InChristAlone's Blog

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

In the EO tradition the eating of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” is generally interpreted as man’s actual taste of evil, ...

. . . Originally man was made to be the created image of God, to live in union with God’s divine life, and to rule over all creation.

. . . And so he ruined both himself and the creation which he was given to care for and to cultivate. By his sin-and his sins—man brings himself and all creation under the rule of evil and death. . . .

. . . Man still remains the created image of God—this cannot be changed—but he fails to keep his image pure and to retain the divine likeness.

. . . All the children of Adam, i.e. all who belong to the human race, share in this tragic fate. Even those born this very minute . . .

This is not my original response ... but the gist is a reasonable likeness ...

That's a pretty bleak view ICA, of humanity.

So the minute we're born we're fallen? None of us disobeyed and ate the evil fruit, but we're still evil because thousands of years ago the first couple infracted God's commandments, and ate evil fruit?

So does the EO see this as a mutation of human DNA ... that's being passed down thru genetics to us today? Is that how we come by being fallen?

So since this is coming from the 15:45 thread, will the resurrection undo this genetic mutation? Does the life-giving spirit undo it?

[InChristAlone]

Awareness, I have your original question, so I will reply it first.

Originally Posted by awareness

So does the EO see the fall as Adam and Eve introducing evil into their DNA? So therefore must be passed on down to us thru genetics? So that OUR human genetics was modified by introduction of evil into it?

I didn't eat the fruit of evil ... yet according to this exposition I have it ... so I must have gotten it thru fallen human DNA. Right?

I am afraid, I can't give you a clear answer. The Church Fathers knew nothing about genetics so they did not operate with such terms like "DNA." They focused more on the consequences and solutions than on the process itself. Besides, it is not required that one have a thorough knowledge of exactly how the transmission of original sin works in order to be saved. The Bible is not a science textbook, but the divinely inspired Word of God and God's self-revelation to the human race. The Bible's prime purpose concerns salvation, not scientific explanation. Science textbooks may contain both known facts and speculative theory, but they are not infallible. So we try not to build an unnecessary and artificial wall between science and the Christian faith. Rather, we understand honest scientific investigation as a potential encouragement to faith, for all truth is from God. Genetics is relatively new science. It’s less than 200 years old. And there is a chance that there will be other scientific discoveries and other branch of science that will try to answer the same questions. But the real answers can always remain a mystery for us.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is not my original response ... but the gist is a reasonable likeness ...

That's a pretty bleak view ICA, of humanity.

So the minute we're born we're fallen? None of us disobeyed and ate the evil fruit, but we're still evil because thousands of years ago the first couple infracted God's commandments, and ate evil fruit?

So does the EO see this as a mutation of human DNA ... that's being passed down thru genetics to us today? Is that how we come by being fallen?

So since this is coming from the 15:45 thread, will the resurrection undo this genetic mutation? Does the life-giving spirit undo it?

Maybe it’s bleak but if it’s reality, then that’s why Jesus came to the earth. This is one of the differences between Christianity and other religions. Christians believe that mankind was created specifically to have a relationship with God, but sin separates all men from Him. We are incapable of standing up to a holy and righteous God because our human condition is in a fallen state and in need of a Savior. Only Jesus can save us from sin because only He bridged the huge chasm that was created as a result of the fall.

Other religions just say that we are not fallen but weak or they don’t even recognize the reality of the “sin” defect in every human being. Followers of other religions don’t know anything about a loving God and his Son Jesus Christ who died for us so that all who choose to accept His forgiveness for their sins may be forgiven and have a personal relationship with Jesus throughout their life and spend eternity with God when they die. No one of other religions doesn't give believers that privilege. They only get the hope that their god will be pleased with them and the hope that a better place awaits them when they die.

Anyway, I believe the EO view of humanity is less bleak than that one in the RCC or in some Protestant churches. The Eastern Orthodox Church accepts the concept of the fall but rejects the idea that the guilt of original sin is passed down through generations. It bases its teaching in part on Ezekiel 18:20 that says a son is not guilty of the sins of his father. The Church teaches that, in addition to their conscience and tendency to do good, men and women are born with a tendency to sin due to the fallen condition of the world. It follows Maximus the Confessor and others in characterizing the change in human nature as the introduction of a "deliberative will" in opposition to the "natural will" created by God which tends toward the good. Thus, according to St Paul in his epistle to the Romans, non-Christians can still act according to their conscience.

Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin (that is, death), only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Adam's sin isn't comprehended only as disobedience to God's commandment, but as a change in man's hierarchy of values from theocentricism to anthropocentrism, driven by the object of his lust, outside of God, in this case the tree which was seen to be "good for food", and something "to be desired".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_man

In my next post I'll try to tell more about the EO concept of the Original Sin.

As for genetics, the EOC is not really interested in modern science, since science adjusts its view based on what's observed. Our prime aim is salvation. The rest are details. The resurrection will change our bodies completely. It will not be a natural (Adam's) body but a spiritual body (Christ's). Can a spiritual body or a life-giving spirit have DNA? Personally, I don't think so.

[InChristAlone]

I already had posts on the concept of the Original Sin, history of the question, and the difference between the EOC and the RCC doctrines. (Posts #4 and #5).

It’s hard to add something absolutely new – maybe just a few details, the same things in other words and how it all related to salvation.

1 ...original sin is understood by Orthodox theology as a sinful inclination which has entered into mankind and become its spiritual disease. (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, pp. 160-164).

http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2014/...ginal-sin.html

2 Why do we call Christ “the Savior”? Likewise, we can also ask: what is salvation? Salvation from what? If we are talking about salvation, someone must be in danger. The answers that the Orthodox Church gives to these questions are tied to the Orthodox teaching about the “original sin” and its consequences. From the beginning, the Church’s teaching has been that the nature of man was profoundly corrupted as a result of the fall. Adam and Eve sinned by violating God’s order and breaking their connection with God – Who alone is Life. "Original sin is understood by Orthodox theology as a sinful inclination which has entered into mankind and become its spiritual disease.” This damage “was transmitted to [Adam’s] descendants and weighs upon them.” We are not guilty of Adam’s sin (as Western soteriology puts it) but still have to deal with its consequences, as it affected the whole of mankind.

This understanding of Adam’s sin as damage has deep implications for our understanding of what Christ has done for us, because otherwise one could ask: why couldn’t a loving God just forgive the sin of Adam? Why did Christ need to come? The Patristic answer to this is that the “original damage” cannot be “forgiven” – it can only be cured! Adam and Eve repented – however, “repentance [does not] recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning” (St. Athanasius the Great, “On the Incarnation”).

Christ did not make us sinless, as there is still sin in the world, even after the Resurrection of Christ. He delivered us from the power of sin, from pre-disposition to sin that man was unable to reverse by himself. Christ restored our human essence in Himself.“Jesus Christ, by uniting humankind and God in His own person, reopened for us humans the path to union with God. In His Own person Christ showed what the true “likeness to God” is, and through His redeeming and victorious sacrifice He set that likeness once again within our reach.” This is how the Church has always understood salvation delivered to us by Jesus Christ.

