Collapsing Angels and Echoes from Eden

[Ohorseman]

It's nice to see that a TT section is here now. I go into theology with both words & art. This is part of the art that I named Collapsing Angels and Echoes from Eden, which is about the Fall in heaven and on earth.

We see the forbidden fruit being taken by Woman in Eden. In accordance with our culture, the rainbow colors represent the rejection of our God-given identities as man and woman - and this was very much embodied in Eden, as well as when angels fell. There is much that can be said about this.

Genesis 3
And the serpent said to Woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” 2 And Woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” 4 Then the serpent said to Woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when Woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked....

She unwittingly usurped authority and became the first pagan priestess when she mediated between earth and serpent. Then she ate and shared the bread of death, an unholy communion. We should not make a liturgy out of that, but maybe some do when a woman leads the Lord’s Supper, going against holy scriptures and church tradition.

Deut. 22:5 teaches us that a woman should not “wear that which pertaineth unto a man”, and that includes the robes and position of the priest or pastor - and there is plenty in the New Testament that backs this up. Holding to traditional theology, you can see that women’s ordination could be seen as a type of transgenderism that is practiced in the church, if the woman steps into the position of headship, going against many scriptures that instruct otherwise.

All denominations, the church as a whole, should return to a more traditional understanding & practice of the faith. We should move away from the progressive, post 1960’s understanding and practice of the scriptures, where feminist pride and gay pride have colored and corrupted people’s understanding.

Those that follow a progressive, post 1960’s theology may not like this... but what do you think about it from the true traditional position?

 

[The Liturgist]

I have written a reply to this thread, and I will post it if you move it to Conservative Christianity, or General Theology, which I believe are more appropriate venues for discussion of this subject, since Traditional Theology actually does include some members of liberal churches which are nonetheless liturgical and adhere to various traditional practices, such as the Episcopal Church, the Church of England, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Presbyterian Church USA, in addition to members of more conservative churches such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran Church of Canada, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and the Continuing Anglicans, and thus we try to avoid debating in here what we can debate out there, but rather prefer to use this forum for discussing that which cannot be discussed in General Theology without people from non-traditional churches jumping in and accusing us of idolatry or other falsehoods, namely liturgics, iconography, hagiography, church architecture, Patristics, and related subjects which someone from a Baptist or Pentecostal church, whether liberal or conservative, is likely to disagree with.

 

[Ohorseman]

I have written a reply to this thread, and I will post it if you move it to Conservative Christianity, or General Theology, which I believe are more appropriate venues for discussion of this subject, since Traditional Theology actually does include some members of liberal churches which are nonetheless liturgical and adhere to various traditional practices, such as the Episcopal Church, the Church of England, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Presbyterian Church USA, in addition to members of more conservative churches such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran Church of Canada, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and the Continuing Anglicans, and thus we try to avoid debating in here what we can debate out there, but rather prefer to use this forum for discussing that which cannot be discussed in General Theology without people from non-traditional churches jumping in and accusing us of idolatry or other falsehoods, namely liturgics, iconography, hagiography, church architecture, Patristics, and related subjects which someone from a Baptist or Pentecostal church, whether liberal or conservative, is likely to disagree with.

I don’t think it belongs in Conservative Theology. This guy explains it better than I can.

Christian Conservatism vs. Traditional Catholicism

Editor’s note: This article was first published on June 29, 2015 under a pen name. We’re running it again, now under the name of its author, because its content remains evergreen, and our readers (and…

onepeterfive.com

Please help me understand why General Theology would be a better place. People that do not attend a liturgical church will not understand this as easily. Those that worship liturgically embody beliefs in the assembly. The material and spiritual come together. Our worship is more incarnational - like Christ being fully man and fully Divine. So we might have a disposition to better understand what I am saying.

I grew up charismatic and non-denom, but for 10 years I’ve been Anglican - ACNA. We do not do same sex blessings, have a female priest, etc., and so I refer to myself as an orthodox or traditional Anglican. HOWEVER, people like Mariann Budde call themselves orthodox, even though they have a rainbow flag and bless gay pride unions. “Woke” redefines things & corrupts the liturgy, the church. Maybe they have liturgy but it is corrupted, maybe not in form but certainly in substance.

For example:
Christ defines marriage in Matthew 19:4-6 as being between a man and a woman. Christ said:

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” ​

He repeated what the Father said in Genesis 2:24. And the Holy Spirit said it again in 1 Cor. 7:11. Three times God spoke that, and it is difficult for us to see the depth and holiness of it. Though we should show our love by our obedience, places like TEC, C of E, Anglican Churches in Canada & Australia will bless same sex unions, and collect their fee. The Catholic Church has also developed a liturgy that accommodates gay pride.

Woman’s ordination is another accommodation for egalitarian-minded Westerners, a corruption of liturgy, a corruption of worship. These things are actually a corruption of the human, made in the image of God, as male and female.

 

[The Liturgist]

I don’t think it belongs in Conservative Theology. This guy explains it better than I can.

