Questions about the Eastern Orthodox faith (Jesus Christ, Creator, Earth, crucified)

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Polaris

We obviously have different interpretations as to the nature of God, and I don't want to turn this into a scriptural debate. But I would be interested to hear more - specifically your position on the scripture in Genesis that states that God made man in his image and again Stephen's account of seeing Jesus on the right hand of God. I interpret these quite literally, which would suggest that God is a corporal being similar to us (obviously in a much more glorified state) and that He and Jesus are distinct and seperate persons. Do you interpret these scripture then as metaphors?

I see these types of passages as the authors using anthropomorphic language to describe spiritual realities that are absolutely other than our physical experience here on earth. That's less of a metaphor than it is an attempt to describe revelation in language that can be understood by other humans. Nothing in my reading of the Scriptures or the Fathers has ever lead me to believe there is any support for the idea that God is corporeal. God is spirit and He is the Creator. He is utterly different from His creation and so we cannot know His essence. I fail, then, to see how he can be anything like us at all in His nature, and certainly not corporeal.

You are correct that my idol/icon confusion is due to honest ignorance. So if I understand this correctly an idle is an object of worship, while an icon is a medium through which the worship of something greater is performed. Is that a correct statement? What do you mean by venerate? Do you actually pray to them or are they just tokens of respect? Is there any scriptural precedent for the use of icons?

Yes, an idol is an object worshipped as a god. An icon takes the place of a 'spiritual photograph' if you like. It is an image representing a spiritual reality (which is why they are deliberately not naturalistic and why we do not use statuary) not physical. Just as we have photographs of our loved to remind us of them when they are distant, we have icons of those in heaven to remind us of the cloud of witnesses. Veneration is basically honouring. We honour the image in the belief that that honour passes to the prototype in heaven. A good way to look at this is to ask, if a man kisses a photograph of his distant wife, is he showing love to her, even though she is not present, or to the paper on which the image is reproduced? Obviously it is the former. Icons are much the same and hence are certainly not idols. Worship is much more than, though it includes, veneration and this is due only to God. Even the veneration of a saint is really aimed at God working through them. We do not worship icons or even worship through them as such. They are an aid to worship, though, a reminder of those who have lived the faith before us and of the examples they have set for us. There are scriptural precedents for the use of images but not specifically icons. There is the serpent raised up by Moses, the images on the Ark of the Covenant and in the Temple, etc. I'm sure you realise, though, that Orthodoxy does not rely on Scripture alone and so Holy Tradition, which is certainly in favour of iconography, also plays a part. All three of the Apostolic churches (us, the RCs and the OOs) use iconography in one form or another and it is clearly an ancient practice. I'd also note that frescoes are a prominent part of at least some early Christian era Jewish synagogues, too, such as the one at Duros Europa. Other than during the iconoclast hersey (which was influenced by the incursions of Islam) nobody ever questioned the practice until the time of the Reformation.

Hope that helps.

James

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

I see these types of passages as the authors using anthropomorphic language to describe spiritual realities that are absolutely other than our physical experience here on earth. That's less of a metaphor than it is an attempt to describe revelation in language that can be understood by other humans. Nothing in my reading of the Scriptures or the Fathers has ever lead me to believe there is any support for the idea that God is corporeal. God is spirit and He is the Creator. He is utterly different from His creation and so we cannot know His essence. I fail, then, to see how he can be anything like us at all in His nature, and certainly not corporeal.

Fair enough. There are obviously things in the Bible that are meant to be taken literally and others that are figurative. The difficulty lies in knowing which to apply to a given passage. As we can see they can result in completely different understandings of truths even as fundamental as the nature of God.

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Yes, an idol is an object worshipped as a god. An icon takes the place of a 'spiritual photograph' if you like. It is an image representing a spiritual reality (which is why they are deliberately not naturalistic and why we do not use statuary) not physical. Just as we have photographs of our loved to remind us of them when they are distant, we have icons of those in heaven to remind us of the cloud of witnesses. Veneration is basically honouring. We honour the image in the belief that that honour passes to the prototype in heaven. A good way to look at this is to ask, if a man kisses a photograph of his distant wife, is he showing love to her, even though she is not present, or to the paper on which the image is reproduced? Obviously it is the former. Icons are much the same and hence are certainly not idols. Worship is much more than, though it includes, veneration and this is due only to God. Even the veneration of a saint is really aimed at God working through them. We do not worship icons or even worship through them as such. They are an aid to worship, though, a reminder of those who have lived the faith before us and of the examples they have set for us. There are scriptural precedents for the use of images but not specifically icons. There is the serpent raised up by Moses, the images on the Ark of the Covenant and in the Temple, etc. I'm sure you realise, though, that Orthodoxy does not rely on Scripture alone and so Holy Tradition, which is certainly in favour of iconography, also plays a part. All three of the Apostolic churches (us, the RCs and the OOs) use iconography in one form or another and it is clearly an ancient practice. I'd also note that frescoes are a prominent part of at least some early Christian era Jewish synagogues, too, such as the one at Duros Europa. Other than during the iconoclast hersey (which was influenced by the incursions of Islam) nobody ever questioned the practice until the time of the Reformation.