Salvation is the restoration of the wholeness of God’s image in us, of the possibility of our union with God. It is the restoration of our original essence. “Holy Tradition teaches that… we will be saved when we become like Christ… Because of our faith in Him and our desire to become God-like, we are not so much saved all at once as slowly changed into the creatures we were created to be.”

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/46463.htm

3 We share in Adam and Eve's original sin, although the Eastern churches' understanding differs from the Western churches' in some crucial ways. The Eastern Church does not teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam. Rather, we share in the sin of Adam in that we are born into a world where the consequences of sin prevail. These consequences are not only the outward brokenness like disease and death, but interior disorder as well. Our nature is corrupted. We are subject to temptation, prone to sin, and share in death.

We enter into the life of Christ through baptism; entering the waters enables a person to enter into the death of Christ and be raised in the likeness of His resurrection (Romans 6:1-10). Baptism is the first step in the restoration of body and soul, a return in some measure to the communion with God that Adam and Eve experienced before their disobedience. The promise from God is that this journey may end in His Kingdom, although this end is by no means automatic or guaranteed apart from testing and trial. Our faith in God has to be proven, that is, refined in the fire of tribulation as St. Peter taught, and not be found lacking.

http://www.antiochian.org/morelli/th...istian-healing

4 As pervasive as the term original sin has become, it may come as a surprise to some that it was unknown in both the Eastern and Western Church until Augustine (c. 354-430). The concept may have arisen in the writings of Tertullian, but the expression seems to have appeared first in Augustine's works. Prior to this the theologians of the early church used different terminology indicating a contrasting way of thinking about the fall, its effects and God's response to it. The phrase the Greek Fathers used to describe the tragedy in the Garden was ancestral sin.

Ancestral sin has a specific meaning. The Greek word for sin in this case, amartema, refers to an individual act indicating that the Eastern Fathers assigned full responsibility for the sin in the Garden to Adam and Eve alone. The word amartia, the more familiar term for sin which literally means "missing the mark", is used to refer to the condition common to all humanity (Romanides, 2002). The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny, as did Augustine. Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin. The question becomes, "What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?" The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death. (I Corinthians 15:21) "Man is born with the parasitic power of death within him," writes Fr. Romanides (2002, p. 161). Our nature, teaches Cyril of Alexandria, became "diseased...through the sin of one" (Migne, 1857-1866a). It is not guilt that is passed on, for the Orthodox fathers; it is a condition, a disease.

According to the Orthodox fathers sin is not a violation of an impersonal law or code of behavior, but a rejection of the life offered by God (Yannaras, 1984). This is the mark, to which the word amartia refers. Fallen human life is above all else the failure to realize the God-given potential of human existence, which is, as St. Peter writes, to "become partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter 1:4). St. Basil writes: "Humanity is an animal who has received the vocation to become God" (Clement, 1993, p. 76).

In Orthodox thought God did not threaten Adam and Eve with punishment nor was He angered or offended by their sin; He was moved to compassion.[3] The expulsion from the Garden and from the Tree of Life was an act of love and not vengeance so that humanity would not "become immortal in sin" (Romanides, 2002, p. 32). Thus began the preparation for the Incarnation of the Son of God and the solution that alone could rectify the situation: the destruction of the enemies of humanity and God, death (I Corinthians 15:26, 56), sin, corruption and the devil (Romanides, 2002).

God and human nature, separated by the Fall, are reunited in the Person of the Incarnate Christ and redeemed through His victory on the Cross and in the Resurrection by which death is destroyed (I Corinthians 15:54-55). In this way the Second Adam fulfills the original vocation and reverses the tragedy of the fallen First Adam opening the way of salvation for all.

http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/...s_original_sin

5 The Roman Catholic understanding of “original sin” is not accepted by the Orthodox Church because it sees all men as “guilty” of the first sin of Adam, not by repetition but by personal participation. This teaching was related to a mistranslation of Romans 5:12 from Greek into Latin which purported that “all sinned in Adam”. This was tied to the heresy that the souls of children are somehow in the loins of their parents (Traducianism – Google it!), rather than created by God at the time of conception.

Instead, we teach the doctrine of “ancestral sin”, which does not and cannot hold Adam’s descendants individually accountable for his sin because they weren’t even created yet. Adam passes to his descendants, not his guilt but the consequences of his sin: fallen human nature in a state of broken communion with God, an inclination to sin, sickness, mortality, corruption, etc..

In this verse of Psalm 50(51), it is the sinful state that is referred to, not an actual sin. Conception and birth both take place, not by sin, but rather in the world of iniquity – the fallen world, which has been separated from God, through the ancestral sin of Adam. The verse implicates neither mother nor child (nor even Adam) as its meaning is not legal but ontological, simply talking about the world into which the newly created person is conceived and born; guilt has to be read into the verse by an overly legalistic theology.

In Orthodoxy, there is no overemphasis or fixation on the legal approach to sin. This tendency has led some in the West to mistranslate or misinterpret Biblical passages such as those mentioned above. The Orthodox Church deals with sin/redemption in a more holistic way, balancing the legal aspects of personal guilt and forgiveness, with the equally present ontological and therapeutic approaches to man’s salvation: ontological – the uniting of the human nature back to the divine nature; and therapeutic – the healing of man’s mind, heart, will, soul and body through personal reunion with God, in the Church, the spiritual hospital, the Body of Christ, by the indwelling grace of the Holy Spirit, received in the sacraments and by keeping the commandments.

http://orthodoxdelmarva.org/faq.html

[InChristAlone]

One more article:

The Roman Catholic Church was the first to articulate the doctrine of original sin as a state of inherited guilt. Inspired first by the reactionary theology of St. Augustine of Hippo and solidified by later councils and theologians, Roman Catholics took a distinctly different theological path from Orthodox Christians. The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of original sin states that each human being at the moment of conception shares in the guilt of Adam's sin of disobedience. In the medieval Western Catholic Church, original sin was believed to be transmitted in a physical sense through conception. There are notable implications for the doctrine of original sin. If original sin is true, then human nature is bad—not only positionally, but fundamentally bad. Not only do we bear the guilt of our first parents upon our souls, we inherited a corrupted ontology and therefore an inability to do anything good. Adam’s guilt changed human nature itself into something dirty, pitting nature against grace. If human nature is inherently depraved, what does this mean for the Incarnation? How could God take on human flesh? Did Christ inherit Adam’s guilt and corrupted nature? Of course not, and therefore bad theology begets bad theology.

Heterodox theology #1: The doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary put forth by Roman Catholicism conveniently sidesteps the problem of God taking on a corrupted human nature by guaranteeing the nature of His mother to be free from the stain of original sin transmitted through the corrupted seed of an earthly father. This is a logical outworking of the doctrine of original sin. While the Orthodox Church believes that Mary was full of grace from her childhood, we do not need to “fix” her humanity prior to the Annunciation to explain our Christology, because the early Church never taught this doctrine of original sin in the first place.