Christian Conservatism vs. Traditional Catholicism

Editor’s note: This article was first published on June 29, 2015 under a pen name. We’re running it again, now under the name of its author, because its content remains evergreen, and our readers (and…

onepeterfive.com

Please help me understand why General Theology would be a better place. People that do not attend a liturgical church will not understand this as easily. Those that worship liturgically embody beliefs in the assembly. The material and spiritual come together. Our worship is more incarnational - like Christ being fully man and fully Divine. So we might have a disposition to better understand what I am saying.

I grew up charismatic and non-denom, but for 10 years I’ve been Anglican - ACNA. We do not do same sex blessings, have a female priest, etc., and so I refer to myself as an orthodox or traditional Anglican. HOWEVER, people like Mariann Budde call themselves orthodox, even though they have a rainbow flag and bless gay pride unions. Via “woke” Satan redefines things & corrupts the liturgy, the church. Maybe they have liturgy but it is corrupted, maybe not in form but certainly in substance.

For example:
Christ defines marriage in Matthew 19:4-6 as being between a man and a woman. Christ said:

View attachment 360184​

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” ​

He repeated what the Father said in Genesis 2:24. And the Holy Spirit said it again in 1 Cor. 7:11. Three times God spoke that, and it is difficult for us to see the depth and holiness of it. Though we should show our love by our obedience, places like TEC, C of E, Anglican Churches in Canada & Australia will bless same sex unions, and collect their fee. The Catholic Church has also developed a liturgy that accommodates gay pride.

Woman’s ordination is another accommodation for egalitarian-minded Westerners, a corruption of liturgy, a corruption of worship. These things are actually a corruption of the human, made in the image of God, as male and female.

Well, one reason why General Theology is a more appropriate place is that more liturgical Christians actually post in General Theology than Traditional Theology, and polemical discussions just don’t happen in here, whereas they do happen there. So if you want engagement with your thread, General Theology would be the place to post it, or Conservative Theology, where I have also posted on several occasions.

By the way, you know there are some provinces in ACNA which do ordain women, and indeed in the reply I have prepared which I will post if you move this thread, I mentioned that fact, unaware that you were with ACNA, since ACNA’s provinces which do ordain women are typical of a group of moderate churches which ordain women but not homosexuals and which consist of a part of the conservative portion of the mainline churches. But there are conservative and liberal members still in the mainline churches and others who have enough respect for each other, for example, between the Continuing Anglican members who post in here and the Episcopalian and other Anglicans who post in here, that we just don’t discuss these kinds of divisive issues in Traditional Theology. This forum is for discussing things which cannot be discussed elsewhere because people from other denominations, not understanding what we were talking about, would interfere and derail the thread, which is what happens if you try to talk about iconography in General Theology (unless your goal is to debate the iconoclasts, which some do, and do a very good job at it).

You can relocate this thread by requesting assistance from any moderator, and i can promise you, you will get more replies in General Theology, because the other major reason to have this discussion there rather than in here, is that in case you hadn’t noticed, Traditional Theology is a very quiet place. You might also consider Denomination Specific Theology, which is also very active; threads on DST also tend to have more staying power than threads in General Theology.

God bless you!

 

[PloverWing]

@Ohorseman : I agree with @The Liturgist here. It's worth rereading the statement of purpose for this forum, which includes the following:

Those who post here in the Traditional Theology forum should show civility and mutual respect towards one another irrespective of jurisdiction or churchmanship. Enter into all discussions and debates demonstrating your respect and courtesy towards other posters through civil dialogue.

Do not state or imply that another poster who has identified himself or herself as traditional Christian, is not in reality truly a traditional Christian because of belief, practice, or their affiliation with any particular denomination. Discuss and debate specific topics from your own traditional theological viewpoint, allowing others to do likewise without fear of judgment and condemnation. Do not get sidetracked into debating whether or not another poster's beliefs are right or wrong according to your traditional theological background or viewpoint. When making a statement about traditional theological beliefs please consider prefacing your statement with "some traditional Christians believe" or "my tradition believes".

This forum is meant as a place for those of us with centuries-old theological and liturgical roots to discuss, respectfully, some of our common interests. We Catholics and Orthodox and Episcopalians and Lutherans and Presbyterians all agree to leave our weapons at the door as we enter the forum.

Your opening posts attack the mainline Protestant churches for their choice to ordain women, attack Episcopal liturgy as having been corrupted by Satan, and attack an Episcopal bishop as being not genuinely orthodox. I can't see a productive discussion proceeding from this starting point.

If you want to talk about, say, the wording of the ACNA ordination service as compared to the wording of the comparable service in other traditions, this could be a good place for that.

If instead you want to flame the Episcopal Church for being gender-inclusive, I suggest that Denomination-Specific Theology is a better place to do that.

 

[Ohorseman]

@Ohorseman : I agree with @The Liturgist here. It's worth rereading the statement of purpose for this forum, which includes the following:



This forum is meant as a place for those of us with centuries-old theological and liturgical roots to discuss, respectfully, some of our common interests. We Catholics and Orthodox and Episcopalians and Lutherans and Presbyterians all agree to leave our weapons at the door as we enter the forum.

