousness -- the deiform mind shall we say in the terms of the FAthers -- there is no theology and there is no history -- only dead artifacts displayed on the wall of a museum. As with all of my posts, I do not presume to analyse you personally on the issue, only to try to respond to the issue best I can with some basic analysis.

Alvin Kimel

30-04-2003, 01:33 AM

Sorry,no referrences but) R. Catholicism, indeed teaches that Grace is created. Eastern fathers will I think agree that there is a created grace of God, but that this is distinct from uncreated grace.

Sorry, but this is inaccurate. Catholicism does teach that in Christ we share in the life of the Holy Trinity; indeed, the uncreated Holy Trinity indwells the souls of the Just. Karl Rahner is perhaps the best well known of Roman theologians who speak of God's self-communication to mankind.

What we in the west have available to us is the possibility of interpreting the filioque concept in terms of economy, i.e., in time.

I think you have touched on something very important here. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity, if it is truly an expression of who God is, is grounded in God's self-revelation in history. It is the insistence that God, in his divine being, truly is as he has given himself to humanity in Jesus Christ. Apart from God's self-revelation in history, we can know nothing about God. As Karl Rahner stated, "The economic Trinity is the essential Trinity."

If the filioque is sustainable, it is sustainable precisely because of the theological judgment that how God has revealed himself in the economy of salvation history truly reflects something about who God is in his inner relations as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Fr Alvin Kimel

Owen Jones

30-04-2003, 05:09 AM

Dear Father Alvin,

I don't think it is precisely accurate to say that God reveals Himself in history. If that were true, all one would need to do is study history in order to believe and be saved. And then there is the question of what history. Who's history? There is a plurality of histories. The modern search for the historical Christ is to no avail. God reveals Himself in the metaxy.

Alvin Kimel

30-04-2003, 02:32 PM

Owen, I do not know what metaxy means; but I certainly agree with you that a secular historian will not be able to discern God's self-revelation in Israel and in Jesus. Clearly such discernment requires prophetic inspiration and interpretation. Thus the Church's insistence that the real Jesus can only be known through the apostolic witness to Jesus. Is this close to what you are getting at?

Fr Alvin Kimel

Owen Jones

30-04-2003, 03:08 PM

No Father,

It's not a question of secular vs. sacred history. The problem is that "moderns" tend to want to historicize Christ and Revelation as a means of providing ourselves with some kind of concrete assurances of the truth of God's revelation in Christ. This is a sign of the falling away of our spiritul perception.

But Christ is not revealed in history. There is no Christ of history. There is only the Christ of faith. (Heb 11:1) Yes, the Bible is a personal witness, but for those with the eyes to see and the ears to hear. Others could be in Christ's presence and not see him as the Christ. And the same is just as true for us today. The truth of Christ is revealed in a different realm than the historical. This is what is meant by the Fathers when they speak of Truth. It is a realm, not a right opinion substantiated by historical data. This realm is, in Greek, metaxy, or in-between, often translated into English as intermediate. Because we moderns have reduced reality to a kind of off and on light switch, we cannot comprehend such things. But reality is more like a reostat -- with a mid-way level of light.

Richard Leigh

30-04-2003, 04:31 PM

Dear Owen,

I think Fr. Kimmel was using the word "history" in its ordinary day-to-day fashion, so as to say that you and he and I are all existing in history, on a time line consisting of before, during and after.

The Eternal Logos, very (=true) God (from, or out) of very God "began taking place" humanly on a given date in history,whether we know the date, the event, or the person, or not. He also died on a given date, was resurrected on a given date, and ascended on such a date. He will also return on a given date and the rest of the resurrection will occur.

Contemporaries of Jesus "saw" this, and were therefor the first to whom it was revealed. Hence it is revealed to historcal figures such as ourselves.

Richard

P.s., while the Logos "'began taking place 'humanly" he never ever ceased!

R --

Owen Jones

30-04-2003, 05:26 PM

Father Kimmel used the terms salvation history and secular history. This terminology for the most part arises out of 18th and 19th century German "higher criticism" of HOly Scripture.

Have we ever examined what we intend to mean by these terms, precisely? What is secular history? Is there any such thing? If so, does it have any meaning? I can date my birth and eventually my death. But so what? What does that mean? In relation to the billions of other personal histories? Or national histories? Or cultural histories? And what do we mean by salvation history? While Augustine made the distinction between two histories, with secular history being a type of alzheimer's disease, and sacred history having a progressive flow to it, his sacred history was predicated on a false concept of Christian ecumenical empire. I see no evidence that the Eastern Fathers thought in such a way about time and history. [Unless it was perhaps Eusebius]. Someone around here I recall is pretty up on his Maximos the Confessor, who reflects the Eastern thought on history. Maybe we could get a comment from him. There is a thread about metaxy reality. It is an essential component of Patristic thought which has been totally lost to the "modern" mind. We cannot understand the Incarnation without it.

The point I wish to make still stands, which perhaps I can try to amplify a little bit. Incarnation is not an event IN history. It is an event in the metaxy. As such, one might say it creates history, but we do not know what that history is or its meaning because we are in the middle (metaxy) of it. What Incarnation really does is create in the believer a new consciousness which is participation in God in the metaxy (not in history). History is simply an icon of that new reality, new consciousness. But it is not an objective thing. One cannot objectivize it or psychologize it (as my history our our history). I think if we try to focus on history as an icon, in the same sense as written icons, we get a better picture. These are highly stylized versions of events, not so much as they are recorded historically, but as they are seen in their full spiritual dimension by the iconographer. The icon only has meaning to a believer. To a non-believer it is bad art and non-sensical. Even to the believer, there are limitless possibilities. Yet we "moderns" wish to speak in terms of a historical Christ. But the iconic event is not an event in historical dimension but in the metaxy dimension.

Now, I realize that traditional believers today fear relativism. They fear reducing Christ to a kind of theory, or opinion, or one man's opinion. But searching for him in history is fruitless. We search for him in the metaxy reality, the intermediate realm, into which we are transported by faith, and transformed sense perception.

I think the best concrete illustration of this is that if you had had a camera and tried to take a photo of Christ ascending, it would not have shown up on the photo negative. Because it was not an event in history, but an event in the metaxy. Now, if someone wishes to define "salvation history" as the metaxy, I suppose that's OK, but it's misleading, because what we are really speaking of is not history but parousia.

In another context, Seraphim Rose has the best explanation of this, in the introduction to Nihilism, where he defines Truth as a realm. I think this is the key. Truth is not a body of historical facts collected over time, referring to a time line of events, to prove the existence of God or The Incarnation. Truth is a realm. It is our spiritual abode or habitation. Our commonwealth, if you will. Our community.

The liturgy is the living embodiment of metaxy reality. It is not an historical event.

I was hiking in the Smokies one time and we had supper around a campfire with some honest to God mountain men. One of them said that his time on the mountain did not count against his four score and ten. That was his liturgy. Our liturgy is not measured in historical time. It is an icon of metaxy reality. This can be proven because there are different perceptions of the liturgy, based on our spiritual progress in the metaxy. One experience is that it is damn long drudgery. So we show up right before communion. The other experience is that it seems like we just got here and the priest is dismissing us!

So one cannot objectify the liturgy, any more than one can objectify "salvation history." Yet historical objectification seems to be the model of modern thought, a la Hegel. It is really a kind of pathology based on alienation. Now, OK, I've just accused FAther Kimmel of a pathology in some people's minds!!!!!! but that is not my intention.

Rebecca

30-04-2003, 09:33 PM

"To develop its language, the Church used, as we have seen, forms, symbols and even myths of antiquity, i.e. pagan forms of expression. But it did not use these forms without purifying them and adapting them to its own goals. Christianity absorbs everything that can serve as a form of expression from the world around it. Thus the Fathers of the Church used all the apparatus of ancient philosophy for the benefit of theology. Similarly Christian art inherits the best traditions of antiquity. It absorbs elements of Greek, Egyptian, Syrian, Roman and other arts, sacralizing this complex heritage, guiding it in expreessing the fullness of its own meaning and tranforming it in accordance with the requirements of Christian teaching. Christianity selects in the pagan culture all that is its own, all that was "Christian before Christ," all the truth which was expressed in it, and integrates it into the fullness of revelation...

The Church's acceptance of a variety of cultural elements and their integration in the fullness of the revelation does not respond to a need of the Church but to a need of the world. The final meaning of the world's existence is to become God's Kingdom. And, conversely, the purpose of the Church is to make the world participate in the fullness of the revelation. This is why the process of selecting and assembling, which began in the first centuries of Christianity, corresponds to the normal saving task entrusted to the Church. The process is not limited to a specific historical period. It is a general trait of the role of the Church in the world's history. The Church always continues and will continue, until the consummation of the ages, to collect all authentic realities outside of itself, even those which are incomplete and imperfect, in order to integrate them into the fullness of the revelation and to allow them to participate in divine life.

This does not mean that the Church suppresses the specific character of the cultural elements which it adopts. It excludes nothing which is a part of the nature created by God, not one human trait, not one indication of time and place, not one national or personal characteristic. It sanctifies all the diversity of the universe, revealing to it its true meaning, orienting it towards its true end; the building up of the Kingdom of God. Cultural diversity does not violate the unity of the Church, but offers it new forms of expression. Thus the catholicity of the Church is confirmed both in cultural wholeness and in the individual details. In the realm of art, just as in other areas, catholicity does not mean uniformity, but rather the expression of the one truth in a variety of forms, characteristic of every people, of every epoch, of every man."

Theology of the Icon by Leonid Ouspensky

Richard Leigh

30-04-2003, 11:20 PM

Cool quote! Thank you Rebecca.

Richard

Alvin Kimel

01-05-2003, 12:24 AM

Owen, I guess I'm just a simple Westerner, as I really do not really understand your post. I do remember another post you wrote sometime back where you said something similar about Jesus' resurrection, suggesting that a camera would not have recorded anything of the resurrection appearances. Am I remembering what you wrote correctly? If I am, then your statement is itself a historical assertion. It does not seem at all clear to me, on the basis of the resurrection stories, that a camera would not have recorded Jesus sitting down with his disciples and eating lunch with them. I don't know. I used to think of the resurrection appearances more as visions or something; but the essays by philosophers Stephen Davis and William Alston in The Resurrection (1997) have me rethinking these questions. So who knows what a camera would have recorded on the Ascension.

I wonder if a Jew of the first century would have understood your metaxy.

Owen Jones

01-05-2003, 02:22 AM

It's not my metaxy. It's a pretty fundamental Greek Patristic concept. That doesn't mean that everyone has to view things from that lofty perspective. Who does in fact? Christ is all things to all people. I know a major public figure who converted to Orthodoxy because of relics. I believe in relics, but that's not even remotely why I converted. I converted because Orthodoxy, at least on paper, has remained true to it aesthetic vision. But since we are generally well-educated, intelligent people here, why not try to grapple with some lofty concepts?

And the issue I thought was Christ, not Jesus as a flesh and blood man. If you and I had been there, we would have seen a man, but would we have recognized him as the Christ? Few did. There is no Christ of history. Only the Christ of faith. (Heb 11:1)

As for the Jewish thought world of 2000 years ago, I dunno. But it was a more spiritually variegated one than we have today. I don't know how accurate a reflection of it it is, but Thomas Mann's Joseph And His Brothers conveys a much more spiritually complex view of history that cannot simply be reduced to documented events on a timeline, that is part and parcel of visions and dreams and time moving backwards and forwards.

John Curtis Dunn

01-05-2003, 04:59 AM

Owen Jones wrote: "And the issue I thought was Christ, not Jesus as a flesh and blood man. If you and I had been there, we would have seen a man, but would we have recognized him as the Christ? Few did. There is no Christ of history. Only the Christ of faith. (Heb 11:1)"
------

The above paragraph begs a rebuttle, I shall attempt one.

First, I do not read the passage being referenced as supporting Owen's assertion that there is no Christ of history. If, Owen only means to say that there is no Christ of History after whom the modern schools of unbelief seek, I could accept that, however, the manner of expressing opposition to this modern anti-Christ (if that is the intent) in the following words: There is no Christ of history. Only the Christ of faith, I find loaded with erronous opinion.

If we were to simply choose our verses, Owen sticking to his usage of Heb. 11:1; I would choose 1 John 4:2,3 as my rebuttle.

"In this know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which confesseth not that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh is not of God."

Owen posted in his last post: "And the issue I thought was Christ, not Jesus as a flesh and blood man."

St. John began his epistle with those words every Orthodox Christian ought to be thoroughly familiar with:

"That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands touched, concerning the LOGOS of the Life--and the Life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and relate to you the Life, the Eternal (One), which was with the Father and was manifested to us--that which we have seen and heard we relate to you, in order that ye also may have communion with us; and our communion also is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. 1 Jn 1:1-4

Now, Owen suggests to us that the "Flesh and Blood of Christ is not the issue. To support this assertion, he will need to expound Heb. 11:2 in ways I have never read.

Owen seems to suggest that when our Lord told Thomas, "Bring thy finger here, and behold My hands; and bring thy hand, and put it into My side. And cease being unbelieving, but believing." To which Thomas replied, "My Lord and my God." then Jesus said to him, " Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed; blessed are thy who did not see, and yet believed. Then, indeed Jesus also did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book."

Owens argument would lead us to doubt that these events were historical and capable of being observed by the human eye. These kinds of arguments are prevelent today, only Owen attaches it to the word metaxy, and thus makes it appear Orthodox. Is it?

Again, if all Owen means to say is that the search for the Historical Jesus,(Christ)for whom worldly wisemen seek, does not exist, I can agree. But, when he juxtaposes two seemingly different Christ's: the Christ of history with the Christ of faith and asserts that the former does not exist, I find his assertion leading the reader outside of the parameters of our Orthodox Faith.

This language only confounds the reader in his attempt to comprehend Owen's meaning when he wrote: "Incarnation is not an event IN history."

The latter phrase can lead the reader to question the Virgin Conception and Birth by the Theotokos. For Nobody recorded the Annunciation, therefore, following Owen's logic, we must conclude that it takes place outside of history. And such reasoning would be ludicrous if one chooses to continue and speak of the Incarnation, a word which St. John uses to describe a historical event:

"And the Logos became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of an Only-begotten from the Father." Jn 1:14, 15

St. Irenaeos wrote against those who taught that the Son of the Creator was one, but the Christ from above another who descended upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and then flew back again into his Pleroma.

St. John states without demure that by the LOGOS, which was from the beginning with God, all things were made. Concerning this same LOGOS, he adds, "became flesh and tabernacled among us."

I find Owens juxtapositioning of two histories (the true history with the illusionary history, I say illusionary history because if Christ could not be seen, the flesh of Christ must be illusionary) troubling, not because I fear relativism, but because it seems to lead the reader into a denial of the ontological relationship of time and history with God's eternal will.

I can certainly agree that history does not produce the Incarnation, however, the Incarnation is the foundation upon which all history (past, present and future) originates. History serves the manifestation of God in the flesh, that is "GOD with US." The Incarnation is the Mystery hidden before the ages (Col.1:26); indeed, it is the purpose for history (Col 1:15-17; Eph. 3:8-10) That latter passage is relevant because there the Apostle declares: "Who created all things through Jesus Christ, thus setting the beginning of history firmly into the Incarnation.

Now we may and do indeed perceive these things by faith, however, they are certainly established in history.

john

Daniel Jeandet

01-05-2003, 05:30 AM

I am enjoying Owen's posts. I think I understand what he is trying to say, and I know how difficult it must be to try to say these things in the form of posts to a message board.

Perhaps its all a bit to simple.

According to St Maximos the confessor, "Time is circumscribed movement"

The Fathers didnt need to talk about a historical Jesus. But there may have been people who were discussing similar things in the times of the Fathers when they found that all the Fathers wanted to discuss was fasting, solitude, the crucifixion of one's own ideas and unceasing prayer and repentance.

escape history http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Rebecca

01-05-2003, 05:50 AM

I would be interested in a cite of Orthodox Christian Patristic writings where "metaxy" is shown as an Orthodox Christian Patristic concept.

Owen Jones

01-05-2003, 10:20 AM

Rebecca,

It is not a discreet concept. There is no treatise on "metaxy reality" per se that I am aware of. But that's because it's kind of an underlying presupposition, or background. It is embedded, so to speak. It is usually translated into the English as "intermediate," especially in the Philokalia. We have an old thread on this.

Owen Jones

01-05-2003, 10:31 AM

John,

I knew when I wrote that I was creating a problem. One obviously cannot, in principle, separate Christ from flesh and blood. But I wasn't talking about the theological principle. I was referring to the problem of perspective. Many people presumably met Jesus. Few saw him as the Christ. That's the problem. No historical reference can overcome that essential problem, which is the same problem for us today. When we historicize Christ, when we try to speak of Christ as historical, we reduce him in our eyes to something manageable, quantifiable, and provable, to make up for our lost perception of his parousia. It is his parousia that is being referred to in the passages you cite. There is nothing in those passages about history. As a modern person who thinks historically, you are simply imposing your historicist mindset on the passages you cite.

Heb 11:1 definitively says that there is no Christ of history, only the Christ of faith. What else does it say? Why could it not have said just the opposite? That history is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.

It would be better not to say that Christ exists in history. It would be more accurate to say that history exists is in Christ.

Rebecca

01-05-2003, 01:25 PM

I would be interested in specific cites from the Philokalia you are referencing where the specific Greek word word "metaxy" is translated as "intermediate". I am interested in crossreferencing with the available Greek text of the Philokalia as I take it you are saying the Greek text of the Philokalia uses the word "metaxy". Thanks.

Richard Domina

01-05-2003, 01:39 PM

It's not that Jesus did not come in flesh and blood into this going-nowhere-world, He certainly did but the point Owen is making is that the Gospels would not have been written by an onlooker or historian or journalist of the day because they did not have eyes to see. I think this is what St Paul is declaring in that he glories in the Cross of Christ. This whole religion thing is two dimensional history until each soul is intimately touched or birthed or spoken in by His Grace. May we all come to see that we are desparetely in need of this new birth and not assume any cart blanche religiousity. His Peace be with us all. Rick

Alvin Kimel

01-05-2003, 02:20 PM

Many people presumably met Jesus. Few saw him as the Christ. That's the problem. No historical reference can overcome that essential problem, which is the same problem for us today.

It's not clear to me why you have drawn the inference that because God's self-revelation in Christ was and is not manifest apart from faith--or perhaps better, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit--that therefore God has not revealed himself in history. It seems to me that the entirety of the Bible tells against this thesis. When Christians speak of "history" in this way, we are using the word differently than in the academy or in the secular world.

God has acted and involved himself in our space and time. He has incarnated himself in our space and time. And we have been given in the Scriptures prophetic and apostolic witness to these divine acts. He has not given us a gnostic manual to enlightenment. He has given us Holy Scripture that takes the form of divinely inspired witness to God's involvement and revelation in the life of his people.

Richard Leigh

01-05-2003, 03:26 PM

Seconding and expanding on Fr. Kimel a little,

one of the original witnesses to the objective truth of the Gospels, and therefor what they proclaim was that all the events recorded in them happened in recent recordable history, unlike events of the ahistorical mystery religions.

Yes, whether the Jesus of history is seen to be the Christ, or Messiah the Father in heaven (an eternal and therefor ahistorical realm) proclaimed him to be on that fine day John baptized him in the River Jordan in the sight of many witnesses is a matter of "sight" which corresponds to faith.

OTOH, whether the Geo. W. Bush of history is President of these United States is arguably also a matter of faith.

But it isn't "sight" or faith that makes a truth true,Truth is true regardless.

Richard

Owen Jones

01-05-2003, 05:05 PM

Richard,

I hardly think that I have to use faith to know that George Bush is President of the U.S.! Meanwhile, if the Gospel were so objectively true, then why doesn't everybody believe in it? I've never heard anyone question whether or not the Peloponnesian Wars existed. Or that China exists. But many people doubt the truth of the Bible, and many people disagree over its meaning. Let's not forget that human consciouness is part of reality, not something extrensic to it. So how we look at things definitely has an influence on those things. There are very few direct witnesses in the Gospel, so what do we do? We believe because it rings true in our hearts. And we observe what happens to people when they believe. Miracles happen. They are changed. They become different people. I don't become a different person by "believing" that George Bush is President. The truth of the Gospel is not something objectifiable. A rigid scientific method does not apply to the truth of Scripture -- the truth of life in Christ. The measure of what is true is of a different order, a different set of measurements if you will, and is determined by a different method. It also "exists" in a different realm. His Kingdom is not of this world.

If you search Scripture for the difference between the beliefs in pagan and primitive gods and so forth, the difference is, by the way, not that these other believes are objectifiably false, but that our God is more powerful. Not that magic is not real, but that our God does not resort to magic to reveal himself. He does not need to stoop so low.

Owen Jones

01-05-2003, 05:28 PM

Other ways of looking at this, Richard:

I observed an autopsy and the pathologist delighted in asking us (seminarians) where the soul was. Of course, we were all stumped because we are enlightened modernists on the subject of objectification.

So let's set aside Christ for a moment and just look at ourselves. Do we exist, objectively? I can say that my physical body exists, objectively. But do I exist objectively as a person? As a man? As a human being? Scientists cannot answer this question, and in fact are quite befuddled by it. Because it requires that we ask unprovable areas like, what do I exist for? Where do I come from? Where am I headed? Why do I do anything purposefully? there is no intrinsic reason why anything should be done purposefully. Yet that's all we ever do. So there is an intrinsically transcended dimension to personhood, no matter how much people may wish to deny that. I have no objectifiable existence apart from a transcendent end. I am nothing but protoplasm. Frued and Marx and other atheists new that they had to replace that transcendent purposefulness with something else, an imminent purpose, which just proves that we are transcendent by nature. Which means than none of us have an objectifiable existence. Why don't these atheists simply say that there is no purpose, no meaning? Because they cannot get around that. So they tried to objectify our purpose. Man is an economic animal and does everything for economic reasons (Marx). Man is a sexual being and does everything for sex reasons, or because of repressed sexual reasons (Freud). They both tried to objectify our nature. But in trying to do so they only proved that we do not exist as man without a transcendent purpose.

Perhaps I have missed something, but I simply do not see this intellectual effort to objectify God and man and history by the Greek Fathers. Some are more esoteric, some or more concrete in their imagery. But concreteness is not the same as objectification. When we become a Christian is when we become human. So there is no objectifiable humanity for the Church. Now, you will argue that God is of a different order. He "exists" regardless of humanity. But the Fathers for the most part do not speak of God in terms of existence, because it is humans that have existence, not God. God just is. God is Beyond existence. Most understood that we only can have anthropomorphic concepts of God because He is Beyond all things. But they also knew that we cannot speak of God without their being human beings. So it is really a kind of theological irrelevancy to speak of God as somehow "existing" apart from his creation. It is not our job to objectify God or to prove his existence (that is an unfortunate trend in late medieval Catholic theology). You don't see the Greek Fathers writing long treatises attempting proofs of God's existence -- at least not that I am aware of. You see them talking about his works, in and through people. That is the truest evidence of God, the fact that people believe and are changed. Historical evidence of that fact do us no good today, unless we are prepared to live it. And each generation has to find it for itself. To simply believe that Jesus was the Son of God because of historical evidence proves nothing, unless and until we live it. That is the proof.

I am always delighted to hear from Gallup that 95% of Americans believe that God exists. So what? What difference does it make? If that could be proven objectively, so what? It makes no difference. It's just a factoid, like you get passing underneath the CNN screen. It's faith that makes it real, that makes the Parousia real. Otherwise, it's a dead fact, an artifact, like Bob Jones's collection of Russian iconography.

Richard Domina

01-05-2003, 06:58 PM

Talking about 'God' and the like (no matter how intellectually or spiritually) is like being in a dark room holding the plug of the lamp in my hand and talking about light. Faith is plugging in. God did enter history (=shared missapprehension of reality)in Christ and the more we enter into Him the more history dissolves. History or the world is like the skin of a dream- the more we wake up, the less real the dream is. The Incarnation is like a sphere leaving an impression on a line. The inhabitants of the line only recognize what is before or behind them and so the Impress of the Sphere is not recognizable as a sphere- only a mark on the line. I think John 8;12-59 is specifically about this. The way we perceive is everything. Rick

Richard Domina

01-05-2003, 07:03 PM

one more thing. I think there is a misunderstanding about the word 'history'. I think Mr. Leigh is referring to the written Gospels while Mr. Jones is referring to the world or events as deemed worthy by the crowd. But maybe this is just more confusion. Rick

Owen Jones

01-05-2003, 07:28 PM

Perhaps, Richard, but I don't think the Gospels were written as a history book. Some people didn't get together and say, let's write a history book. It is the Word. It is Christ. It is the embodiment of Christ Himself in a particular presence. Just as the Eucharist is Christ Himself in a particular presence. That's why the Church tells us, and the Bible tells us, to read the Bible like we read no other book. We don't just study it. We read it prayerfully and meditate on it to enter into that world, which is very different than the world of mundane awareness.

The Gospels are the result of visionary experiences at an elevated consciousness, if you will, that we cannot reach, but in the right spirit only we can approach it. This is one reason why I find "Bible Study" so frustrating. The premise that you "study" the Bible is flawed. But it is a basic Protestant tenant, because Protestantism has no theory of spiritual transformation of consciousness. (except in very cultish versions of Protestantism).

This gets to the issue of what the Church means by terms like theoria or theology. These are levels of consciousness, not methods. The Gospel writings are our evidence if you will of Christ, not in terms so much of historical accounts of Christ walking among us, although that's a precondition you might say, but of the presence of Christ, the parousia of Christ, in the minds of the Gospel writers. WIthout Pentacost, the Gospels are impossible. All you would have is a journalistic account, in which the journalist occasionally intrudes to give his own editorial opinion. Like reporting about the Gulf War. You had embedded reporters giving us a minute slice of what was going on, and 99% of it we never saw. But the Gospel writers are not embedded reporters. They "saw" something of the whole of it, but only as a result of Pentacost -- not the result necessarily of being physically proximate to Our Lord. St. Paul certainly falls into that category. His road to Damascus experience is not something that you would normally categorize as an historical event. What it did was create a whole new history. So as you say, the way we perceive it is everything.

What we have today, thanks to two trends 1) the tendency in Latin medieval Christianity to objectively prove the Existence of God and 2) the efforts of German higher criticism to decimate those proofs, by first undermining the historicity, by analyzing the Gospels on the level of cultural influences, literary influences, political parties, etc. The same way people tend to analyse everything these days, from a perspective of existential doubt. Ironically, when traditional believers fall back on historical proofs we simply fall into the same methodology as the modern skeptic. We have conceded the whole ground of our faith to the modern scientific skeptic.

Alvin Kimel

01-05-2003, 08:50 PM

We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life--this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us--we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:1-3)

This is the Epistle for this coming Sunday in the Episcopal lectionary. When I speak of "history" and of God's self-revelation in history, this is what I think of. If we must speak of objectification, then we must first speak of God's self-objectification in history! This self-objectification takes place not in some intermediate realm but in the concrete life of a 1st century Jew who claimed that he was fulfillment of the messianic dreams and hopes of the people of Israel.