Heterodox theology #2: The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement stems from the same legal categories created by the doctrine of original sin in western theology. Original sin belongs to a legal paradigm in which the wrath of God against humanity for Adam’s sin must be satisfied so that we can be saved from eternal hellfire. God’s justice and love, however, cannot be separated from each other because our relationship with God is based on freedom, not necessity. While the atonement of Christ is certainly an Orthodox concept, the salvation of humanity cannot happen through a simple act of forgiveness or juridical payment plan. Salvation can only happen through gradual destruction of the devil and our passions by working out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12).

Heterodox theology #3: The doctrine of limbo also sidesteps the problem of original sin for the unbaptized in Roman Catholic theology. A rather nuanced concept, humanity’s “loss of original justice” still results in separation from God and eligibility for punishment according to Roman Catholic theology. Thus, even though they may not technically inherit Adam’s guilt, unbaptized infants who die are relegated to an eternity in limbo, functionally implicating the traditional Roman Catholic understanding of original sin—a doctrine which ultimately dies the death of a thousand qualifications. What differentiates that gulf between heaven and hell for each person, however, is the accumulation of guilt due to a personal, not inherited, loss of justification. At any rate, the more we choose to speculate about the intricacies of salvation and damnation, the more doctrines we must use to support our speculation. God’s grace cannot be measured with scales.

The Orthodox picture of fallen humanity is far less somber than that of Roman Catholicism. Although the Orthodox Church does teach that humanity is damaged by sin, our depravity is not total, consummate, or inherent to human nature—we retain our reason and free will (Imago Dei). The personal consequences for moral deviation are spiritual death and physical death, but the universal consequences for humanity are physical death, disease, and difficult labor. Death is the consequence of breaking communion with God, not a judgment, because created beings cannot continue to exist without God. Since Adam and Eve are linked to humanity, and humanity is linked to creation, all of nature is subjected to the same death and corruption. We inherited a cosmos where sickness and death reign. As Metropolitan Kallistos Ware put it, “Even though we are not guilty of the sins of others, yet we are somehow always involved.”

The Fall of Adam and Eve also created an inclination for humanity to move away from God. While Adam and Eve did not possess a mature holiness, they did possess innocence and potential for holiness, which were lost after the Fall. The theologians of the Church speak of a corruption of human nature which is the result of a loss of the indwelling grace of God—and humans sin because we are willingly yoked to the power of death and its consequences rather than to God’s nurturing grace.

According to St. Maximos the Confessor, the problem is that our natural will has become a gnomic will, meaning that we can now waver between choices. The gnomic mode is what inclines us to sin against nature. Even after heaping guilt upon his own soul, a person’s nature is not mutilated beyond recognition. The corruption of human nature from sin is a sickness or illness. A woman with cancer is ill, but she herself is not fundamentally bad. A boy with paralyzed legs cannot walk, but he himself is no less of a human than anyone with functioning legs. In the same way, sin is not the tainting of a nature but corruption within an individual.

Building upon classic Orthodox theology of God, Patriarch Meletios Pegas (1549-1601) put it this way: although the “energies” of a person’s soul are spoiled by sin, the person’s “essence” is not. Just as the distinction between essence and energies is of vital importance to an Orthodox understanding of God, it can also assist in explaining humanity’s inclination to sin without inheriting the guilt of our first parents. Sin is not who we are, but what we do.

The doctrine of original sin as originally articulated by the Roman Catholic Church and later by Protestants is not simply a case of semantics, but an erroneous anthropology resulting from theological reactions and misunderstandings. This doctrine has wide implications for anthropology—sin, grace, free will, baptism, and theosis. How we understand the effects of the Fall directly bears on our soteriology. The Orthodox position on original sin (“ancestral sin”) is that humanity inherited only the consequences of sin from Adam and Eve, rather than their guilt. Baptism restores God’s grace to humans so that we have the ability to overcome sin and death and finish the song of humanity.

http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/20...ef-comparison/

[awareness]

Great response ICA. Thanks. Some comments, observations & questions:

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Maybe it’s bleak but if it’s reality, then that’s why Jesus came to the earth. This is one of the differences between Christianity and other religions. Christians believe that mankind was created specifically to have a relationship with God, but sin separates all men from Him.

Actually, isn't God pretty forgiving of sin, if we have a heart for Him? Consider David ... for just one example ... or King Manasseh, for an extreme example.

Originally Posted by ICA

We are incapable of standing up to a holy and righteous God because our human condition is in a fallen state and in need of a Savior.

So that's why when Christian missionaries bring the good news to the primitives the first thing they need to bring is the bad news, that, they are fallen. Seems counter-intuitive, to say the least.

Originally Posted by ICA

Other religions just say that we are not fallen but weak or they don’t even recognize the reality of the “sin” defect in every human being.

And some moderns say that, we're just human primates ... and so we can't help it -- what do you expect from animals? -- And that we've evolved pretty damn good, from our more primitive days. Of course that's debatable. Whatever. The world looks pretty damn crazy to me ... including the Christians ... even born-againers. There's no doubt we're in bad need of somekind of divine intervention.

Originally Posted by ICA

Followers of other religions don’t know anything about a loving God and his Son Jesus Christ who died for us so that all who choose to accept His forgiveness for their sins may be forgiven and have a personal relationship with Jesus throughout their life and spend eternity with God when they die. No one of other religions doesn't give believers that privilege. They only get the hope that their god will be pleased with them and the hope that a better place awaits them when they die.

You paint with a very broad brush. Sounds like Lee to me, concerning Christians.

Originally Posted by ICA

Anyway, I believe the EO view of humanity is less bleak than that one in the RCC or in some Protestant churches.

I prefer Original Blessings. It's the least bleak. A RCC priest -- Matthew Fox -- wrote a book on it, by that title ... well a ex-priest ... he got the boot for not embracing original sin. They basically thought that, if you take away original sin, then there's no need for salvation. That's why when raised in the Southern Baptist, I had to be indoctrinated that I was fallen. They believe in original sin too. A concept born in the 2nd century.

Originally Posted by ICA

The Eastern Orthodox Church accepts the concept of the fall but rejects the idea that the guilt of original sin is passed down through generations. It bases its teaching in part on Ezekiel 18:20 that says a son is not guilty of the sins of his father. The Church teaches that, in addition to their conscience and tendency to do good, men and women are born with a tendency to sin due to the fallen condition of the world.

This sounds a whole lot like : We're not fallen. We've developed a fallen system.

Originally Posted by ICA

It follows Maximus the Confessor and others in characterizing the change in human nature as the introduction of a "deliberative will" in opposition to the "natural will" created by God which tends toward the good. Thus, according to St Paul in his epistle to the Romans, non-Christians can still act according to their conscience.

Just how was this "deliberative will" instilled into you and I?

Originally Posted by ICA

Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin (that is, death),

But isn't it a good thing that we die? and each generation dies? We're already crowding this plant. Can you imagine if all generations never died? We be standing shoulder to shoulder, and stacked up to the moon.

Originally Posted by ICA

As for genetics, the EOC is not really interested in modern science,

So EO is still hanging onto ancient teachings and practices of the Bronze and Iron age? Not my cup of tea. All the early Christians, in fact all the world, back then, were absent of science. It's not possible, in these modern days of science, to live like they lived back then. We're literate. While 90% back then were completely illiterate. Ya can't be on the web and deny science.