Your opening posts attack the mainline Protestant churches for their choice to ordain women, attack Episcopal liturgy as having been corrupted by Satan, and attack an Episcopal bishop as being not genuinely orthodox. I can't see a productive discussion proceeding from this starting point.

If you want to talk about, say, the wording of the ACNA ordination service as compared to the wording of the comparable service in other traditions, this could be a good place for that.

If instead you want to flame the Episcopal Church for being gender-inclusive, I suggest that Denomination-Specific Theology is a better place to do that.

I flame no one, nor TEC. Sorry if it feels that way to you.

When I wrote, "HOWEVER, people like Mariann Budde call themselves orthodox, even though they have a rainbow flag and bless gay pride unions", that is merely a statement of fact. Surely that is allowed.

When I wrote, "Via “woke” Satan redefines things & corrupts the liturgy, the church. Maybe they have liturgy but it is corrupted, maybe not in form but certainly in substance." - this applies to all denominations, and even mine. I wrote in my opening post, "all denominations, the church as a whole". We are all in this together. This is not an issue specific to a denomination, but rather the whole of Christendom. For the love of Christ, look at it & don't play identity politics - I know it is hard to break out of that programming that we all have been subjected to for years now.

I thought TT would be the place to come. Maybe you guys have a different meaning of the word traditional. How is it that the traditional interpretation and the progressive interpretation is now blended, an amalgamated theology?

I apologize up front for slow responses - due to my time limitations.

 

[PloverWing]

Maybe you guys have a different meaning of the word traditional. How is it that the traditional interpretation and the progressive interpretation is now blended, an amalgamated theology?

Actually, this is an interesting question, and I'm willing to talk about it. I'll speak from my point of view as an Episcopalian. Some (but not all) of what I say will also be true of other mainline Protestant groups.

As Episcopalians, three of the things we try to bring together are tradition, scholarship, and ethics.

1. Tradition: We are traditional in a number of ways. Our liturgy has roots in the ancient past, with some of the forms and wording going back to the first few centuries of the church. The liturgy also contains Reformation-era ideas, from Cranmer and others, and some wording composed in the twentieth century. We have a threefold office of bishops, priests, and deacons, with bishops in apostolic succession. We follow the calendar of the church year. We read and value the writings of Christian theologians spanning the past twenty centuries.

2. Scholarship: We value modern scholarship, including scholarship in areas such as archaeology, the natural sciences, textual criticism, and higher criticism. Insofar as these methods of study can lead to discovery of truth, we feel compelled to believe what is true, even when that is uncomfortable.

3. Ethics: We believe that part of the message of Jesus is that we should actively care for our neighbors, even if those neighbors see themselves as our enemies, and that we should especially care for neighbors who are oppressed or excluded by those in power on account of their race, ethnicity, gender, income level, etc.

Bringing these three things together is not an easy task, because they are often in tension. In particular, Christian tradition can sometimes be at odds with what we have discovered through secular scholarship or with our ethical calling. Sifting out when we should reform or expand the tradition, and when we should adhere more closely to tradition, is a complicated and imperfect process. But this is what we're trying to do as Episcopalians. We read the Fathers, and the medieval writers, and the Reformers, and modern writers, and we stand rooted in that body of thought and practice as we wrestle with the scholarly and ethical challenges that we currently face.

 

[Ohorseman]

Well, one reason why General Theology is a more appropriate place is that more liturgical Christians actually post in General Theology than Traditional Theology....

Where in General Theology? Everything is so diffused and fragmented here, like the tower of Babel. Our fault no doubt.

Actually, this is an interesting question, and I'm willing to talk about it. I'll speak from my point of view as an Episcopalian. Some (but not all) of what I say will also be true of other mainline Protestant groups.

As Episcopalians, three of the things we try to bring together are tradition, scholarship, and ethics.

1. Tradition: We are traditional in a number of ways. Our liturgy has roots in the ancient past, with some of the forms and wording going back to the first few centuries of the church. The liturgy also contains Reformation-era ideas, from Cranmer and others, and some wording composed in the twentieth century. We have a threefold office of bishops, priests, and deacons, with bishops in apostolic succession. We follow the calendar of the church year. We read and value the writings of Christian theologians spanning the past twenty centuries.

2. Scholarship: We value modern scholarship, including scholarship in areas such as archaeology, the natural sciences, textual criticism, and higher criticism. Insofar as these methods of study can lead to discovery of truth, we feel compelled to believe what is true, even when that is uncomfortable.

3. Ethics: We believe that part of the message of Jesus is that we should actively care for our neighbors, even if those neighbors see themselves as our enemies, and that we should especially care for neighbors who are oppressed or excluded by those in power on account of their race, ethnicity, gender, income level, etc.

Bringing these three things together is not an easy task, because they are often in tension. In particular, Christian tradition can sometimes be at odds with what we have discovered through secular scholarship or with our ethical calling. Sifting out when we should reform or expand the tradition, and when we should adhere more closely to tradition, is a complicated and imperfect process. But this is what we're trying to do as Episcopalians. We read the Fathers, and the medieval writers, and the Reformers, and modern writers, and we stand rooted in that body of thought and practice as we wrestle with the scholarly and ethical challenges that we currently face.