Hope that helps.

Though I still find venerate a strong term to apply to an icon, I do believe in maintaining a certain degree of reverence and respect for different symbols, buildings, and even art work that portrays sacred things. Thanks for your explanation, it did help.

My other questions are concerning your views of life after death. First, what does salvation mean in Orthodox understanding?

What are the requirements for salvation?

Do you believe in a literal resurrection?

One of the Mormon beliefs that I especially cherish is the knowledge that my wife and I will continue to be united as husband and wife after this life because we were sealed by one who had the sealing preisthood authority like that given to Peter ("whatsoever thou shalt seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven"). Do you believe that marriages and families can continue beyond the grave?

Finally, what do the Orthodox believe happens to the millions of people who never had a chance to even learn about Christianity, much less be baptised?

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Though I still find venerate a strong term to apply to an icon, I do believe in maintaining a certain degree of reverence and respect for different symbols, buildings, and even art work that portrays sacred things. Thanks for your explanation, it did help.

I'm glad that my post helped you understand our practices better.

My other questions are concerning your views of life after death. First, what does salvation mean in Orthodox understanding?

Firstly, salvation for us is a process not a once and for all event as some Protestants understand it. For that reason, nobody in this life can have an assurance of salvation. In our view this process (theosis) is a synergy between God and man. God grants us His grace and by accepting it and persevering we slowly become more and more like God. We can never become gods in actuality but we can become gods by Grace. In other words, we can become as close to God as it is possible for a created being to be. If you want to understand our soteriology better I would suggest reading St. Athanasios' On the Incarnation, which you can find online.

What are the requirements for salvation?

As I suggested above, acceptance of God's grace and perseverence in the faith, striving to follow Him for the rest of our lives.

Do you believe in a literal resurrection?

Yes, and we specify as much at every Liturgy when we recite the (unaltered) Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

One of the Mormon beliefs that I especially cherish is the knowledge that my wife and I will continue to be united as husband and wife after this life because we were sealed by one who had the sealing preisthood authority like that given to Peter ("whatsoever thou shalt seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven"). Do you believe that marriages and families can continue beyond the grave?

I hope so, but this is one of those areas in which, it seems to me, an honest Orthodox answer is, I don't know. We do know that people are not given in marriage in Heaven because Christ said as much, but exactly what the state after death is of those who are made one flesh in this life seems to be unclear. I believe that if we are truly one flesh in this life then we will be in the next also, but this is a personal belief (a theologoumenon) and not one I've heard taught as official doctrine.

Finally, what do the Orthodox believe happens to the millions of people who never had a chance to even learn about Christianity, much less be baptised?

We leave them in the hands of God, who we are confident wills that all should be saved. Some Fathers (St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example) have come very close to a universalist belief and that's the way I tend myself (though real universalism, being a denial of free will, is condemned). I believe that all people come to God through Christ, even if they are not aware of it (which is how most Orthodox I know understand that passage that Protestants often use to claim that all non-Christians are damned). We often say that while we know where salvation is (i.e. in the Church) we do not know where it is not. As our concept of Heaven and Hell is generally of a state rather than a place, where God's love is experienced as joy or fire depending on the attitude of the individual towards God, I think you'll find that most Orthodox only believe that those who wilfully and adamantly reject Him will be damned.

James

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Firstly, salvation for us is a process not a once and for all event as some Protestants understand it. For that reason, nobody in this life can have an assurance of salvation.

I completely agree.

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

In our view this process (theosis) is a synergy between God and man. God grants us His grace and by accepting it and persevering we slowly become more and more like God. We can never become gods in actuality but we can become gods by Grace. In other words, we can become as close to God as it is possible for a created being to be. If you want to understand our soteriology better I would suggest reading St. Athanasios' On the Incarnation, which you can find online.

Again, I largely agree with you here.

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

As I suggested above, acceptance of God's grace and perseverence in the faith, striving to follow Him for the rest of our lives.

Could you be a little more specific? For example do you believe that you have to be baptised? What exactly do you mean by acceptance of God's grace?

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Yes, and we specify as much at every Liturgy when we recite the (unaltered) Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

OK. So you believe that Jesus was literally resurrected? If He and God are the same substance and God is incorporal, then why was He resurrected, and then does He just abandon the corporal state when he assumes the role of "God"? If this is your belief, are there any scriptures that back up this idea?