[InChristAlone]

Awareness, thank you for your comments and questions. They help me dig up and ponder more than I usually do.

Originally Posted by awareness

Actually, isn't God pretty forgiving of sin, if we have a heart for Him? Consider David ... for just one example ... or King Manasseh, for an extreme example.

You are right. God is merciful but I am still a sinner. And I am sorry to say that but quite often I don’t have a heart for Him. St. John Chrysostom reminds us: "Certainly it is sinful to fall, but it is devilish to remain fallen". So I sin and repent, then sin and repent again, and so on without end. I know it's my own fault but it's also the fallen nature of humanity.

In the EO, sin is viewed as a sickness or a disease which hinders our way to Theosis (Union with God). Sin makes us to be out of communion with God. Christ is our healer. Salvation is not just about sins being forgiven. And it’s not just about liberation from death and Hades. It’s an on-going process. The ultimate destination is to attain the likeness of God (which is the true purpose of our creation). St Cyril of Alexandria says that salvation is a restoration to the condition God originally gave to mankind. Salvation cannot be earned, being a free gift from God. Its acquisition, however, requires man's cooperation with God, because God will not violate the free will of man. No matter where our errors, our trials, our tribulations may lead us, we must always pick ourselves up and continue our spiritual journey towards Christ.

All God wants from us is that we work with Him, in 'synergy', or co-operation. Ascetically working on ourselves with His help, we can acquire His grace and be saved by His mercy. Those who deny the need for such ascetic struggle, because they imagine that they have already been 'saved', dwell in the deepest spiritual delusion.

Man's personal efforts alone are insufficient for his salvation - but they are necessary, for without them, God's Grace will not begin to work out the matter of his salvation. Thus, man's salvation is worked out simultaneously through the action of God's saving Grace, and through the personal efforts of man himself.

Originally Posted by awareness

So that's why when Christian missionaries bring the good news to the primitives the first thing they need to bring is the bad news, that, they are fallen. Seems counter-intuitive, to say the least.

If everything is fine with humanity, then why do we need Christ? In Genesis 1:26, God says "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." What happened with His image and likeness then? Why does the Holy Bible describes man's nature as being corrupted? Wasn't it thanks to the fall of man?

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Psalms 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Ephesians 5:8
for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light.

Ecclesiastes 7:20
Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.

Genesis 6:5
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Romans 3:10
As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

1 John 1:10
If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Originally Posted by awareness

And some moderns say that, we're just human primates ... and so we can't help it -- what do you expect from animals? -- And that we've evolved pretty damn good, from our more primitive days. Of course that's debatable. Whatever. The world looks pretty damn crazy to me ... including the Christians ... even born-againers. There's no doubt we're in bad need of somekind of divine intervention.

I'll share an excerpt form Fr Andrew Phillips article "TOWARDS AN ORTHODOX VIEW OF CREATION AND EVOLUTION":

The Creation of Man

We note that in the Book of Genesis, as in scientific evolutionary theories, Evolution proceeds from the lower to the higher, from plants to animals to men. Man is the crown of creation because he is made 'in our image, after our likeness' (Gen. 1, 26), that is man resembles God the Holy Trinity. He is different from all else because God breathes life into him, that is, He endows him with 'a living soul' (Gen. 2, 7). As regards the creation of the human body, this is made from 'the dust of the ground' (Gen. 2, 7). We now understand this to mean the various chemical elements, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, calcium, iron, magnesium, sodium, phosphorus etc, which make up the human body's chemical composition and which are also found in the earth.

Now, there are many resemblances between the human body and the bodies of animals, especially those of the higher animals. Thus, both humans and such animals have four limbs, a head, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, ears, the same number of internal organs, a heart, a liver, two lungs and two kidneys, a stomach, a bladder, intestines, reproductive organs etc. But why ever should this mean that man is evolved from animals, as atheist evolutionists claim? All this means is that both the human body and the bodies of animals were designed by the same Maker. Surely the resemblances are rather proof of the existence of a Higher Being, Who is our Creator?

What interests us much more than resemblance is the difference between men and animals - the existence of the eternal and immortal soul among men, but not among animals. The 'breath of life' that God put into man is in fact the kiss of eternal life. Man is not destined for death, like the rest of Creation. And what is the outward sign of the existence of the soul and man's resemblance to God? It is the fact that human-beings are capable of speech, in other words, they possess to some small degree the Word of God, the sign of divine origin and divine destiny. Man is different from all else in the visible creation, the animals do not speak, except, occasionally, by imitation. This reflection of man's divine origin can even be seen in the phrase homo sapiens. Man is 'sapiens, i.e, wise, in that he reflects the Wisdom of God. Thus, in image and likeness he reflects the Word and the Wisdom of God.

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/towardso.htm

Originally Posted by awareness

You paint with a very broad brush. Sounds like Lee to me, concerning Christians.

If you name another religion where God sent His only begotten Son to save humankind, then I'll agree. In Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc there is no God who sacrifices His Son for the sins of mankind. Only in the Bible you may find next verses:

John 3:16
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.

1 John 4:9
This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

Originally Posted by awareness

I prefer Original Blessings.

Thanks for the info. I have never heard of Matthew Fox. So I checked him out with Amazon and wiki. I don't buy his ideas. The problem is that the concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, then developed by St Augustine. And Fox's concept was born in the 20th century. I also checked some articles about Fox. And I must say his teachings sound too controversial and remind me a “feel good” New Age religion.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/05/matth...till-an-idiot/

As I said earlier, EO doesn't accept St Agustin's concept of the original sin and hereditary guilt. We rather call it ancestral sin, which is the inclination to sin. "Most orthodox theologians reject the idea of original guilt… Men automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality, but not his guilt; they are only guilty insofar as by their own free will they imitate Adam". (Kallistos Ware "The Orthodox Church")

Baptism washes away the corruption of the ancestral sin, and it washes away the guilt of all sins previously committed by the one being baptized. Nevertheless, the seeds of sin - sinful habits and desires toward sin - remain in one and are overcome by means of life-long moral struggle (man's efforts in cooperation with God's Grace). For, as we already know, God's Kingdom is acquired by effort, and only those who use effort attain it. Other holy mysteries of the Church - repentance, Holy Communion, anointing and various prayers and divine services are moments and means of the consecrating of a Christian. According to the measure of his faith, a Christian receives divine Grace in them, which facilitates his salvation. Without this Grace, according to apostolic teaching, we not only cannot do good, but we cannot even wish to do it (Phil. 2:13).

Originally Posted by awareness

This sounds a whole lot like : We're not fallen. We've developed a fallen system.

We may call it anyhow but the fact is that humankind has an inclination to sin. And it's only Jesus Christ can wash us clean from our sins. If everything were fine, people would always live in communion with God and had no idea about what sin was.

Originally Posted by awareness

Just how was this "deliberative will" instilled into you and I?

I don't know how this "deliberative will" was instilled into you and me. I believe it's less important then the choices we make.