Interesting, Ploverwing. May God grant us all the grace to comprehend His Light.

+++​

Women’s ordination and LGBTQ are not what is primary - they are touch-points or expressions of a greater disorder. This goes back to Eden, and beyond. Sinful pride causes us to "go out" of our proper place, and it started here:

In Luke 10:18, Jesus said, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven". And Revelation 12, starting at verse 7, also tells about Satan falling or being thrown down from heaven, and the corrupted angels. Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Isaiah 14:11-15 point to that same fall, where we learn about how Satan was once the Anointed Cherub, according to God's divine order of the heavens. But because of his pride he did not remain in his God-given identity and desired in his heart to become like God. The bright angel's light dimmed when he conceived in his heart to rise above his appointed station and moved against God. Because of that he was thrown down from heaven and extinguished.

We clearly see in Revelation 12:3-9 that both the serpent and the dragon represent Satan, who was the great and sinful angel that was cast down, followed by his collapsing angels turned black, a third of heaven.

I wanted the serpent to cause us to think of the dragon, and so I drew him with large and spiky scales. The many colors in the serpent's eyes… something charmed her to talk to the intruder. Also, the colors of the rainbow flag are certainly an apt symbol of rebellion against remaining within our proper God-given identities - a nice fit for the fallen angel who revolted against the traditions and order of the heavens.

Shouldn't we all look into this?

 

[Ohorseman]

Oh, I see it now. If I scroll down to the bottom of General Theology, beneath the sections, the "normal threads" are there. Moderator, please move this there, as The Liturgist suggests.

 

[The Liturgist]

Oh, I see it now. If I scroll down to the bottom of General Theology, beneath the sections, the "normal threads" are there. Moderator, please move this there, as The Liturgist suggests.

I think this will get your thread a lot more engagement and I have written a reply as I mentioned. That said we do of course hope you continue to fellowship with us in Traditional Theology, since as an ACNA member you value liturgics, Patristics and so on and as you can tell we like to discuss those, even to an extent some of our own members might find boring.

I have for example recently contributed to a thread on a subject I have found to be personally thrilling on comparative uses between denominations of liturgical colors in the church year. Another great thread you might want to check out is this one: Heresies that were otherwise orthodox

I am also particularly happy you are with us in that the ACNA has become slightly underrepresented at present in that most active Anglicans are either Continuing Anglicans such as our friend @Shane R , Episcopalians like @PloverWing or Anglicans from other jurisdictions such as @Carl Emerson who is from a conservative part of the Anglican Church of New Zealand.

Speaking of Anglicans and forums for friendly fellowship, you might enjoy Scripture,Tradition,Reason-Anglican & Old Catholic

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON
This thread has been moved to General Theology, per the request of the OP.
ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[jas3]

All denominations, the church as a whole, should return to a more traditional understanding & practice of the faith. We should move away from the progressive, post 1960’s understanding and practice of the scriptures, where feminist pride and gay pride have colored and corrupted people’s understanding.

Agreed. I was disappointed when the Global Methodist Church announced it was committed to continuing women's ordination, which is not quite a post 1960's innovation in Methodism but isn't far off, only going back to 1956 for pastors and 1980 for bishops. I had hoped that there might be some desire among other United Methodists for introspection on what influences led to the disastrous 2024 General Conference and for taking steps to remove those influences from the GMC, but that has turned out not to be the case. In fact, I would say that in many of their organizational and liturgical decisions, the GMC has doubled down on the elements of the UMC that were the result of liberalization in the previous few decades.

Similarly, other denominations that have formed from mainline Protestantism in the last few decades, even on the "conservative" side, have lost the plot when it comes to 20th-century innovations. Aside from women's ordination, "contemporary worship" is probably the most prevalent example, where people turn church into a concert at the expense of proper reverence for God and the sanctity of the place of worship.

I'm curious what you think of the ACNA allowing women to be ordained. From what I understand, whether it's allowed or not varies from region to region (bishop to bishop?) but I don't understand why these regions would stay in communion when they don't even agree that there's a valid Eucharist in some of their churches.

 

[Ohorseman]

Agreed. I was disappointed when the Global Methodist Church announced it was committed to continuing women's ordination, which is not quite a post 1960's innovation in Methodism but isn't far off, only going back to 1956 for pastors and 1980 for bishops. I had hoped that there might be some desire among other United Methodists for introspection on what influences led to the disastrous 2024 General Conference and for taking steps to remove those influences from the GMC, but that has turned out not to be the case. In fact, I would say that in many of their organizational and liturgical decisions, the GMC has doubled down on the elements of the UMC that were the result of liberalization in the previous few decades.

Similarly, other denominations that have formed from mainline Protestantism in the last few decades, even on the "conservative" side, have lost the plot when it comes to 20th-century innovations. Aside from women's ordination, "contemporary worship" is probably the most prevalent example, where people turn church into a concert at the expense of proper reverence for God and the sanctity of the place of worship.