The Church has always resisted any attempts to "liberate" her from history.

First, she had to reject the attempts of Marcion to eliminate the Old Testament. In opposition to Marcion, the Church declared instead that Jesus and his God cannot be properly known interpreted apart from the life and history of Israel.

Second, she had to reject the attempts of the gnostics to locate the divine in an ahistorical realm. The Christ cannot be divorced from the man Jesus and the salvation he has accomplished in history. As St. Irenaeus wrote:

The Gospel...knew of no other man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knows as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again

And when the Gnostics sought their revelation in the interiority of self, Irenaeus constantly returned to the Biblical witness and the public apostolic tradition handed down through the bishops of the Church. I can't help feeling that Irenaeus's Against Heresies is particularly relevant to this thread. His simple and profound biblicism anchors us firmly in the world that God has made and redeemed.

Third, she had to reject the attempts of Arius and his followers to separate the human Jesus from the fullness of Deity. Thus the Fathers of Nicaea declared that Jesus Christ is "of one being" with the Father," and then they immediately identified this Jesus with a series of descriptive historical statements: born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised to new life on the third day. From this point on, the Church has confessed that the history that God has lived in the person of Jesus is definitive and unsurpassable in our knowledge of God. At no point are we permitted to transcend this history, for in this history the Triune God has revealed and defined who he is for all eternity.

Thus I must strongly demur when Richard writes: "History or the world is like the skin of a dream- the more we wake up, the less real the dream is." I believe that precisely the opposite is the case. The more deeply we enter into Christ, the more real and alive the world becomes. Christ has come to redeem history, not to provide an escape from history. We are promised a new heaven and a new earth, not the timeless salvation of disembodied souls.

When I speak of knowing God through his historical self-revelation, I am most emphatically not speaking of a knowledge grounded in abstract, detached reflection. It is a knowledge grounded in prayer and worship and the humble obedience of faith. But it does not seem helpful to call this an "elevated consciousness," nor does it seem helpful to say that the Gospels are the results of visionary experiences. Let us speak rather of converted hearts and minds that seek to love and obey God and to serve their neighbors with the love and compassion of Christ.

Richard Domina

01-05-2003, 10:33 PM

Fr. Kimel I strongly agree with your post only I'm sorry you misunderstand my- 'the more we wake up the less real the dream is'. I ,too, am saying the more we enter into Christ the more real and alive the world is- and precisely because my assumptions,misconceptions,judgments,self-pity,lying-to-myself and all the rest of it is cast aside for the sake of Jesus. The world is like a dream because I am asleep or drunk in myself. I don't think there can be any new heaven or new earth without there first being new eyes to see it. Take a drunk off the street and put him in a mansion without straightening him out first and he won't know the difference. You speak of 'knowledge grounded in prayer and worship and humble obedience of faith'- I say AMEN, but I will say that this is not your run-of -the mill behaviour. No. this is a most contrary act to my lazy selfish egoism. I think you get my point. Rick

Alvin Kimel

01-05-2003, 11:28 PM

Thanks, Richard, for your clarification. Sorry I misread your post.

Perhaps we can agree with the Apostle Paul when he tells us that it is only through the Spirit of God that we can receive and understand the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:10-16). If this is what metaxy means, then count me in. I just don't see a need to posit an intermediate dimension or realm to speak of God's grace in our lives, nor do I wish to divorce the work of the Spirit from the space-time events of history nor from the preaching of the Word nor from the celebration of the sacramental mysteries.

M.C. Steenberg

02-05-2003, 12:47 AM

And when the Gnostics sought their revelation in the interiority of self, Irenaeus constantly returned to the Biblical witness and the public apostolic tradition handed down through the bishops of the Church. I can't help feeling that Irenaeus's Against Heresies is particularly relevant to this thread. His simple and profound biblicism anchors us firmly in the world that God has made and redeemed.

Dear all, I've very much enjoyed reading this thread, with its recent burst of activity over the past days as many discussion community participants have come back from a worthy Lenten fast from online activity.

Since Irenaeus has been brought up in the present context, I think it is worth noting that 'simple and profound biblicism' is a characteristic of his theology that must be carefully pondered. Far too many people have written about Irenaeus as a 'biblical theologian' simply because he reflects upon Scripture so often, without grasping the very different way in which his reading of the Scriptures compares to that of his commentators.

For Irenaeus, Scripture is the written record, the textual compendium, of God's persistent self-revelation in the progressive human economy. It is that which makes apparent to those who have appeared on earth well into the human story, the elemental characteristics of that very story of which they are now a part. It ties the current era (whenever or wherever that may be) to the primal beginnings, and engages both those beginnings and the present era in the progression towards the end, the telos, towards which both are aimed an in the context of which both exist. For Irenaeus, the Scriptures are the Church's record of the fact that the whole of the divine economy is manifested in the present human situation, which is itself the gradual situation of humankind into a proper state of union with God.

This is inimately tied into the manner in which Irenaeus approaches 'history' as relevant to the Christian life. History only has a bearing upon Christian existence insomuch as it forms a part of the economy that is the reality of ongoing (and therefore present) human experience. He understands human salvation as both a personal and a cosmic process: each human person develops into a saving 'accustomisation to' and union with God; but so too does humanity as a whole, over time, develop in this progression. Thus there is an essential requirement for 'history' in the sense of an unfolding of events and a progression through time -- but there is also an important 'ahistorical' element to the economy. Adam and Eve must be historical persons: but they are also the types that must be every person. The incarnate Jesus must have been of two natures (or 'two generations', to employ Irenaeus' own terminology): but the union of divine and human of the Second Adam must be the union towards which the present economy of man is driving.

Irenaeus' reading of Scripture is both historical and distinctly ahistorical. The latter element loses all sense of meaning for him if the former is abandoned or ignored (time and again he lambasts the Gnostics for 're-writing history'); but the former is suitably meaningless and vain if it does not reveal the latter. Adversus haereses 2 contains several good passages on the uselessness of Gnostic cosmogonies which are purely narrative (pseudo-historical) legend without economic value.

To Irenaeus' great credit, very few 'biblical theologians' (especially those who try to write about Irenaeus!) have grasped onto his vision in this regard.

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

02-05-2003, 02:38 AM

You make an interesting point, Matthew, which, if I understand it correctly, helps to explain why so many modern historians are, in essence, gnostics. They find an inner meaning to history that I frankly fail to grasp and is apparently known only to them. For them, history is everything. Particularly Hegel. Unfortunately, to paraphrase a late U.S. President, we are all Hegelians now. It is Hegel, the modern gnostic, who claims to uncovered the objective truth to history.

John Curtis Dunn

02-05-2003, 03:37 AM

Owen wrote: It is his parousia that is being referred to in the passages you cite. There is nothing in those passages about history. As a modern person who thinks historically, you are simply imposing your historicist mindset on the passages you cite.

Heb 11:1 definitively says that there is no Christ of history, only the Christ of faith. What else does it say? Why could it not have said just the opposite? That history is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen-------

Nice rebuttle, shifting the burden of the proof of your argument upon me to prove your argument false, without giving anything but a slight defense of your own argument.

I do not hope that Christ appeared in the flesh.
I do not hope that the Theotokos conceived God in her womb.
I do not hope that Christ died on the Cross of His own volition (meaning the Cross did not take His life).
I do not hope that Resurrection took place.
I do not hope that Christ Ascended to His Father.

I do hope that He shall come again, and I shall be prepared to meet Him face to face.
I do hope that I shall be raised from the dead. And I believe in this teaching which the Apostles and the Orthodox Church have given me.

I do not confess, "I hope there is a God the Father Almighty Creator of the heavens and earth.
I do not confess, "I hope there is a Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God,
I do not confess, "I hope there was a Resurrection of the Flesh of Jesus on the third day.
I do not confess, "I hope that Christ ascended into heaven and sits at the Right Hand of God.

No, in all these things I believe. That belief subsists in faith, as Paul explains in Hebrews.
The KJ translation (and those English versions which follow it) of the Greek word Hypostasis (subsistence) fails to render the meaning clearly.

St. John Chrysostom explained: "For though the objects of hope seem to be without subsistence (hyupostasis), faith gives them subsistence (hypostasis), or rather, does not give it, but is itself their essence (ousia). For instance, the Resurrection has not yet come (ed. meaning here our Resurrection), nor subsists, but hope gives it subsistence in our soul."

We do not hope for that which has transpired, we hope for that which has been promised to be fulfilled. We hope for our resurrection from the dead.

None of the text which I previously quoted referred to hope, but to our present tense assurance of things past. That which is past is most definitely history.

Your use of metaxy is not lost on me, I am most conscious of this experience of the reality of our faith in the Services. Pascha was no mere rehearsal of the Past, but a present tense presence in the events themselves through faith.
Historically speaking, when we by faith celebrate Pascha, we are there at those historical events. However, our presence is by faith, which the Apostle explains when he adds: "By faith we perceive with the mind the ages to have been put in order by a word of God, so that the things which are seen(by bodily sight) have not come into being out of things which appear.

Faith is the true reality (essense?) of things hoped for...
For what did the Saints listed in Hebrews 11 hope for? Was it not the Resurrection, that same thing for which we hope? To which the Apostle wrote:

"And these all, having been approved by testimony through faith, received not for themselves the promise, God having forseen some better thing concerning us, that they should not be made perfect without us." 11:39

Yes, I hope for the Resurrection of my body, and this is precisely the topic, our hope concerns the fulfillment of the Promise(s). The Evangelist continually tell us that Jesus fullfilled in His Flesh the promises prophesied.

The Apostle goes to some effort to establish the Resurrection in history in his first Epistle to the Corinthians chapter 15.

The Apostle writes: "But now Christ hath been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep...The Apostle also defends his apostleship claiming that he also had seen Christ, for the Historical Resurrected Christ appeared to Him, even as He had appeared unto the Twelve (plus).

I find Owen's attempt to seperate Christ out of history convoluted. For I am a historical witness of the Resurrection of Christ by faith.

john

Richard Leigh

02-05-2003, 06:22 AM

A couple of things here. First, responding to Richard Domina, and Owen re. history vis-a-vis the scriptures. Truly scripture was not written as a history book. It none-the-less records factual occurrences in time and space relating to and regarding the incarnation of the now incarnate Logos.

Secondly, Heb.11:1 does not teach anything remotely near the assertion that "There is no Christ of History." It is rather the opening of a section of the book listing many of the vast host of heavenly witnesses we are surrounded by. It is a list of many who lived by faith in what they had not seen in their historical period. It was faith that He one day would come. It was faith in the Christ who in fact became historical in his incarnation.

Richard Leigh

John Curtis Dunn

02-05-2003, 12:09 PM

Richard Leigh wrote: "Secondly, Heb.11:1 does not teach anything remotely near the assertion that "There is no Christ of History." It is rather the opening of a section of the book listing many of the vast host of heavenly witnesses we are surrounded by. It is a list of many who lived by faith in what they had not seen in their historical period. It was faith that He one day would come. It was faith in the Christ who in fact became historical in his incarnation."
---------
(note, my use of capitals in this post is not communicate anger, but to set apart words for further emphasis in their context)

However, I am also uncomfortable with the often stated "

Thank-you Richard for writing concisely the point I have been making with many words: "Truly scripture was not written as a history book." These words seem to be a poor attempt to express something other than what the words actually mean? I am dubious that they convey a truly Orthodox meaning or that they originate from within an Orthodox worldview.

The Evangelist Luke certainly meant to write his Gospel as HISTORY and he states it in the following words"

"Forasmuch as many took in hand to set in order a narrative concerning those things which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them to us who from the beginning became EYEWITNESSESS and servants of the Logos, it seemed good to me also having followed closely all things ACCURATELY from the BEGINNING to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilos, THAT THOU MIGHTEST FULLY KNOW THE CERTAINTY OF THOSE WORDS CONCERNING WHICH THOU WAS INSTRUCTED." Luke 1"1-4

The Apostle Paul also understood the Gospel EVENTS to be HISTORY when he wrote:

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus IN THE NIGHT IN WHICH hE WAS DELIVERED UP took bread; and having giving thanks, He broke it and said:..." 1 Cor. 11:23,24

Also, Luke began the Acts of the Apostles with:

"The first account indeed I made for myself concerning all which O Theophilos, Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He cave command to the apostles whom He chose for Himself through the Holy Spirit, to whom also He presented Himself alive after He had suffered by MANY PROOFS, being SEEN by them during forty days and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God." Acts 1:1-3

Furthermore, the reason the Jews and others could not see that Jesus was the Christ, or that He was and is the Only-Begotten Son of God, was because of their UNBELIEF. This unbelief was and is something more than simply an inability to assent to a dogma. It was and is a stubborn resistance to the Holy Spirit. This is clearly set forth in the account of Christ raising of Lazarus and Steven's Martyrdom.

It is from the modern spirit of unbelief that we refuse to attribute the unbelief in the Orthodox Gospel to unbelief. The spirit of the times attempts to conform our thoughts to its unbelief and resistance to the Holy Spirit.

It is difficult for us to say our family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc., are resisting the Holy Spirit, but that is precisely their spiritual state. That resistanc may be due to ignorance, such as Paul claimed for himself concerning his approval of the Proto-martyr Stephan's death/murder.

I will never tell anyone I am speaking to about the Orthodox Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: "The Gospels are not written as history." To do so is to invite them to believe a myth and that is the modern understanding of the Gospel, not the understanding of the Apostles or the Church.

History is always and ever a matter of faith...for history is a retelling of real events as witnesses. The modern idea of history is full of myths...we are told myths about the dinasours every day. I do not mean that they never existed, I mean we hear detailed information about their lifestyle and habits as well as their appearance, all from a bone or fossil.

Modern History, even with techno-recording devices remains story telling.

john

M.C. Steenberg

02-05-2003, 06:34 PM

Dear Owen, John, Richard, Alvin and others,

Perhaps the time has come for this thread to reach a good 'Do not proceed further until...' milestone. I do not suggest this as a forum 'rule' (i.e. all are free to ignore it, as wished), but as something that would be helpful to a conversation that currently seems to be in strong need of it.

So, before continuing on with the discussion as to whether the Scriptures are 'history', etc., perhaps everyone involved in this dialogue could:

(a) Define, as precisely as possible, what you mean by the term 'history'. Do you simply mean the occurrence of events in time and their progression, one into another? Or have you in mind some other conception of 'history'?

(b) Define what, if anything, you mean by calling anything 'ahistorical'. If it is your view that the Gospels do not relate 'history', then what do they relate? What does it mean for an event, or a being, or a reality, to be 'ahistorical' or 'beyond-historical'?

It seems to me that a common level of clarity as to what each participant in this thread means by these terms, is essential in having further discussion be productive.

INXC, Matthew

Richard Leigh

03-05-2003, 12:39 AM

OK, Matthew,

I'll bite:

What I mean by

HISTORY

History is in one sense the events that occur in time to and by human beings. In another sense it is the written record of such events for their own sake or the sake of knowing their order and effect. Thus, newspaper stories reporting true events are not "history" in the strict sense, but are certainly primary documents to the historian who would record their history.

AHISTORY

Anything that is not the above. Anything that does not occur in time.

Scripture as record

Scripture records events of history, but not for their own sake, but to relate ahistoricl heaven to historical earth, God to humanity.

Though we have no autographs of any ancient literature, we have better evidence to the literature which is scripture than any other, and I think scripture can be taken as primary documents to the eras in which any of them were written.

Richard L.

Owen Jones

03-05-2003, 01:54 AM

I don't think anyone questions the notion that history has a component of contemporary observation, record keeping, reporting of events, second hand research and so on. But if this were the definition of history then we would all be driven crazy by the expansion of materials from the very beginning, throughout all cultures up to the present. No one would be able to handle it. It would make no sense. Of course, this is exactly the kind of nonsense that modern historical studies engage in.

But history is really about meaning and truth. History is a symbol. It is a symbolic form of existence as part of man's search for truth as a movement in resistance to the prevalent disorder. It is the attempt to impose order on a wasteland of disorder. As such, historical consciousness is a partnership between man and God. The truth of the story of history is evoked authoritatively only if it speaks with an authority commonly present in everybody's consciousness, however inarticulate, deformed or suppressed the consciousness in individual cases may be.

History has a paradoxic structure. It is both narrative and event. THE TWO MUST NOT BE SEPARATED -- IN PRINCIPLE. History is neither revelation nor imagination but both.

As both revelation and imagination, history is always told as a story, not just an encyclopedic compendium of facts.

The story cannot begin unless it starts in the middle. But then you might say, yes, that's true, all except for Genesis 1. But Genesis 1 is a story (a true story, among a plurality of true stories) as told by a teller in response to an unspoken question. So even Genesis 1 starts at the middle. Or especially Genesis 1 starts at the middle.

History, therefore, is iconic of the structure of reality and noetic consciousness which is always a component of reality and cannot be separated from reality, as if we can observe reality from an archimedean point extrinsic to it.

So history always has the characteristic of an in-between reality which is iconic of the tension between time and eternity. We all participate in that tension as a primay experience of reality. [Just as an aside, my son, when he was about seven, awoke one night in tears asking why, why, what is happening? I was concerned that he was missing his mother who was away over night for the first time in his life. But he said, no, you don't understand. We are born and we live and die. What does it all mean?]

But this is not the last word in the matter, because there is a plurality of these "middles" or in-between realities. If the validity of the story depends on its beginning in the middle, then our own story, in order to be valid, must have its beginning in the middle too. But our middle in Genesis 1 is not the same as the middle of the philosophers, or the Chinese, or the modern liberal progressive, communist, or Hitlerian middles, etc. etc. They all have their histories reaching back into prehistory and looking forward to some transfigured future, articulating a truth as told in a story about meaning and order and how to resolve any current disorder.

When speaking of history in such a way -- a plurality of true stories -- the problem of relativism always comes up, along with a series of other conventional responses. These are in summary:

1) a range from tolerance to intolerance
2) from questioning doubt to dull indifference
3) from imperial claims for this story as the one and only truth to diplomatic acceptance of coexistence among a plurality of verities
4) from pragmatic skepticism that will conform to the dominant truth because peaceful order is preferable to the violent disruption of society by fanatical truth fighters
5) through historical relativisms that consider the ever-increasing plurality of middles as conclusive proof that the quest for truth is vain
6) to radical nihilism

In response to these conventional responses there is no simple answer, although for most of us faith will suffice as the end of our analysis. But as we know from our instruction, some deformation of consciousness (prelest) is always lurking underneath, that can subvert faith .

Owen Jones

03-05-2003, 01:59 AM

IN light of the above, I suppose that, strictly speaking, "a-historical" would refer to a complete rejection of the intrinsic in-between structure of reality. Which is literally impossible to do without playing intellectual parlor games.

John Curtis Dunn

03-05-2003, 02:32 PM

This post will address several posts:

(1) Kudos to Richard McBride for having scaled the wall to attain from precipitous vantage a perspective of the whole

(2) Kudos to Matthew Steenburg, who by his last post showed why many of us (though I can only truly speak for myself, but I suspect) enjoy this forum, both in its design and in the manner in which he moderates.

To the unstated concern (which I think he wanted to circumvent as moderator) that certain passions might be soon vented because of disagreement; my own disagreement was not directed against persons, but rather ideas as expressed. Neither, have I taken offense from any contributor to this topic from any post. My disagreement arises out of my own past studies and present readings and meditations. Any failure to convey with clarity my own thought, or to fairly and accurately reproduce the thought and/or argument of others in my counterpoint or elaboration I apologize.

(3) Kudos to all other posters whose contributions have made this thread a most enjoyable read and given to me much to ponder. From reading the historiography of Richard McBride, I have also learned that there were some important posts at the beginning which I missed reading. I usually read the posts of this forum within my e-mail and sometimes when I am busy certain posts are deleted without my having read them. The beginning of this thread is one example.

Also, I will be on the road most of May (attempting to make sales) and will not have access to a computer daily. I will attempt to access the website and keep up as I am able. I have particularly enjoyed some of the most recent threads (even that of Orthodoxy and War). I have posted a photo of one of the products of my labor (which is for sale to anyone interested) in my biography section.

(4) If the argument for the manner in which the Gospels had been written had read, The Gospels were not written to meet the criteria of modern biography, I would not have objected. I concede Owen's point: "[History] It is both narrative and event. THE TWO MUST NOT BE SEPARATED -- IN PRINCIPLE."

History is wisdom, perspective and insight into the event(s). For most of us, the memorization of events and their dates to pass high school History Classes was boring. It was the stories and the perspective of the story teller which made those events into living memories. And that latter is (IMO) truly the purpose and goal of history. To instill into the conscience of individuals a common bond through which they can communicate the meaning and value of their own existence in the present tense. This latter idea is more widely known among us as Living Tradition.

All histories serve this purpose or agenda (why do we need to know the history of how the Universe came into existence?). Modern schools of higher criticism aimed to rewrite history; to recapitulate prior events to advance a perspective deemed to have higher value today (tomorrow we can do it again...hence Owen's point about relativism). For many moderns, Christianity (especially Orthodox Christianity) is even now (for others it is still becoming) antiquated.

The terms and juxtapositioning of a Christ of History versus a Christ of Faith is the result of some modern schools of thought to recapitulate the Christian body of knowledge and the events claimed to be the foundation for that knowledge into the modern self-enlightened age (neo-gnostic).

To refer to the Christ of History is used most often to deny Christ his Incarnation. It does not necessarily deny the existence of some man name Jesus upon whom the Apostles and Church built their own history. But this last point is no concession for an Orthodox Christian. Indeed, it is a denial of the very truth to which we must adhere to remain true to Christ. The word became flesh and dwelt among us.

I will never concede a point of argument which denies the Divinity of Christ. I will never concede a point of argument which attempts to separate the two natures of Christ. Each concession (even for argument sake alone) denies the person of Jesus Christ and thus His Incarnation.

Perhaps this refusal arises out of my simplistic mind, my naiveté in the subtleties of higher criticism and a stubbornness against the modern expectation that each and every one of us must surrender our faith to the common good (will) of all men. It may seem out of place here to mention Mao Ze dong, but his doctrine for self-criticism, through which the individual removes all of his own resistance to the progress and direction of the Revolution, is precisely the modern path which we Orthodox are being invited to follow into the modern age.

We are being invited into the advanced age of enlightenment through a door called The Christ of Faith. It is the proverbial Camels gate through which any Christian who wants to be respectable in the modern age must bend their knees and crawl through to enter. The Christ of Faith is modern respectable Christianity. By embracing it we are invited to the table of the common good (will) of all mankind.

As with the term Christ of History it also is a denial of the Incarnation. It relegates the Gospel into the sphere of Mythology. This is a path towards the Antichrist. Already, many around us have swallowed this camel, exchanging their inheritance for respectability, modern comfort and luxuries.

I also have a word from Fr. Seraphim (Rose): "It is later than you think."

Earlier Owen suggested that it was my modern historistic mindset which kept me from comprehending there is only a Christ of Faith, not a Christ of History. I abjure both expressions, for each carries its own baggage and conformity to a modernism which I will not concede towards.
I do not think it is his intention to embrace the modern apostasy which such language conveys and moves our culture further towards. Neither am I suggesting that he (or others, who are all no doubt more sophisticated in the fine subtlties of nuanced argumentation) is incapable of keeping their faith intact while embracing the language which I abjure for reasons stated,

I cannot, for I see within it a language which nuances a denial of Christ.

Christ is Risen! Peace!

john

Owen Jones

03-05-2003, 03:37 PM

Dear John,

My rhetoric has gotten the better of me. I should not personalize the discussion or assume anything about your mindset, or accuse you of being an historicist or other terrible apostacies. My apologies.

Seraphim

P.S. My impression from your post is that you wish to equate "Christ of History" and "Christ of Faith" as warring dogmatomachies, and that both leave something to be desired. But perhaps we can consider them descriptively, not as slogans. And perhaps we need a definition of faith just as much as a definition of history.

Here is, I think, the hangup on the Christ of faith issue. My faith doesn't produce Christ. Nor does my believing something make it so. But with the underlying insecurity of our age, produced by a plethora of truth claims by a plurality of histories, a plurality of cultures, dogmas, religious and secular, there is the temptation on the part of Christians to engage in the same, fruitless, conventional, defensive arguments that I listed above.

But by the same token, it is just as unwarranted to objectivize the "fullness of divinity dwelt within Him" as a so-called historical fact. Just as revelation and narrative in history cannot be separated, we cannot separate His divinity from our perception, consciousness of it and faith in it. It would be an interesting side bar discussion for aliens from Venus, or archimedes, but pointless. Part of the reality of the Incarnation is our consciousness of it. We cannot recognize Jesus as the Christ unless He dwells to some degree in us as well. So we cannot objectivize THE INCARNATION as an historical event apart from the reality of incarnation of which we are a part. This reality is not an historical event. IT's what produces historical consciousness, which always has an apocalyptic, transfiguring element to it.

The Holy Spirit descending on Mary does not produce THE INCARNATION as an isolated event in history, apart from the Parousia of Christ which is present from the beginning and transfigures our present. And as you point out in the quote from Seraphim Rose, all history has an apocalyptic element to it as well. Apocalyptic is a constant in all history. In Christ it is raised -- or more precisely, in faith in Christ -- to its limit, which is a bit too much for faith to bear for most of us. We cannot live with the parousiastic intensity of a Seraphim Rose. But that is the purpose of faith. Faith makes what is already most real, a present, transifuring reality. So the evidence of the Incarnation, as well as the substance of it, is in our faith, today. In our witness to it, partly expressed in language, but more importantly, expressed in our transformation and progression from this world to that greater world -- in a manner that can be seen and heard. Put in a more homey fashion, the proof of God is the fact that most people throughout the ages have believed in God, and have been transformed by their faith in God. There is no other proof. Without the transformative aspect of faith, there would be no New Testament. There would have been no point in bearing witness to His Parousia. This intensity of His Parousia among the apostolic witness was so strong that it was commonly held that history was at its end. Had become irrelevant. In this sense, the Apostles were a-historical. There was no more in-between time for them. They were at the end-time. There was no need for the New Testament to produce a political theology, a cultural theology, an historical theology (as Islam does for example -- Islam is a perfect example of a religious consciousness that attempts to overcome the essential in-between nature of history and existence.)

Owen Jones

03-05-2003, 03:40 PM

Just as a sidebar on Islam, the in-between dimension of reality is re-introduced into Islam by Sufis (which most Muslims deny as being Muslim). More evidence, I should think, that we cannot get around the in-between nature of reality.

M.C. Steenberg

03-05-2003, 05:41 PM

Dear all,

Aha, this thread has approached some very interesting considerations of late. I'll quote here from Owen's most recent post, as largely a response and expansion upon the good posts of others over the past day:

My impression from [a previous post in this thread] is that you wish to equate "Christ of History" and "Christ of Faith" as warring dogmatomachies, and that both leave something to be desired. But perhaps we can consider them descriptively, not as slogans. And perhaps we need a definition of faith just as much as a definition of history.