"In fact, under the Western rubric of original sin, eternal destinies are decided by God alone in his inscrutable decrees. The logical entailment is as stark as it is intuitively horrifying: God creates some persons for heaven and some persons for hell.

Orthodoxy, however, avoids these problems altogether, by understanding that all that God creates is good, including human nature and free will. Though postlapsarian humans are born with original sin, this original sin is the capacity for corruption and mortality that is part of unredeemed human nature. Though human nature has been compromised by Adam’s fall, that nature in no way necessitates that we sin. That humans do sin, then, is not directly a result of their fallen human nature, but is rather the direct result of the failure of their deliberative will.

That is to say, as a result of deliberation humans take an apparent good for a real good, and mistakenly choose the apparent good. Free will, then, does not necessitate a relation of opposition, but only a deliberation among multiple goods. In a fallen world, apparent goods ultimately entail sin, since they are a rejection of the real good. But in the eschaton all goods will be real, and there will be no need for deliberation. So, in orthodoxy, free will is good, but the deliberative use of that will can be either good or evil–the use being completely up to the person so willing.

Christ, however, did not need the deliberative will. Like all humans, he had a human nature and a human will, and like all humans, his will was free to choose among different acts. The difference however, which results from his mode of existence as the incarnate God-man, is that Christ’s human nature and will were deified in the union with his divine nature and will and he had no need to deliberate between apparent and real goods. His personal choice to act made use of his human will such that he always chose the real goods available to him. Unlike Adam and unlike humans prior to the eschaton, in his Person, Christ was fixed in virtue: all his thoughts and acts were good. His divine nature had deified his human nature. But like Christ, regenerated humans in the eschaton will be fixed in virtue, we will be deified through our hypostatic union with God in Christ. Thus all our willing will be according to our natures, which natures are divinized, and our wills will freely choose among multiple goods, about which there will be no need of deliberation.

In other words, in Orthodoxy, the deliberative will is the mode of willing peculiar to the un-deified mode of existence unique to humans prior to the eschaton. Such a deliberative mode of willing is not, in itself, evil, since it was the mode of willing given to Adam in the garden, and through which mode Adam, had he so chosen freely, would have been fixed in virtue and been deified in Christ. Indeed, it is precisely this use of the deliberative will prior to the eschaton which fixes either in virtue or in vice, the humans who make use of it. This explains both why it is possible to fall away from God after regeneration and why it is possible to reach a point in which repentance is no longer possible; i. e., why humans choose hell and remain fixed in that choice for all eternity.

Thus, in Orthodoxy, the cause of sin is properly placed not in God, for all his gifts are good, but in the creatures He has created who use that good gift to reject God, not for another objective evil but for another apparent good. It is also places the responsibility for our personal eternal destinies in our hands, for all our accumulated choices arising from our countless deliberative moments in this life, are ultimately our own authorship of our character and and fate".

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2011/0...ng-mans-faith/

Originally Posted by awareness

But isn't it a good thing that we die? and each generation dies? We're already crowding this plant. Can you imagine if all generations never died? We be standing shoulder to shoulder, and stacked up to the moon.

Surely, it's a good thing. We don't want to live a sinful life for all eternity, turning our planet into a garbage dump. But that is not God's original plan for mankind.

The effects of man's fall were both physical and moral. On the physical level human beings became subject to pain and disease, to the debility and bodily disintegration of old age. Woman's joy in bringing forth new life became mixed with the pangs of childbirth (Gen. 3:16). None of this was part of God's initial plan for humanity. In consequence of the fall, men and women also became subject to the separation of soul and body in physical death. Yet physical death should be seen, not primarily as a punishment, but as a means of release provided by a loving God. In his mercy God did not wish men to go on living indefinitely in a fallen world, caught for ever in the vicious circle of their own devising; and so he provided a way of escape. For death is not the end of life but the beginning of its renewal. We look, beyond physical death, to the future reunion of body and soul at the general resurrection on the Last Day. In separating our body and soul at death, therefore, God is acting like the potter: when the vessel upon his wheel has become marred and twisted, he breaks the clay in pieces so as to fashion it anew (compare Jer. 18:1- 6). This is emphasised in the Orthodox funeral service:

Of old thou hast created me from nothing, And honoured me with thy divine image; But when I disobeyed thy commandment, Thou hast returned me to the earth whence I was taken.
Lead me back again to thy likeness, Refashioning my ancient beauty.

On the moral level, in consequence of the fall, human beings became subject to frustration, boredom, depression. Work, which was intended to be a source of joy for man and a means of communion with God, had now to be performed for the most part unwillingly, 'in the sweat of the face' (Gen. 3:19). Nor was this all. Man became subject to inward alienation: weakened in will, divided against himself, he became his own enemy and executioner. As St Paul puts it, 'I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwells nothing good. I am able to choose with my will, but how I am actually to carry out what is good I do not know. For the good which I choose I do not do; but the evil which I do not choose, that I do... O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me?' (Rom. 7:18,19,24). Here St Paul is not just saying that there is a conflict within us between good and evil. He is saying that, all too often, we find ourselves morally paralysed: we sincerely desire to choose the good, but we find ourselves caught in a situation where all our choices result in evil. And each of us knows from personal experience exactly what St Paul means. St Paul, however, is careful to say: 'I know that in my flesh dwells nothing good'. Our ascetic warfare is against the flesh, not against the body as such. 'Flesh' is not the same as 'body'. The term flesh, as used in the passage just quoted, signifies whatever within us is sinful and opposed to God; thus it is not only the body but the soul in fallen man that has become fleshly and carnal. We are to hate the flesh, but we are not to hate the body, which is God's handiwork and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Ascetic self-denial is thus a fight against the flesh, but it is a fight not against but for the body. As Fr Sergei Bulgakov used to say, 'Kill the flesh, in order to acquire a body.' Asceticism is not self-enslavement, but the way to freedom.

http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/original.htm

Originally Posted by awareness

So EO is still hanging onto ancient teachings and practices of the Bronze and Iron age? Not my cup of tea. All the early Christians, in fact all the world, back then, were absent of science. It's not possible, in these modern days of science, to live like they lived back then. We're literate. While 90% back then were completely illiterate. Ya can't be on the web and deny science.

Early Bronze Age I: 3150 -- 2900 BCE
Late Bronze Age II: 1400 -- 1200 BCE
Iron Age I: 1200 -- 1000 BCE
Iron Age II: 1000 -- 586 BCE

A chronology of Jesus typically has the date of the start of his ministry estimated at around AD 27–29 and the end in the range AD 30–36.

The Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't hang onto teachings and practices of the Bronze and Iron but onto the Holy Bible and ancient teachings and practices of Christ, Apostles, and the Church Fathers. The Orthodox Church is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles, begun at the day of Pentecost with the descent of the Holy Spirit in the year 33 A.D.