I'm curious what you think of the ACNA allowing women to be ordained. From what I understand, whether it's allowed or not varies from region to region (bishop to bishop?) but I don't understand why these regions would stay in communion when they don't even agree that there's a valid Eucharist in some of their churches.

Yes, ACNA Anglicans practice what we call “"Dual integrity”. Those against WO think it is an untenable concept. It is. I’m no expert on this, but as I understand it the bylaws prevent WO from gaining any ground - it can only lose ground. Some provinces have WO, at varying degrees, and some do not. I remain because I participate in the ACNA moving toward orthodoxy and orthopraxy, that is AWAY from WO. REC does the best at this.

My advice is to not remain with people that unwittingly listen to & follow disobedient and dark angels. I attended UMC for a while but left in 2015, after the same sex marriage act, because the preacher failed to preach the truth and push back against the demons, but rather participated with them, and they still do.

It seems that some heresies have to die out. The generation of the 1960’s is too fixated on women’s lib and DEI. Sure, such things went on before the 60's, on the fringe, but this is when it went mainstream. They have a blind spot and can not see that gay pride comes into the church riding on the back of feminist pride. If you alter or dismiss scriptures about gender, about male and female distinctions, of course gender fluidity and transgenderism enters the church, and to demon’s delight you deface the image of God (male and female He created us). And the next thing you know the priest is blessing sodomy, as we see everywhere at varying degrees. The root of it is feminist pride… NO, actually the root is effeminacy of men.

My advice is to leave the Methodist Church. Otherwise, you are like Adam. You listen to the voice of the serpent that echoes, “Did God really say…?”. You end up listening to the serpent, rather than God. Follow Christ, not Adam. Rather than listen to liars too long & your conscience becomes seared, love Christ by obeying Him.

Adam’s call was to work and keep the garden. He should have contended with the serpent. He stood down. He was effeminate. He too left his identity, his God-given place, as keeper and worker. And his helper unwittingly usurped authority and was deceived. Pride and effeminacy gave the serpent his hungry audience. Adam took and ate the bread of death, an unholy Communion.

 

[The Liturgist]

As promised, here is the reply I initially wrote to your reply when you posted it in TT, but withheld, since I did not desire to debate the matter therein:

I have to say, as an Orthodox Christian, from a church which does not ordain women to the episcopate, although when a husband is ordained as a presbyter, his wife becomes (not by ordination, but as a consequence of ordination) a presbytera, with an implied motherly role in the parish, and we historically had deaconesses and two Oriental Orthodox churches still have them (the Armenians and the Copts), and we do tonsure women as schemanuns, the Great Schema being the highest degree of monasticism (and monks who are consecrated as bishops cannot receive the Great Schema, nor vice versa), that your position goes beyond a rejection of feminism and homosexuality, which we reject, and instead could be characterized as misogynistic, in that it ignores that women, like men, are created in the divine image, and that Adam might well be at least partially morally culpable for his wife’s victimization by the devil on some level (should not a husband and wife take care to protect each other, for example, from a strange talking serpent?

I have not researched this view from a Patristic perspective and so am not saying that this is the case, but it seems to me that responsibility for original sin is fully shared), but much more importantly is what definitely happened at the time of the incarnation, rather than what may have happened in the Garden of Eden (if this narrative is true in a literal-historical sense rather than a purely metaphorical-typological-prophetic sense; I regard it as being both of course, since those most associated with the approach of the catechtical school of Antioch who were too doctrinaire in pursuing a purely literal-historical interpretation like Theodore of Mopsuestia, and those most aligned with the catechtical school of Alexandria who were too doctrinaire in pursuing metaphorical-typological-prophetic sense to the exclusion of a literal-historical hermeneutic such as Origen wound up being on the extreme, and Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia were anathematized in the Three Chapters (anathemas that were not accepted in all places in the ancient church due to the fifth century schisms, and which indeed caused a schism in Spain, but even if we reject them, it is worth noting the most important church fathers like the Cappadocians, St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John Cassian would take a balanced approach).

Now, what definitely transpired on the occasion of the incarnation was that the Spirit caused our most glorious lady Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary to conceive of and become the mother of God in the person of the Only Begotten Son, the Incarnate Logos, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, in whom the Father is made visible to us according to the Gospel of John. Thus the fathers of the early church, and Traditional Theology, regards St. Mary the Mother of God as the New Eve, and her Son, Christ our True God, incarnate for the salvation of our souls, in his perfection of humanity, the new Adam. Whatever happened at Eden was undone on the Cross at calvary, and not only that, but death was destroyed entirely and humanity glorified and united to God in the person of Jesus Christ, allowing for our salvation through Theosis.

To quote St. Athanasius, who as Protodeacon of the Church of Alexandria defended the Incarnation and the Trinity against the heresy of Arius at the Council of Nicaea in 325* and who would later as Patriarch of Alexandria be the first primate of an autocephalous church to promulgate throughout his diocese, and through his 39th Paschal Encyclical, the entire the Egyptian church, the 27-book canon of the New Testament which for the first time had every book we now recognize as canonical and no books we reject, and this canon was adopted by the rest of the ancient church** “God became man so that man could become god”, not members of the Holy Trinity equal to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but rather by grace what Christ is by nature, participating in the uncreated divine energies. This process of theosis is possible because God became man, and he did this by choosing the Theotokos to be His human mother.