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

I hope so, but this is one of those areas in which, it seems to me, an honest Orthodox answer is, I don't know. We do know that people are not given in marriage in Heaven because Christ said as much, but exactly what the state after death is of those who are made one flesh in this life seems to be unclear. I believe that if we are truly one flesh in this life then we will be in the next also, but this is a personal belief (a theologoumenon) and not one I've heard taught as official doctrine.

I appreciate your honest answer. I believe your personal belief is correct.

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

We leave them in the hands of God, who we are confident wills that all should be saved. Some Fathers (St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example) have come very close to a universalist belief and that's the way I tend myself (though real universalism, being a denial of free will, is condemned). I believe that all people come to God through Christ, even if they are not aware of it (which is how most Orthodox I know understand that passage that Protestants often use to claim that all non-Christians are damned).

I very much share you view on this topic, though I'll go one step further and suggest that the Bible gives somewhat subtle insights as to how such indivuals can be saved. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the following scriptures:

First, are statements made by Peter that indicates that the gospel is preached to spirits of those who have died.

• 1 Peter 3:18-19 - For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit; By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
• 1 Peter 4:5-6 - Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

In this last scripture, in defense of the resurrection, Paul refers to the practice of baptism for the dead. Paul appears to be using baptism for the dead as his arguing point for the resurrection, in essence he's asking, if there is no resurrection then why would we baptise for the dead? To me this verse implies that baptism for the dead was an ordinance that was practiced in the early church, because they understood that baptism was necessary for spiritual salvation, and this allows EVERYONE a chance to accept it.

• 1 Corinthians 15:29 - Else what shall they do which are baptized the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

What are your thoughts?

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

We often say that while we know where salvation is (i.e. in the Church) we do not know where it is not. As our concept of Heaven and Hell is generally of a state rather than a place, where God's love is experienced as joy or fire depending on the attitude of the individual towards God, I think you'll find that most Orthodox only believe that those who wilfully and adamantly reject Him will be damned.

I agree.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Could you be a little more specific? For example do you believe that you have to be baptised? What exactly do you mean by acceptance of God's grace?

By accepting God's grace, I mean that God gave us free will and hence we always have a choice. His grace is poured out on everyone, but it's more of an invitation than a command, if you understand what I'm getting at. I don't believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation. We have a lot of saints who were not baptised because they were martyred before they had the chance. I do believe, however, that it is important to be baptised and that refusal to do so would be evidence that one is not really trying to follow God. In effect it would be wilful rejection of Christ. However, in adition to baptism in fact we also recognise baptism by blood (martyrdom before baptism) and baptism by desire (the sincere wish to be baptised being thwarted by death). An example of the practical application of the latter is that an unbaptised catechumen who dies will be afforded an Orthodox burial even though this is normally only allowed for baptised members of the Church.

OK. So you believe that Jesus was literally resurrected? If He and God are the same substance and God is incorporal, then why was He resurrected, and then does He just abandon the corporal state when he assumes the role of "God"? If this is your belief, are there any scriptures that back up this idea?

Yes, Christ was literally resurrected and no we do not believe that he gave up His human nature, but Christ is both fully human and fully Divine. This is extremely important for our soteriology and again I suggest you read On The Incarnation for clarification (you can find it here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm). If God was not both fully human and fully God then our soteriology would make no sense at all, hence the fact that there were so many Ecumenical Councils called over Christological heresies. The resurrected Christ, then, has both a corporeal human nature and an incorporeal Divine nature. I would actually suggest that the LDS idea that God is corporeal makes the Incarnation rather pointless, though this could just be a misunderstanding of your own position.

I appreciate your honest answer. I believe your personal belief is correct.

And I hope it is too.

I very much share you view on this topic, though I'll go one step further and suggest that the Bible gives somewhat subtle insights as to how such indivuals can be saved. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the following scriptures:

First, are statements made by Peter that indicates that the gospel is preached to spirits of those who have died.

• 1 Peter 3:18-19 - For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit; By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
• 1 Peter 4:5-6 - Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

This is completely uncontroversial for us. We celebrate the harrowing of Hell when we celebrate Pascha and read this passage as literal. I'd also note that our practice of prayer for the dead implies that an individual can, by the Grace of God, repent and reconcile to Him even after death. Otherwise why pray to God that their sins be forgiven?

In this last scripture, in defense of the resurrection, Paul refers to the practice of baptism for the dead. Paul appears to be using baptism for the dead as his arguing point for the resurrection, in essence he's asking, if there is no resurrection then why would we baptise for the dead? To me this verse implies that baptism for the dead was an ordinance that was practiced in the early church, because they understood that baptism was necessary for spiritual salvation, and this allows EVERYONE a chance to accept it.

• 1 Corinthians 15:29 - Else what shall they do which are baptized the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

What are your thoughts?