The EO church doesn't deny science. She doesn’t rely on it. There are a number of great scientists who were Eastern Orthodox:

Alexander Friedmann – Discovered the expanding universe solution to the Einstein field equations.
Sergei Korolev – Designed the R-7 rocket which launched the Space Age on October 4, 1957.
Dmitri Mendeleev – Noted chemist. He formulated the Periodic Law, created his own version of the periodic table of elements.
Ivan Pavlov – (Remember Pavlov's dogs?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...dox_Christians

Orthodox theology exists outside of the limited scope of scientific inquiry as well as the speculative arguments and rational categories of Western philosophy. Science and Western philosophy are concerned with the knowledge of the rational mind, but theology is concerned with gnosis, the knowledge of the heart (nous), the spiritual intellect. Science and philosophy are based on humanly-derived principles and theories. Orthodox theology is rooted in divine revelation. Philosophy and science deal with concepts. Orthodox theology is a Mystery beyond concept. Scientific study and philosophy are limited to the creation. Theology involves experiencing the Uncreated. In the West, a "theologian" is an educated scholar who knows about religious beliefs, ideas, and practices. In the Orthodox Church, a theologian is one who acquires divine knowledge in the heart through humility, repentance, and prayer.

While scientific understanding of the creation and technology have progressed through the centuries, the dogma of the Orthodox Church does not change or develop. Scientific theories and Western philosophical ideas are adaptable and constantly change in light of new evidence and ideas, but theology is unalterable. This is why the same theological experience is expressed through the writings of the Fathers of the Orthodox Church from the 1st century to the 21st century. (Remember that the dogma of the Church is not just a collection of philosophical propositions to be rationally accepted, but boundaries to keep us on the path of authentic theological experience, which is the Way of personal knowledge, healing, and transformation.)

In an article published in Christian Bioethics (Oxford Journals/Oxford University Press), Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos (Greece) wrote,

As Christians, particularly as Orthodox Christians, we are certainly not opposed to research and progress. Nor do we want the Western conflict between the Christian faith and science to be repeated. To avoid this, science itself ought to set limits and conditions for research, and theology should be occupied with giving meaning to human life and guiding people toward putting right their relationships with themselves, their fellow human beings, creation, and God. The aim of science is to improve human life, and the aim of theology is to help human beings acquire existential peace, freedom, and knowledge of themselves and God. When both sides stay within these boundaries, there can be no conflict between theology and science.

http://orthodoxhealing.blogspot.com/...y-science.html

We can have the most advanced science but it won’t help man to restore communion with God. That’s why man still need faith. The entire faith of the Church is built on the fact that “God is the Lord and has revealed Himself unto us.” It’s not through science, but through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, man comes to living communion with God the Father Himself. There is no other meaning and purpose to the Church and to life itself.

[awareness]

I feel honored to be having a discussion with an EO apologist. I'm learning a lot.

Proverbs: “Keep hold of instruction; do not let go; guard her, for she is your life.” 4:13
“The wise lay up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool brings ruin near.” 10:14 “An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”18:15

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Awareness, thank you for your comments and questions. They help me dig up and ponder more than I usually do.

You are welcome ... and ... me too ...

You present a lot of meat. More than a meal full. I'll do my best with it.

Originally Posted by ICA

You are right. God is merciful but I am still a sinner.

By very definition. Cuz any other definition would spoil the salvation paradigm.

Yes even after being born again we still have our humanity to deal with (And we're not Gnostics, are we? That disdained humanness.. We can still sin ... and do. God forgave David, but David still had to pay the consequences of his actions. And so do we. We're forgiven but still God is seeking to teach us by the consequences of our sin(s) ... And to be honest, I've gone thru some very hard lessons. Gosh, am I stupid ... award worthy. UntoHim is right about me. I'm a sinner, quintessential, sorry to say. I'm broken and in bad need of divine vouchsafing.

What happened to all that transformation that was suppose to be going on in the local church? Ten years of eating Jesus, calling on his name like it was OCD, pray-reading the Bible, attending meetings every day, service groups, morning watch, life-studies, conferences, and I ended up with very little to show for all that fanatical -- all in -- commitment. Ended up transformation was a bill-of-goods ... a bait and switch ... a expectation and promise broken.

This is where I have a rub with the EO and Theosis. I don't buy it for a second. If they (EO) only mean it as union with God then I have no problem with it. I've experienced that. But as I understand it they mean deification, or changing into a likeness of God. Sorry, thousands of years and still only one like God. No others. Theosis is a false claim. As false as transformation in the LRC.

Sorry ICA to get carried away. I've got more responses to your long post (and will continue) but I think I'm gonna stop here for now.

Respond, or not, as you feel moved.

[InChristAlone]

Awareness, thank you for your kind and sincere reply. It’s nice to have a conversation with you. You have knowledge and experience that I am lack of. If I am not mistaken, it was you who mentioned Theosis in one of the threads a couple of months ago. I had to google it because I had no idea what you were talking about.

You are outspoken, which I consider a good thing. But you are not stupid. At least not any more than me. I often copy and paste someone else's wise thoughts and ideas. While you always speak for yourself. Besides, stupidity is a lack of good judgment. It’s when one has a choice between a right and wrong decision. It’s easy to decide what to have for breakfast when you have to choose between an oat meal and a bowl of pebbles. But when you have a choice between two or several alternatives that look more or less equal, that’s a different thing. It may take the whole life and maybe beyond it so that to make sure if your choice was right or wrong.

We are all sinners, fallen and unworthy. But it's only one side. That's not a foundation of our spiritual life. It's important to remember our corrupted nature because this remembrance is a base for repentance which may lead us to salvation. However, it's not the whole truth. The main thing is that we are Christians. We are members of the Body of Christ, who came and died for our sins. And now He is with us and in us. That's why we repent and fight our passions and sins. We want to acquire God's grace. We want to be with the Lord in eternity, be saved, and restore our communion with God. Acknowledgment of our corrupted nature, repentance, and prayer are not the goals of our spiritual life. They are functions, means, and tools. The goal is communion with God. It's true when the Lord says, "For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” (Luke 18:14) But we can't put our sinful nature above some other considerations. First of all, we are members of the Church, the Body of Christ. That's the main thing. Our weaknesses, passions, and sins are considered of secondary importance. The center and focus of our spiritual life is Christ, not "I and my transgressions".

But if we feel we are already holy, that's another mistake. A saint doesn't need a savior. The Lord came to save us, sinners.

I think I also was carried away. Ok, let me try to explain why I buy the idea of theosis. But let’s recall what it’s all about:

1. “In Eastern Orthodoxy deification (theosis) is both a transformative process as well as the goal of that process. The goal is the attainment of likeness to or union with God. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis: as it is not possible for any created being to become God ontologically, or even a necessary part of God (of the three existences of God called hypostasis). As a created being cannot become Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit nor the Father of the Trinity. Most specifically creatures, i.e. created beings, can not become God in His transcendent essence, or ousia. Such a concept would be the henosis, or absorption and fusion into God of Greek pagan philosophy. However, every being and reality itself is considered as composed of the immanent energy, or Energeia, of God. As energy is the actuality of God, i.e. His immanence, from God's being, it is also the Energeia or activity of God.

Theosis has three stages: first, the purgative way, purification, or katharsis; second, illumination, the illuminative way, the vision of God, or theoria; and third, sainthood, the unitive way, or theosis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis...hodox_theology)

2. Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía ("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity.