Your point is well taken, Owen, that the term 'faith' is so broad in meaning in contemporary religious language as to warrant a clear definition before it is used. But as to the first part of your comment, the question I would immediately ask in response to your assertion of 'warring dogmatomachies' is whether this might simply be a wrong way of approaching the true relationship of the two elements. Must the conceptions of the 'Christ of History' and the 'Christ of Faith' be at odds? The key that they do not, is implied very well in another of your comments:

We cannot recognize Jesus as the Christ unless He dwells to some degree in us as well. So we cannot objectivize THE INCARNATION as an historical event apart from the reality of incarnation of which we are a part. This reality is not an historical event. It's what produces historical consciousness, which always has an apocalyptic, transfiguring element to it.

You yourself have written that one's belief does not cause the reality; but you must follow on this assertion to the conclusion that your recognition of the Incarnate Christ through the present reality of that Incarnation, does not in fact alter the reality of the Incarnation that took place in Bethlehem when 'the Word became flesh'. In fact, that 'objective' reality is the very thing which makes possible the participation by which the human person of any era is made to conceive accurately of, and understand, it.

You will know from past discussions here that I agree with your general assessment of metaxy as an essential principle in considerations of life, faith and praxis. But one must be careful not to allow the apocalyptic, eschatological character that metaxy itself implies in history, to undermine or diminish the objective reality of historical events which gives it its meaning and power.

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

03-05-2003, 07:05 PM

Dear Matthew,

I can concede your implied point that faith holds in balance two worlds, or a range of polarities, and that we cannot dispense with either or overcome either. What I can't concede is that one of those polarities is "objective reality of historical events."

Let's take a look at Seraphim Rose's statement: the end is near, qouted above.

If we take this to mean an accurate prediction of an objective historical event in the future, then it will no doubt be proven wrong, if it hasn't already been proven wrong. Yet it is a true statement, which we all respond to in the affirmative because we all have experienced to some degree Christ's eschatalogical parousia. That's what makes it a valid, true statement, because it is an accurate symbolization of a life lived at the very heightened extreme of tension in between the polarities of past present and future, of the Kingdom of Man and the Kingdom of God, of the physical and material, of prophecy and fulfilment, and so on.

The easy thing -- the conventional thing to do would be to conduct an extended midrash on what he REALLY meant by NEAR. Did he mean one day? Did he mean one month? One year? One century? One millenium? And what of his intentionality? Perhaps his own intentionality behind the statement is less significant than the luminosity. That it was really God's luminosity shining through the language of monasticism, shaping our consciousness to reveal that the way that Seraphim Rose lived his life is our paradigm.

Alvin Kimel

03-05-2003, 07:06 PM

Owen, your latest post is, for my money, the best and most interesting one yet in this thread, though I will not pretend that I understand it. :-)

But by the same token, it is just as unwarranted to objectivize the "fullness of divinity dwelt within Him" as a so-called historical fact. Just as revelation and narrative in history cannot be separated, we cannot separate His divinity from our perception, consciousness of it and faith in it. It would be an interesting side bar discussion for aliens from Venus, or archimedes, but pointless. Part of the reality of the Incarnation is our consciousness of it. We cannot recognize Jesus as the Christ unless He dwells to some degree in us as well. So we cannot objectivize THE INCARNATION as an historical event apart from the reality of incarnation of which we are a part. This reality is not an historical event. IT's what produces historical consciousness, which always has an apocalyptic, transfiguring element to it.

If one of your concerns is to insist that we cannot recognize Jesus as Lord and Son of God apart from our participation, in some sense, in the triune life of God, then I agree wholeheartedly.

"No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor 12:3) "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven." (Matt 16:17)

This of course was a primary concern of St. Augustine and later of the Council of Orange. Faith itself presupposes participation in the life of the Holy Trinity.

But you have formulated this faith as specifically a part of the Incarnation: "Part of the reality of the Incarnation is our consciousness of it." To rephrase the old philosophical question: "If God became incarnate and nobody paid any attention, did it happen?" Surely we do not want to say that our faith is somehow constitutive of the Incarnation.

But the Incarnation is not a solitary event. If God has, in Christ Jesus, assumed and regenerated human nature, if he has worked out our salvation in the ontological depths of humanity, then must we not say that all of humanity is comprehended or implicated in the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God? T. F. Torrance tantalizing writes:

Through his penetration into the perverted structures of human existence he reversed the process of corruption and more than made good what had been destroyed, for he has now anchored human nature in his own crucified and risen being, freely given it participation in the fullness of God's grace and blessing embodied in him. Since he is the eternal Word of God by whom and through whom all things that are made are made, and in whom the whole universe of visible and invisible realities coheres and hangs together, and since in him divine and human natures are inseparably united, then the secret of every man, whether he believes it or not, is bound up with Jesus for it is in him that human contingent existence has been grounded and secured." The Trinitarian Faith, p.183

I have always been challenged by Torrance's thought at this point. I'm still not sure what I think of it. But might Torrance's understanding perhaps provide the theological grounding that you are looking for to speak of our faith and participation in the Incarnation?

Owen Jones

03-05-2003, 07:16 PM

Just to try to clarify my point about Seraphim Rose's statement, as quoted above, "the end is near." If referring to a prediction of an objective historical event in the immediate future, then it is not a true statement. It is a true statement as referring to the metaxy reality. In the metaxy reality, the end is always near.

This is not to say that there is no such thing as objective historical events. It merely clarifies the issue that the true events that "objectify" our faith occur in the metaxy. And Seraphim Rose's life and his language and statements are examples of those metaxy events.

It's interesting that arch secularists have to formulate myths in order to reproduce the metaxy reality when they deny explicitly the Creator God. For example, the film "Contact" by that idiot cosmologist Carl Sagan. It is a secularized symbolization of the experience of metaxy reality. Actually, not a bad one, at least from the imaginative perspective and entertainment value.

Owen Jones

03-05-2003, 07:26 PM

Yes, Fr. Alvin, as long as Torrence doesn't then go on to deconstruct his statement by trying to "prove" it as being objectively true historically. It is a true statement as part of metaxy reality, of which he and the statement are events therein.

I struggled with the concept of the metaxy for a long time, and then I read something about Einstein's book on the theory of relativity. He wrote it for high school students! But I didn't understand it. And then I read that a brilliant philosopher didn't understand it, until he realized that it was SUPPOSED TO BE SIMPLE! When he re-read it simply, then he understood it.

God's Kingdom is the perfection of simplicity.

Owen Jones

03-05-2003, 07:52 PM

Another point I wish to make about Fr. Seraphim Rose's statement: the end is near. It's a true statement. But if I said it, it would lack authority. It wouldn't necessarily become a false statement, but in a sense it would be false for me to state it, or try to state it with authority.

It would simply come off as a recitation of a formula. I have not yet approached that level and have no experience of it at that level and cannot in good conscience speak authoritatively about the metaxy at that level, only on a very primitive or primary level, or as a theological/philosphical inquiry.

The film Contact by the way, really is quite extraordinary if you stop to notice. The alien intelligences provide a unique individual (a believer -- a seer?) with the mathematical information possible to build some device, purpose unknown, which she then convinces the government to spend billions on. They assume it is some kind of space transport. They put the scientist in it and observe and nothing happens. The experiment is a multi-billion dollar failure. Meanwhile, the scientist is travelling through some super string through space and meeting a parallel universe where she meets her dead relatives. She returns all shook up, and, needless to say, has a tough time explaining this "objective historical event" to the people who funded this massive scientific fiasco.

Owen Jones

03-05-2003, 07:55 PM

Marx had his own immanentized version of the metaxy. He called it the DIctatorship of the Proletariat. It comes in between the rule by capitalists and the final utopia of a classless society, only he never said how long it would last. And, a great amount of violent shedding of blood of innocent proletarians would have to be sacrificed to get us there.

Alvin Kimel

04-05-2003, 03:18 AM

I am very curioius where metaxy is found in the Fathers and how it is developed by them.

John Curtis Dunn

04-05-2003, 05:08 AM

Owen Jones wrote:

"My impression from your post is that you wish to equate "Christ of History" and "Christ of Faith" as warring dogmatomachies, and that both leave something to be desired. But perhaps we can consider them descriptively, not as slogans. And perhaps we need a definition of
faith just as much as a definition of history."

Please provide any quotes from the Saints and Fathers where they make use of the language of the Christ of History in contrast to or in conjunction with the Christ of Faith.

Secondly, to which quote of Fr. Seraphim do you refer? If it was to my quote, you have misquoted. I quoted Fr. Seraphim as having said,It is later than you think. You referred to "the end is near."

The failure of men to see the Incarnation is because of their own unbelief, they refuse to enter or having entered they depart from faith. The Incarnation is "God with us" and this "with us" has a definite historical happening, which must be believed in order to experience "God with us" in our own consciousness.

Also, we must remember, Christ came to seek and save those who are lost...those who say they do not need to be saved are blinded by their own pride. The problem with their unbelief is not in the uncertainty of the historicity of the Revelation. The Apostle John grounds all of reality in the Incarnation when he wrote: "The LOGOS became flesh and tabernacled among us."

The Revelation of Christ as "God with us" is not some parallel event above and outside of history, it is history, for it is the purpose for all things. The Cross holds all things together in the person of Jesus Christ. So important is it as a historical event, that St. Isaac of Syria described the Cross as the gate of all mysteries."

St. Ignatius of Antioch considered the historicalness of the Cross as "inviolable Tradition": \i"As for me, my archives (archeia) are Jesus Christ; the inviolable Tradition is His own Cross and His Death and His Resurrection."

Eusebios began his Ecclesiastical History writing: "My starting-point is no other than the first dispensation of God touching our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ."

Our reference to the historical events is not to "objectify" them as impersonal facts. Rather, we approach the Gospels in order to be changed by them, because in them we encounter "God with us." Yet, it is precisely the historical event of the Cross which cause scandal. The Cross is a "Historical Event" which transends time, past present and future and recapitualates all history unto Christ. When we enter into the Church we become congnizant of this recapitualtion. We sing, "We have seen the true light, we have found the true faith, we have received the Heavenly Spirit." But this all refers to a Historical Event which we have just received into our mouths and hearts. "...that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was delivered up took bread, and having given thanks, He broke it and said..."

We objectify this event at every Divine Liturgy. It has always been easier for men to acknowledge the transcendence of the Divine LOGOS than to acknowledge the immanence and humanity of the Only-begotten Son of God. The latter has and continues to be scandalous and cause of protests today, as it did in the first centuries.

Furthermore, the objectification of the Incarnation was most identifiable in martyrdom, but again, not to those who would not see.

john

Rebecca

04-05-2003, 05:45 AM

Although the service book I have for the Vespers of Holy Friday indicates that the chanter sings the following hymn standing in the middle of the soleas, I remember it being very touching when the chanter at my church walked over to the icon of the cross, which was on the soleas, and kneeled, facing the icon to sing the hymn:

"Today is hung upon the Tree, He Who suspended the Land in the midst of the waters. A crown of thorns crowns Him, Who is King of Angels. He is wrapped about with the purple of mockery, Who wrapped the Heavens with clouds. He received buffetings, Who freed Adam in Jordan. He was transfixed with nails, Who is the Bridegroom of the Church. He was pierced with a spear, Who is the Son of the Virgin.

We worship Thy Passion, O Christ. Show also unto us Thy glorious Resurrection."

http://www.greekcathedral.com/images/bridgrm2.gif
http://www.stspeterandpaulonline.org/images/saint_of_the_day/04apr/apr_29_jesus_extreme_humility.jpg

M.C. Steenberg

04-05-2003, 03:46 PM

I can concede your implied point that faith holds in balance two worlds, or a range of polarities, and that we cannot dispense with either or overcome either. What I can't concede is that one of those polarities is "objective reality of historical events."

I've read through your latest few postings, as well as some of the earlier, in the light of this. The only conclusion that I can come to is that such a reading departs rather substantially from that employed by the vast majority of the Patristic tradition. If we take first of all Irenaeus, who has already been discussed in this thread and who certainly has a well-developed understanding of history as relating to the 'in between' of the origins of the economy and its fulfilment in the eschaton, Irenaeus specifically and intentionally insists upon the objective reality of events in that economy as part of the source from which their historical, revelatory value is formed. Heretics deny or distort the objective realities of history, and this is why Irenaeus feels he can so easily refute them. The Gnostics interpret their own metaxy, their own notion of the 'in between' of existence; but for Irenaeus, their metaxy is in error precisely for its dismissal of objective fact. It is what makes their history 'gnostic'.

This is, by and large, the approach to history that the majority of the Fathers have taken up.

Let's take a look at Seraphim Rose's statement: the end is near, qouted above. [...] If we take this to mean an accurate prediction of an objective historical event in the future, then it will no doubt be proven wrong, if it hasn't already been proven wrong. Yet it is a true statement, which we all respond to in the affirmative because we all have experienced to some degree Christ's eschatalogical parousia.

I think it is very important to maintain the existence of a certain distinction in statements made of the future, and those made of the past. 'The end is near' is a statement that is eschatologically accurate at any point; but 'Jesus ate a fish last Tuesday' does not have the same sort of temporal non-specificity. If Jesus did not actually eat a fish last Tuesday, then this statement is false. The statement may be made within the context of the 'beyond-time' participation in eternity (thus the 'Yesterday Christ was buried in a tomb' of Holy Saturday hymns, etc.); but even in such a case, it is the event's actually having taken place that make the statement 'historical'.

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

04-05-2003, 04:17 PM

I'm not trying to dismiss objective historical fact, Matthew. And perhaps I did sound that way. I don't dismiss fact statements such as, Jesus ate a fish last Friday, or even, Jesus fed the five thousand by a miracle, or Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, or there was an empty tomb. I just think that those statements are of a different order than, "thou art the Christ, the son of the living God." I'm not convinced that this is an objective historical event. (The fact that the apostle said it is an objective historical event. But the facticity of Jesus as the Christ is a faith event, not an objective historical event.) If that's not Patristic, then I'm not sure what course toward suicide I shall take, since I certainly don't want to be in conflict with the Fathers on this.

Owen Jones

04-05-2003, 04:29 PM

Just to add to my last, Matthew, obviously there has to be a data base. And, frankly, I've always been one to give Thomas the benefit of the doubt. So, yes, I will concede that empirical data is one of the polarities of faith. But, sorry, I just have a kind of visceral response to the terminology, "objective historical event" as the basis of our faith.

If a Martian were to plop down on the planet, and say, show me to your religion, and he were then exposed to 10,000 of them, do you think he would choose Orthodox Christianity because of its objective historicity?

Owen Jones

04-05-2003, 04:39 PM

John, I think you have missed something or I have failed to communicate it.

Let me ask, when Christ was nailed to the Cross, where were all the disciples who believed in the objective historical fact of His divinity? And after His resurrection even, why were the disciples so few in number when they met in the upper room, and why so somber? That is because the fullness of His divinity, and his trampling over death for all mankind, were NOT OBJECTIVE HISTORICAL FACTS, but revelations yet to be illumined and yet to be narrated.

Owen Jones

04-05-2003, 04:44 PM

Dear Fr. Alvin,

We have an old thread around here somewhere wherein Matthew may have quoted some things. I'm not good at providing quotes. But particularly among the theological treatises in the Philokalia (which, admittedly, are among the more esoteric in Greek Patristic theology), you have periodic reference to what is translated into English as the intermediate world or realm. I'm not a Greek scholar so I can't do much more for you than that. It's more of an imbedded concept because, frankly, for them, it was more second nature, whereas for us today, we have a lights on lights off mentality about reality. Either something is real or it isn't and for us there is nothing in between.

Owen Jones

04-05-2003, 04:56 PM

Dear Matthew, et al.

I'm going way out on a limb here on what may be a gnostic position to take, so I'll pose it more as a hypothetical. But if I had sufficient powers of discernment, why would I need to have any fact of history to show me Christ? Why not the cosmos? Christ walked through the Garden of Eden. By that time, Adam and Eve had lost what powers of perception and discernment God had given them, and so they were embarrassed in their nakedness. They didn't need historical facts to show them who and what Christ was. They only needed to be able to see Him truly as He is. So do the Fathers address this question? Why have history at all? St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, in his Spiritual Counsels, says nothing about history at all. Only that we are the macro-cosmos. Is he a gnostic?

Daniel Jeandet

04-05-2003, 06:05 PM

What a boring thread this is becoming!

I mean no offence to anyone at all, but I think owen's point about history is being proven, right here, WITH THE VERY DRY AND BORING NATURE OF THIS THREAD. Who cares about history and historical fact?

History belongs to God. If you belong to him, history will fall into place.

Im with you Owen, if the Fathers didnt bother with such fluff as subjective versus objective history, why would we?

After all, sometimes mad people will question their own existence, and even look for proof in the witness of other people http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Alvin Kimel

04-05-2003, 08:35 PM

"Who cares about history and historical fact?"

I guess I really do. Maybe it's boring to say this, but I really do think it's important. I'm an adult convert to the Christian faith. I didn't sign on for mythology or for the promise of a multi-stage mystical way. I signed on because I thought, and on most days still think, that it really is true. But I also know that the Gospel is potentially disprovable. If one day someone should find the bones of Jesus, then my faith will have proven to be in vain, no matter how many metaxical, revelatory experiences I may have had. I am not mystical or religious by personality. If I should ever lose my faith, I will fall back into atheism. I will not turn to some other mystical way.

This morning I preached on the resurrection. Our Gospel was the story in Luke of Jesus appearing to his disciples and eating some broiled fish with them. They at first thought he was a spirit, but he assures them that he is not a ghost.

After my seminary training, I used to think it was important to critically interpret such stories as historical objectifications of more visionary, mystical, revelatory experiences. But now I think it's much more likely that the resurrection appearances probably happened just as described. Jesus shows up in a transformed physical body that is not constrained by the conditions of fallen existence. And as far as I know, a camera would indeed have captured the risen Jesus on film. I find N. T. Wright's new magisterial book on the resurrection so refreshing this way. He confronts all the modern shiboleths and finds that the resurrection stories really do make good, historical sense.

Of course, seeing the risen Jesus does not guarantee faith, as Matt 28:17 makes clear: "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." There always remains the mystery of faith, the mystery of the Holy Spirit.

Maybe it's only because I do not really understand what metaxy means; but I have absolutely no interest in it. It simply sounds too gnostic to me. Perhaps I'm just not spiritual enough. I find that Eucharist, Bible, absolution, prayer, the daily offices must suffice for me. My wife sees angels. I do not. And yet I think that the Gospel is especially for unspiritual folks like me. At least that's what I'm counting on.

In my judgment it's especially crucial today to insist on the objectivity of the Gospel. It's so easy, in the age in which we now live, to dissolve Jesus into some ahistorical avatar, a Christ figure with no content. That is the danger with which we are now faced in American society. People have no problem believing in God. The problem happens when you insist that this Jesus of Nazareth is the one exclusive savior of the world and the only way to the Father.

Owen Jones

04-05-2003, 09:01 PM

As you imply, Daniel, the Fathers quote personal testimony, but they don't see the need to then deconstruct that into subjective vs. objective. It's only since Decartes that that has become intellectually respectable.

You also make a good point about existence. Existence is not a fact. It is a question, or problem. Not a fact.

Owen Jones

04-05-2003, 09:12 PM

Dear Fr. Alvin,

As you say, there always remains the mystery of faith...

John Curtis Dunn

04-05-2003, 11:01 PM

Let me ask, when Christ was nailed to the Cross, where were all the disciples who believed in the objective historical fact of His divinity? And after His resurrection even, why were the disciples so few in number when they met in the upper room, and why so somber? That is because the fullness of His divinity, and his trampling over death for all mankind, were NOT OBJECTIVE HISTORICAL FACTS, but revelations yet to be illumined and yet to be narrated.

-----------

The Ever-Virgin Mary, the Theotokos-Mother of God was present. Was she ignorant of the objective historical fact of the Divinity of her own Son?

john

Owen Jones

05-05-2003, 12:47 AM

I would be pretty hard for her not to be!!!!

M.C. Steenberg

05-05-2003, 12:58 AM

Owen wrote:

I'm not trying to dismiss objective historical fact, Matthew. And perhaps I did sound that way. I don't dismiss fact statements such as, Jesus ate a fish last Friday, or even, Jesus fed the five thousand by a miracle, or Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, or there was an empty tomb. I just think that those statements are of a different order than, "thou art the Christ, the son of the living God." I'm not convinced that this is an objective historical event.

I think we may have here a key to the present discussion.

There is a huge difference in type between the statement 'Jesus walked into Galilee' and the statement 'Thou art the Christ'. The first can be called an historical statement in just about every sense (assuming it is true). The second statement is one which should not be considered historical, even as much as it was not meant to be historical. They are statements, as you say, of a different order.

'Jesus walked into Galilee' is a statement of history, of the economy unfolding, observable in the events of its objective reality. These events, and this reality, are enmeshed in the theological meaning and essence of the economy as a whole (i.e., Jesus' walking into Galilee holds deep truths about the concurrent situation, about protology, about the eschaton), and thus the events are larger than their observed particulars. They are situated in the midst of an economy of salvation that has preceded and will follow upon them; and all that has and will come, has a bearing on the reality itself -- this is the patristic meaning of metaxy, or existence 'in between'. The record of such events in 'history' is meant not only to reveal the objective reality, but also this larger eschatological framework. Thus can the Fathers read the protology of Genesis as a history that is both a record of objective reality (i.e. events that really took place in time), as well as an eschatological encounter with the deepest truths of the salvation economy.

'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God' is a statement of a very different order, as Owen has suggested. But what does this mean? The Fathers would read the Evangelist's recording of this phrase as (a) a record of what Simon Peter actually said, and (b) a recording of the theological reality of which he was speaking. The statement itself is not intended to be historical: it is the expression of Simon's faith. But its record in Scripture is historical in the sense that it records an actual event (Peter's speaking) which, given the truth of his faith, reveals that Jesus the man of history is also Christ the Son of God. Peter's confession reveals to us the reality that there is, in the unfolding of the economy (of which we, too, are now a part), one who is the Son of God, the Messiah. Our own union with this reality must be one of a faith that matches the true, inner conviction expressed by Peter in that moment of confession (and thus, if you like, the record of his confession launches us into the 'in between' of his faith and that which ours is meant to be).

INXC, Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

05-05-2003, 01:00 AM

What a boring thread this is becoming!

Dear in the Lord, Daniel,

It appears to be boring its way to the most active thread in the community. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Perhaps there is more to these concepts than has yet met your eye.

INXC, Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

05-05-2003, 01:07 AM

Some have asked for more information on the notion of metaxy, or the philosophical notion of existence as 'in between'.

There is an old thread in this community in which the subject was discussed to some degree. It can be found by clicking here.

Rebecca

05-05-2003, 02:13 AM

From The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:

"Shine into our hearts, O loving Master, the pure light of Your divine knowledge and open the eyes of our minds to an understanding of the things Your Gospel teaches. Implant in us also a reverence for Your blessed commandments so that, putting down the desires of our bodies, we may pursue a spiritual way of life, thinking and doing only those things that will plese You. For You are the light of our souls, and our bodies, Christ our God and to You we give glory, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the endless ages."

Br Paul Zimmerman

05-05-2003, 02:29 AM

Rebecca,
I love those words, " thinking and doing only those things that will please You."
Good words to remember.

Richard Domina

05-05-2003, 01:13 PM

I think you folks are drifting out farther than the life guard can swim. I'm not sure I understand these last treaties that have been posted but my pee-wee little brain seems to hear someone saying that the Incarnation was not an objective event in history(really happened in time and space). Even if we don't believe it happened that does not mean it did not happen. 2 and 2 is 4 whether I believe it or not. If I don't believe it than my subjective situation might be hunky-dory or not but if I ever need to rely on 2 and 2 being four in the macrocosm of activity than I'm screwed. Our whole salvation is dependant on this first basic fact. The fact that this was an event in time affords us the light and understanding to have such far reaching discussions- (this is what it took for us human slugs to begin to open our eyes). Pentecost could never have happened without all that preceded it. Rick

M.C. Steenberg

05-05-2003, 02:20 PM

I'm not sure I understand these last treaties that have been posted but my pee-wee little brain seems to hear someone saying that the Incarnation was not an objective event in history(really happened in time and space).

Actually, it was my point in my previous post that the objective reality of the Incarnation (as an example) was what must ground one's understanding of and approach to it through the eschatological dimension of living faith.

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

05-05-2003, 02:25 PM

It started out, Richard, by my objection, in principle, to a statement that referred to the Incarnation as an objective historical event. I countered that there is no Christ of history. Only the Christ of faith. My argument is that this does not imply that the incarnation is a product of fertile imagination. Quite the contrary. Only that it cannot be proved utilizing post-Cartesian philosophical categories, and that the witnesses to Jesus as the Christ are faith witnesses. They do not have an archimedian perspective that "proves" the Incarnation as an objective historical fact. Faith is the proof (Heb 11:1).

The Incarnation is a metaxy event, which is the realm of transfigured history, if you will.

Owen Jones

05-05-2003, 03:14 PM

Dear Father K,

I think you wrote something along these lines:

"I know that the Incarnation is ultimately disprovable." You went on to say that if the bones of Jesus were found, you would have to become an atheist.

I think this statement shows the inherent weakness of the position that our faith is dependent on an objectifiable historical event. I'm not sure you really believe this statement yourself, but it is the logical position you must take, if you start out with ojectifiable historical events as the ground of Christian faith.

The statement more accurately reflects the dogmatic assumptions of the modern scientific method which says that if something is not disprovable, then it cannot be taken seriously as scientific fact. In so doing, modernist science, really an ideological creed more than anything, reduces all truth to a particular method of inquiry, thus closing off the classical and Christian method (amply laid out in our own day by St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain in his Spiritual Counsels).

By agreeing with modern scientism, we cut the ground out of our whole reason for being as Christians.

The Incarnation, frankly, is a given. It is not provable or disprovable precisely because it is a given. We don't even need the witness to the resurrection/ascension of Christ to believe in the incarnation of God. We have the cosmos and our primary experience of the cosmos "proves" the incarnation on a daily basis. We live our lives with direction and purpose without any logical/empirical/scientific reason for doing so. (because this is so obvious, the ideologue must take it into account when devising his system. So he believes in some theory of primitive instinct, or a "life force" (vitalism) that explains why we live life as if it always has a transcendent meaning, purpose and direction.

What the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation does is it brings the intrinsically given principle of incarnation to its fullest expression in human consciousness, and, yes, in history, so that the truth of Creation can be fully embodied by Christians, iconically. No longer is it a cosmological principle exclusively. Mankind becomes the macrocosmos, and the Christian man of faith incapsulates the truth of the Cosmos, the truth of God incarnate in the world He has created, iconically. Our impossible mission (apart from faith) is to continously reveal to the world God's eschatalogical presence in His creation.

There is more to the Christian doctrine of Incarnation to be sure -- the belief that Christ atones for the sins of the world. But this is cosmological as well. EVERYONE has the feeling that there is something not quite right with the world the way it is. This is a primary experience that all human beings have of the cosmos.

So the ORthodox doctrine of The Incarnation is one that is firmly imbedded in our doctrine of Creation. The is no historically objectifiable proof of Creation of the cosmos by God. It is a given. It is the starting point from which everything else flows. If we wish to admit that the Incarnation is disprovable, we must also be willing to admit that the Creation of the cosmos is disprovable, that the existence of God is disprovable, and, reductio ad absurdum, we must be willing to admit that the cosmos itself is disprovable. THe ultimate nihilistic position.

