Two Questions:

[SumTinWong]

I am reading a book called "the Greek Orthodox Church: Faith, History, and Practice" by Demetrios J. Constantelos (foreword by Arch Bishop Iakovos). It is not a very long book (about 120 pages or so)but it is informative just the same. It was the only one in the Library system of Syracuse.

I nodded my head at quite a few things, and of course shook my head at just as many, but two things confused me and I hope you can clear tehm up for me.

I got stuck on two things that I hope you can help me with:

1st Question: Page 98 says:

It is important to note here that though the Church allows the depiction of Christ in His human form, she never permits the seperation from the divine from the human element. Thus an icon of Christ is always an icon of the God-man Christ. And icons of the Theotocos, the saints, the angels, and other figures of the supernatural Church are not realistic representations but depictions and projections of the virtues of the personalities involved.

I guess my question about the above paragraph would be about Jesus, and His likeness. What did the author mean by the images can never seperate the divine from the human?

Second Question: page 108

she is a church which emphasizes a naturla revelation in harmony with revealed grace, faith and good works, the word and the sacrament, Bible and Tradition, clergy and laity. In contrast to the pessimism and false anxiety of Latin or Nordic Christianity, Orthodoxy is optimistic because of its belief in the dignity of man; because its doctrine of the deification of human nature under God; because of its belief in the philanthropa of God for man, and the philanthropa of man for man.

The last sentence got me puzzled. just for the deification part, but perhaps he explained it later here:

Main is a psychosomatic entity, a being made of dust and deity. He was made but a little less than God and at the same time he is like the beasts that perish. He is a sinner, a rebel against his creator. Nevertheless, this defection is not a total one. Man can be restored through God and man's half brother Jesus Christ...Man is called to theosis, as the Fathers of the Church have put it; that is, man is called to deification. It was when man forgot his destiny that the love and the philanthropia of God took the initiative to restore man to his previous state of divine origin.

Okay to my question. Am I wrong in assuming that the Orthodox church feels that we are deity fallen and what is philanthropia?

Thanks everyone.

 

[countrymousenc]

Welcome to TAW, Lollard.

When the Church speaks of theosis or deification, we do not mean that man will have the same nature as God, whose nature is wholly unique. There is and can ever be only one God. What we mean is that God created us to be like Himself in holiness and love, and that, through sin, we have fallen from that likeness. Philanthropia means brotherly love.

 

[SumTinWong]

Welcome to TAW, Lollard.

When the Church speaks of theosis or deification, we do not mean that man will have the same nature as God, whose nature is wholly unique. There is and can ever be only one God. What we mean is that God created us to be like Himself in holiness and love, and that, through sin, we have fallen from that likeness. Philanthropia means brotherly love.

Just to clarify this means that Jesus the Christ restores our capability to love the way God does?

 

[Oblio]

Am I wrong in assuming that the Orthodox church feels that we are deity fallen

To add to cm's excellent post, the Church does not believe that we are fallen diety, IOW we have never shared in the essense of God. We are created beings, to share in His essense we would be begotton of the Father, and we know Who alone has that attribute

 

[Oblio]

Just to clarify this means that Jesus the Christ restores our capability to love the way God does?

I would say yes. This is the goal of theosis, in fact it is the ultimate outcome of being what St. Paul describes as being in Christ. It is be on the path to restore our original relationship with the Holy Trinity which is to be in communion with God in selfless love towards Him as the Three Persons have for each other.

 

[countrymousenc]

Just to clarify this means that Jesus the Christ restores our capability to love the way God does?

That is part of what it means. I couldn't explain the rest adequately, but perhaps it would help to say that we are to become like God in character. To love sacrificially, to be holy, just, wise, patient, kind, honest, faithful, and generous, to be free from the effects of sin (self-seeking), with no darkness in us. To be transformed by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, who renews our minds and hearts, to acquire like-mindedness with Christ. Our bodies themselves will also be raised and transformed in the end, made fit for eternal life with God. I'm sure you have been reading the Bible, so these concepts are not foreign to you; our Holy Tradition just has a way of expressing these things that is not familiar to you. You may have heard this called "sanctification" if you are at all familiar with Wesleyan theology. We also call it "struggle," and we have the powerful help of the Holy Spirit as we strive to attain unto Christ-likeness and eternal life.

 

[gzt]

Re: separating divine and human.

You can't say "the God part of Jesus did this" and "the human part of Jesus did this". Christ is fully God and fully man. In Christ, there are two natures, one human and one divine and they cannot be confused, but there is only one person. Nature and person are abstract terms, so you may want to look at the controversy surrounding Chalcedon to understand them. This teaching [the council of Chalcedon] is fairly ecumenical and is, at least, formally adhered to by Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists, Wesleyans, etc. I don't think any mainline groups in the West reject it except those who reject all creeds and try to invent themselves a shortcake or something.

The importance of icons is that, since Christ appeared to us as a man, we can truly depict him. Since he is God and man and you can't separate them, a picture of him is really and truly an image of God, but it can be allowed because God really did appear to us in the form of a man.

And philanthropia is love for man.

 

[vanshan]

I guess my question about the above paragraph would be about Jesus, and His likeness. What did the author mean by the images can never seperate the divine from the human?

I think the point the author was making is that in Orhodoxy iconography we depict Jesus glorified not just a realistic portrait of Him. We don't do the statues or realistic pictures of Jesus as a normal man; instead, we depict Him with a halo of light, symbolically showing that He was both a real man that can be seen with our physical eyes, yet also God.

Basil

 

[Oblio]

You can't say "the God part of Jesus did this" and "the human part of Jesus did this". Christ is fully God and fully man. In Christ, there are two natures, one human and one divine and they cannot be confused, but there is only one person.