The journey towards theosis includes many forms of praxis. Living in the community of the church and partaking regularly of the sacraments, and especially the Eucharist, is taken for granted. Also important is cultivating "prayer of the heart", and prayer that never ceases, as Paul exhorts the Thessalonians (1 and 2). This unceasing prayer of the heart is a dominant theme in the writings of the Fathers, especially in those collected in the Philokalia.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

3 Theosis is the understanding that human beings can have real union with God, and so become like God to such a degree that we participate in the divine nature.

The human person does not merge with some sort of impersonal divine force, losing individual identity or consciousness. Intrinsic divinity is never ascribed to humankind or any part of the creation, and no created thing is confused with the being of God. Most certainly, humans are not accorded ontological equality with God, nor are they considered to merge or co-mingle with the being of God as He is in His essence.

In fact, to safeguard against any sort of misunderstanding of this kind, Orthodox theologians have been careful to distinguish between God’s essence and His energies. God is incomprehensible in His essence. But God, who is love, allows us to know Him through His divine energies, those actions whereby He reveals Himself to us in creation, providence, and redemption. It is through the divine energies, therefore, that we achieve union with God. We become united with God by grace in the Person of Christ, who is God come in the flesh. The means of becoming “like God” is through perfection in holiness, the continuous process of acquiring the Holy Spirit by grace through ascetic devotion.

St. Maximos the Confessor, as Fr. Hester notes, defined theosis as “total participation in Jesus Christ.” Careful to maintain the ontological safeguard noted above, St. Maximos further stated, “All that God is, except for an identity in being, one becomes when one is deified by grace.”

http://www.antiochian.org/content/th...-divine-nature

4 The Orthodox Church understands theosis as a union with the energies of God and not with the essence of God which always remains hidden and unknown.

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7114

5 In the Orthodox Church of Christ man can achieve daification because, according to the teachings of the Holy Bible and the Fathers of the Church, the Grace of God is uncreated. God is not only essence, as the West thinks; He is also energy. If God was only essence, we could not unite with Him, could not commune with Him, because the essence of God is awesome and unapproachable for man, in accordance with: ‘Never will man see My face and live’ (Exod. 33:20).

The energies of God are divine energies. They too are God, but without being His essence. They are God, and therefore they can deify man. If the energies of God were not divine and uncreated, they would not be God and so they would not be able to deify us, to unite us with God. There would be an unbridgeable distance between God and men. But by virtue of God having divine energies, and by uniting with us by these energies, we are able to commune with Him and to unite with His Grace without becoming identical with God, as would happen if we united with His essence.

So, we unite with God through His uncreated energies, and not through His essence. This is the mystery of our Orthodox faith and life.

http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/theosis_how.html’

6 Theosis is man’s union with God, wherein we participate in the uncreated energies of the Trinity. We do not become what God is in his essence, but we are invited to participate in his energies. This is the purpose and goal for which we were created. Theosis can only be attained in Christ, through the working of the Holy Spirit, as we freely cooperate with the Father’s unmerited grace. The path to theosis involves participation in the sacraments, participation in the ascetic struggle, and culminates in the vision of the uncreated light of God.

http://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com...at-is-theosis/

7 The idea of Theosis will be unfamiliar to the Western mind, although it is not a new concept to Christianity. When Christ said, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,” [1] this is a call to a life of Theosis.

Theosis is personal communion with God “face to face.” [2] To the Western mind, this idea may seem incomprehensible, even sacrilegious, but it derives unquestionably from Christ’s teachings. Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the messianic dream of the Jewish race; [3] His mission to connect us with the Kingdom of God [4]—a Kingdom not of this world. [5] When Jesus said, “You are gods,” [6] “be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect,” [7] or “the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father,” [8] this is to be taken literally. For those who are interested, further Biblical evidence for this can be found in Leviticus 11:44-45; 20:7-8; Deuteronomy 18:13; Psalms 82:1,6; Romans 6:22; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:2-4.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis.aspx

Theosis is the heart of the Eastern Orthodox mystical tradition. Protestants don’t know much about it, since they don’t keep spiritual practices and traditions of the ancient church. So I am not sure if you heard anything about Hesychasm and the practice of the Jesus Prayer. (Hesychasm (from Greek word "hesychia" – silence, peace, quietness) – teaching and practice aimed for the acquisition of the Holy Spirit and deification of human soul and body. The ultimate goal of hesychasm is human transfiguration and theosis after the likeness of the risen Christ). People who practice Hesychasm can feel God’s presence as strong as you and I feel toothache. It’s not a visualization. It’s not some kind of self-deception. Why? Because it bears spiritual fruits. It’s a real life practice and experience that transform life and spiritual nature of believers. They became selfless and humble, they never judge anyone, they literally radiate unconditional love and compassion and they see Christ (or Devine nature) in every man and woman. But it’s a rare thing. Not every monk or layman reaches that stage of spiritual transformation. (And it’s also Theosis). Personally, I've never met such kind of people. But I read about them and saw a couple of such monks on youtube.

About Hesychasm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasm
http://hesychasm.ru/en/the-heart-of-...chasm-library/

While some of the craziest ideas were born in one man's head, Theosis is not one man's idea or opinion. It is a teaching that is shared by all Church Fathers of the Eastern Church who read the Bible in its original Greek, wrote in Greek, and lived in different countries. Besides, Theosis is supported by the Scripture.

Theosis is both a transformative process as well as the goal of that process. We believe that Christ came to the earth to restore man’s union with God so that we may participate in the uncreated God’s energies. (Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.2 Peter 1:4). How can we participate in the divine nature? Only through Theosis, or changing into a likeness of God. It takes God's grace, our participation in the sacraments and in the ascetic struggle, and it culminates in the vision of the uncreated light of God while living on the earth.

Baptism gives an impulse to our spiritual transformation. Through Christ we start restoring our communion with God. But we don’t stop at baptism. Our goal is participation in the divine nature or divine energies, in other words, salvation, i.e. eternal and full communion with God. It will happen only after the Lord’s second coming, when He transforms and turns our natural body into the resurrection body. As I said before, the process of restoration and transformation has started from our baptism. We are no more slaves of our fallen nature. We can fight and overcome our sins. That’s the stage of purification, which involves participation in the sacraments of the Church and ascetic struggle. If we don’t take part in them, then we can’t be transformed any further. But it's not a mechanical process as we see it in the LRC. (Well, to be frank, it also happens in the EC church when people take rituals and external things for their ultimate aim). Our ultimate goal is communion with God. All our being, heart and mind, must participate. We have to cooperate with God. He saves us by His grace but we must also take our part and work out our salvation and help Him to transform our spiritual condition. And that's why I am lack of diligence.

Anyway, a church is judged by her saints, not by her sinners. "Reveal your saints and you reveal your church". Let's look at the LC first. I think in the LRC they have only two “saints”: WN and WL. We don’t know much about WN. What about WL then? What can we learn from him? Strong faith? Humility? Compassion? Unconditional love to brothers and sisters? His message can be put into one short sentence: "Go to the Local Church, read my books, and you will be transformed." Transformed like who? Like WL? Not a good example for me.

