Eastern Orthodox Q&A

[Eleventh Doctor]

Christ was fully God and fully man so yes, I thought that was an agreed upon Christian view not just a Catholic one.

[Striped Leopard]

Well, Philippians 2 would seem to imply that just as Christ laid aside the glory of heaven to come to earth, He also set aside some of His divine attributes. Or, you could say that by putting on the human nature, He covered over some of His attributes. He didn't lose them; He just temporarily withheld some of them from His human nature. His divine nature kept them all along. So while His divine nature remained omnipresent, His human body did not, because that's not possible for the human body. (Or maybe it is, but that's not described in the Gospels, and it'd have to be there if He was omnipresent in His human nature.)

[Eleventh Doctor]

I don't see that in Philippians 2, I do know He was fully God and fully man though and omnipresent is an attribute of God so not having that attribute would have made Him less than God.

[Striped Leopard]

He did have the attribute--in His divine nature, which is 100% of His person. A human body cannot be omnipresent... otherwise that would be an insanely strange phenomenon. Jesus did not possess all divine attributes in His human nature. He was a perfect human, as Adam was at the beginning. Was Adam omnipresent?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Adam wasn't fully God. I don't understand how Christ could be fully God without fully sharing His attributes. Yeah it's strange but the nature of the Incarnation is something we can't fully understand.

[Striped Leopard]

Christ was fully God before coming to earth. The Son of God, fully God, having all of His attributes and powers, took on human nature, limiting Himself in some areas, while still remaining the omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal God reigning in heaven. This is what is true of Jesus' divine nature. But His human nature did not automatically inherit every divine power and attribute. Jesus in His human nature was/is who we can become--perfect, glorified humanity. We will never be omnipresent, omniscient, etc. Therefore, Jesus, in His human nature, was not those things.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I just don't agree, I can see where you're coming from but my interpretation of Scripture guided by tradition tells me differently. And I feel like we're going in circles at this point.

Any other questions?

[Striped Leopard]

Hmmm... What is your opinion of the idea of the infallibility of the pope? And what do you think about using Matthew 16:18 as the grounds that Jesus instituted the office of pope with what he said to Peter?

[jennakyler321]

The website REALLY looks like its a catholic church.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope, I think that Christ is the head of the Church. I don't think that Matthew 16:18 is grounds for setting up the office of Pope as an infallible office with universal authority and jurisdiction. I do believe that the bishop of Rome is a legitimate Apostolic office just not with the powers attributed to it by the Roman Catholic church.

@jennakyler What makes it look like a Roman Catholic church?

[Striped Leopard]

I'm going to guess probably the icons. About those, what would you say to those who believe that depicting Jesus is a violation of the second commandment? I'm not sure personally if I find myself in that camp, but they would say that not only does the second commandment forbid creating an image in order to worship it, but it also forbids creating an image of something that is worshiped already.

What is the purpose of having pictures of Christ? To give you an mental picture of who you're praying to?

EDIT:

I just found this quote from Augustine. What do you make of it? He seems to be advocating original sin, or at least a universal guiltiness for the sin of Adam.

"Therefore it was no longer I that did this, but the sin that dwelt in me--that sin itself being part of the punishment for a sin more willingly commited, since I was a son of Adam." (St. Augustine's Confessions 8.10.22)

Also, in Book 21, Chapter 14 of his "City of God," Augustine actually uses the term "original sin" when he says, "even the little children, who by the laver of regeneration have been freed from the bond of original sin in which alone they were held."

I also found these quotes attributed to Augustine on a Catholic website. These are supposedly his own summary of what he believed about original sin, though I don't have a citation for them.

o The guilt of Adam’s sin is transmitted to all of his posterity – each of us is conceived with the guilt of Adam as one’s own;

o Each of us is justly punished in body and soul for Adam’s sin, the guilt of which we have as our own – thus we are subject to bodily and mental suffering, temporal death and [censored]; our intellect is darkened, particularly with regard to spiritual and ethical matters and our will is weakened and debased in its operations;

o Each of us is due eternal punishment for that sin in the fires of hell – we bear the guilt of Adam’s actual sin which, given the state of Adam, merits such sufferings;

o Only through the merits of Christ’s passion, applied to us through baptism or its desire can this guilt be erased – and only through baptism, and perhaps through its desire, can we be spared eternal torment.