Firstly, I don't accept the absolute need for baptism on which you base this interpretation, as I stated above. I think it's quite possible for God to save who He wills, with or without the sacraments. Secondly, I don't interpret the passage in quite the way you do. Whilst I agree that it is possible that the practice Paul mentions is similar to the Mormon idea of baptism for the dead, I see nothing to suggest that it can't be just as easily as interpreted as being baptised in the name of someone (a saint) who has passed on. All the Apostolic churches do this (I have St. James the Persian, for instance, as my patron - hence the screen name) but none of us have a practice similar to yours and I truly fail to see what this would accomplish. It almost seems that you think that God is bound by the sacraments and powerless to act outside of them, which is a view I would have to totally reject.

Do you not also have the concept of an 'age of consent'? It seems most westerners do, though we do not. If you do then why does this not apply to the dead you baptise and how can they possibly consent in the way that a sufficiently old living human can? I'm afraid that I find this particular practice of yours to be rather bizarre and we have absolutely nothing similar. I feel that I have to say at this point that I have distant relatives in the US who are Mormon and have baptised my grandparents. Not only do I find this disconcerting but I'm sure that my grandfather would not possibly approve. How, then, could the baptism be valid? It makes no sense to me.

James

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

By accepting God's grace, I mean that God gave us free will and hence we always have a choice. His grace is poured out on everyone, but it's more of an invitation than a command, if you understand what I'm getting at. I don't believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation. We have a lot of saints who were not baptised because they were martyred before they had the chance. I do believe, however, that it is important to be baptised and that refusal to do so would be evidence that one is not really trying to follow God. In effect it would be wilful rejection of Christ. However, in adition to baptism in fact we also recognise baptism by blood (martyrdom before baptism) and baptism by desire (the sincere wish to be baptised being thwarted by death). An example of the practical application of the latter is that an unbaptised catechumen who dies will be afforded an Orthodox burial even though this is normally only allowed for baptised members of the Church.

I didn't realize that you don't see baptism as necessary for salvation, I'll admit I'm a little surprised. So how do you interpret John 3:5 - "Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." There are at least a dozen other scriptures that similarly imply that baptism is necessary. I'll be the first to admit that simply being baptised isn't sufficient for salvation, but it certainly sounds like one of the requirements.

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Yes, Christ was literally resurrected and no we do not believe that he gave up His human nature, but Christ is both fully human and fully Divine. This is extremely important for our soteriology and again I suggest you read On The Incarnation for clarification (you can find it here. If God was not both fully human and fully God then our soteriology would make no sense at all, hence the fact that there were so many Ecumenical Councils called over Christological heresies.

Thanks, I'll read through it.

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

The resurrected Christ, then, has both a corporeal human nature and an incorporeal Divine nature.

I agree, though I see it as similar to how we have both a corporeal and spiritual nature, though His is more glorified.

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

I would actually suggest that the LDS idea that God is corporeal makes the Incarnation rather pointless, though this could just be a misunderstanding of your own position.

No offence, but I think you misunderstand our position. We believe that God has a corporeal body, and we believe that before Christ came to earth he did not have a corporeal body, but was only a personage of spirit. In fact we believe that we all existed before we came to earth as spirit beings. One of the many reasons that Christ came to earth (and all of us for that matter) was to receive a body. Through Christ's atonement and resurrection this would enable us to become more like God our Father who has a perfected, glorified body. In this sense the "Incarnation" is not at all pointless, though our perspective of the Incarnation differs from yours.

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

This is completely uncontroversial for us. We celebrate the harrowing of Hell when we celebrate Pascha and read this passage as literal. I'd also note that our practice of prayer for the dead implies that an individual can, by the Grace of God, repent and reconcile to Him even after death. Otherwise why pray to God that their sins be forgiven?

Well put, I agree, and knowledge of Christ and faith in Him along with baptism are part of repentance.

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Firstly, I don't accept the absolute need for baptism on which you base this interpretation, as I stated above. I think it's quite possible for God to save who He wills, with or without the sacraments.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Secondly, I don't interpret the passage in quite the way you do. Whilst I agree that it is possible that the practice Paul mentions is similar to the Mormon idea of baptism for the dead, I see nothing to suggest that it can't be just as easily as interpreted as being baptised in the name of someone (a saint) who has passed on. All the Apostolic churches do this (I have St. James the Persian, for instance, as my patron - hence the screen name) but none of us have a practice similar to yours and I truly fail to see what this would accomplish. It almost seems that you think that God is bound by the sacraments and powerless to act outside of them, which is a view I would have to totally reject.

If your interpretation is correct then the scripture is very misleading because it specifically says "baptise for the dead" not "in the name of". To the contrary it was often taught that we are to be baptised in the name of the "Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost". I'm not sugge