Once I told you about 200 000 Russian priests, monks and nuns who were killed by communists. I believe they could have saved their lives, rejecting Christ but they didn’t do that. Were they just brainwashed by a false teaching or they had a living faith, experiencing the living reality of God? I believe it was the latter. Their death gave meaning to their life. Their faith was proved by their actions. And we have such kind of saints through 2000 years of the church history.

As professor Osipov says, “Tell me who your saints are and I will tell what your church is. Any church calls as saints only those who realized in their life the Christian ideal, as this Church understands it. That is why canonization of a certain saint is not only testimony of the Church about this Christian, who according to her judgment is worthy of the glory and suggested by her as an example to follow. It is at the same time a testimony of the Church about herself. By the saints we can best of all judge about the true or imaginary sanctity of the Church”.

We can be good church goers but “going to church doesn't make us a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes us a car”. Theois is an ongoing process and takes lots of personal effort as well as God’s grace. We can hardly see Christians who are transformed their spiritual nature to such extend that we can say about them "He is like an angel", or "She is not of this world". But when you meet such kind of people, you can't be mistaken. You know that they are not of this word. They are in the process of theosis, spiritual transformation.

I want to share a few quotes by the Church Fathers of the East:

"... when the intellect has been perfected, it unites wholly with God and is illumined by divine light, and the most hidden mysteries are revealed to it. Then it truly learns where wisdom and power lie... While it is still fighting against the passions it cannot as yet enjoy these things... But once the battle is over and it is found worthy of spiritual gifts, then it becomes wholly luminous, powerfully energized by grace and rooted in the contemplation of spiritual realities. A person in whom this happens is not attached to the things of this world but has passed from death to life." St. Thalassios, "On Love, Self-control and Life in accordance with the Intellect", Philokalia.

'Can a man take fire into his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?' (Prov. 6:27) says the wise Solomon. And I say: can he, who has in his heart the Divine fire of the Holy Spirit burning naked, not be set on fire, not shine and glitter and not take on the radiance of the Deity in the degree of his purification and penetration by fire? For penetration by fire follows upon purification of the heart, and again purification of the heart follows upon penetration by fire, that is, inasmuch as the heart is purified, so it receives Divine grace, and again inasmuch as it receives grace, so it is purified. When this is completed (that is, purification of heart and acquisition of grace have attained their fullness and perfection), through grace a man becomes wholly a god." St. Simeon the New Theologian (Practical and Theological Precepts no. 94, Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart; Faber and Faber pgs. 118-199)

He will share in Christ's glory who, through being formed in Christ, has received renewal by the Spirit and has preserved it, and so has attained to ineffable deification. No one, there, will be one with Christ or be a member of Christ, if he has not become even here a receiver of grace and has not, thereby, become 'transformed by the renewal of' his 'mind' (Rom. 12:2). St. Gregory of Sinai

The Son of God has become Son of Man in order to make us...sons of God, raising our race by grace to what He is Himself by nature, granting us birth from above through the grace of the Holy Spirit and leading us straightway to the kingdom of heaven, or rather, granting us this kingdom within us (Luke 17:21), in order that we should not merely be fed by the hope of entering it, but entering into full possession thereof should cry: our 'life is hid with Christ in God.' (Col. 3:3)." St. Simeon the New Theologian

The grace of deification thus transcends nature, virtue and knowledge, and (as St. Maximus says) `all these things are inferior to it.' Every virtue and imitation of God on our part indeed prepares those who practice them for divine union, but the mysterious union itself is effected by grace. It is through grace that `the entire Divinity comes to dwell in fullness in those deemed worth,' and all the saints in their entire being dwell in God, receiving God in His wholeness, and gaining no other reward for their ascent to Him than "God Himself. The Triads, St. Gregory Palamas

The holy mystery of the day of the Holy Spirit, Pentecost, is to be understood in the following manner: the spirit of man must be completed and perfected by the Holy Spirit, that is, it must be sanctified, illuminated, and divinized by the Holy Spirit. This holy mystery is realized continually in the Church of Christ and because of this the Church is really a continuous Pentecost.... From Holy Pentecost, the day of the Holy Spirit, every God-like soul in the Church of Christ is an incombustible bush which continuously burns and is inflamed with God and has a fiery tongue within it. (St.) Fr. Justin Popovich, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ

Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostases. As we have seen, those privileged to be united to God so as to become one spirit with Him - as St. Paul said, 'He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him' (I Cor. 6:17) - are not united to God with respect to His essence, since all theologians testify that with respect to His essence God suffers no participation.
Moreover, the hypostatic union is fulfilled only in the case of the Logos, the God-man.

Thus those privileged to attain union with God are united to Him with respect to His energy; and the 'spirit', according to which they who cleave to God are one with Him, is and is called the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, but not the essence of God... St. Gregory Palamas

We unite ourselves to Him [God], in so far as this is possible, by participating in the godlike virtues and by entering into communion with Him through prayer and praise. Because the virtues are similitudes of God, to participate in them puts us in a fit state to receive the Deity, yet it does not actually unite us to Him. But prayer through its sacral and hieratic power actualizes our ascent to and union with the Deity, for it is a bond between noetic creatures and their Creator. St. Gregory Palamas

Here is one of my favorite stories about St Anthony (251–356), a father of monastic life. The story gives some hints at theosis and why avid church goers can't experience this transformation.

"One day, while St. Antony was sitting with a certain Abba, a virgin came up and said to the Elder: 'Abba, I fast six days of the week and I repeat by heart portions of the Old and New Testament daily.' To which the Elder replied: 'Does poverty mean the same to you as abundance?' 'No', she answered. 'Or dishonor the same as praise?' 'No, Abba.' 'Are your enemies the same for you as your friends?' 'No', she replied. At that the wise Elder said to her: 'Go, get to work, you have accomplished nothing.' "
—St. Peter of Damaskos

PS Looks like I felt really moved.

[awareness]

Okay, ICA, I think we've covered enough ground of Theosis, in the abstract.

In your posting you quote:

"the continuous process of acquiring the Holy Spirit by grace through ascetic devotion."

So let's get down to brass tacks. To truly become fully Theotic requires bringing both the mind and the body under the reign of Christ.

The mind might be easy enough by praying unceasingly. The body, however, is a whole other matter. It is said that, God speaks with a still small voice. Well the body speaks with a megaphone. A Catholic friend of mine just a couple of days ago told me that, sex trumps religion, and God.

So fanatics of Theosis have resorted to asceticism to tame the body's impulses, and to mortification of the flesh.

One way is to become a eunuch, or "cut 'em off." That'll fix the flesh ... they think. But it didn't for the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8.

And then there's the practice of mortifying flesh by flagellation, or self whipping to drawing of blood.

Or the use of a cilice, spikes strapped around the flesh.

This to me is not the "process of acquiring the Holy Spirit by grace."

So does God demand that for union with Him we have to resort to such gruesome practices?

Is that what Theosis demands?

Or are vestments, robes, and funny hats enough?

Are the leaders of the EO considered the most Theotic ... the leaders of Theosis?