Daniel Jeandet

05-05-2003, 03:51 PM

Very good post Owen. Your message is too short. Messages posted to this area must contain at least 5 words that are a minimum of two letters long. Your message had only 4 such words. Please lengthen your message and post it again.

Owen Jones

05-05-2003, 04:02 PM

I've forgotten what it is.

Owen Jones

05-05-2003, 04:03 PM

But it still "exists" in the metaxy reality so that should be sufficient.

Richard McBride

05-05-2003, 07:34 PM

CHRISTOS ANESTI

Beloved of the Lord Matthew

Thank you for referencing us back to your message:
"Posted on Saturday, 10 August, 2002 - 3:59 am";
since the first link to Metaxy ala Plato is out of commission, and since the Macchivelli ling is circuitous, I will add this link to Voegelin's several definitions of Metaxy:
http://www.salamander.com/~wmcclain/ev-dictionary.html#metaxy

I suppose this is necessary for Metaxy research, since Voegelin seems to be the current source; but I deplore reading Voegelin's postmodern verbiage -- it is so similar to Hans Urs von Balthasar's RC discovery of Eastern Orthodoxy (which is well and good, except all good judgements gained therefrom have to be returned to Rome for certification), that I cannot bring myself to working over it.

richard

M.C. Steenberg

05-05-2003, 11:00 PM

Thanks for the link, Richard. I'm sure some will find the Voeglin text of interest. One must be especially careful with Voeglin, however. Voeglian metaxy is, at times, something a bit different than patristic metaxy.

INXC, Matthew

Alvin Kimel

06-05-2003, 12:08 AM

The Incarnation, frankly, is a given. It is not provable or disprovable precisely because it is a given. We don't even need the witness to the resurrection/ascension of Christ to believe in the incarnation of God. We have the cosmos and our primary experience of the cosmos "proves" the incarnation on a daily basis.

Does this mean that we may believe in the Incarnation even if Jesus of Nazareth had never been born?

Does this mean that we may believe in the Incarnation even if Jesus had never been raised from the dead?

Owen Jones

06-05-2003, 01:23 AM

God is already incarnate in the world, in His Creation, from the beginning. That the fullness of divinity dwelt in the God-man Christ is a particular event that brings God's creation to its fullest expression -- it's fullest illumination -- for believers to be the witnesses to, the icons of. But incarnation, as a principle imbedded in nature, we did not need Jesus Christ to tell us that. Moses tells us that. Our experience of the cosmos tells us that. Look around you. Look at stuff. Where does it all come from? Why is it here? Why are we here? There's no watchmaker God behind it but a God that imbeds himself in our bodies and psyches that moves us to seek Him out and to live purposefully as if there is more to life than just existing. The cosmos is purposeful. This is why people could prophecy a man who would uniquely embody this principle, to reveal the fullness of God's purpose for us.

The cosmos, and its Divine origins and purpose, are not disprovable. It's not something that you can prove or disprove. It's a given which one either recognizes or doesn't. But most people throughout the ages, regardless of belief, have recognized this and have believed in and worshipped and propiatiated a god or gods imbedded in nature. It's only the modern scientific skeptic who says that if something cannot be disproven, then it cannot even be discussed. IF that were the case, we cannot talk about God. We can't really even talk about the cosmos. And ironically, many cosmologists are scratching their heads because they have a real problem saying what the cosmos is. And biologists these days don't even know what life is.

The uniqueness of the Incarnation in Christ is a matter of degree, not in kind. The fullness of divinity dwelt within him. But God has always been incarnate in His creation.

Owen Jones

06-05-2003, 01:37 AM

Voegelin's metaxy is the Platonic metaxy. Voegelin did not provide much commentary on the Greek Fathers. But I'm not sure that's relevant. He was interested in restoring the expeirence of an in-between reality in response to the loss of the experiential basis of both philosophy and faith carried out by modern ideologues, as well as church leaders who reduce theology to a recipe or dry formula. In fact, he found the origins of modern, western ideology in a natural spiritual revolt against a Church (largely the Latin Church), that had separated dogma from their engendering experiences. I think it is a valid conclusion.

While Voegelin seems to have had some personal "issues" with Christianity as well -- he felt that the heightened eschatalogical tension of Christian faith had been purchased by an equivalent loss of reason -- nevertheless, I think he demonstrated the relevance of the philosophical noetic differentiation to the Christian vision.

So, yes, the Christian metaxy is far more of an eschatalogical experience than the philosophic. That said, the tradition of the desert fathers is not far from the Platonic, when you consider the emphasis on detachment and noetic consciousness. And Plato's Timeaus is the most oft quoted text by the Fathers, after Holy Scripture of course.

Alvin Kimel

06-05-2003, 02:01 AM

"God is already incarnate in the world, in His Creation, from the beginning."

This is a very provocative post from Owen. Does Owen's assertions about the Incarnation have support in the Fathers?

Richard Leigh

06-05-2003, 02:08 AM

Dear Owen,

I am extremely interested in the patristic distinction between "theoria" as objective experience of the divine and "theory" as intellectual exercise to arrive at human conclusions regarding anything, especially "the divine." I am, in fact, looking for anything I can find on it, and would appreciate any more help you could give.

At the same time, I must protest your statement regarding God's incarnation in that of his creation not conceived and born of the Theotokos.

Repectfully yours,

Richard

Rebecca

06-05-2003, 03:07 AM

Br. Paul wrote:

Rebecca,
I love those words, " thinking and doing only those things that will please You."
Good words to remember

Indeed.

Owen Jones

06-05-2003, 05:10 AM

Here's my best shot. theoria classically refers to a level of participation in the divine nous that results in a differentiation of consciousness and a change in not only the nature of our being, personally, but being itself. that's the classic formulation, philsophically, and while the various gnomic anthologies among the desert fathers sometimes use different terminologies, it's the same thing. You don't really need to add the term "objective" to it to make it real. There is not a subject and object dichotomy here. Try to think in terms of the language of participation -- metelepsis I think in the Greek. Not subject and object. It's not a theory of anything but a concrete experience that can be talked about utilizing technically precise language that can be understood because others can identify with the experience. Noetic differentiation is not just a personal, private experience, in the sense in which most people think of experiences today. It's what creates a before and after reality for societies and history.

Theory, starting probably in the 18th Century, is predicated on the false notion that ideas have a seperate existence of their own. And that we can create a system of ideas or theory about anything, without any concrete reference. For example, "all history is the history of class struggle." That's Marx's theory, which he claimed was scientific, and therefore not to be questioned.

The experience behind the modern symbol -- theory -- is alienation. Modern theorists are people who are alienated, ipso facto. People who cannot consciously live life on life's terms. So they become a theorist. But life is not a theory of anything. It's something we have to live.

Regarding THE incarnation vs. incarnation: I can't quote a specific Biblical or Patristic text for you, verbatim, but certainly God is in the world He created, as well as beyond it, before Christ became a particular man, in the flesh. Deut. 30 comes to mind though. "God is not far off..." But the OT is replete with imagery in which God is seen in and through the cosmos. It's not something He made and then stood apart from.

The loss of the principle of incarnation in creation is one of the reasons why Protestants believe only in a personal relationship with Christ. But for Orthodoxy, Christ didn't just show up in the year 1! Christ is present in creation from the beginning. YOu'd have to go to some patristic texts on Christology for this, in which Christ is seen in His cosmic dimension as well as His personal dimension, but it's been a while so I can't cite them. Maybe somebody else can.

Owen Jones

06-05-2003, 05:11 AM

Richard,

The idea of the cosmic Christ was, according to some of the Fathers, foreshadowed in Plato's Timaeus, which is his creation myth, which is why it is the most often quoted text by the Fathers, after Holy Scripture.

Owen Jones

06-05-2003, 05:19 AM

It wasn't intended to be provocative, Father K., but if I'm wrong I'm all ears. Christ is coeternal with the Father. He walked in the Garden of Eden. But more, he is the creative principle, I think, for the fathers. He wasn't just sitting on the sidelines when the Father created the cosmos, and then sitting on the bench until the coach told him to suit up and appear on the field in the last inning of pre-Christian history in order to win the game. He was always present in the created world, before he was revealed to us in flesh and blood.

Richard Leigh

06-05-2003, 05:43 AM

Thank you Owen,

For your response re. theory vs. theoria.

Christ, though, wasn't "anointed" (christed) before his incarnation, was he? I mean, aren't we talking about the pre-incarnate Logos until yr. 1? But, even granting that he pervades the entire creation (and always has) we don't consider the universe God's body, do we?

Richard

John Kapetan

06-05-2003, 07:09 AM

Owen: Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong. St Maximos the Confessor and St. Iraeneus of Lyons speak of the Incarnation as God's plan from the beginning. The doctrine of recapitulation speaks pretty clearly regarding this. My fear is that I am paraphrasing too much. I believe one of the monastic brothers or a Priest could best explain. Here's my best shot. theoria classically refers to a level of participation in the divine nous that results in a differentiation of consciousness and a change in not only the nature of our being, personally, but being itself. that's the classic formulation, philsophically, and while the various gnomic anthologies among the desert fathers sometimes use different terminologies, it's the same thing. You don't really need to add the term "objective" to it to make it real. There is not a subject and object dichotomy here. Try to think in terms of the language of participation -- metelepsis I think in the Greek. Not subject and object. It's not a theory of anything but a concrete experience that can be talked about utilizing technically precise language that can be understood because others can identify with the experience. Noetic differentiation is not just a personal, private experience, in the sense in which most people think of experiences today. It's what creates a before and after reality for societies and history. : : The loss of the principle of incarnation in creation is one of the reasons why Protestants believe only in a personal relationship with Christ. But for Orthodoxy, Christ didn't just show up in the year 1! Christ is present in creation from the beginning. YOu'd have to go to some patristic texts on Christology for this, in which Christ is seen in His cosmic dimension as well as His personal dimension, but it's been a while so I can't cite them. Maybe somebody else can.

John Kapetan

06-05-2003, 07:37 AM

Let me clear up the previous post. I've got to learn to proofread. Owen: Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong. St Maximos the Confessor and St. Iraeneus of Lyons speak of the Incarnation as God's plan from the beginning. The doctrine of recapitulation speaks pretty clearly regarding this. My fear is that I am paraphrasing too much. I believe one of the monastic brothers or a Priest could best explain. That is my my best shot. 'theoria classically refers to a level of participation in the divine nous that results in a differentiation of consciousness and a change in not only the nature of our being, personally, but being itself. that's the classic formulation, philsophically, and while the various gnomic anthologies among the desert fathers sometimes use different terminologies, it's the same thing. You don't really need to add the term "objective" to it to make it real. There is not a subject and object dichotomy here. Try to think in terms of the language of participation -- metelepsis I think in the Greek. Not subject and object. It's not a theory of anything but a concrete experience that can be talked about utilizing technically precise language that can be understood because others can identify with the experience. Noetic differentiation is not just a personal, private experience, in the sense in which most people think of experiences today. It's what creates a before and after reality for societies and history. : : The loss of the principle of incarnation in creation is one of the reasons why Protestants believe only in a personal relationship with Christ. But for Orthodoxy, Christ didn't just show up in the year 1! Christ is present in creation from the beginning. YOu'd have to go to some patristic texts on Christology for this, in which Christ is seen in His cosmic dimension as well as His personal dimension, but it's been a while so I can't cite them. Maybe somebody else can.'

John Wilson

06-05-2003, 01:23 PM

I'm afraid I'm in over my head here as I have no head for the language and principles of philosophic discussion. However, although I really can't express why I disagree with Owen's statement regarding incarnation vs incarnation, but my humble understanding is that there is a vast chasm between created matter and the uncreated God who brought it into being and sustains it by His will, at least there was a vast chasm until Christ bridged it. The creation certainly reflects the skill and mastery of the creator, but can we really say the creator is in His creation?

John.

Richard McBride

06-05-2003, 08:05 PM

Blessed of the Lord, John w:

I too am NOT graced with sufficient discernment to theologize, and I think even Seraphim has expressed similar reservations. Yet, when Richard Leigh brought up his hesitations:
"Christ, though, wasn't "anointed" (christed) before his incarnation, was he? I mean, aren't we talking about the pre-incarnate Logos until yr. 1? But, even granting that he pervades the entire creation (and always has) we don't consider the universe God's body, do we? "

I put this note at the bottom of his message:

" [ McB: I.E. created "universe" cannot be the uncreated God] cf #88 "

[Richard Leigh's post is #86; and I added your post #88 to it today]
Needing this sort of order in this complex [to me] series of issues, explains how inept I am at theological ideas.

Yet, I suspect there will some sort of answer which bases itself upon the perfect Earth which was created by God: the pre-Fall Earth. And it will be saying again what Seraphim has said earlier, that in this way Christ is "immanent", and "transcendent", in His creation, and thus avoids the problem of pantheism.

Thus, I suspicion that there is Incarnation (the homoousian God) and "incarnation" (the always-was, is-now & ever-shall-be embedded God), and that it is the latter under discussion here: Is it appropriate to use "Incarnation" in this manner? I believe it comes down to this issue.

Then to complicate matters, there may be the hesitation in Orthodoxy to engage "immanence"? Thus, Seraphim may not have used the precise term, "immanent". Not being a theologian (thank God), I don't really know about these things.

I enjoy your posts, John.

richard mcb

Richard McBride

06-05-2003, 08:26 PM

Blessed of the Lord, John k:

Is your post then, a "recapitulation" of Seraphim's earlier post " Owen Jones 444 Posted on Tuesday, 06 May, 2003 - 3:10 am"? -- a summary, as it were? If so, I am not clear as to its purpose?

Thanks for bringing forth the "Recapitualation" theory.

John Kapetan

06-05-2003, 11:43 PM

Blessed of the Lord: Richard M.: I guess the post was actually intended to list one or two of the Fathers who supported what Owen was saying. I thought he asked for some of the fathers that wrote about the Incarnation at the end of one of his posts. I wondered if what he was saying fell in line with the doctrine of recapitulation. It sounded a little like that to me. I'm not sure if it is actually spoken in terms of Incarnation vs. incarnation by the church fathers. I would actually like to know if it is. Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse anything for anybody. John K

Rebecca

07-05-2003, 01:47 AM

Owen wrote:

Plato's Timaeus, which is his creation myth, which is why it is the most often quoted text by the Fathers, after Holy Scripture.

I would be interested in knowing the source of this statistic, please.

Alvin Kimel

07-05-2003, 03:36 AM

If I may be so bold, I suggest that the proposal that the eternal Word is incarnate in creation apart from Jesus Christ is contrary to the creedal and dogmatic Tradition. The Tradition asserts:

(1) The transcendent God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, creates the cosmos ex nihilo. Specifically, the Father creates the cosmos through the Son by the Holy Spirit. This is not incarnation.

(2) At every moment, the Father sustains the universe in existence through the Son by the Holy Spirit. Again, this is not incarnation.

(3) The Triune God reveals himself in various ways in his creaiton--and specifically in the history of his people Israel. Again, this is not incarnation.

(4) In the fullness of time, the eternal Son becomes embodies himself in his creation as the man Jesus of Nazareth. This is Incarnation.

All speculation about metaxy or whatever must first be submitted to the fundamental dogmatic truths of the Faith.

If there was no Jesus, there was no Incarnation of the eternal Son.

If Jesus was not raised from the dead, then the Incarnation was only a temporary phenomenon and we are still in our sins.

Attempts to eliminate the historical contingency and historical vulnerability of the Gospel only succeeds in turning the Gospel into myth.

Richard McBride

07-05-2003, 05:48 AM

Goodness no, John K:

Your new venture into 'Recapitulation' is more than worthy: It is received with delight, and in anticipation that you may add to it. It is a wonderful theme, and one which Seraphim might well pick up.

I was just surprised that your long recapitulation of Seraphim's post had no other purpose to it; for I rather suspicioned that you might be warming up to a bout with 'metelepsis'. But I was confused on that score as well: I had mistakenly thought Seraphim was speaking of the metalamba&vw family of meanings, as, "to go in shares with someone". On second look, I see I hadn't a clue anyway.

So, do carry on with 'Recapitulation', and ignore my poor poke (all in fun) at your long summary.

Truly, I meant nothing but the best for you.
richard mcb

Richard McBride

07-05-2003, 07:27 AM

monochos: Re Fr A Kimel #94

Dear Father Kimel:

There is a sense in the way you say this which jangles my Orthodox nerves:

"(1) The transcendent God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, creates the cosmos ex nihilo . Specifically, the Father creates the cosmos through the Son by the Holy Spirit. This is not incarnation.
(2) At every moment, the Father sustains the universe in existence through the Son by the Holy Spirit. Again, this is not incarnation. "

Particularly, "the Father creates the cosmos through the Son by the Holy Spirit", and "the Father sustains the universe in existence through the Son by the Holy Spirit".
There is a determination in the way you put this which strains to achieve hierarchal separation among the three Persons. It reminds of Rome's new emphasis placed upon the Hierarchy in the Nineteenth Century.

Orthodox interpretation [mine of course] of:

"All things were made through Him, and without him nothing was made that was made"

[John 1:3] would not be the hierarchal steps of, (A) The Father appointed (B) The Son as contractor and (C) The Holy Spirit as subcontractor. There is too much of this separation of status in your words, too much of the precise job description in your formula.

Orthodox meaning [again according to my interpretation] of Saint John's powerful words places the emphasis upon the Word, the Son who did indeed make all creation -- and that was then " ex nihilo".

Admittedly, this emphasis has the unhappy effect of avoiding your main point, " this is not incarnation". But by shifting focus to the hierarchal formula, or to its divine job description, we emphasize a different argument: (A) Either Christ made the creation, being fully equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit; or (B) Christ did much of the same design work while second in command, and the Holy Spirit was job captain.

By shifting the primary focus thusly, we come at the problem with an entirely different attitude -- depending upon whether one is an (A) or a (B). My version of the Orthodox position (A) prefers not to wrangle over who actually ran the Company when creation was put together ex nihilo. It was the work of the Word, through and through, and without Him, nothing was made that was made.

Then [I maintain], anyone possessing such a cosmological perspective will be much more inclined to see merit in John K's doctrine of recapitulation. Armed with that viewpoint, the least one should say is that an argument does exist for linking the created cosmos with the Incarnation (as Saint Irenaeus is supposed to have believed).

However, I somehow doubt that this softer argument (A) will seem attractive to the thoroughly theological mind.

Let us agree on one thing:Thank God, Christ is Risen!

richard mcb

Richard Domina

07-05-2003, 01:44 PM

The world we now live in, though created by God, is fallen from it's first paradisical state. " The entire creation groaneth". The point of the Incarnation is to re-unite the creation with the Creator. This is all along the same lines as the validity of history argument of a few days ago. Christ has entered history but it's up to man to enter Christ. The Light shineth in the darkness but the darkness comprehended it not. Rick

Alvin Kimel

07-05-2003, 01:55 PM

Richard, I am surprised that you say that my post jangles your Orthodox nerves. When it comes to the divine work of creation, it is always the Father who gets first mention. That is true in Scripture, and it is true in Irenaeus, Athanasius, and the Cappadocians. It's been many years since I was immersed in these trinitarian texts, but I'm feeling pretty confident here. I'm happy to be corrected; but it would be good to be corrected by specific patristic texts. I'm feeling particularly confident that Irenaeus's recapitulation does not support any idea of a cosmological incarnation that antedates the historical incarnation in Christ Jesus. But perhaps Matt can help us out further there.

The point I am making, though, is that the Incarnation of the Son refers specifically to the Word's assumption of human nature in Jesus. The pre-existent Word does not become incarnate through the act of creation, though I'm happy to discuss how this might in fact be the case at the final consummation, when God will be all in all.

I am going to resist, with all of my heart, all speculative movement away from the historical particularities of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is not simply a manifestation of the eternal Word incarnate in creation. He is the eternal Word. We do not know any thing about the Holy Trinity except through Jesus Christ. We do not begin with a general idea of the triune being of God and then fit Jesus into that idea. Jesus is the one who forces us to dramatically alter all our understandings of deity. Or as Martin Luther pointedly declared, "I will have no other God but the man named Jesus."

Thus even when we speak of the mediation of creation through the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, we are always thinking of him who who will be/is incarnate in Jesus. Consider, for example, Paul's Letter to the Colossians:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rules or powers--all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col 1:15-17)

Who is the subject of this passage? The Lord Jesus Christ! In fact, if we want to speculate, then let's speculate on how the Father creates the universe through Jesus of Nazareth. That, I suggest, would be closer to the Scriptures than the idea that God is incarnate in all of creation.

But I happily join with you, Christ is risen!

Owen Jones

07-05-2003, 03:18 PM

Just to "recapitulate" ha ha.

I went to an Episcopal seminary in which having anal sex with other men was considered to be "incarnational." So I fully understand how the term "incarnational" has become a term of derision, for well deserved reasons. Such people who use it in a perverted sense, degrade the particularity of Jesus as the Christ into a useful myth, or propaganda, that, now that we know about Carl Jung, can even be used therapuetically by wise priests who hide their disbelief from their flock.

But I'm also concerned about setting up modern disbelief as the straw man in absolutely every discussion of theology that we have. There shouldn't be a bogeyman behind every discussion that we have of theology, IMHO.

I don't know if I'm on firm ground patristically, but I think I am philosophically, that reality demonstrates that God is not just working through His energies in creation but that He is in some sense In His creation. In people, certainly. This does not mean that God is consubstantial with the world. Christianity de-divinizes nature. We no longer worship nature. But that does not mean that the opposite is necessarily true.

That we can say that the fullness of divinity dwelt within Him, is precisely because God is already incarnate to some degree in us so that we can recognize Jesus as the Christ. The Fathers, in fact, do a very fine job (which we "moderns" don't) of holding paradoxes together. That God is not of this world yet in the world. That the Father is beyond all things as well as the creator of all things.

There is another very controversial approach to this for many a traditional Christian, but again, what makes it controversial in my opinion is simply the modern skeptical bogeyman lurking, and not really an adept analysis. That is what I am referring to as the problem of myth.

C.S. Lewis once wrote that in Christ, myth becomes fact. He was well read enough to know that there are many incarnational myths in different cultures. There are dying and rising Gods. There are virgin births, etc.etc. So his resolution of this apparent reduction of the Incarnation to the realm of myth and relativism was to argue that in Christ, myth became fact. And, indeed, I get the sense from the Greek Fathers that this is generally how they treated the issue as well. I suppose that's fine theologically, but I don't buy it philsophically.

I would suggest, rather, that the fact of myth, and the fact of equivalent myths, is more a sign of the incarnation as a general principle in creation than it is a refutation of it. And that intelligent Christians rather should see this as proof of the pudding, rather than a refutation of it.

Of course, that begs the question of the role of myth in Christianity, and this is the most difficult for our literal mindsets today, in which we think that there are two polar opposites, myth and fact, and never the twain shall meet. On this issue it seems to me that the Fathers were much more intelligent than we are. They understood that God uses myth to reveal himself to us, and that there is no inherent conflict between myth, or the fact of myth, and "objective historical events." Not all of the Fathers, to be sure, but some of the ones that are admired the most. Today, myth is either used duplicitously by intellectual frauds like Joseph Campbell, or it is used disparagingly by people looking for certitude of religious belief. But I believe the Greek Fathers generally were more supple in their understanding in this regard. Something can be a true fact and a true myth at the same time.

To recapitulate on the issue of "objective historical event," I'm still not persuaded by our discussion that we should concede Christianity to the radical empiricists. It is faith that is both the evidence(proof) and the substance. Not objective historical fact. Whatever that is. The Bible has no need to explain this. It just says it. What is our problem with it? If Heb 11:1 doesn't mean what it says, then on what basis can someone say that it means anything?

Just a personal note: I too was once among the number of religious people today who think that to have right belief was to be right. That was the purpose of it, I thought. To be right. But it isn't. That's not what salvation is -- to be right. The purpose of right belief is to be changed. There is a big difference which is impossible to explain.

John Kapetan

07-05-2003, 03:32 PM

Alvin: This letter is not so much intended to correct what you it said to Richard, but to shed some light on the discussion. I am not referring to Irenaeus, particularly confident that Irenaeus's recapitulation does not support any idea of a cosmological incarnation that antedates the historical incarnation in Christ Jesus. But perhaps Matt can help us out further there.

The point I am making, though, is that the Incarnation of the Son refers specifically to the Word's assumption of human nature in Jesus. The pre-existent Word does not become incarnate through the act of creation, though I'm happy to discuss how this might in fact be the case at the final consummation, when God will be all in all.

I am going to resist, with all of my heart, all speculative movement away from the historical particularities of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is not simply a manifestation of the eternal Word incarnate in creation. He is the eternal Word. We do not know any thing about the Holy Trinity except through Jesus Christ. We do not begin with a general idea of the triune being of God and then fit Jesus into that idea. Jesus is the one who forces us to dramatically alter all our understandings of deity. Or as Martin Luther pointedly declared, "I will have no other God but the man named Jesus."

Thus even when we speak of the mediation of creation through the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, we are always thinking of him who who will be/is incarnate in Jesus. Consider, for example, Paul's Letter to the Colossians: _____

quote: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rules or powers--all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col 1:15-17) _____

Who is the subject of this passage? The Lord Jesus Christ! In fact, if we want to speculate, then let's speculate on how the Father creates the universe through Jesus of Nazareth. That, I suggest, would be closer to the Scriptures than the idea that God is incarnate in all of creation.

But I happily join with you, Christ is risen!

John Kapetan

07-05-2003, 04:53 PM

Alvin: My apologies for the e-mail, I hit send before I was done. I'm not referring to Irenaeus, but to Maximus the confessor. This comes from the notes of one of the monks at Saint Tikhon's. I hope he doesn't mind me using some of his text. "Saint Maximus the Confessors doctrine of recapitulation is 'summed up' in his statement the "One Logos is the many logoi, and the many logoi are one Logos." (From 'The Disputation with Pyrrhus of our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor. In other words, in his Incarnation, Jesus Christ possesses and is the fullness of the universals common both to deity and humanity. The monk at St. Tikhon's explains that this statement is rather dense and needs to be clarified. To do this we must focus on what is central: the Divine plan of God. The plan is "the Incarnation of the Word of God, which is not subordinated to the Fall, but was known from all eternity by the Trinitarian Council. He goes on to say that . this in no way is a denial of history, but the transcending of it. I hope I wasn't to brief and this shed some light on the discussion. John Kapetan

Richard Leigh

07-05-2003, 04:58 PM

Dear Rebecca (and for the rest as well, especially Owen),

I don't have a source for those statistics but I have a rather lengthy quotation from the now Orthodox Jaroslav Pelikan (Christianity and Classical Culture, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1993 , p.96) not long before his official membering in Orthodoxy (from Lutheranism, in case you'all didn't know). The book is the publication of his Gifford Lectures, 1992-1993. The quotation is in chapter six, "The Universe as Cosmos" where the professor quotes another Gifford Lecturer, James Adam:

"As James Adam said of the [i]Timaeus in one of the earliest series of Gifford Lectures, delivered at Aberdeen in 1904 and 1906, 'It is difficult to overestimate the influence which the dialogue exercised on religious thought and speculation during the last century and a half before the birth of Christ, and also in the early centuries of the Chrstian era. The Timaeus did more than any other literary masterpiece to facilitate and promote that fusion of Hellenism and Hebraism out of which so much of Christian theology has sprung.' Or, in the words of George Grote, which Adam also quoted, 'It was thus that the Platonic Timaeus became the medium of transition, from the Polytheistic theology which served as philosophy among the early ages of Greece, to the omnipotent Monotheism to which philosophy became subordinated after the Christian era.' The interaction throughout Christian theological, philosophical, and exegetical history between these two accounts of creation in Genesis and in Timaeus---going back, as so many such historical problems did, to Philo of Alexandrian and Hellenistic Judaism---is an issue deserving of more attention from scholars than it has received. But even now it is possible to see that (employing the terms in the title of Jean Daniélou's pioneering study of Gregory of Nyssa, which helped to set off fifty years of debate) the Christian 'mystical theology' of Nyssen and the other Cappadocians owed much of its vocabulary and conceptual framework to 'Planonism,' but that in many fundamental respects it also transcended the Platonic or Neoplatonic framework."