I'm not thrilled to see what he said about baptism, but I'm not going to just delete it and only post what I agree with. What do you think about this?

[Eleventh Doctor]

I think it's important to note that the 2nd Commandment forbids the creation of images for the purpose of worship not the creation of any images in general or one created for use in worship of God. As to the first I don't anyone would argue against the creation of any images. As for images made for use in worship of God five chapters after the 2nd Commandment in Exodus chapter 25-26 God gives instructions for creating the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle and these instructions include images of cherubim and angels. I don't think the point was to forbid the use of images in worship of God since God Himself commands their creation and use.

As to the point of Icons specifically, they aren't there to create a mental picture of who we're praying to and in fact Icons are specifically made not life like for that reason. They focus our worship of Christ and act as a constant reminder of the reality that Christ is everywhere present.

As to St. Augustine, yes he is advocating original sin. His views on this were and continue to be opposed by the Eastern Church and it wasn't until the Council of Orange in 529 that this view was accepted in the West.

[Striped Leopard]

I see. Interesting. I've never had anyone explain the purpose of icons to me before, so thank you.

Okay. I was under the impression that you agreed with everything Augustine taught, since he was one of the early church fathers. And I also thought I heard you say one time that original sin was a doctrine of the Reformation and not any time before that. I guess that couldn't have been the case, since the Catholic church held to it for centuries before then.

Would you agree with the things that early church fathers said against free will, or what they said about election and reprobation?

[Eleventh Doctor]

No I don't agree with everything St. Augustine taught. Yes he was an Early Church Father but that fact alone doesn't make him right on every point. In Orthodoxy there is an idea of consensus, meaning that to believe something we need to show that there is a consensus of the Early Church Fathers. So St. Augustine speaks of original sin but since he is pretty much alone in the Early Church Fathers and pretty much all of the other Early Church Fathers speak against original sin so we would say that St. Augustine is wrong about this. As to my saying original sin being a doctrine of the Reformation I believe I said, or at least meant, the doctrine of substitutinary atonement which came about later.

I would not agree with the things St. Augustine said against free will but look to the consensus of Early Church Fathers who spoke for free will.

[Striped Leopard]

I don't think I've ever asked you this, so do you have any opinions about music? Any types you particularly like or dislike? Do you think that there are any genres that it is inappropriate to "Christianize"?

[Eleventh Doctor]

I like most music, I don't generally care for country or rap but I enjoy most other genres.

I would question the need to Christianize any music beside Sacred Music used for Church such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rju5GyVtfnQ

Beyond that I think as long as you make music that is good, true, and beautiful you can work in any genre. An excellent book on this subject is Addicted to Mediocrity by Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis Schaeffer.

[Striped Leopard]

So you would be opposed to making music in worship to God in any style other than the sacred music?

[Eleventh Doctor]

I'm not opposed to people making such music, I'm a big fan of Amazing Grace and a lot of the classic Christmas carols for example, I just wouldn't use such music in Church.

When you said Christianize I thought you meant like Christian rock like the Newsboys or whatever the current Christian rock group is and whether music should be Christianized like that which I don't see the point in doing. Just be a good rock group or a good bluegrass group.

[Striped Leopard]

Ahh, okay. So you wouldn't be a fan of most hymns that are in modern hymnals, because they aren't played to the sacred music?

Actually, that is partly what I meant. Newsboys actually is one of the current Christian rock groups. Nearly 20 years and still going strong! tobyMac is a big one too. But that's beside the point. What would you say the difference is between a "good rock group" that's done by Christians, and a "Christian rock group"?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Well to give a bit of context Orthodox churches don't use musical instruments in their services so that would be my main objection to most modern hymns.

As far as good bands versus Christian I would personally say that there's no reason to identify as a Christian band. Why not just be the best band you can be whether you have Christian band members or not? What do you think is the difference?