Why was this? Well, the early church fathers consistently, in liturgical works and theological writing, declared the Theotokos did not sin; she did require salvation by her Son as a result of the fallen condition of man, but she did not herself sin voluntarily, which places her in a fairly unique position of extreme holiness and which made her the most venerated of the saints of the Early Church, moreso even than the Holy Martyrs whose relics were included in the altar of every new church (and still are, along with those of other glorified saints, in the Orthodox Church, and I think the Roman Catholics do this as well, and I would hope at least some of these relics survive in Lutheran churches in Europe since unlike the Anglicans, Luther never ordered the destruction of altars like Thomas Cranmer did nor was Luther an iconoclast, but some subsequent bishops under crypto-Calvinist influence, for example, whoever it was in the Church of Denmark who thought it would be a good idea to whitewash the beautiful iconography of the round churches on Bornholm (fortunately, this was restored, as well as similar iconography in Gotland in Sweden).

At any rate, the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos, who is venerated to the extent of hyper-doulia, but not worshipped (this was the error of the sect classifed by the fourth century Cypriot bishop St. Epiphanius as the Collyridians, whereas he also catalogued an opposing sect called the Antidicomarians who he and other Orthodox bishops regarded as heretical for refusing to venerate the Theotokos).

And we know from second century Patristic material such as the Protoevangelion of James, which parallels the Orthodox liturgy commemorating the early life of the Theotokos, that this is the doctrine of the very early church before any of the major lasting schisms began following controversial incidents in the fifth century and in the ninth century.

So if you’re looking for a traditional theological view on this, the Orthodox do not ordain homosexuals to the priesthood because the ancient canons forbid it and homosexual thought and behavior is clearly sinful according to any coherent and unabbreviated reading of canonical Scripture and according to the Church Fathers (see canon 5 of St. Gregory of Nyssa or Canon 73 of St. Basil the Great or the penitential canons of St. John the Faster for examples of Patristic canons that address sins of this nature, and also heterosexual sins that could be regarded as arsenokoetia). And women become presbyteras when their husbands are ordained as presbyters, and female nuns are eligible to receive the Great Schema.

Other churches take a different approach, one either more hostile to women as in the case of the traditional Roman Catholic Church or one that allows for female ordination without capitulating on the issue of homosexuality (which is the position in ACNA (at the time I wrote this, I did not know you were a member of ACNA), the NALC, the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians, the Global Methodist Church, and other denominations which consist of the conservative parts of the mainline churches which were alienated by the mainline churches deciding to, or in the case of the United Methodist Church, repeatedly at several consecutive General Conferences explicitly deciding not to, but then doing so anyway as a result of events of an unusual and unpleasant nature. I have no objection to these churches doing this,, since in the early church, St. Nino, an Armenian princess, was responsible for the conversion of Armenia, although I think the Orthodox Church provides women with better opportunities than any other church since we are the only church that offers women (or men) the Great Schema, which is worth more than the office of presbyter.

*Arius had been a priest in that church when he began contradicting the Apostolic faith that Jesus Christ was God Incarnate and instead blasphemously claimed our Lord was a created being; he was not the first to advance such a heresy, but he caused this heresy to usurp the denial of the humanity of our Lord by the Docetic sects such as most (perhaps all) of the various Gnostic cults, which had been happening since the 1st century, as the primary heresy, and this triggered a series of Christological heresies which would continue in new permutations, such as Adoptionism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism and Monothelitism, until Islam and its defeat of the Byzantines on the battlefield in the late 7th century resulted in superstitious generals and politicans embracing the new heresy of Iconoclasm in the 8th century.

**Except perhaps by the Church of the East, although they claim to recognize those books now; the original Syriac translation of the Peshitta consisted of only 22 books, and the Syriac Orthodox Church which at times had an adversarial relationship with the Church of the East, did later add the missing books from a translation of St. Thomas of Harqel, but there were no subsequent Syriac translations in the Church of the East.

 

[Ohorseman]

...that your position goes beyond a rejection of feminism and homosexuality, which we reject, and instead could be characterized as misogynistic, in that it ignores that women, like men, are created in the divine image, and that Adam might well be at least partially morally culpable for his wife’s victimization by the devil on some level (should not a husband and wife take care to protect each other, for example, from a strange talking serpent?

I will respond to just the first part, and look at the rest of what you wrote later. Sorry, but what you wrote is so long - too much to respond to in one post, due to limitation on my time.

No. Adam was not "partially morally culpable"... he was FULLY culpable. I point this out in the subsequent post about Adam, where he is holding the forbidden fruit in his hand, the bread of death. Woman was deceived, whereas Adam knew what God said. God told him to work and keep the garden. This means he was the protector. He failed. Whereas Woman, as helper, could very well see her dealings with the serpent as being in that same role of helper. The scriptures in the NT indeed blame Adam, clearly.