And to Owen, who wrote

Plato's Timaeus, which is his creation myth, which is why it is the most often quoted text by the Fathers, after Holy Scripture

Remember that it was a constructed myth, and therefore not "myth" in the sense used by Jung, for whom authentic myth was the surfacing of contents of the collective unconscious.

Richard Leigh

Owen Jones

07-05-2003, 06:48 PM

Dear Richard,

It's Jung's use of the term myth that is constructed. Plato's isn't. There is no such thing as a collective unconscious.

Richard Domina

07-05-2003, 06:58 PM

wow! we're all so sure it is a myth now. To say it is a myth implies we know the reality behind it and in fact we don't. The laws of creation are immutable. Man-in Adam-was living in the presence of his Creator in the midst of and as His creation. All this is according to the natural laws of creation. Man entertained the idea of his own-ness or godliness or self-reliance apart from the Living Presence (in obedience to the full spectrum of the laws of life.) This act,also naturally,completely removed man from his divine perception. The only way for man to regain this original state is for the Divine to become man born of a woman and retrace the steps of Adam only without succumbing to the world,the flesh and the devil. This is our victory in Christ. The seeds of both Adam and Christ lie in each of us. Again, according to the natural laws governing the universe these seeds grow as they are nurtured or die if they are not. This is to say- the laws of nature are of course from the Creator but the Creator is not in them in the sense of eternal life. THis can only come about by an intervention of the Deity in a law conformable way<(the Incarnation). It is all in the scriptures . Rick

Alvin Kimel

07-05-2003, 08:28 PM

I don't know if I'm on firm ground patristically, but I think I am philosophically, that reality demonstrates that God is not just working through His energies in creation but that He is in some sense In His creation. In people, certainly. This does not mean that God is consubstantial with the world. Christianity de-divinizes nature. We no longer worship nature. But that does not mean that the opposite is necessarily true.

I'm sure that all Christians would agree that God is "in" his creation. But this divine immanence is grounded in God's transcendence, in the fact that he is infinitely different than what he has made from out of nothing.

The outstanding Catholic philosopher, Robert Sokolowski, describes this as the Christian distinction (The God of Faith and Reason[1982]). Unlike mythological and philosophical paganism, which conceived of deity or the deities as existing in essential interrelationship and interdependence with everything else, Christianity conceived of God as the transcendent Creator who did not have to create the world and who would have eternally existed in undiminished goodness, greatness, and being even if he had never created the world. This understanding represented a revolution in human thought. Humanity did not think this up on its own, could not have have thought this up on its own. It is divine revelation. The world is radically contingent. It might never have existed. Yet even if God had never created, he would still have been God in the fullness of his being. It is this distinction that must govern all of our theological and philosophical reflection. In the words of Sokolowski:

Christian theology is differentiated from pagan religious and philosophical reflection primarily by the introduction of a new distinction between the world understood as possibly not having existed and God understood as possibily being all that there is, with no diminution of goodness or greatness. It is not the case that God and the world are each separatedly understood in this new way; they are determined in the distinction, not each apart from the other. The Christian distinction between the world and God may receive its precisely verbal formulation in a theoretical context, since it is described especially by theologians and philosophers, but the distinction does not emerge for the first time in this theoretical setting. It receives its formulation in reflective thought because it has already been achieved in the life that goes on before before reflective thinking occurs. The distinction is lived in Christian life, and most originally it was lived and expressed in the life of Jesus, after having been anticipated, and hence to some extent possessed, in the Old Testament history which Jesus completed.

Precisely because humanity cannot think its way into this distinction, it must be communicated to us by divine word and deed. The distinction must be spoken to us.

Because God is not one of the beings of this world, because he so infinitely different from all that he has made, he can be intimately involved and present in and throughout his creation. Yet because of this divine difference, God will also be experienced as uniquely absent. As St. Anselm wrote, "You are within me and around me, and I feel you not."

Does the proposal of God's incarnation in creation apart from Jesus of Nazareth accord with the fundamental Christian distinction?

Richard Leigh

07-05-2003, 09:08 PM

Dear Owen,

I didn't say Plato's use of the term "myth" was constructed. I said his myth was. I meant that his myth was not a tradition inherited from his culture, rather a story he made up quite on purpose to illustrate his idea of creation.

St. Peter uses the word "myth" in the phrase "cleverly devised myths" in apparent reference to gnostic stories to describe their doctrine of God, creation, and their interrelationship.This in contradistinction to the truth of the Christian gospel.

Jung's use of the term "myth" is psychological. As to the existence of the fact he observed which he labeled "collective unconscious" I would just say there is a great deal in creation to which humanity in the collective is unconscious.

Richard

Owen Jones

07-05-2003, 09:29 PM

By now, Richard, you probably have the sense that I came to believe in the Christian God through philosophy, for what it's worth, and not Christian apologetics per se. Now, in Socrates and Plato you have revealed truth. It is truth revealed by God. I do not believe that it is the fullness of that truth. I do not believe there is no error when it comes to certain speculative issues, any more than there has never been a time when there was no error in christianity. What I certainly don't believe is that it is something that's just made up. Socrates and Plato said that it wasn't made up, that it was something revealed to them. This is why many of the Fathers were able to borrow certain categories of thought from philosophy -- because it's not just thinking about stuff. It's not just a bunch of stuff that's made up. A common misunderstanding about the nature of philosophy. It's easy to "prove" that God revealed himself to the philosophers. For example, the Cardinal virtues were first explicated by Heraclitus. So I do not believe that there is a contradistinction between philosophy and Christian theology as you suggest It is much more complicated than that. I realize that it is impossible for me to defend that statement in a way that anyone would be likely to believe it who had not come to Christian faith by the same route, or had a good philosophical education. (there are still a few Christians around who do).

Regarding Jung, he believed that he was the first person in human history who understood myth. He believed that he was unique in all human history in that, for all people before him, they were just basically robots, spilling something from the collective unconscious, whereas he really knew what myth was. Talk about gnostic!

But I am not sanguine about the possibilities of any revealing discussion about myth. Because these days it only means one thing: something that's made up, and therefore not true, in "contradistinction" to Christianity, which is proven historical fact. God save us all.

Owen Jones

07-05-2003, 09:41 PM

Dear Fr. Alvin,

That's all I'm saying --- that God is IN His creation. I'm using the term incarnation, or the principle of incarnation, to apply to that. What's wrong with that?

As for Sokowsky, I'm not familiar with him, but he doesn't sound that fantastic. I am skeptical of Catholic theologians who insist on making such points. I don't think they really understand what philosophy is or isn't, and so they reduce it simply to paganism, and leave it at that. Which means a destruction of the life of reason. Reason is a revelation that is not in "contradistinction" to Christian faith.

To look at it simplistically, God revealed the Law to Moses and the Jews, and Reason to Socrates and the Greeks, and in Christ the two are emobodied in one man and in one universal principle.

So now we will have a long thread about the "definition" of reason.

Richard Domina

07-05-2003, 11:22 PM

I don't know anything about Jung but since the fall the collective has been nothing but unconscious.

Alvin Kimel

07-05-2003, 11:27 PM

That's all I'm saying --- that God is IN His creation. I'm using the term incarnation, or the principle of incarnation, to apply to that. What's wrong with that?

Because it's confusing and misleading, especially in today's panentheistic climate, where it's quite popular to speak of the cosmos as the body of God.

"Incarnation" has a very specific meaning in the theological tradition, and by this meaning, the eternal Logos is not incarnate, enfleshed, or embodied in the cosmos. He is only incarnate in the human being Jesus of Nazareth.

If I interpret you rightly (and I may not be, in which case I'm sure you will correct me), you are inviting us to consider the significance of the truth that God the Father has created the universe through his eternal Son, who has become incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth.

Why not simply say this?

M. Rallis

08-05-2003, 12:29 AM

Christ is Risen!

Owen, in post #450 says:

"By now, Richard, you probably have the sense that I came to believe in the Christian God through philosophy, for what it's worth, and not Christian apologetics per se. Now, in Socrates and Plato you have revealed truth. It is truth revealed by God. I do not believe that it is the fullness of that truth."

Here is the where I have difficulty. To speak of truth in the Platonic/philosophical sense of some ideal, or transcendant thing separate from God, that He may reveal to us, or we may apprehend by means of reason and logic, is to me in opposition to John14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Which to me means that truth is not a thing, nor an idea, but a person, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And we experience truth to the extent that we experience our Lord through his indwelling in us.

John14:15-16
"If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever, the Sprit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you."

John14:21
"He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."

John14:23
"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."

Now, Owen, this is not to say that I question coming to Christ, or His Church, by means of philosophy, or any other means. Just that I am not sure we are coming from the same place on just what truth is. Then again, maybe we are in agreement and I'm just to dense to get it.

Owen Jones

08-05-2003, 01:26 AM

All I know is this: after reading and studying the Bible, after having been a congregationalist, a Presbyterian, and an Episcopalian (with an atheist period thrown in there in between), having studied a bunch of drivel like the Branch theory of the Church, systematic theology, dogmatic theology, ascetical theology, I found Danielou's commentary on Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses and I said, this is the True Faith! It is a fusion of philosophy and OT.

But if 99% of the people in the world who call themselves Christians were to read that text they would say that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. They would call it mysticism, derisively.

Richard McBride

08-05-2003, 08:30 AM

monochos: re #99 Owen 447

In an aside I note that Seraphim said:

"I don't know if I'm on firm ground patristically, but I think I am philosophically, that reality demonstrates that God is not just working through His energies in creation but that He is in some sense In His creation. "

The which causes me to think,

I seem to recall mentioning earlier that immanence theory may have been used too broadly in the Western Church; but Orthodoxy does, I think, accept Divine Immanence as the presence of God in His creation. For us, however, the concept became tainted by the Schoolmen, and it may be out of favour.

Also, the word is Latin (immanere, which means, to inhabit), does not encourage Eastern familiarity.

The Koine, to emfuton, meant inborn or natural, but I still don't know how well received is this term here, or how much it was accepted in the early Temple.

Somewhere in immanence-thinking lies the notion of "incarnation" -- as opposed to The Incarnation. And while we are already too far afield with this version of the original subject, my own feeling is that the immanence question is more productive than trying to make 'history' into a substantive cause.

It failed to come out during the earlier discussion, but 'history' is yet one more of the fascinating concepts, taken often as some sort of thing, when it is a really only a Function.

Functions, as a class, are processes, or descriptions of processes. Functions always deal with changes in something -- but functions are not the things. A piston is a thing. Its function is the descriptive concept attached to the piston's displacement. It goes from A to B and back again. When elaborated in complex matters of pressure, force, etc., it may deal with other true things (mixtures for combustion), but much of what is discussed is pure immaterial idea -- quite a necessary idea for understanding pistons, but idea, nevertheless.

Indeed, one never sees a function. What one sees (in this example) is the piston at A, and the piston between A and B, and then the piston at B. But again, it is a mistake to anthropomorphize this process, this function, as some thing. It is merely a convenient description. For instance, as is "point" in math. History is the conventient function which describes substances (concrete things) and their change (function) over time. History is not the substance. It is the function.

But in the heady atmosphere of postmodern History Departments, it may not be safe to declare the reality of this disembodied non-thing, this anthropomorphized history daemon, too loudly.

R.I.P. history. I prefer theory.

[PS: I can't get the \greek thing to work]

Alvin Kimel

08-05-2003, 11:39 AM

Those poor schoolmen. They sure do get blamed for a lot, don't they?

I'm curious, though, how in this case they tainted discussion of transcendence and immanence.

John Curtis Dunn

12-05-2003, 03:56 AM

The problem I have with Owen's argument against the Christ of History is that he seems to argue/ or it seems to follow from said, that the Resurrection appearances take place outside of History.

The Resurrected Christ manifested Himself to the Apostle Paul and the Light of that manifestation was visible to St. Paul's companions, though they did not hear the words. Also, St. Paul certainly does not fit the pattern necessary for Owen's argument that faith alone could apprehend Christ. For Saul was not a believer, rather he was a persecutor of the Church, one who denied the Resurrection of Christ. Christ manifests Himself to Saul and the Apostle later appeals to this manifestation as being equal to the Resurrection appearances to the other Apostles, and no doubt to the seventy as well as others.

Owen has argued that a camera could not have recorded the Resurrection or the Ascension, how can he be certain? He has argued that these events are known only in the intermediate state of heaven and earth (faith). However the Resurrection appearance on the shore has the Lord inviting the disciples to a fish fry (Jn. 21:9,12)
It is true that the disciples did not know who it was who stood on the shore on that morning, but it was not faith in the Resurrection which compelled Peter to clothe himself and cast himself into the sea. Rather, Christ manifested Himself to them by repeating a miracle of multiplying the catch of their fishing. Indeed, the Apostle John is careful to give us the precise number of their catch: (21:11). Furthermore, John tells us that Jesus took bread and gave it to the disciples along with the fish which was frying. St. John tells us that this was the third time that Jesus had showed Himself to the disciples.

I am not denying the place of faith, which is certainly how we behold the Risen Christ. This of course following the words of our Lord heard on St. Thomas Sunday: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou has believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (Jn 20:29) If faith enables us to see Christ in the intermediate realm (metaxy), it seems evident that our Lord is making a contrast between our experience of faith sight with the physical sight of St. Thomas, precisely because it is experienced by Thomas who disbelieves the accounts rehearsed to him by the Woman and other Disciples.

Is Christ knowable within History? The conversion of Nathaniel also examples someone who sees Christ while possessing a mind of unbelief. Nathaniel answered Philip saying, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" This was something more than Nathaniel's personal thoughts, it was the thoughts of many Jews at that time. The fact that Nathaniel expressess it also shows that even a pious Jew could deny such a possibility.

Even though Nathaniel knows the common held belief that "Nothing good could come out of Nazareth, still he willing follows Phillip. It appears that it was Phillip's faith and confession ("We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph) which motivates his willingness to "Come and see."

We also should be amazed with our Lord at how quickly Nathaniel believed. A simple answer to a query from Nathaniel concerning how Jesus knew him, inspires Nathaniel to proclaim "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of the Israel." Our Lord identifies precisely what it was that enabled Nathaniel to behold Jesus as the Christ when He said, "Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou?"

I do not doubt that faith entered into the heart of Nathaniel and inspired his confession, however, Saul asked, "Who art thou Lord." The answer given was a very precise answer grounded in historical events, "I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest."

Did the Apostles believe in the Resurrection because they had faith? Did the Apostles only have faith that they beheld the Resurrected Christ? Is there not some difference between tha which the Apostles experienced and my experience of the Resurrection today? Did the Apostles only preach faith in the Resurrection or did they preach that they were "eye-witnessess" of the Resurrection?

In answering these questions we must consider what the Apostles themselves taught concerning the Resurrection. This is succinctly recorded for us in 1 Cor. 15: 1-9. Rather than quoting the whole passage these will suffice:

Moreover brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein you stand: By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you......He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve}...He was seen by five hundred brethren at once of whom the greater part remain...He was seen by James; then of all the apostles... He was seen by me..

Now then, when we examine the account of Luke concerning the Ascension we read, "...while they beheld, he was taken up...and while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up..." To which the Angels said, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus...as you have seen him go into heaven.

Owen express more confidence than I believe the Scriptures allow, when he asserts the Ascension was incapable of recording. He may be correct, but there is nothing evident within the source which necessitates such a conclusion.

We must also remember that many believed upon Jesus name when they beheld the many miracles and signs done by Him. These miracles and signs were given to reveal Him to the Jews. It was their unbelief which prevented them from seeing Christ. The Jews who did not believe were blinded by their own pride and this latter remains why men fail to see today.

In closing his Gospel, St. John tells us why he wrote; "These are written that ye might believe." But what is it that John wrote to convince us, the words of Jesus alone, or the words and the signs? St. John tells us the precise topic within his Gospel which is given to us to help us believe: "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God...

I today have faith in the Apostles eye-witness accounts. I have faith in the Gospels, in the Church which preaches these eye-witness accounts. This faith is not born from philosophical speculation, but in the record of the events. These events are the subject of the Incarnation of the LOGOS. This LOGOS is rationale reason founded upon truth, and that Truth is that Christ has made Himself known in History that I who live in the present tense of the Incarnation of Christ, might see and hear Christ living in the Orthodox Church.

I believe and confess, Christ is Risen...Indeed He is Risen.

john

Owen Jones

12-05-2003, 07:06 AM

I believe and confess the same as you, John. But the ground of that belief and confession is not and cannot be an objectifiable historical fact, no matter how much I want it to be in order to claim certitude for my confession. If God wanted it to be an objectifiable historical fact, he would have gone about it much differently. We could have had a team of historians and scientific experts of the day certify to the objective historical fact that Jesus is the Christ. But it was much obscured. As for the witnesses, they were not witnesses to an objective historical event. They were witnesses to what they later confessed to. But others saw the exact same thing and arrived at different conclusions. Our faith is grounded in witnesses, yes. In objectifiable, provable fact -- no.

This suggests that there is a realm of reality that is open only to those given the eyes to see and the ears to hear. That is the realm in which Christ was and IS revealed to us.

Example, I once asked a very scholarly, brilliant young Christian, if he were walking down the street and saw a drug addict lying, half naked, on the sidewalk, coming off his latest hit of heroin, what would he see. His response was that he would see a man who wasn't living as he ought to live. Another man might look at the same addict lying on the street and come up with an entirely different observation and conclusion -- that he was looking at Christ. Now, is one observation objective and one subjective? Which one is which?

John Curtis Dunn

12-05-2003, 05:45 PM

Fr. Dimitru Staniloae, in ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY warns us how the teaching of Protestant theologians veers far from the teaching of our Orthodox Church. He notes how the Protestant theology keeps "divinity in an absolute transcendence even when it reveals itself. He observed, "...the revelation in Jesus Christ is no longer the piercing of a world new in time;" Instead the Protestant gnosis confines the Revelation of God in Jesus Christ to a "communication of a truth addressed to man's knowledge." How is it that this is in conflict to our Orthodox Faith? Precisely because it (the Protestant gnosis) maintains that in Jesus Christ there is no "sign that it (ed. the communication of truth in Jesus Christ) is from God, no power which shows its divine origin."

Within these sophisticated philosophical arguments lies hidden a denial of the Incarnation, not simply as a philosophical idea which holds all things together, but a precise objectifiable appearance of God in the flesh. Why, because in Jesus Christ there is no "sign that He is from God which pierces our world in time. Fr. Dimititu notes that this Protestant gnosis excludes "every psychism" because it lacks any objective (scientifically observable) evidence that it originates with God. Rather, man's "clinching...to revelation takes place by n exclusive act of knowledge. This is what faith is in the Protestant gnosis. To illustrate Fr. Dimitru quotes from W. Schmidt's Zeit and Ewigkeit: "It has nothing to do with excercises or religious living; faith belongs to the dominon of the spirit." Here Fr. Dimitru expands on this Protestant apprehension of what faith is when he adds in brackets [in the sense of abstract, intellectualistic knowledge]."

This dialectical idea of faith is not Orthodox. This Protestant gnosis seperates the historical person of Jesus Christ from the "intellectual meaning" of Christ.

Fr. Dimitru than asks some very telling questions which Owen has seemed to echo.

"...how could the disciples of Jesus know that He who was speaking to them was not a human person, but a divine one? How could they know that this person had a significance which completely distinguished Him from all other people? How did the listeners to the prophets have the certainty that they spoke the words of God?"

Fr. Dimitru notes that these Protestant dialectical theologians "resort to the Holy Spirit" in order to resolve the difficulty which their own thoughts have created. He then quotes from Karl Heim's Jesus the Lord to illustrate: "Therefore it is through Him alone that the place within the created world where God speaks is distinguished from the remaining content of the word... . It is through Him that a place in the temporal world receives the accent of eternity. ... No one can perceive the eternal accent on this one place in time but in the Holy Spirit. He whose eyes the Spirit does not open cannot see anything at this place that does not fit in the framework of the whole."

I do not oppose the necessity of faith to see that which is kept hidden from unbelieving eyes. But the problem is not with the event, but the condition or state of man's perception of Truth, which for the unbeliever is distorted. "The phenomenon of faith is awakened in us by this word; we are made able to receive it." How? Fr. Dimitru explains:

"In the phenomenon of faith, God's care for us really goes hand in hand with the attention He has awakened in us. But the encounter of two people by their mutual attention is an encounter of something proper to each of them. Even the fact that somebody's word obliges me to give an answer, shows my relationship to him. But the unconditional need to address someone and to answer him, shows that, by all words and answers, I have a relationship to God too."

I am not denying the necessary place of faith to apprehend the true meaning of the reality which is before us, what I find objectionable is the idea that the event fails to communicate the truth or reality of its meaning and purpose. And, though we may be uncertain of the meaning of the drug addict, we, as Orthodox Christian, must never concede as doubtful the meaning and purpose of Jesus Christ. The failure of men to see God in Jesus Christ is not a failure or weakness on the part of the Incarnation. It is rather a failure in man himself. As the Apostle explained to the Ephesians that these men "walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated fromthe life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart." This latter is further complicated by the moral lifestyle that each person lives: "Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleaness with greediness."

To this last point made by the Apostle I suspect that it addresses a whole culture (since the Apostle identifies these men as Gentiles). And that the cultural milieu in which each person lives further complicates the ability of the individual to see Christ. Heresies are rooted in immorality, which is something more than just a lust of the eyes and flesh. Indeed, it also includes those who are held captive to the "Pride of Life." The Jews who grilled the man who had been born blind from birth replied to Jesus saying, "Are we blind also?" To which our Lord answered, "...but now ye say, 'We see;' therefore your sin remaineth."

In answer to your question, "Now, is one observation objective and one subjective?" I reply that it is a false dichotomy. A true objective observation can and must be wholly subjective. If it is not, it is suspect and appears to be a fantasy, a conjecture of imagination. Such was the objective reality of the Jews who paid the guards to say, "While we were asleep the disciples came and stole the body." By doing so, these Jews attempted to thwart the "eye-witness" appearances of Jesus to His Disciples. Their attempt was to relegate these appearances into a realm outside of observable obective reality, or simply put, to accuse the Apostles of lying.

Our modern gnosis lacks the certainty of reality, even objective reality is suspect and open to doubt, such that every account is called "Spin." This is the loss of Faith of which we have been warned would come upon the earth in the last days. This loss of faith originates within the philosophical speculation of men's imagination which are aimed to destroy the appearance of God in the flesh in history.

The certainty of the appearance of Christ must be ridiculed into the realm of myth. There it will not be called a lie, and those who hold to that myth are not called liars, but simply unenlightened by the modern ecumenical philosophy of reality, which Owen seemed to recognize in eariler post as "relativism." This "relativism" has become the new objective reality to which all religions must bow in order to be accepted in the modern age. Our Orthodox Faith is being pressured to submit to this spirit in order to be accepted as a "modern religion" into which modern man can feel comfortable.

It is out of this spirit of our modern milieu that the language of a "Christ of history" versus a "Christ of Faith" have originated. The question here is not whether we as Orthodox Christians can adapt this terminology to ourselves and still hold to our Orthodoxy, but rather can we make use of this language and still present a true confession of our Orthodoxy to the modern age. If we adapt this language and preach to modern man and he converts, will he have converted to Orthodoxy or pseudo-Orthodoxy. The latter being a false orthodoxy which denies the power, meaning, purpose and historical reality of that which the Church proclaims. "Christ is Risen from the Dead, trampling down death by death." Yet while denying these, it affirms everything which Orthodoxy holds to be true and appears outwardly to be Orthodoxy.

This has happened before in history with Arianism, Nestorianism and other heresies. The former did not deny that Jesus was the only-begotten, only that He was not the only-begotten who was co-originate and equal to the Father.

Fr. Dimitru wrote "...to reach the evidence of truth implicated in faith, to attain the evidence of judgments which we make based on it, we must be will exercised in the virtuous life." Herein lies the existential and observational problem with modern man's capability to perceive Christ. It was the same problem which prevented those who seeing the Resurrection of Lazarus from believing. The problem was not the historical event, which is the first place we encounter God.

john

Owen Jones

12-05-2003, 06:29 PM

Dear John,

Father Dimitri could have saved himself a lot of trouble and simply said that Protestants reject communion with God.

I posed the subject -- object question rhetorically. They are, indeed false dichotomies and when people attempt to either objectivize reality or subjectivize it, they are throwing out any in-between reality. When we try to objectivize, turn reality into objective facts, and nothing more, we lay the door open to the subjectivizers. If one is valid, the other is equally valid.

That is the basis of my entire brief.

Because God brings His creation in communion with him, we cannot reduce reality to subjects and objects, or divide reality between objectifiable, proven facts, vs. subjective opinions.

In Christian doctrine, we also avoid the opposite extreme that could be deduced by any doctrine of communion between God and His creatures, which is that of consubstantiality between God and His Creation. There is a tension between these two poles, on the one hand, consubstantiality, and on the other hand, absolute transcendence, that is held together by the bond of faith. Therefore, faith witness, faith experience, faith knowledge, is concrete and very real, but "takes place" in between these poles. That is why it is more experientially and theologically accurate to say that the Truth of the Gospel is a realm that we enter into, rather than a set of true opinions based on objectifiable facts, or, in the case of many Protestants, that's just personal private belief which I have a right to and therefore it cannot be questioned.

The principle of concreteness, that Staneloi is arguing on behalf of, is not negated by this recognition (of an in-between reality). He is simply arguing against an abstract intellectualism, that is the logical result of denying communion with God. Of course, there are other things that Protestants do in order to overcome this lack of communion, including emotionalism and wilfulness (I know what the will of God is in an absolute sense, for example)

Again, Staniloui is simply arguing in defense of the Christian principle of concreteness against the Protestant (and to some extent Latin) tendency toward intellecualizing abstractions).