This reminded me of the inseperability of the human and Divine in Christ that is portrayed in one of our most glorious hymns of the Church.

Christ is Risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death.
And upon those in the tombs bestowing Life !


Here we see the very Author of life dying and the Son of Man defeating death. Only through the Mystical union of God and man could the Divine Immortal experience death and mortal man defeat death, not as individuals but as the Person of Jesus Christ.

 

[jkotinek]

Welcome! You've already received some good answers, so I'll just piggyback a bit.

I guess my question about the above paragraph would be about Jesus, and His likeness. What did the author mean by the images can never seperate the divine from the human?

gzt, vanshan, and Oblio have given good answers above. To put a finer point on it: we are prohibited from making images of the unseen God, because they could become idols. We *can* make images of Christ because He is God Incarnate. We *cannot* make images of Christ that exclude His Incarnated nature, because He has not revealed Himself to us in that manner. St. John of Damascus' In Defense of Icons remains the seminal apology for this bit of Christology.

The last sentence got me puzzled. just for the deification part...
Am I wrong in assuming that the Orthodox church feels that we are deity fallen and what is philanthropia?

As countrymousenc and Oblio pointed out, the Orthodox understanding of salvation is one of theosis. I have to respectfully disagree with cmnc on one point, however. As Oblio notes, we do not share God's essesce (we do not apprehend, in fact, what that essence is) but we *are* "partakers of the Divine Nature" (1 Peter 1:3,4) through the Mystery of the Incarnation and the restoration of our created intent in the union of Human and Divine natures in the person of Christ. *This*, finally, is what I think your author is getting at - we are called to perfect unity with the Trinity *and* our fellow human beings.

Peace!

 

[countrymousenc]

As countrymousenc and Oblio pointed out, the Orthodox understanding of salvation is one of theosis. I have to respectfully disagree with cmnc on one point, however. As Oblio notes, we do not share God's essesce (we do not apprehend, in fact, what that essence is) but we *are* "partakers of the Divine Nature" (1 Peter 1:3,4) through the Mystery of the Incarnation and the restoration of our created intent in the union of Human and Divine natures in the person of Christ. *This*, finally, is what I think your author is getting at - we are called to perfect unity with the Trinity *and* our fellow human beings.

Peace!

I'm new at this, so I appreciate correction. Was I confusing nature and essence?

 

[jkotinek]

I'm new at this, so I appreciate correction.

So am I. God willing, I'll keep learning for a long time! =`)

Was I confusing nature and essence?

I think so...

 

[SumTinWong]

Hey I want to thank you all for your wonderful attention to detail in your responses to my questions. It means alot to me.

I think I get what you are saying about the deifying. God re-creates in us what was lost to us, as a result of the fall of mankind? I was really happy for the response tha I recieved because the way it looked on the surface made it sound new age, and I thought that to be rather un-Orthodox

As far as the pictures of Jesus. Am I correct then that you want every picture of Jesus to present his (for the lack of a better word) essence? Like you want his pictures to stand out among the rest?

Thanks again!

 

[Hunter3000]

I think I get what you are saying about the deifying. God re-creates in us what was lost to us, as a result of the fall of mankind?

Actually Adam and Eve were never deified, rather they 'messed up' and didn't get a chance to eat of the Tree of Life (become deified).

I hope this helps

In Christ's love,
George

 

[SumTinWong]

Actually Adam and Eve were never deified, rather they 'messed up' and didn't get a chance to eat of the Tree of Life (become deified).

I hope this helps

In Christ's love,
George

Well no it doesn't help actually, because in the book says that we are made in the image of God, of dust and deity. It says that man can be restored through God and man's half brother Jesus the Christ. Restored to what? If Adam and Eve never had what we have now as Christians what are we being restored back to?

Do you see where I am confused?

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Well no it doesn't help actually, because in the book says that we are made in the image of God, of dust and deity. It says that man can be restored through God and man's half brother Jesus the Christ. Restored to what? If Adam and Eve never had what we have now as Christians what are we being restored back to?

Do you see where I am confused?

Well, as far as the part about Adam and Eve's deification, I really don't know. What I believe God desires to restore in us is perfect communion with Him, which is what Adam and Eve had with God before they disobeyed Him. You'll notice in the scriptures that as soon as Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they tried to hide from God because of their shame. When God called out to them in the garden "Where are you?", it wasn't because he didn't know where they were. It was because the perfect communion they had was broken by sin. God has given us instruments of grace whereby we can be restored to this perfect state (Christ being the Chief Instrument), but it is not an instantanious transformation, but a lifetime process (theosis) which involves a lot of sacrifice on our part.

 

[jkotinek]

What I believe God desires to restore in us is perfect communion with Him, which is what Adam and Eve had with God before they disobeyed Him.

Great point GDE, and a good explication. We will never completely deified; it is a process that will not only consume this life but all of eternity.

 

[SumTinWong]

Well, as far as the part about Adam and Eve's deification, I really don't know. What I believe God desires to restore in us is perfect communion with Him, which is what Adam and Eve had with God before they disobeyed Him. You'll notice in the scriptures that as soon as Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they tried to hide from God because of their shame. When God called out to them in the garden "Where are you?", it wasn't because he didn't know where they were. It was because the perfect communion they had was broken by sin. God has given us instruments of grace whereby we can be restored to this perfect state (Christ being the Chief Instrument), but it is not an instantanious transformation, but a lifetime process (theosis) which involves a lot of sacrifice on our part.

Okay I see better what you are saying. Thank you all again for your help.