Misogyny has nothing to do with this. And in fact, if we step out of the woke mental constructs of the West, and accept the whole of the scriptures, a Christian man must be willing to die for his wife, just as Christ died for His Bride. This elevates the value of the life of the woman to be above that of the man. If a woman being in her place under her husband is misogynistic... than Christ being submissive to the Father is divine tyranny and child abuse - but a healthy understanding of the Trinity and headship does away with any such insult to the Divine order.

I can point to scriptures to back up these things, but I get the impression you know them already.

 

[RamiC]

Misogyny has nothing to do with this. And in fact, if we step out of the woke mental constructs of the West, and accept the whole of the scriptures, a Christian man must be willing to die for his wife, just as Christ died for His Bride. This elevates the value of the life of the woman to be above that of the man. If a woman being in her place under her husband is misogynistic... than Christ being submissive to the Father is divine tyranny and child abuse - but a healthy understanding of the Trinity and headship does away with any such insult to the Divine order.

Christ being submissive to God the Father is not anyone being told that they have to submit to a fallible person. I have nothing against a wife choosing to do it, which as any Christian woman who can read a Bible may, some do.

Jesus did die for the church, and husbands are told to love their wives as He loves the church....but if that is taken too literally you would end up with husbands must die for their wives. Jesus did have to die, He pleaded to be spared, and then realised that He would not be, it was not enough that He be willing to.

 

[The Liturgist]

I will respond to just the first part, and look at the rest of what you wrote later. Sorry, but what you wrote is so long - too much to respond to in one post, due to limitation on my time.


View attachment 360443

No. Adam was not "partially morally culpable"... he was FULLY culpable. I point this out in the subsequent post about Adam, where he is holding the forbidden fruit in his hand, the bread of death. Woman was deceived, whereas Adam knew what God said. God told him to work and keep the garden. This means he was the protector. He failed. Whereas Woman, as helper, could very well see her dealings with the serpent as being in that same role of helper. The scriptures in the NT indeed blame Adam, clearly.

Misogyny has nothing to do with this. And in fact, if we step out of the woke mental constructs of the West, and accept the whole of the scriptures, a Christian man must be willing to die for his wife, just as Christ died for His Bride. This elevates the value of the life of the woman to be above that of the man. If a woman being in her place under her husband is misogynistic... than Christ being submissive to the Father is divine tyranny and child abuse - but a healthy understanding of the Trinity and headship does away with any such insult to the Divine order.

I can point to scriptures to back up these things, but I get the impression you know them already.

If you prefer brevity, my main concern is simply assuring myself your argument does not in any way diminish the dignity of Our Glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, whose veneration is an extremely important part of the Orthodox Church, since she points us to Christ.

Because as much as I am opposed to modernist corruption of the liberal mainline denominations, I am equally opposed to Nestorianism, crypto-Nestorianism, and neo-antidicoMarianism and neo-Iconoclasm. Thus the fullness of my post was intended to address that. Although I would also note that my post was only about three times as long as your OP. Theology is hard, and I feel that no stone can be left unturned when it comes to performing careful analysis of any potentially novel argument.

Indeed had people been more careful rather than simply capitulated to the demands of secular authorities and performed homosexual marriages, or other things that are unseemly for a Christian denomination to undertake, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

The thing I love about the Orthodox Church is that we are opposed to change, especially change for the sake of change, and wish above all else to preserve what has been handed down to us through the centuries from the Apostles. If I am not praying in a manner that the martyrs of Islam or Communism or the Pagans of the Roman and Persian Empires would be able to recognize, how can I claim to be preaching the same Gospel taught by St. Paul in Galatians 1:8-9? Obviously that involved a male episcopate and the requirement for the faithful to repent of sexual deviance in addition to other forms of immorality. It did however offer women other ways of serving Christ our True God that are frankly better, and indeed, women were trailblazers in holy celibacy, in that the Deaconesses of the early church and the celibate widows pioneered celibate living centuries before the first Cenobitic monastery was organized in the Egpytian desert by St. Pachomius to better organize the Desert Fathers following in the footsteps of St. Anthony the Great.

I would also note the East was historically ahead of the West with regards to avoiding monastic errors. From at least the fifth century boys were not accepted into the monastic vocation for obvious reasons, but the Benedictines accepted boys as young as ten as oblates for several centuries before realizing that such an arrangement could lead to abuse. It is also generally accepted that the great Irish tradition of monasticism was founded by Coptic pilgrims who travelled there, seeking a more remote location to pray than the deserts of Egypt, which were veritably overflowing with monastics by that time (which creates problems, particularly for Anchorite monks - hermits).

 

[Ohorseman]

Christ being submissive to God the Father is not anyone being told that they have to submit to a fallible person. I have nothing against a wife choosing to do it, which as any Christian woman who can read a Bible may, some do.

Jesus did die for the church, and husbands are told to love their wives as He loves the church....but if that is taken too literally you would end up with husbands must die for their wives. Jesus did have to die, He pleaded to be spared, and then realised that He would not be, it was not enough that He be willing to.