The metaxy reality is not an intellectual abstraction but the basic reality of human, creaturely existence. Historical reality is a subset of that, not the other way around. Historical reality is, in fact, a consequence of or engendered by a heightened consciousness of existence in the metaxy..YOu have to have that in order to begin to think historically. Societies that believe in the consubstantiality of god and nature do not think historically. There is no in-between reality, no before and after, no sense of historical epoch that divides human consciousness and destiny from a pre-redeemed to a redeemed, or potentially redeemed condition. There is nothing progressive about it. Nor can there be. There is, at the other extreme, those who claim that history is everything -- the fallacy of historicism, which says that we are the culmination of history, or the products of history, or that reality is produced by history, or, in the case of modern secularists, that we have now acquired the knowledge and power to take control of history or even to stop history.

Christ preserves the active principle of concreteness behind our faith, precisely so that it does not have to be an intellectual abstraction, by commanding us to eat of His flesh and drink of His blood. But again that principle does not negate the essentially in-between nature of human existence, or God's revelation.

Owen Jones

12-05-2003, 07:01 PM

It's a risk for me to refer to a Platonic text in a Christian audience since the response is usually along the lines of: vain myths!, or, what are you anyway? Don't you believe in Christ?

But the best formulation of metaxy reality is found in the Symposium. In opposition to the sophists, who lay out a series of absurd definitions of man, Socrates responds by relating a teaching he has received from a divine oracle, that man is neither mortal nor immortal, but in between. It is eros that is the force that moves us in this in-between realm to seek immortality. This idea/experience/revelation is carried over into Patristic theology pretty much intact, and is particularly noticeable in the Philokalia. And in fact there is a very good definition of eros in the glossary of the Philokalia. Unfortunately, while there is use of the term, "intermediate" in the Philokalia, you really have to deduce its meaning from the context and from the glossary, or, more to the point, you kind of have to enter that mindset and spirit yourself.

By reducing the Truth of the Gospel to an overly simplistic, historicist perspective, we eliminate the in-between from our knowledge and experience, so that faith is no longer something that moves and changes us and transports us toward an eschatological fulfilment that is no longer in history or time, but a simple weighing of forensic evidence so that we have something to debate in court. It's a very lawyerly, very Pharisaical way of looking at faith and belief. It can be true and correct in the strict sense, just as St. Paul said he was as a Pharisee. And he makes no apologies for that. It just misses most of what is. It makes us blind.

So the Truth of the Gospel is not really about facts. It retains the principle of concreteness, while transporting us into the realm in between this world and the next. We don't dematerialize as we enter this realm. But it is more a fact of experience to be narrated by the believer as a witness to it, than it is an observable, quantifiable, measurable, provable fact. Nor is it static.

There is a contemporary illustration. Fr. Arseny. He was in the Gulag and he died. Or let us say that his body ceased to function. He thought he was entering heaven or would be but found himself in some intermediate state in which he was told that the people who he had left behind in the camp loved him so much and were so dependent on him that he would be returning. When he returned, he discovered that he could see the souls of the people all around him, people whom he had known and those he had simply observed before but barely encountered, and that their souls appeared to him as a shining light burning like a candle, and that some shown brighter than others but that it shown in each of the people he observed. And he was deeply humbled because some of the people he had judged shown much more brightly than others toward whom he had had a more favorable opinion, and some people who he had totally ignored shown the brightest.

Now, we accept his testimony, not as a vain myth, but as truth. But on what basis? Surely not as a verifiable, certifiable, historical event, or fact of history. But on the credibility of the witness and because, to some extent, it rings true in our own spiritual consciousness, that we somehow know from our limited experience and perception that this is indeed how things are, because, in a more limited sense, we have seen things like this in other people, perhaps through their eyes, or their actions, and we know that there is something unseen behind it, or we have sensed this reality within ourselves. We know that we have a light inside and that if we were truly pure it would shine more brightly and we wish that this were so and that people could see this in us.

And, of course, because it conforms to our teaching and our doctrine in some sense, but also because we are spiritually open to it because of who we are, both material and spiritual beings who, according to our nature, are aware that we are in between the two poles and not simply one or the other.

Rebecca

12-05-2003, 10:06 PM

It is interesting to consider the vast number of interpretations possible when one allows ones intellect to wander over a set of writings.

I remember my dad telling me that Truth is found in the Divine Liturgy.

I am frequently struck by the numerous scriptural references and quotes present in the hymns; hymns sung at specific times during the Liturgy and during specific seasons of the Liturgical calendar.

Actively listening to the words in the hymns and prayers, one see that the Services of our Church provide the context for all her writings: Scripture, homily, and reflection.

John Curtis Dunn

13-05-2003, 08:34 AM

I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it come to pass you might believe. John 14:29

The above passage seems to clearly set historical events at the foundation of the faith of the Apostles.

I do not believe I have contended for any thing such as a "overly simplistic, historicist perspective." I can agree with much that has been written by Owen. However, I take exception with these original words "But Christ is not revealed in history. There is no Christ of history. There is only the Christ of faith." In that same post [Wednesday, 30 April]Owen wrote: "Others could be in Christ's presence and not see him as the Christ.

This is certainly true, however, the problem was not with Christ, but with the unbeliever. Christ was wholly knowable in history through the eyes of faith. Now it is certainly true that the Divine Nature of Christ was hidden from the Devil and thus from those who did the deeds of the Devil. But the Divinity was hidden to deceive the Devil not men.

The Divinity of Christ is no longer hidden, rather it is being proclaimed by the Orthodox Church. And that to which Orthodoxy points as proof of His Divinity is the Resurrection and His Ascension. This latter Owen has argued to not be a true historical event: "I think the best concrete illustration of this is that if you had had a camera and tried to take a photo of Christ ascending, it would not have shown up on the photo negative. Because it was not an event in history, but an event in the metaxy."

An event in the metaxy. This seems very similiar to Voeglin's explanation or denial of the Resurrection. It only took place in the realm of faith, not in real time. It seems to me that Alvin Kimel's questions remain unanswered:

Does this mean that we may believe in the Incarnation even if Jesus of Nazareth had never been born?

Does this mean that we may believe in the Incarnation even if Jesus had never been raised from the dead?

To which I add, "Does this mean that we may believe in the Ascension, even if it never happened as an observable event?"

Owen replied to Matthew in one post: "I'm not trying to dismiss objective historical fact," but concerning the Ascension this seems to be precisely what Owen has done?

It would seem that Owen is arguing that if an Orthodox Christian believes in a historical Ascension it makes him/her into a simplistic historicist? I on the other hand, am most definitely arguing to deny the historical event of the Ascension is to deny the Incarnation. Owen denies the historical certainty of the event by the incapability of a camera to capture on film the Ascension.

As with the case of the Resurrection of Lazarus, there were those who saw and did not believe, so why is it not possible that if someone other than the Apostles had witnessed the Ascension, (someone outside of the 500+ who were eye-witnessess to the Resurrection), might they not simply attributed to something else? This seems certainly to have been the case concerning Jesus' power to cast out Satan. Yet, even here, those who did not believe saw something that they had to describe and attribute to something other than the testimony of those who were delivered from Satan.

Indeed, it seems that Owen's argument could have us also believing that the Resurrection of Lazarus was not a historical event. If we reject the Ascension as having real time existence, why must we accept any of the Gospel accounts as having historical certainty.

Owen also wrote: "That is because the fullness of His divinity, and his trampling over death for all mankind, were NOT OBJECTIVE HISTORICAL FACTS, but revelations yet to be illumined and yet to be narrated."

I am still not convinced. A small child may not have received the 'illumination' of what a hot iron is, but may have received the warning 'Do not touch the hot iron.' The iron remains hot without regard to the childs free will to believe or disbelieve the instruction "do not touch."

In this same way, Christ descended into Hades and trampled death by His own Death and Resurrection. This takes place at a specific time and place and is therefore history. The knowledge of what Christ did by His Death and Resurrection is the Revelation and illumination, but what is being revealed or illumined is "What Christ DID."

The fact that men cannot and will not believe the report does not push the event outside of history. Christ was in the Grave for three days, yet how can we know He was in the Grave? We are given concrete evidence with a sealed and guarded tomb. What Christ did by His death and Resurrection is Revelation, but it is also historical. The Resurrection of Christ is not an isolated event...it is the first fruit of many Resurrections.

Yes, I have faith in these events, believing that they are the work of Christ for my Salvation. These events are part of the Incarnation, to deny these are historical events which can be singled out and objectively remembered makes the Incarnation into a myth. And it seems to me that Voeglin was very content to accept Christianity as a myth, which fit into his concept of metaxy.

john

Andonis

13-05-2003, 09:07 AM

although i don't have much to contribute to this discussion, i whole heartedly agree with you John. There is no myth surrounding Jesus and what he did. what we read in the gospel about what Jesus spoke and performed are historical, quantifiable facts, and just because it wasn't captured on home video does not call this into question. using this logic, do we suggest that God's covenant with Abraham, and the rest of the old testament was a also a myth, and that had there been a tape recorder available it would not have recorded God's voice? are we also suggesting that such myths where put together so elaborately, and that the spread of Christianity all over the world is not based on objectifiable historical evidence but mere myth? i think the fact that Jesus did perform his miracles, and did resurect, was even touched by Thomas indicates that he knew humanity needed a little more than myth for the church to take root. he took that step and provided evidence, and plenty of it. when we celebrate the resurection, we do so because our heart knows its real.

i see Jesus performing such miracles in history almost on a daily basis. i can almost always view and touch these miracles, photograph them, document times and dates, but for the unbeleiver this will not make one ounce of difference.

Andonis

Owen Jones

13-05-2003, 03:29 PM

Dear John,

It is a crying shame that we live in an age in which faith is deemed to be subjective and empirical observation is deemed to be objective and therefore more reliable as a witness to the truth of the Gospel than Faith. When we have done that we have destroyed the Gospel and handed it over to our enemies. But that is the implication of what you are saying, that faith is somehow of a much lower order of knowledge than empirical data.

And also, there is no need to imply that I am suggesting there is something wrong with Christ. Why feel the need to go to Christ's defense? I'm not attacking Christ. Heaven forbid! Yet you seem to be implying that I am saying that Jesus is somehow less than a true savior because he's too mystical or something, and didn't leave around enough forensic evidence.

"the divinity of Jesus was hidden to deceive the devil, not men" Yes. But He hides himself from us for different reasons. So that we can strive to have faith. If He did not hide himself from us -- to some degree -- then there would be no need for faith. Virtue would not exist because there would be no struggle to strive for virtue. Since there would be no possibility of any doubt or uncertainty lurking in the background. We would have all of the finality we needed. It would be just like switching on a light switch in the bathroom in the morning. We don't need faith to know that light is going to come on.

I realize I'm becoming a bore on this subject, but if God had proven his Incarnation historically, then there would be no need for faith.

Now, what is history? That is the difficult question. If one persists in saying that history is nothing but certifiable, objectifiable facts, then we don't have much to go on, becuause in your above post, John, you quote a prophetic statement, which defines the Incarnation as a fulfilment of prophecy. But if history is nothing but certifiable, objectifiable facts, I am reduced to chronicling my daily intake of food water and air and subsequent evacuation. Anything more than that is involved in questions of meaning and purpose which are open to interpretation and lead inevitably to doubt or faith to some degree, on some level. I got out of the bed this morning. Why? Why bother? Who cares? What's the point? When I write the history of my day, what am I to make of those questions? Typically, in a narrative, the questions behind the narrative are left unstated. But they are always there, and without them, there is no history. So 1) you cannot in principle reduce history to ojectifiable facts and data alone, there is always the Question, and 2) human existence takes place also in a realm that is mid-way between historical data or time and eternity, between mortality and immortality, between consciousness that the end is nigh and that I must be responsible for and to the distant future. Our existence in between always frames the Question.It is in this in-between realm that knowledge of the parousia "happens" not in the realm of basic biological function in which there is no questioning.

This "fact" does not eradicate time or history or real facts. IT's simply what gives them more substance. Obviously, if a man Jesus were never born, then there would be no faith in the Resurrrection of Christ. But His birth to a virgin, everything about his Christ-ness, is prophetic, not the stuff of provable, objectifiable, historical fact -- as your quote from John above "proves."

Tell me one person who denies the objectifiable, hostorical fact that China exists. That's an objectifiable, historical fact. OK? Even if you have not been to China or seen China. There is an overwhelming preponderence of evidence that we can speak of it as an objectifiable hitorical fact. Any dispute on that?

Tell me how many people believe that Christ is the savior of the world. That simply is not an objectifiable, provable historical fact. I cannot imagine any dispute on that either. I simply cannot comprehend any statement that tries to defend it on the basis of provable historical fact. It is a matter of faith. That does not deny that there were witnesses. But witnesses to what? Not to provable historical facts. THeir witness is what we have to go on -- that is grafted onto our own experience of Christs' parousia. So we have faith in their witness to Christ's parousia. But the fact that many people believe it is true, and that that faith changes them (and us), is the only proof of the truth of the statement (Heb 11:1). There is no other proof, and there is no need for other proof.

The issue is really no different for God the Father. Why do I need to PROVE anything to anyone about God? What question is lurking underneath or behind articulation that says that I have to prove the existence of God, anymore than I have to prove the existence of Christ? It's the same false challenge. What I do have to do is live in God's presence. That is the proof.

John Curtis Dunn

19-05-2003, 08:03 AM

Owen Jones wrote:
"...empirical observation is deemed to be objective and therefore more reliable as a witness to the truth of the Gospel than Faith. When we have done that we have destroyed the Gospel and handed it over to our enemies. But that is the implication of what you are saying, that faith is somehow of a much lower order of knowledge than empirical data." Again I ask that Owen produce the evidence from the Saints and Fathers where they make use of the language of the Christ of History in contrast to or in conjunction with the Christ of Faith.

I am very suspect towards those arguments against the Ascension which are steeped in philosophy, rather than the services and teachings of the Church.

The crying shame began when Owen asserted that the Ascension was not a historical event. Secondly, when it was asserted that those who believe and confess it as such, are deemed to be simplistic. Thirdly, we continue to read the charge that they are historistic, "that faith is somehow of a much lower order of knowledge than empirical data."

Owen's last post on this topic fudged on the issue, which is that he has denied that the Ascension was a historical event, placing it wholly into the realm of faith which he identifies with the Greek term metaxy.

The burden of proof for Owens argument does not reside in philosophical speculation, he must prove that his assertion is indeed the correct (Orthodox) confession concerning the Ascension. The burden for Owen's argument is not to prove the existence of God, but to prove that the Church confessess and has understood the Ascension as a non-historical event.

I suspect Rudolf Bultmann could have easily accepted Owen's argument. As with Owen's argument, Bultmann also assumed that God does not exist in objective reality. Bultmann also only saw Jesus as a mere man and denied to Him His Divinity. I am not accusing Owen of this latter, but it does seem to be the implication of his argument. It seems also to resemble the argument set forth by the now reposed RC Theologian Raymond Brown, who wrote concerning John 1:35-51: "...we cannot treat John 1:35-51 simply as a historical narrative. John may well be correct in preserving the memory, lost in the Synoptics, that the first disciples had been disciples of John the Baptist and were called in the Jordan valley just after Jesus' baptism. But John has placed on their lips at this moment a synopsis of the gradual increase of understanding that took place throughout the ministry of Jesus and after the resurrection. John has used the occasion of the call of the disciples to summarize discipleship in its whole development."

Thus, the episode with Nathaniel is but a invention in order to put the reflected understanding of the Person of Jesus by the Church into a historical context. It remains however, that St. John was not writing from memory of a historical event. Rather, the event can be said to have taken place in the intermediate realm of faith where historical certainty has no sway upon truth.

Thus, the Incarnation of the divine Word of God, the Resurrection, and the Ascension of Jesus into Heaven are open to doubt and the object of our Orthodox Christian faith (Jesus Christ) has no historical certainty outside of the preaching of the Apostles.

By denying that the Ascension is a historical event, Owen has made the hinge of the Evangelist's narrative into a ficticious account. Owen's argument that it takes place in the intermediate realm of faith into which faith alone can see, does not redeem his assertion that the Ascension was not a historical event.

If Owen's argument was that our apprehension of the meaning of the event of the Ascension requires faith, I would concede, however, Owen has placed the event wholly outside of the realm of history. His argument denies to Christ any actual physical ascension, but why? Because they are not provable historical facts? It is here that Owen's argument shows itself to do precisely what he accuses my argument of implying.

Owen has scuttled faith to objective provable reality. Which Andonis has correctly observed takes place when Owen denies to technology capability to capture the Ascension on film.

Jesus asked the disciples, "Who do men say that I am?" Their answers show that men encounterd and grappled with the historical reality of Christ. This historical encounter required a response, an explanation, a meaning. This encounter remains present in the reading and hearing of the Scriptures. The faith necessary to encounter Christ in these events is not some mere assent to a theological dogma or expression, it is a trustful commitment to the reality which is made manifest, whether by word or deed. This reality has been made manifest in history. Faith is not recognizable until it responds to the historical reality of Christ's Incarnation (and I am not referring to some cosmic pre-Incarnation principle).

The Apostolic witness and faith of the Church that the Incarnate GOD-MAN sits at (on) the right hand of God His Father, stems from that which they beheld with their own eyes: "Christ ascending upwards in the clouds." Prior to his martyrdom, Stephen saw the Ascended Christ and later Saul (who was present and giving his ascent to Stephen's stoning) would encounter this same Ascended Christ. Both of these events (the latter being rehearsed three times) bear witness to the historical event of the Ascension.

I have already mentioned, Saul did not possess faith in the Ascended Christ when Christ made Himself manifest from Heaven. This manifestation took place in a light which shined around about him, from heaven." This uncreated light was visible to the eyes of Saul's fellow travelers, even as it has been visible to others who have witnessed its presence around Saints. It was witnessed by the Israelites on the face of Moses when he descended from the Mountain, and again whenever Moses entered into his tent to meet and talk to the Lord face to face.

Owen has suggested that I have made faith subservient to empirical phenomena, I do not agree. However, faith does manifest itself in a commitment response to empirical realities. Christ died on the Cross; that is an objective empirical reality which faith apprehends and unbelief denies. Unbelief may acknowledge that there was a death, and claim that that is all that is really knowable, but that is precisely the spiritual ailment of modern man. Modern man cannot perceive the presence of God's wrath in a tornado, neither can he see the presence of God's benevolence in that same event. That failure is a problem with man, not with the tornado. The tornado comes doing God's will and accomplishing God's purposes, that is the historical reality. Those who do not see are those who supress the truth in unrighteousness.

It is Owen's argument which deems faith as a lessor reality by seperating the reality comprehended by faith from "empirical observation" and thus following a philosophy which makes faith "subjective" and history into only objective "empirical data." and therefore more reliable as a witness to itself.

john

Richard Leigh

19-05-2003, 10:02 PM

Dear John,

You are right. Owen is making a false dichotomy, but it is one that exists for him which is why he is fighting for it so strongly.

The argument seems to be following an Antiochene vs. Alexandrine view of the cosmos to me. Similar to the question "Is it that the humanity (of Christh) is somehow raised to the Logos, or does the Logos come down uniting itself with the human?" Only this time the question is regarding our faith, "Is it in and therefore caused by objectifiable reality (as we understand that term in the 21st century) or in the unparticapable Divine essence?" I might be getting Owen wrong, but that's how the argument looks.

I think the fathers always look for the truth in the tension of apparent opposites itself, thus,unity is found between Antioch and Alexandria.

It is already settled that only that of man which is in Christ is saved, therefore anything man has (eg. spirit, soul, mind) that Christ hasn't cannot be saved. And therefore, Christ had it all, right down to the bare historicity of it all.

If Owen doesn't want to get bogged down in the mess of mud and guts that is the human existence,in this space-time continuum, well, Christ did, and our salvation comes to us because of it.

Richard

Daniel Jeandet

20-05-2003, 10:16 AM

I read a book about quantum physics in which the author claimed that scientists conducted experiments on single "indivisible" electrons.

The findings of such experiments astounded scientsts and others because they did not know that God alone is indivisible.

Perhaps a discussion of quantum theory deserves its own thread, it is quite interesting and certainly provides a long lasting chewing gum for the intellect.

Im just trying to offer another way of looking at what Owen has been talking about. Im not sure what else to say about this, I realise this post is very vague, like a closely observed electron, or the precise begining of time.

Fr Averky

20-05-2003, 10:50 AM

This discussion has gone on so long that it has become but word and mind games, reminding me of Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet:

True, I talk of dreams
Which are the children of an idle brain,
Begot of nothing but vain fantasy,
Which is as thin of substance as the air,
And more inconsistent then the wind, who woos
Even now the frozen bosom of the north,
And, being angered, puffs away from thence,
Turning his face to the dew-dropping south.

Gentlemen, your are begging the question to death!

Fr. Averky

Owen Jones

20-05-2003, 02:16 PM

Dear Richard,

OK, I'm trying to figure our your last post. I am using false dichotomies, you say, yet you are saying that we have to use a 21st century Cartesian approach to the Incarnation, (it's either objective or subjective); otherwise it isn't real????

Please, you can do better Richard.

You remind me of the "intellectual" at PBS with whom we were discussing a documentary project some years back. It was a philosophical inquiry and the PBS official wanted us to "interpret" what we wanted to do through Heidegger so she could get a starting point!!!!

Owen Jones

20-05-2003, 02:31 PM

It's not so much that the conversation has been vague, Daniel, but that the ground of the conversation keeps changing. What got it started was the assertion that The Incarnation is an objectifiable historical event. I countered by arguing, quite persuasively I think, that The Incarnation is not an event in history. If anything, The Incarnation creates history. Therefore it is not something that can be contained in history or its validity verifiable historically. RAther, it is an event in the metaxy. This is the realm of faith and truth that is attested to by the Gospel witness, and affirmed by Heb 11:1.

But we live in an age of defensiveness regarding faith and feel compelled to "prove" the existence of God and to verify the Incarnation forensically, rather than give evidence of it through the way we live and be content with that. That shows that our faith is actually quite weea and lacking in confidence, whereas the modern"faith" in progress and scientific acheivement and self-reliance is still much more robust.

Of course, the problem may be simpler. It may be simply that "modern" philosophical biases have so polluted the intellectual atmosphere that we can't have a discussion about the nature of the incarnation without simply falling back on fundamentalist slogans.

That's sad for me, but then I'm an overly sensitive person. It still galls me that we talk about how sublime Orthodox theology is, and how sublimely beautiful and lofty the liturgy is, but when it comes down to brass tacks, we are Southern Baptist fundamentalists.

Richard Leigh

20-05-2003, 03:30 PM

Owen,

Please clarify, do you not want the incarnation to have happened in such a way that a newspaper report could have been made of it had the means and opportunity been available to do that?

Richard

Owen Jones

20-05-2003, 04:29 PM

What I want or do not want is immaterial, Richard. But I think it is offensive to the whole spirit of the Gospel to want the truth of the Incarnation to be reducable to a journalistic account. Who needs faith if that's all it is? Why bother believing in it? It's less than worthy of faith and belief if that is the case. Where is the heroism involved? Where is the sacrifice? Where is the risk, if it is no different than picking up a newspapter and nodding assent?

I guess that places me in the absolute opposite position of Fr. Kimel. I don't think anything is worthy of believing in that is provable through forensic data. I would not want to have anything to do with such a ridiculous religion. It turns me into a robot, an automoton, a spell checker on my computer.

Rebecca

20-05-2003, 04:31 PM

But we live in an age of defensiveness regarding faith and feel compelled to "prove" the existence of God and to verify the Incarnation forensically, rather than give evidence of it through the way we live and be content with that

So you say.

Dear in the Lord Owen, have you honestly considered the possibility that many here may well have made the journey thorugh "classic" and "modern" philosophy and intellectualizing and, fully grasping said "philosophies," knowingly chosen a path involving more of their whole person?

Here is my opinion of this discussion at this point:

a) I don't think John denies the role or importance of faith.

b) I don't think Owen denies that Incarnation was a true event that took place in time and in the physical world (If I recall, he stated as much, and it seems that otherwise he would be compelled to become an iconoclast).

c) therefore, I think that this discussion has to do with a fascination with various semantic frameworks.

e) my participation makes me just as guilty of that as anyone http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

f) I am reminded of someone else's recent post about the different levels on which Scripture or Liturgical text can be read (literal, historical, allegorical, spiritual/mystical). I assume the comment meant that such a text could have meaning at any or all of these levels at the same time. The meaning at one level does not deny the meaning at another level.

g) From the Divine Liturgy:

"Let us love one another that we may with one mind confess, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in essence and undivided."

Owen Jones

20-05-2003, 04:45 PM

Dear Rebecca,

(f) is a valid point and in some sense the foundation of Orthodox "epistemology" ( I don't like using the term because it tends to divide theology and philosophy into discrete methods or approaches and reduces revelation to the element of human knowledge, which is wrong in principle).

I disagree that these are semantic differences. Orthodox Christianity has virtually no intellectual credibility today and it's our fault when we reduce the truth of our faith to methodology (i.e. empirical method). The FAthers knew that Christianity had to stand the test of then prevailing intellectual orthodoxy. So they mounted an intellectual challenge to "high" paganism that won the day. Such a challenge to Enlightenment orthodoxy has yet to be mounted by Christians. Therefore, Christians are double minded. We believe in the Gospel and use anti-Gospel intellectual systems to defend it! That's a lot more than just semantics. That's a huge problem.

We can be assured that Christianity will continue to appeal to simple people who wish to live a pious life, and that is as it should be. But we fail miserably in our obligation to the Gospel when we surrender all of the intellectual high ground to the post-Christian "enlightenment" But that is exactly what we do when we claim that the Incarnation is nothing more than a kind of journalistic report or an "objectifiable historical event." That is the unphilosophical language of post-=Christian liberalism, which is essentially nihilistic at its core.

Richard Leigh

20-05-2003, 05:11 PM

Dear Owen,

I think Rebecca is right: "this discussion has to do with a fascination with various semantic frameworks."

It's one thing to say, "...the truth of the Incarnation ...reducable to a journalistic account." (italics mine) And another to say, "...the incarnation ... happened in such a way that..." it is reducible so. None-the-less,the truth that the incarnation is is rooted in its having been lived out in human experience (yes, more than that, but also that) of tangible flesh, blood, bone and marrow, and is so confessed in the Creed. Faith in this is the anchor of the faith in the other, and not only that, but in the the creation of the whole physical universe. I grant you it is more than what is reducible to bare historicity, but what it is certainly includes that.

But as Rebecca said, you don't deny "...that Incarnation was a true event that took place in time and in the physical world" because I recall, as she does, that you "...stated as much..."

So, perhaps the problem is that you think what you're saying cannot be said by including the certainty of its objective reducibility (not the truth, now, but the fact)?

Richard

Benjamin Ekman

20-05-2003, 05:19 PM

Dear Owen,

I haven't follwed this thread closely so I can't say if I agree with any one side of this debate. But what you said in your last post is so true. Much of Christian apologetics and theology works from the foundation laid in the Enlightment.

Would you please recommend reading anything specific in countering this and getting an idea of what a more patristic stance against popular philosophy could be? You mentioned a commentary on Nyzzas Life of Moses, I'll try to get that. Anything else in particular?

In XC,

Benjamin Ekman

Rebecca

20-05-2003, 05:26 PM

Dear Owen,

Orthodox Christianity has virtually no intellectual credibility today

May I please respectfuly ask you to define what you mean by "intellectual credibilty" so that I can understand the context of your comments?

On first reading, I think you are saying that we must be judged "credible" within the framework of non-orthodox conceptual constructs.

If that is your meaning, then I refer you back to the Ouspensky post that I made earlier in this thread. His thesis was that the Fathers did not take Pagan intellectual constructs as they were, but rather transformed and purified these constructs so that they were made consistent with the Truth. (not the other way around)

we reduce the truth of our faith to methodology (i.e. empirical method).

I do not think that John or anyone else has done that in their posts to this forum. Again, with respect, if you could point to specifically what you are referring to, perhaps I could better understand your comment?

The FAthers knew that Christianity had to stand the test of then prevailing intellectual orthodoxy

What they wrote, they wrote without distorting the Truth. They did so without denying the historical, literal meanings nor denying the allegorical, spiritual/mystical meanings.

We can be assured that Christianity will continue to appeal to simple people who wish to live a pious life, and that is as it should be. But we fail miserably in our obligation to the Gospel when we surrender all of the intellectual high ground to the post-Christian "enlightenment"

Would you agree that we surrender the Truth if we deny that the Incarnation was a true event that took place in time and in the physical world?

Would you agree that we also surrender the Truth if we deny the allegorical, spriitual/mystical meanings that also exist which we have as a treasure in the teachings of our Church?

But that is exactly what we do when we claim that the Incarnation is nothing more than a kind of journalistic report or an "objectifiable historical event." That is the unphilosophical language of post-=Christian liberalism, which is essentially nihilistic at its core.

With respect, I find myself again wondering who in this forum has said "the Incarnation is nothing more" than what you say above?

Owen, in closing I will share something my dad said to me once. He said that it it is important to remember that it is the Lord who is running things in the Church and in the world. There really is no reason to become fearful or agitated about what happens in the Church. The Lord loves us and it is He who is in charge and running things.

I hope you have a pleasant rest of the day, Owen. We have a beautiful spring day here and the sun is shining beautifully!

Best Regards...

Richard Leigh

20-05-2003, 06:21 PM

Dear Benjamin,

The following is the most excellent place to go to learn how the set of one's mind is embedded in one's language. It is a website by and for Orthodoxy, and explains the difference in how Eastern Greek based thinkers see and read the scriptures etc., and how the Latin west does. The Latin west is the source of "the enlightenment" and understanding this difference will put anyone on the rigtht path towrd overcoming it, I would think.

http://orlapubs.com/AR/R142.html#paradigms

Its author, I believe, is Affanasy Bailey who I think is (was?) a professor (and this may not be true, but I trust my source), but I don't know of what. The site is very rich, and I provided what for my part is entrance to the best introductory page (you'll know what I mean when you go there, it is rife with links to its various pages).

Richard

P.s., to others who have seen my reference to it before, I will just say it cannot be touted enough. ---R.

Owen Jones

20-05-2003, 06:26 PM

Dear Benjamin,

1) Autobiographical reflections by Eric Voegelin. Reading Voegelin is like climbing mount Everest, but this book is very short and simple. In it, he recovers the classical experience that we need to recover in ourselves in order to enter the Patristic mind without imposing modernist intellectual pressuppositions.

2) The introduction to Joseph and His Brothers by Thomas Mann, for a "correct" understanding of what history really is.

3) Nihilism, by Seraphim Rose. A short, easily accessible work that begins in the introduction by making the point I have been trying to make all along, that in Patristic Orthodoxy, truth is not a body of facts or correct opinion, it is a realm. Then he explores the modern variations of ideology in a way that you do not have to have a philosophical background to understand.

As for Life of Moses by St. Gregory -- that's history at its best!!!!

Justin

20-05-2003, 06:27 PM

Orthodox Christianity has virtually no intellectual credibility today

It's wholly anachronistic to claim that the Church Fathers had "intellectual credibility" among the various groups around at the time. They had no more credibility then than Orthodox Christians have now. And it's odd that you point the finger at others for what you perceive to be their problems, when you yourself offer no better solution, and in fact say many things that undoubtedly confuse the simple pious people.

Justin

20-05-2003, 06:30 PM

I recommended St. Justin Popovich and Fr. Seraphim a long while back in answer to your strange laments, and you seem to have read something of some of these authors. Yet you still go on with your strange laments :-\

Owen Jones

20-05-2003, 07:05 PM

The fear or agitation I was referring to Rebecca, is that of people who think that without forensic proof of the incarnation, that it is not true, and that we believe in vain, and would have to become atheists.

I am not denying the physicality of the incarnation. What I am denying is certain modernistic methods of knowing it is true.

Owen Jones

20-05-2003, 07:16 PM

With respect, Justin, the FAthers were very concerned about attacks on Christianity by pagan philosophers such as Celsus, and mounted an intellectual defense of Christianity that is unparalleled to this day and ultimately won the day throughout the greco-roman world. The wealthy and highly educated converted, not just the peasants.

Christianity became the ultimate intellectual experience until about the 17th Century. Christianity has yet to provide a compelling alternative to "modernism" and the modern scientific method. The 1st Vatican Council simply rejected modernism and resorted to a kind of doctrinal hardness as its defense, and all of that was shredded at Vatican II. In the East, the Church was so used to being allied with the nation and the monarch, (or was under the Ottomon yoke) that the need was never felt to deal with the problem of modernism in the West.

The critique of modernism has been successfully accomplished on an ad hoc basis mostly by philosophers and novelists and poets largely outside of the Church institutionally. But as a result of the failure of the Church on the intellectual level,theology is treated as a private, personal taste, not as the highest form of science. That may not be important to the peasant. As it shouldn't necessarily be. And yet, illiterates during the early Patristic period had a much more profound intellectual insight than the most highly educated today. They would stand and listen to highly erudite, complicated, LONG (two hours!) sermons including some of the most difficult intellectual concepts and comprehend them, because they shared the same mind.

Today, even supposedly educated people would not put up with that. They would quickly get bored and angry.

Owen Jones

20-05-2003, 07:34 PM

Dear Daniel,

Regarding Quantum Physics, Heisenberg was a much better physicist than he was a religious philosopher. He tried to make a case that the uncertainty principle prevailed in everything in philosophy, and, in a sense, objectified the uncertainty principle! However, in this sense it is analogous to philosophy and theology:

Consciousness is part of reality. Therefore, we cannot in principle treat reality as something that exists apart from consciousness of it. To the modernist mindset, this sounds like relativism. It isn't. It's just the opposite of relativism. It's....reality.

So, to carry the point further into our discussion, the Incarnation cannot be, in principle, talked about as something that exists independently of consciousness of it. That is the essence of what is meant by metaxy reality. You cannot in principle, as a principle of scientific investigation, separate subject and object into two completely different, extrinsic realities. That implies that we can observe reality from an Archimedian point.

An example of this is the comments made by many people on monachos.net. When we get a visitor who is not Orthodox who is critiquing Orthodoxy, we try to engage that person but typically at some point we are left to say, look, it's obvious that our arguments are making no sense to you because you are trying to critique Orthodoxy from a point that is extrinsic to at. So we suggest that they at least attend the liturgy for a year and see if their perspective doesn't change. We obviously don't have some kind of objectifiable answer to their critique. We simply say, enter into our reality, (a higher reality, we believe, but, in some sense an alternative reality as well or a true reality as opposed to a limited reality or even a warped or deformed reality) -- then taste and see.

Rebecca

20-05-2003, 10:48 PM

But as a result of the failure of the Church on the intellectual level,theology is treated as a private, personal taste, not as the highest form of science.

Hi Owen, didn't you object to "scientific method" being the basis of faith earlier?

Daniel Jeandet

20-05-2003, 10:48 PM

Yeah Owen, your right. I understand your arguments and I agree with them. I can see how some people would want to debate what you are saying. In a way, they want to know the position of the electron because if they cant, it musnt exist. But it doesnt really have to exist on its own does it? When we are looking at a single electron, maybe the next step is looking at the point where God is creating the uncreated, and this is the limit of what we can see, the next step is not visible. It is where the Uncreated somehow meets the created. Perhaps in history, the point where God becomes a part of it is too real. People do get confused and scared about relativism. The thing is, we do believe in relativism. Everything is relative to the absolute God. For the modern relativist, everything is realtive to everything else, and only matter is absolute. Some people mistakenly defend the doctrine of matter and histories absolute reality out of a misplaced fear of relativism. Time is a condition of the created. It is circumscribed movement. Only God can be evrywhere at all times. We are circumscribed in our location and movement, thus time. The Fathers are a light. Thier knowledge is shared in the light of Christ, the intellect (word) expresses the knowledge of the nous. It does not discover it.

Rebecca

20-05-2003, 11:18 PM

The fear or agitation I was referring to Rebecca, is that of people who think that without forensic proof of the incarnation, that it is not true, and that we believe in vain, and would have to become atheists.

Ok...I was saying was that I saw no posts to this forum representing that particular mindset. Rather, I read posts as attesting to the Truth of the Incarnation being real, and in the physical world. However, that is not to say that I think your posts must only address other posts made here.

By way of clarification, my reference to agitation, or fear, uncertainty and doubt had to do with comments such as "that is a huge problem" and "we fail miserably in our obligation to the Gospel."

One might, on the surface, be tempted to feel fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the future of the Church upon hearing these words. However, it is the Lord who is in charge and running things, so we truly have no need for such fear uncertainty and doubt about the future of the Church.

John Curtis Dunn

21-05-2003, 12:32 AM

"While he (Peter) thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud." (Luke 9:34)

Owen posted: "I don't think anything is worthy of believing in that is provable through forensic data."

What is proven by forensic data? DNA evidence can prove the presence of a individual at a scene of a crime, but does it prove there was a crime?
DNA evidence is invisible to the naked eye, however, the substance from which DNA is taken may be (fingernail clippings, hair, etc.) but not always.

A crime can only be determined by those who tell a story using the evidence to establish presence. Empirical evidence (such as DNA) does not establish history, unless history is defined as empirical evidence. It can help identify to whom (or what)a history may and must be assigned, but without the story there is no history. At best, it is a trail or an echo of existence, but not itself the proof of existence. An echo of a human voice (which quickly vanishes) proves to us that there was a human origin of that echo; even if we were to only discover a parrot or recording broadcasting the sound.

I certainly have never suggested that the Incarnation or Ascension is provable by forensic data left in DNA evidence (neither would I deny it). Nobody that I have read suggested that the historical evidence of the Incarnation/Ascension (both must take place for St. Athanasius words to be true that God became man that man might become God: Theosis) depends upon the kind of forensic data produced through DNA. But is nothing worthy of believing if forensic data of DNA is presented as empirical evidence? If it were shown that the DNA on the Shroud and that on the pieces of the True Cross were the same, would that evidence be inadmissable to our Christian Apologetic. Neither could it prove the Incarnation or Ascension and no doubt such evidence would cause some to embrace the Church and others to further denounce her. The words of the Risen Lord remain:
"Blessed are those who believe, yet have not seen."

I disagree with the conclusion of Owen when he wrote: "So we suggest that they at least attend the liturgy for a year and see if their perspective doesn't change. We obviously don't have some kind of objectifiable answer to their critique. We simply say, enter into our reality, (a higher reality, we believe, but, in some sense an alternative reality as well or a true reality as opposed to a limited reality or even a warped or deformed reality) -- then taste and see.

Owen's conclusion assumes the problem is with the answer (which sometimes it is), but a wrong question can only be answered wrongly. Which is to say, that the process by which the understanding is healed so as to correctly judged an objectifiable answer takes place within the presence of the Holy Spirit (but by no means is this the only result, since men can resist the Holy Spirit). This presence is most manifest in the services of the Church, but also (as the Apostle said) in the preaching of the Evangelist.

If, as Owen noted: we "cannot in principle, as a principle of scientific investigation, separate subject and object into two completely different, extrinsic realities;" then neither can we seperate historical reality from the sphere described as metaxy. The two are undivided and not confused, yet one single truth/reality. Those who experience the Orthodox Christ of Faith must also experience the Christ of History (sic).

john

Daniel Jeandet

21-05-2003, 11:34 AM

The Incarnation was true before it happened.

Richard Leigh

21-05-2003, 04:29 PM

Daniel,

True in the planning stage in God's eternity, but the eternal Logos was not incarnate until conceived by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, a human being with a past and a future at some time and place in concrete history, and so our God 'O Logos became flesh, making Mary, who'd born no-one before, the God Bearer.

Richard

Owen Jones

21-05-2003, 05:03 PM

Not to be a total pest, but all of the above is true Richard as an article of faith, but not as an objectifiable historical fact. These are mystical truths that only believers can even begin to truly comprehend and know as true.

Richard Leigh

21-05-2003, 07:58 PM

Owen,

The Article of faith is one about a faith one has in an objective fact in whatever way that fact can be objectified, including (but not limited to) historically. It is also faith in what the fact means. Without the fact, the meaning is vaporuos, and it cannot be true that objectification of the fact destroys the meaning. What can be true is that one might attach "faith" to "fact" with a different, if any, meaning. But that's not what I or anyone else has been talking about.

This seems to be Antioch vs. Alexandria all over again, and what looks like is needed is to find where unity exists in Christ and the Church regarding their respective points of view.

Richard

Jay Holman

22-05-2003, 02:32 PM

I've just been a lurker for a few weeks. One needs to get the feel of a place and all ;-)

In this discussion it keeps popping up for me that the Incarnation is being discussed as an event in the past tense when, in fact, it is an ongoing reality present in and for all of us.

Secondly, I don't believe it's true that Orthodoxy has "abandoned" the intellectual high ground. Orthodoxy is living and encompasses all that is, but it simply can't be intellectualized. Thus such phrases as "Thou who has shown the philosophers to be fools." in the Akathist to the Theotokos. Orthodoxy - TRUTH - can not be contained in any intellectual system because it is accessible only through praxis and is much to all-embracing to be explained. It may be experienced but can only be approached metaphorically and apathatically outside that experience. We have developed language to help objectify some aspects of Orthodox Cosmology, but the experience of Theosis is a gift of the Holy Spirit beyond the realm of the human mind.

We have examples in human experience. Try to exactly describe a taste for instance.

Jay

Owen Jones

22-05-2003, 02:53 PM

Dear Jay,

The Greek language is far richer in identifying specific experiences and realities than English. That is the language of our theology, and to translate that into English requires a preservation of the classical and traditional Christian intellectual milieu, if you will. That has essentially been lost.

Let's just look at one area. Psychology. Modern psychology is an intellectually impoverished discipline that does not take into account the fact that man is a composite being that participates at all levels of the hierarchy of being. I know of one or two popular works of contemporary Orthodox writers who have tried to counter this, but because the Church is not taken seriously in the intellectual arena, these books have a very nominal impact and then only among some few Christian psychologists. And, again, they are popular works, not really serious philosophical, scientific works, because the Church devotes no resources to this. It has to get done by individuals on their own time without the resources of the Church behind it.

Traditionally, all of the major intellectual centers in Western civilization were in the Church, in monasteries, and Platonic type academies. That is all gone. Disappeared totally. We have no intellectual counterforce to anti-Christian intellectual dogmas. So we are left with personal piety as the only pillar of the true faith. And even then, most of our educated people in the Church are double minded. They think like modern secularists and live like modern secularists with a little personal piety and Church attendance thrown in.

Another specific example is Evolution. This is a totally unscientific dogma which is part of the modernist conceit that history is revelation. And that history determines everything. History evolves into a constantly wiser, stronger, smarter, better humanity, and the only reason why we have not achieved utopia is those reactionary religionists.

The Church has done nothing on the scientific and philosophic level to debunk the theory of Darwinian evolution and the absurd doctrine of progressivist history.

We have an obligation to our creator to set this right. But the few intellectuals willing to seriously debunk these theories have done so quite apart from the Church.

I see a form of weakness and cowardess at foot here, where perhaps Satan has instilled in the Church an insular, defensive attitude, fearful attitude. That was not the attitude in the early Church, confronting the pagan philosophers and pagan culture in an intellectually, morally, spiritually robust way, in which asceticism, devotion and intellectual achievement were blended into one manifest vision.

There are absolutely no resources in America, for example, with all of the wealth of the Orthodox Church here, to create just one small classical academy that could develop future spiritual/intellectual leaders of the Church. It would take perhaps twenty million dollars, tops, and I assure you that there is no greater need than that.

Stephen Keeler

22-05-2003, 04:09 PM

What I believe Owen is referring to is the impact, or lack thereof, that Orthodox have in American society. This is independent of the vibrant musings among ourselves, and to say that we have no impact in broader society is not to diminish the value of our intramural dialogue. At the same time, we should not assume that just because this dialogue exists, others hear it.

For example, there are, I am told, roughly the same number of people who define themselves as Jews as those who say they belong to the Orthodox Church (all ethnic stripes) in the US. Yet the number and impact of Jewish schools, forums, etc far exceeds our own. We quite frankly haven't really cared to build up a forceful presence to shape political and social dialogue.

Whether this is good or bad is open to debate (given other priorities, 1917 revolution, etc), but clearly this must be recognized as fact.

And things can change. At one time in this country, no major Hollywood studio dared to produce a movie that would receive a "don't see" rating by an arm of the Roman Catholic Church in America. Now, that same arm can shout as loud as it wants, but nobody listens.

Owen Jones

22-05-2003, 04:26 PM

Dear Stephen,

I will see you and raise you. It's not just that we should have an impact on the culture. the culture is determining how we think and live. The trend of Orthodoxy is clear. There are two tracks. One will inevitably lead to an Orthodox Church that is indistinguishable from Anglicanism. The other will resemble the Amish.

We need to be able to challenge the false scientific, political, social, psychological, economic ideologies of the age, the false spirit of the age, in order to be true to ourselves, and in order for there to be a vibrant, robust, authentic Orthodoxy that is true to its roots. Without a vibrant intellectual community, this is impossible. These things must be relearned in every generation. Also, we must do so because we are commanded to give a good accounting of our faith, and that must include the intellectual vision of Orthodoxy, not just sunday school apologetics.

Whenever I make this argument, the counter argument I hear runs something like this: do you have no faith in the Holy Spirit? But the Holy Spirit does not absolve us of responsibility and duty. God's promises to His Church do not constitute a guarantee, absent our participation.

John Curtis Dunn

23-05-2003, 09:15 PM

The following is what/how I read Owen's argument.

It seems to me that Owen argues for an independence of faith from history (meaning occurance of objectifiable events in contrast to the narrative rehearsal). The Incarnation (which includes the Resurrection and Ascension) becomes history only in the narrative of faith, not because there was any objectifiable observance (though I am baffled how the Theotokos conceived without any experience of objectifiable history). It seems that Owen's argument supports the noxious idea that the Gospel accounts must then be understood as narrative reconstructions of faith imposed meaning upon the Disciples objectifiable loss of their Master, in whom they hoped was the Christ who would "restore the kingdom of Israel."

The Incarnation/Resurrection/Ascension are faith constructions of reality and provide no objectifiable certainty for the Christian's hope. The Evangelist did not record history as a chronological sequence of facts, but rather as a mystical experience generated by their own search for meaning in the loss of their misplaced faith. That latter being their hope that Jesus was the Christ who would restore the Kingdom of Israel.

The mystical experience is unknowable and unverifiable within objectifiable history {chronological sequence of events). Those who embrace the faith of the Apostles likewise base their own faith (and mystical experience) upon the loss of their misplaced faith, which generated real mystical faith within the Apostolic community.

When we read:

"And having said these things, while they looked, He was taken up; and from before their eyes, a cloud took Him up from under. And while they were gazing intently into the heaven as He went, then behold, two men stood by them in white raiment, who said, 'Men, Galilaeans, why do ye stand looking into the heaven?'"

...we do not read about an objectifiable historical event (having an objectifiable sequence of events), but rather of a mystical experience which culminated the transition of the Disciples loss of misplaced faith and the present-tense absence of Jesus. This mystical experience would not itself culminate until the day of Pentecost, but Luke's account is a reconstruction of the mystical event and thus is a "syntagmatic reheasal of all faith events.

As Orthodox Christians living in the twenty-first century, we have nothing but faith alone to combat the allegation of the Jews who paid the guards to say, 'they stole his body while we slept.' Neither do we have anything but faith alone to defend the Theotokos against the blasphemous charges which are again surfacing worldwide. The witness of the Theotokos and the Apostles cannot be relied upon as objectifiable evidence. The truthfulness of their words lies not within history, but outside of history in the realm of faith (mystical experience).

Owen denies that his argument denies the Incarnation/Resurrection (sadly, not so with the Ascension), I am not convinced. He sets faith against history as two opposing realities which cannot be bridged, which I have understood the Incarnation to have accomplished. Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." God loves mankind, and that is manifestly displayed in that His Only-begotten Son became flesh and was seen with eyes and handled ("Bring thy finger here...and cease being unbelieving.") by the hand.

My faith in the Resurrection of Christ begins with my belief in the Apostles account. Each time I enter into the Divine Liturgy and celebrate the Resurrection of Christ, I enter with this as my foundation. I myself offer no objectifiable evidence for the resurrection, other than my faith in the Apostles words. I have no objectifiable evidence for the Virgin's conception, accept that I believe the Apostolic Witness kept by the Church. The faith of the Church is the objectifiable evidence. But as faith, it is not simply a narrative of mystical experience which is being reported, but none other than a historical witness of God becoming flesh and dwelling among us.

The objectifiable witness of the Incarnation began with the Theotokos, and was born testimony to by Symeon who said, "Now let thy slave depart in peace according to thy word, for mine eyes have seen Thy Salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people, a light for revelation to the nations and the glory of Thy people Israel."

john

Owen Jones

23-05-2003, 11:22 PM

Dear John,

I think you are conflating a couple of things unnecessarily, and dividing a couple of things unnecessarily.

The first question is "What is history?" I'm not denying the concreteness of historical events. I am not denying the witness to concrete historical events. But the Incarnation is not simply an event IN history. The Incarnation gives birth to history. It constitutes history, in the sense that history has any meaning, purpose, direction, that is eschatological in nature. Otherwise, history is always a series of events culminating in the present, like the Sumerian King List. It has always been a challenge for Christians or anyone to define the meaning of history, because we are in the middle of it. It is not over. But we want to know and we theorize about what it all means. These are inescapable questions that the Incarnation creates. Raising these questions does not eliminate concrete historical events or the witness to them, any more than the literal/historical level of Scriptural meaning is negated by the moral level or the mystical level. But without the moral and mystical level of understanding of scripture, the literal/historical level has no meaning. It's useless. It's just an interesting story. So they all hold together. So the History that most of us speak of glibly, without any distinction at all between what we might call mundane history and the history that has eschatological meaning and direction, really includes both concrete events, and the metaxy reality. They should not be conflated such that either one or the other is eliminated or obscured. Therefore, as a matter of principle, you cannot objectify history.

The second issue is how do we know today. The events cited are not objectifiable, or provable. Our faith is not based on verifiable, objectifiable facts. Again, this does not eliminate the concrete. The fact of faith doesn't require that we all enter a gnostic dream world. But the Bible itself says that Faith is the evidence (proof). It's what happens to us when we have faith, more to the point, that proves the truth of the Incarnation, the Resurrection, The Ascension, Pentacost. Other people must see Christ in US, is another way of putting it.

Otherwise, why did Christ bother to go away? Why not just stick around and run things, continue to guide us, govern us? That is, in fact, what many of the disciples expected to happen. And too often many people want Him to return right now, so they don't have to practice faith.

Regarding mystical experience, it sounds like you have conflated that with the post-enlightenment theory of existentialism. That maybe Moses arrived at some existential experience of himself in the desert, and then created a narrative of the burning bush to concretize it. Many people, including believersrs (including Jewish believers) have adopted this theory.

I suppose one could argue that an existential experience is a type of revelation, but we can't put ourselves in the place of God and Moses. Fact is, that's the way God reveals himself to some exemplars, and then we have to take it as Gospel even though we weren't there to verify it. Again, that's what faith is for. But to turn it into an existential experience is not the point. That's the opposite methodological error of objectifying history. Turning everything into an existential experience. It's certainly not a point I have tried to make.

I really think there is a plague on all of us, since Descartes, which is the pathological desire to reduce all reality to objective vs. subjective knowledge.

God chose to reveal himself as fully man to an obscure tribe of religious people who had a long tradition of serving Him through His law. There is no independent historical evidence of that outside of Scripture. The evidence is what it created in the hearts and minds of believers who re-created, in a sense the idea of man, nature, society, history. In doing so, they did not negate anything that had come before -- not one jot or tittle. But it made everything new. That's NOT OBJECTIFIABLE AND VERIFIABLE historically. It's something each generation has to relearn and live and carry on the witness to.

If the Gospel were so easily proven as objectifiable historical events, then everyone on earth would accept it matter of factly. But in my experience it takes considerable ongoing struggle.

Owen Jones

24-05-2003, 01:05 AM

Believe it or not Michael I have read the Bible! I'm not saying that Christ is not present in the world, but he's present MYSTICALLY. not as an objectifiable thing. Not as Jesus of Nazareth. If God wanted everyone to simply accept as fact His Incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth, without having to have faith, without having to change, without the effort to obey, etc., then he could simply have stuck around, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He could continue to perform any manner of miracles and they could be carried far and wide on CNN. Of course, we would deny His divinity in every generation and crucify him over and over again. That's why it's not about facts.

The passages you quoted from Scripture are not about facts. Christ's presence in the world today is not an objectifiable fact, any more than it was when Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth. God chose certain people to reveal himself to, a very limited number of people, and then with the eyes of faith.

John Curtis Dunn

24-05-2003, 02:33 AM

Owen Jones wrote: "If the Gospel were so easily proven as objectifiable historical events, then everyone on earth would accept it matter of factly."

And yet some continue to deny man has ever walked upon the moon.
[see: http://www.aulis.com/article2.htm]

Is Energy objectifiable or even capable of conceptualization (nuclear, sub-nuclear, molecular, cellular, or even organic)? Yet, we readily accept that it is everywhere and fills all things (present in every micro- and/or macro-event).

So how do we know or recognize its existence and presence? Answer: Phenomenally, that is to say by its affect, or trail (I have already made reference to tracking the source of an echo). We cannot identify energy head on, which might be kin to saying there is no direct access to the being(ness) of energy. Though we cannot specifically identify what energy is, yet we recognize its historical affect and in so determining its past tense we are able to identify its present tense even though it remains outside of any objectifiable observation.

john

Daniel Jeandet

24-05-2003, 03:25 AM

I have my doubts about the moon walk. And there is no way you can convince me with proof, because it could be faked. I can doubt it for the rest of my life, and you will never be able to convince me it happened, or that it didnt happen. I dont know if it happened, and neither do you. You really dont know. It could have been faked, it could have been real.

I do beleive in the incarnation, crucifixion and resurection. There is faith that does not require proof. I know it happened. In the light of experience, there is no other possibility. I would not argue the truth of it on the grounds of historical or forensic proof. I just wouldnt bother, its not required. Faith is required.