Christ in His humanity did not want to drink from the cup. Certainly we can all relate. Maybe you have a very Western way of looking at this, RamiC.

Christ being submissive to the Father is out of love. Rather than me point to what a wife or woman does, I will just speak for myself. As a man, when I submit to Christ as King (1 Cor. 11:3), I obey His commandments and it is out of love that I do this (John 14:15). So, I will die for my wife (Eph. 5:25), because I love Christ. Paul calls this a mystery and says that it refers to Christ and the church (Eph. 5:32).

A wife or woman does likewise when she obeys the scriptures.

The 10 headship passages from Jesus, Paul, & Peter in the NT inform us how to structure the church and family, in the holy way. As evidenced by our avoidance or twisting of these scriptures and our prevailing progressive theology to varying degrees, woke Westerners are more concerned about DEI than loving Christ.

Christ opens the door to paradise for His Bride - and I point to this every time I open the door for my wife. And she points to the Bride loving Christ every time she covers her head to prophesy & pray in church and obeys the headship verses. Obedience is an embodiment of love. Though our efforts are imperfect, me and my wife show our love for Jesus when we obey His commands.

As a side note: notice how the popular "Five Love Languages" is nothing more than obedience dissected.

 

[The Liturgist]

Christ being submissive to God the Father is not anyone being told that they have to submit to a fallible person. I have nothing against a wife choosing to do it, which as any Christian woman who can read a Bible may, some do.

Jesus did die for the church, and husbands are told to love their wives as He loves the church....but if that is taken too literally you would end up with husbands must die for their wives. Jesus did have to die, He pleaded to be spared, and then realised that He would not be, it was not enough that He be willing to.

Forgive me, but just to be clear, you accept the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, correct?

The reason I ask is we lately have had an increased number of people who deny the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ as the incarnate person of God the Son and Logos (John 1:1-18, John 10:1-35, Matthew 28:19, etc), and in your post you did not reconcile your argument with the Nicene Creed, which does state that Jesus Christ is “True God of True God”, “Begotten not made” and “of one essence with the Father”.

It seems to me difficult to argue that Jesus Christ was forced to do something given His coequality and coeternality with the Father. Rather, one can say from the text that there was no other way for Jesus Christ to accomplish this mission, but insofar as he was fully human and has a human and divine will, it would be natural for any human to balk at such a prospect, and the Gesthemane prayer attests to the full humanity put on by Christ contra the heresy of the Docetists who denied his full humanity.

But in recognizing the full humanity of Christ we must not forget that according to John 1:1-18 we are talking to the incarnate Logos, who in the beginning was with God and was God and by whom all things were made, who for our salvation put on our humanity.

 

[RamiC]

Forgive me, but just to be clear, you accept the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, correct?

The reason I ask is we lately have had an increased number of people who deny the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ as the incarnate person of God the Son and Logos (John 1:1-18, John 10:1-35, Matthew 28:19, etc), and in your post you did not reconcile your argument with the Nicene Creed, which does state that Jesus Christ is “True God of True God”, “Begotten not made” and “of one essence with the Father”.

It seems to me difficult to argue that Jesus Christ was forced to do something given His coequality and coeternality with the Father. Rather, one can say from the text that there was no other way for Jesus Christ to accomplish this mission, but insofar as he was fully human and has a human and divine will, it would be natural for any human to balk at such a prospect, and the Gesthemane prayer attests to the full humanity put on by Christ contra the heresy of the Docetists who denied his full humanity.

But in recognizing the full humanity of Christ we must not forget that according to John 1:1-18 we are talking to the incarnate Logos, who in the beginning was with God and was God and by whom all things were made, who for our salvation put on our humanity.

Yes I believe in the Holy Trinity, the Nicene Creed and agree with your post, at least as far as I can tell. I may have a different understanding of the implications to you, but the Holy Trinity and the Creed are truth. The first chapter of the gospel of John is my favourite in the entire Bible.

I understand that it was the human aspect of Jesus which made the appeal to be spared, I did not mean to suggest that the Lord was forced as if to imply that He was not willing, my point was not to deny that Jesus did submit to the Father, and then use “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me;" as an excuse to support such a claim, that would be quite foolish, because the end of that very verse is, "yet not my will, but yours be done.” Luke 22 42 NIV, which demonstrates that He voluntarily submitted to the will of the Father. I am sorry that I was not very clear about it, but that was what I meant with the words "and then realised that he would not be".

When I spoke of taking "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" Ephesians 5:25 NIV too literally, my point was that, as you say yourself, "there was no other way for Jesus Christ to accomplish this mission.", that mission had a purpose, forgiveness of sin upon confession and repentance, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3-16. Now I believe all of that is literally true. So, how can a husband, and all husbands have to love their wives to the point of doing what Jesus did for the church? We only have one Jesus, whose unique mission does not and will never need to be repeated.

I do believe Ephesians 5;25 is true, in original language and accurately understood in any language, it is infallably true. However, it cannot mean that husbands can replicate the salvation of humankind as Jesus did, because there is only one Jesus Christ.