Im not trying to make any kind of point here.

dunno about that moon landing though, that takes a different kind of faith.

Heather M

24-05-2003, 03:55 AM

Hi everybody---
I absolutely cannot contribute anything substantial to this thread because thus far I've not been able to figure out what it is you're discussing.
I did want to mention though, in regards to the Incarnation...that I finished reading a book a few weeks ago..."On the Incarnation" by St Athanasius. I had it a long time before I decided to read it, for some reason. I guess I was a little timid because it is such an old writing....I was doubtful that I would be able to follow what was being said. I was so surprised though at how easily I followed along with it...and how much there was contained in this little book..and in basically simplistic terms. Just thought I'd share that...

Daniel...I too doubt the moon-walk. I get made fun of alot about this, but who knows. I'm not one of those "conspiracy theory" types...But it would neither surprise me if it were fake, or if it were true.

with much love.....heather

John Curtis Dunn

24-05-2003, 05:35 AM

daniel jeandet wrote: "I do beleive in the incarnation, crucifixion and resurection. There is faith that does not require proof. I know it happened. In the light of experience, there is no other possibility. I would not argue the truth of it on the grounds of historical or forensic proof. I just wouldnt bother, its not required. Faith is required."

Of course a person can believe and have faith in the Incarnation/Resurrection/Ascension apart from historical and/or forensic proof. I certainly have never denied this, and I suspect for many (if not most) that is the context (or lack there of) of their faith. However, my point has been that the Faith given to each of us when we are baptized has its foundation upon the concrete reality of these events as experienced by the Apostles, and not just them, but over 500 others.

I have no objectifiable proof of my Great, great, great, great Grandfather's existence. Perhaps there is not even any record assesible to man which could identify him, yet, I have no doubt of his historical objectifiable existence. The trail of his existence leads into the present tense to me. I believe he existed, even though he and I have no personal knowledge of each other. But is this belief faith? In a broad definition of the word, yes. But not in the stricter definition of that which the Church gives us when we are baptized.

The doubt raised by Owen's argument is that empirical evidence (which by his argument necessitates an absolute unanimous conclusion by everyman, everywhere and at all times) for the Incarnation/Resurrection/Ascension does not and cannot exist.

It does not exist, which is proven by the fact that all men have not believed. Common experience necessitates that each of us must have a generation (grandfather) of which nothing is known, yet whose existence is beyond any cause for reasonable doubt. Owen's argument postulates that because there are men who do not believe, therefore the lack of evidence proves the evidence can only exist outside of empirical objectifiable history. I however, have argued that the empirical evidence is my faith (or more precisely, it is the faith of the Church) simply stated, this faith is my proof.

My existential experience of belief is not the proof, otherwise all religious beliefs would hold equal probability based soley upon the existential choice or conviction that X or Y is true, by each individual. The extent to which I hold, or conform myself to the faith of the Church is the evidence of my faith in the Orthodox Faith, not the evidence of the Church's faith, or the proof of her Orthodoxy.

My personal faith is not the evidence of the Resurrection, it is the evidence I hold that I also shall personally have a share in Christ's "Incarnation/Resurrection/Ascension," i.e., THEOSIS. The empirical evidence, of my conviction, is my faith which is manifest by the extent to which I conform myself to the image of Christ. The Martyrs have shown the evidence of their faith by their will to follow Christ in voluntarily surrendering their life unto death.

No man takes a Martyrs life, he lays it down freely, and in that way he or she becomes a participant in the Incarnation/Resurrection/Ascension of Jesus Christ. The fact is, many (perhaps most) of the converts to Christianity during the first four centuries became convinced of the historical certainty of the Orthodox Faith because they witnessed the Martyrs laying down their lives.
Their martyrdom was the empirical evidence (the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church) of the truth proclaimed by the Church.

A second point of doubt is raised because Owen contends that empirical evidence forces out doubt and the necessity of faith. However, empirical evidence requires explanation and meaning, which can be true or conjectural. If Owen's argument were only that the meaning of the event is perceivable in the realm of faith (metaxy), I would give assent. There is something else in Owen's argument however, he has contended that the event itself is a-historical: outside of observable history.

The Incarnation is not knowable by observation, meaning no one can observe God becoming flesh. However, neither is the soul of any conception observable. No one observe the soul being conceived in the flesh, yet we Orthodox celebrate conceptions, even as we celebrate births and deaths.

The empircal evidence is found Phenomenally. This can be seen in St. John Chrysostom's defense of the Resurrection of Christ in Matthew Homily 89, he wrote:

"Seest thou how they [the Jews] labor for the truth against heir will? For they themselves came to Pilate, themselves asked, themselves sealed, setting the watch, so as to be accusers, and
refuters one of another. And indeed when should they have stolen Him? on the Sabbath? And how? for it was not lawful so much as to go out. And even if they transgressed the law, how should they
have dared, who were so timid, to come forth? And how could they also have been able to persuade the multitude? By saying what? By doing what? And from what sort of zeal could they have stood
in behalf of the dead? expecting what recompense? what requital? Seeing Him yet alive and merely seized, they had fled; and after His death were they likely to speak boldly in His behalf, unless
He had risen again? And how should these things be reasonable? For that they were neither willing nor able to feign a resurrection, that did not take place, is plain from hence. He discoursed to them much of a resurrection, and continually said, as indeed these very men have stated, "After three days I rise again" If therefore He rose not again, it is quite clear that these men (having been deceived and made enemies to an entire nation for His sake, and come to be without home and without city) would have abhorred Him, and would not have been willing to invest Him with such glory; as having been deceived, and having fallen into the utmost dangers on His account. Actually, no one has written more eloquently than Saint John
Chrysostom about the improbability of the Apostles having made up the
reports of Christ's Resurrection. In Saint John's Homilies on Matthew,
in Homily 89 he writes:

Seest thou how they [the Jews] labor for the truth against their will? For they themselves came to Pilate, themselves asked, themselves sealed, setting the watch, so as to be accusers, and refuters one of another. And indeed when should they have stolen Him? on the Sabbath? And how? for it was not lawful so much as to go out. And even if they transgressed the law, how should they have dared, who were so timid, to come forth? And how could they also have been able to persuade the multitude? By saying what? By doing what? And from what sort of zeal could they have stood in behalf of the dead? expecting what recompense? what requital? Seeing Him yet alive and merely seized, they had fled; and after His death were they likely to speak boldly in His behalf, unless He had risen again? And how should these things be reasonable? For that they were neither willing nor able to feign a resurrection, that did not take place, is plain from hence. He discoursed to them much of a resurrection, and continually said, as indeed these very men have stated, "After three days I rise again, If therefore He rose not again, it is quite clear that these men (having been deceived and made enemies to an entire nation for His sake, and come to be without home and without city) would
have abhorred Him, and would not have been willing to invest Him with such glory; as having been deceived, and having fallen into
the utmost dangers on His account. For that they would not even have been able, unless the resurrection had been true, to feign it, this does not so much as need reasoning.

For in what were they confident? In the shrewdness of their reasonings? Nay of all men they were the most unlearned. But in the abundance of their possessions? Nay, they had neither staff nor shoes. But in the distinction of their race? Nay, they were mean, and of mean ancestors. But in the greatness of their country?
Nay, they were of obscure places. But in their own numbers? Nay, they were not more than eleven, and they were scattered abroad. But in their Master's promises? What kind of promises? For if
He were not risen again, neither would those be likely to be trusted by them. And how should they endure a frantic people. For if the chief of them endured not the speech of a woman, keeping the door, and if all the rest too, on seeing Him bound, how should they have thought to run to the ends of the earth, and plant a feigned tale of a resurrection? For if he stood not a woman's threat, and they not so much as the sight of bonds, how were they able to stand against kings, and rulers, and nations, where were swords, and gridirons, and furnaces, and ten thousand deaths day by day, unless they had the benefit of the power and grace of Him who rose again? Such miracles and so many were done, and none of these things did the Jews regard, but crucified Him,
who had done them, and were they likely to believe these men at their mere word about a resurrection? These things are not, they are not so, but the might of Him, who rose again, brought them to pass.

For in what were they confident? In the shrewdness of their reasonings? Nay of all men they were the most unlearned. But in the abundance of their possessions? Nay, they had neither staff nor shoes. But in the distinction of their race? Nay, they were mean, and of mean ancestors. But in the greatness of their country?
Nay, they were of obscure places. But in their own numbers? Nay, they were not more than eleven, and they were scattered abroad.
But in their Master's promises? What kind of promises? For if He were not risen again, neither would those be likely to be trusted by them. And how should they endure a frantic people. For if the chief of them endured not the speech of a woman, keeping the door, and if all the rest too, on seeing Him bound, were scattered abroad, how should they have thought to run to the ends of the earth, and plant a feigned tale of a resurrection? For if he stood not a woman's threat, and they not so much as the sight of bonds, how were they able to stand against kings, and rulers, and nations, where were swords, and gridirons, and furnaces, and ten thousand deaths day by day, unless they had the benefit of the power and grace of Him who rose again? Such miracles and so many were done, and none of these things did the Jews regard, but crucified Him,
who had done them, and were they likely to believe these men at their mere word about a resurrection? These things are not, they
are not so, but the might of Him, who rose again, brought them to pass."

john

Owen Jones

24-05-2003, 01:02 PM

Dear John,

Why do you persist in arguing that if the truth of the Gospel is not objectiable historically and provable emperically, then it must be made up? Or,more to the point, why must I continually defend myself against the false charge that I believe that the Gospel is just a fairy tale, because I happen to take Hebrews 11:1 seriously? Why do you feel compelled to make that leap?

Owen Jones

24-05-2003, 01:18 PM

Daniel,

Bingo! Or...you've hit the nail on the old head. Faith means something. Faith in the Incarnation is a different order of faith than believing what you see on TV about a particular event. Which is the whole underlying problem with this thread. A classical person would understand this. But today we use words without regard to what they mean, or shades of meaning. We use words to reflect feelings, or to make propaganda points, to sloganner; not because they have an "objectifiable" meaning. The kind of faith referred to in Hebrews 11:1 is a transfiguring faith. It is not en exertion of will on our part but the Grace of God, the Parousia of God, transfiguring our very being. That change that we undergo is the evidence of the truth of the Gospel. Without that, there is no Christ, there is no Gospel, not worth mentioning anyway. We can try to objectify it all we want, but it is all sound and fury signifying nothing.

Owen Jones

24-05-2003, 01:26 PM

John,

couple of responses to one of your (shorter) messages. by speaking of not being able to objectify energy, and knowing energy only in terms of its effects, you seem to be making my argument for me. As for people who don't believe that we went to the moon, and equating that with people who don't believe in the incarnation, you've turned the argument on its head. The fact that faith is the proof of things unseen, does not mean that when people don't have faith, the unseen measure is thereby disproved. You can do better than that. Or, does this entire debate hinge on you making a case for that?

Marie Quirk

24-05-2003, 06:55 PM

Dear All,

Like you Heather I am not understanding all that is involved in this thread so I can not contribute much. Although I was reading something of St. Isaac about faith and the 3 degrees of knowledge that I wanted to share. Hopefully it has not been mentioned here before.

St. Isaac says that "when we use the word faith we do not mean the handing down of the dogmatic truths about the Persons of the Holy Trinity and about Christ's becoming man and about the assumption of human nature by the Second Person of the Trinity, although this faith is also very lofty, but the main meaning of what we call faith is that light which by grace dawns in the soul and fortifies the heart by the testimony of the mind, making it undoubting through assurance of hope. This spiritual faith does not learn the mysteries by oral tradition, but with spiritual eyes it beholds the mysteries concealed in the soul, and the secret and divine riches that are hidden away from the eyes of the sons of the flesh, but are unveiled by the spirit to those who abide at Christ's table through their study of His laws."

This definition really speaks to my heart and causes me to give glory to God for the great gift of faith that allows one's vision to be transformed by the light in order to grasp the wonderful mysteries of our faith.

Humbly united in prayers,
Marie

Owen Jones

24-05-2003, 07:20 PM

Ditto!

xx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx

John Curtis Dunn

24-05-2003, 11:15 PM

"We are witnesses to all he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear, not to all the people, but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, and who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead" (Acts 10:38-41).

With the above words St. Peter sets forth the empirical evidence of the Incarnation to St. Cornelius and his household. "Ye know... how God anointed Him..." (vs,37, 38) How did Cornelius know of Jesus baptism and specifically the Spirit of God descending upon Jesus as a dove? He was not yet in the Church.

However Cornelius knew, his knowledge was not empirical, he himself had not witnessed the works of Jesus, or His Crucifixion and certainly not His Resurrection. The eye witness account of the Apostles however was empirical, for the power of the Resurrection of Christ was repeated not just by the Apostles, but also by others, not just in the past, but even until our present day. The Resurrection of Christ has been repeatedly born witness to by the Church because from the beginning the power of the Resurrection has been present within her.

Fr. George Metallinos has explained it thus: "The scientist and professor of the knowledge of the Uncreated, in the Orthodox Tradition, is the Geron/Starets (the Elder or Spiritual Father), the guide or "teacher of the desert". The recording of both types of know1edge (ed. created and uncreated) presupposes empirica1 knowledge of the phenomenon."

The Resurrection is the empirical evidence of the Incarnation. While the Apostles did not witness the event of the Resurrection, they most definitely do bear witness to the Resurrection. They themselves were present at the Resurrection of Lazarus (among others) prior to our Lord's death and Resurrection and of other Resurrections after.

Throughout the first centuries of the Church, many people saw with their own eyes the power of the Resurrection. They saw men, women and children who were dead raised up from death. Not just persons who swooned into a unconciousness, but men, women and children whose death was irrefutable. Indeed, those who saw St. John the Evangelist boiled in Oil, yet remaining alive saw with their own eyes the power of the Resurrection.

Many saw St. Thecla walk onto a woodpile and remained unscorched by the flame, though it wholly surrounded her. Later, when she was put into the arena with starving lions, yet when these wild beasts saw her they shut their mouths. The crowd which witnessed this event were divided, some glorifying God while others reviled St. Thecla attributing her power over the animals to demons.

Now I readily admit, I have no power to stop even a ravenous dog, much less a lion. My faith is so small that I can hardly raise myself from the bed, much less raising anyone from the dead. But do I believe the dead are still being raised? Yes, in that I have faith that God even today has, can and does raise the dead through his Servants to whom such faith to perform these miracles has been given.

The fact that I lack both the knowledge and capability to identify one DNA code from another does not mean I should doubt the existence of a DNA code. Specialist can and do produce empirical evidence in their realm of expertise which identifies the existence of DNA.

So it is with the matters of Faith, it has a empirical evidence which is distinct to it, but which those who are not trained or willing to see, cannot see. And as Daniel explained it, neither will any evidence produced change their minds.

Men do not reject the historical reality of the Incarnation because of the lack of empirical evidence, they reject it because they will to not believe. The evidence is there, but the will to believe is absent. This can also be true of many who study theology and Christian history diligently.

Our Orthodox faith hinges upon the historical reality and empirical witness (not empiricism) of the Resurrection by the Apostles. It begins and ends with the historical reality of their empirical experience of the Resurrected Jesus. For as the Apostle has said, "if Christ is not raised, then we of all men are the most to be pitied." Our faith and spiritual/mystical experiences be damned for they and our faith are "empty." Worse than that, says the Apostle: "we also are found to be false witnesses of God, becuase we bore witness against God that he raised the Christ. Whom He did not raise...for if the dead are not raised, neither hat Christ been raised. And if Chris hath not been raise, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins. ... If in this life we have hoped in Christ only, we are of all men the most pitiable."

Cornelius possed faith prior to hearing the account of St. Peter concerning the Resurrection. He even conversed with Angels, yet, St. Peter was sent to bear witness to the Resurrection. And it was while Peter was expounding upon the Resurrection that the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household.

St. Peter said, "...not to all people, but to witnesses who had been chosen before by God, to us, who ate and drank with Him after he arose from the dead."

I am not among those who have been chosen, yet I believe the report of Peter. I know that I never have known a time when I did not believe in the Resurrection of Christ. Everything I have experienced and know concerning God, Christ, Church, Salvation and Theosis rest upon the empirical certainty of the Resurrection.

If someone produced a body found buried in the desert claiming that it was the body of Christ (and that may yet happen), offering scientific evidence, I will deny it. I have faith in the eye-witness accounts of the apostles as empirical evidence that Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. The faith of the Apostles was not as mine, they saw, I have not, they ate and touched, I have not, they heard, I have not. Yet, each time I have received the Holy Things for the Holy in faith, i have seen, heard, ate and touched the Resurrected and living Christ.

This knowledge has not been given to all, but only to those who have been chosen. Whether I be found worthy to have received, I cannot judge. But I have born witness to others of my faith, and a handful have believed and become Orthodox Christians.

Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the subsistence of things not seen. But all evidence is open to observation, only the means or methods by which observation must take place some will not avail themselves.

This is why I have said, the problem is not with the evidence, but with those who will not believe. Not all who do not believe, will not believe.

john

John Curtis Dunn

26-05-2003, 07:47 PM

In a message dated 5/24/2003 Owen wrote:

Dear John,

Why do you persist in arguing that if the truth of the Gospel is not
objectiable historically and provable emperically, then it must be
made up?

Forgive me, but I must answer by first asking another question.

What is the ONE truth upon which the Orthodox Church and her Gospel depend; such that if it could be proven false, then the Orthodox Church (all her martyrs, confessors, saints, and Holy fools) ceases to be the "pillar and stay of the Truth?" [1 Tim 3:15] If this ONE truth is not reliable, as it has been reported, then the Apostles are liars and everyone who has believed their witness about God and Christ have believed a lie. If this ONE truth cannot stand up to all philosophical tests, speculations and judgments: such that no philosophical reasoning can prove the fallacy of the witness of the event (truth) and no reasonable and reliable empirical evidence can be produced to prove the fallacy thereof; then the Orthodox Church and every member of her (past, present and future) are recipients of a lie and must be judged mentally incompetent and socially, culturally and historically dangerous. If this ONE truth can be rationalized so that it can be believed, explained and repackaged, then we Orthodox Christians might as well accept the story of "Bruce Almighty" as Gospel.

The answer is: the PHYSICAL-BODILY RESURRECTION OF JESUS IN TIME AND HISTORY and the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THEREOF; yes, I wrote and meant the empirical evidence of the Resurrection. If there is no reliable empirical evidence of the Resurrection, then we have nothing to offer to 21st century man, but myths and/or fairy tales. My purpose is "not" to suggest that each and every individual must become fully convinced in their own minds, by examination of the evidence, that it is indeed true and reliable beyond a reasonable doubt, but to establish that if it is not such, the "faith" exercised, practiced and believed by those who have never examined the evidence is a lie. Every Orthodox experience of God is "made up." That is to say, it is the result of something other than God and is admissible as certain reliable evidence of mental incompetence and that would suggest it is what I as an Orthodox Christian emphatically deny: that it is demonic.

Owen also asked: "Or,more to the point, why must I continually defend myself
against the false charge that I believe that the Gospel is just a fairy tale, because I happen to take Hebrews 11:1 seriously?"

I object against the manner and means in which you use Hebrews 11:1 to support your assertion that: "...Christ is not revealed in history. There is no Christ of history. There is only the Christ of faith." To which you further elaborated with: "The truth of Christ is revealed in a different realm than the historical." [posted on 4/30/2003]

That is not the meaning of "faith" in Hebrews 11:1: by which I mean, the Apostle Paul (and all the Apostles) do not demand that we accept and obey a Christ of Faith who has not been revealed, identified and manifest empirically in history. Of course we must have faith, I have never suggested otherwise. Of course we exercise faith when we accept the empirical evidence which is presented, but our faith is in the truthfulness of the empirical evidence by which we are convinced. In NO MANNER is the evidence of our Faith to be construed as relying upon "faith alone." To do so, is to surrender the Gospel, the Church, and her Confession of God, Christ and Theosis to the heretics.

The Gospel confronts us with the empirical evidence of GOD THE WORD BECOME FLESH and dwelling in the midst of human history. Man's response to this evidence is a "MORAL DECISION, not an individual objective observation of empirical reality, in which his/her rejection of Jesus Christ is neutral or a-historical. No man will be able to stand before God and say, "the evidence of Christ was not empirically substantive in history, that is why I did not believe the Gospel."

But what is precisely being rejected by each man's "decision" to not believe (being convinced by the evidence presented)? It is precisely what St. Paul tells the Philosophers on Mars Hill: "Therefore God, having overlooked indeed the times of ignorance, now commandeth all men everywhere to repent, **because** He set up a day in which He is going to judge the inhabited world in righteousness by a Man Whom He ordained, **after he gave assurance to all and raised him from the dead.**

If the Apostle had preached that Jesus Christ's Resurrection had only appeared to the Apostles in the realm of faith, the subsequent division among the philosophers would not have taken place. What is needed to believe the report of the Resurrection is "REPENTANCE" not empirical evidence. However, St. Paul clearly does not withhold the empirical evidence of the Resurrection from these philosophers, for he said: "**after he gave assurance to all and raised him from the dead.**"
It was precisely St. Paul's reference to the Resurrection which divides the response of the philosophers. We are told by Luke in the Mars Hill account, that "certain men, having joined, themselves together to him, **believed,** among whom was Dionysios the Aeropagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

That these Saints believed means they possessed faith, but this faith took historical definition (concrete certainty) when they believed the Apostle's account of the Resurrection. Concerning this account, we have a further elaboration from St. Paul in 1 Cor. 15 on what he meant by the Resurrection. "...that He appeared to Kephas, than to the Twelve. Afterward He appeared to over five hundred bretheren at once, of whom the majority remain until now...than James, then to all the Apostles. And last of all He appeared to me also, as it were one untimely born." [vs. 5-7] Neither should we place these appearances into a realm which negates the importance of the empirical reality of Christ's appearance to the Apostles. St. Peter tells St. Cornelius that he, and the other witnesses *ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead."

Now Owen has suggested that; "...searching for him in history is fruitless." [4/30/2003], which as he further expounded means: "I think the best concrete illustration of this is that if you had had a camera and tried to take a photo of Christ ascending, it would not have shown up on the photo negative. Because it was not an event in history, but an event in the metaxy." [ibid.] Owen himself defined for us what he meant saying; "...one might say it creates history, but we do not know what that history is or its meaning because we are in the middle (metaxy) of it."

What I read is: "The Ascension does not take place in history....because we are in the middle of history...which is created (or being created?) by the Incarnation...which is unknowable in history...making the certainty of history itself unknowable...and thus the Ascension (which does not take place in history and thus also is unknowable in history) does have existence and meaning in the metaxy which is also unknowable in history, but assessable to faith." And what is the evidence for this reasoning? Owen answers Hebrews 11:1, arguing faith is its own evidence.

I posted: "If, Owen only means to say that there is no Christ of History after whom the modern schools of unbelief seek, I could accept that." [4/30/2003] Certainly, there is no Christ of history which is separate from a Christ of faith. The Christ in whom we Orthodox have faith is also the same Christ who was crucified, buried, rose and ascended INCARNATE.

Owen seems content to separate Christ from the "Jesus as a flesh and blood
man." [4/30/2003] This language separates Christ outside of history, which is precisely what Owen seems content with doing in his presentation of metaxy: "I think the best concrete illustration of this is that if you had had a camera and tried to take a photo of Christ ascending, it would not have shown up on the photo negative. Because it was not an event in history, but an event in the metaxy." Owen seems to be confusing Christ with nature. Certainly Christ's Divine nature would not have been captured in a photographic negative, but if Christ could eat earthly bread and honey with His disciples after his Resurrection, then I suggest that his Ascension which left the disciples physically gazing upwards into the heavens was capable of having been captured on film. I am under no delusion that such a photograph would convince those who lacked faith to believe, to repent.

Note, I wrote, "lacked faith to believe." I readily accept that faith is necessary, but faith must take historical form in order to be recognized. Faith is not recognizable in all men, even if faith resides (potentially?) in all men, but in some men faith is recognizable to those who are capable of recognizing it. We learn this in the Gospel reading of St. Photine the woman at the well, Jesus had to explain to the disciples: "...lift up your eyes and see the fields, for they are white already to harvest." Jesus was teaching the disciples how to recognize faith by pointing to the multitude of Samaritans approaching Him.

The Orthodox Church bears witness to the truth of her faith in sequential historical celebration of the crucifixion, burial, resurrection, ascension and Pentecost. Yes, these events are Iconic (using Owen's choice of words). but they are painted (written) with the empirically sequential historical events and they are unknowable apart from this historicity.

john

Owen Jones

26-05-2003, 08:44 PM

John,

Without taking any effort, you are taking the opinion that metaxy reality, which is a legacy of both the Greek Philosophical and Greek Patristic "world view" (really, consciousness, not world view), is something less real than history. but it is more real, not less. Isn't heaven more real than earth? Isn't the in-between realm then, logically, more real than the purely historical? Truth, according to Orthodoxy, does not neglect facts and data, but Truth is not facts and data. It is a realm.

I never said there was no such thing as empirical evidence, or concrete historical events. What I object to in principle is the dogma that says that our faith stands or falls on objectifiable, provable, historical events. It doesn't. It rests on witnesses to events in the metaxy reality. That's not to say they lack physically or concreteness, or that people just imagined these things or had some existential inner awakening and then created a narrative. One would only make that claim by denying that there was any intermediate reality between earth and heaven. But our whole doctrine of deification rests on the doctrine of there being an intermediate realm. We are not, as Protestants, believers in no connection between earth and heaven. My God, a Protestant is not even allowed to pray for the dead! Because there is no continuum between earth and heaven. There is a radical, total distinction. We do not believe that. We believe the believer progresses on his journey to heaven in this life, and partakes of heavenly realities in this life, and is deified, growing into the image and likeness of God, being restored to our original, created condition, to the extent that is possible while still in this world and in a physical body. Protestants, being radical objectivists, do not believe that there can be any communion between God and man, between heaven and the world. You are either saved or damned and nothing happens to truly change us until death. A very, very sad state of condemnation of mankind.

There is no Cartesian or Archimedean Orthodoxy that is objectifiable from some extrinsic vantage point. What you have done, John, is applied modernistic scientific (Protestant) methodology to Orthodoxy. The basic canons of modern scientific method are, first, that for something to be scientifically known, it has to be replicable. Second, there has to be independent verification. Third, it cannot be something that cannot be disproven.

The Incarnation falls outside of all of those methodological requirements of modern science. It certainly cannot be disproven. I cannot even think of a hypothetical situation in which it could be disproven, such as finding Jesus' bones. How in the world would we know they were Jesus' bones? If an archeologist tomorrow found a tomb marked Jesus' bones, and claimed that this disproved the Resurrection, what would we all say? We would say, you cannot prove that those are Jesus' bones, and we still believe, because we cannot deny the witness of the faithful, of the disciplies, apostles and saints who have come before us. And we cannot deny what happens to us when we believe and practice our faith. We know for certain that this belief is not in vain because we see in our own lives the miracle of faith in Christ, its beauty and transformative power.

and it seems to be almost a blasphemy to even contemplate such a thing happening as finding Jesus' bones.