I think part of the answer you are looking for may well be tied together
with whether or not you think you would ever aspire to the priesthood or
monasticism.  If to monasticism, then the Antiochian Archdiocese might not
work for you, since we have no male monasteries.  If to the priesthood, then
spend some time learning how each jurisdiction handles its clergy.  If
neither at this point in your life, then focus mainly on the parishes around
you first, learning what you can before committing to the catechumenate in
any particular parish/jurisdiction.

I am in the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America.  Immediately after
leaving the Lutheran ministry we started attending an Antiochian parish in
Fort Wayne, IN.  They are not always as rigid as the Russian tradition, but
at the same time are influenced by their own ancient connections from the
time of the Acts of the Apostles, as well as the practices of the Greeks and
Russians.  This can, at times, make them stand out unusually so from the
Russians and Greeks.  The parishes can be very Arabic or not so much.  The
Archdiocese has been very open to converts, and has taken steps not to give
America too much ethnic Orthodoxy all at once.  Sometimes this draws
criticism, because some Orthodox fear their rich way of life is being
diluted, and because some converts join to get the full "Eastern" tradition
all at once.  Despite criticism, the Antiochian Archdiocese is following the
missionary spirit of the Fathers, who endeavored to keep whatever was
redeemable from the culture into which they brought the Orthodox Catholic
faith.

My only suggestion to anyone looking into the Antiochian Orthodox
Archdiocese of North America is that you take into account the Arab culture
that saturates the Archdiocese.  Speaking for myself, sometimes the
Arabic-ness is refreshing and sometimes it is frustrating.  Look at the
congregation you would attend, but also look at how people in the Diocese
and then the Archdiocese treat each other.  No jurisdiction is immune from
problems (as we have seen this past decade), so it helps to discern what
kind of problems you think you can handle.

In Christ,
Benjamin Harju

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:10 PM, waynewhitmer <waywhit@...> wrote:

>
>
> I just posted this on Monachos.net and would also like to hear the opinions
> of my fellow Lutherans.
>
> I just read an article regarding Fr Peter Gilquist and it states:
>
> "Gilquest said he chose to join the Antiochan Orthodox Church because he
> asked himself when the church in Antioch died, and realized it never did."
>
> What are the essential distinguishing characteristics of each Orthodox
> jurisdiction? Is there a good article which addresses their origins and
> differences? Were I to convert to Orthodoxy I would have 2 choices locally
> and 1 choice within an hour away from my residence. 1. OCA 2. GOARCH and the
> 3rd an hour away would be AOCANA.
>
> Does it really matter or is one more open to converts than others? I know
> in the end I need to visit these parishes to understand however I'm
> interested in your thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>
> Wayne Whitmer
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"What are the essential distinguishing characteristics of each Orthodox
jurisdiction?"

The most basic differences between each Orthodox jurisdiction in the US is
their episcopates, what they are responsible for and how they are chosen.

For instance, the Synod of the OCA is chosen locally by the Synod itself in
cooperation with the clergy and laity of the diocese.  The OCA is not a
department of any state and receives no direct government support, it is
also not closely allied with any particular ethnic group or country.  Each
bishop is a ruling bishop of a distinct diocese, just like the in the Old
World.

By comparison, all other Orthodox jurisdictions have enormous 'involvement'
either locally or overseas from one or more governments.  The Turkish and
Greek governments, for instance, are heavily involved with the activities of
the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  The Russian Church works towards Russian
governmental goals, as well, as recently revealed by WikiLeaks.  the
Russian, Greek and EP churches receive money from their states.  The Church
of Antioch has close ties with the government of Syria - mainly because the
government is not as radically Muslim as others in the region (the Bashirs
are members of a 'heretical' Muslim sect).

The local bishops have wider or narrower mandates.  For instance, it seems
clear now that all Antiochian bishops apart from the Metropolitan are simply
assistant/auxiliary bishops to the Metropolitan.  The OCA has its own
self-contained Synod and consecrates its own chrism, even.  ROCOR has
bishops and dioceses outside of the US and the bishop of its Eastern US
diocese is also the leader of all ROCOR and locum tenens of their Australian
diocese.

This is all rather 'inside baseball' kinds of information.  At the end of
the day, it's really about your local parish, the clergy and people there.

Each jurisdictions has clergy and people with a wide variety of backgrounds:
recent American converts, convert families going back a few generations,
immigrants right off the boat speaking no English, fourth and fifth
generation immigrant families, blue and white collar, open to visitors, not
open, highly intellectual clergy and people to far less so.  Add to this
differences in temperament, cliques, family dynamics, differences from the
Old World and the New, as well as geography and each parish can be quite
different.  One can speak in generalities, but there are too many exceptions
to make that worth all that much.  What a given inquirer or convert 'needs'
and prefers can also be dramatically different.  Some prefer very ethnic
communities and worship in foreign languages, the strictest typikon and
fasting rules, others may need/prefer to ease themselves into Orthodox and
want something that feels more like what they are familiar with (since so
much is so different already).

(I was baptized in an OCA parish, but am now a more frequent communicant at
a GOA parish - though I still visit my old parish for weekday feasts and
Pascha.  People tend to prefer Slavic or Greek/Antiochian, ethnic or
American or somewhere between, strict or less strict.  I prefer Slavic,
almost all English but with a diversity of ethnicities, and strict.  The
reasons these different flavors exist is due to Orthodoxy being a very large
thing with a complex sociology and history, in this country and abroad,
though with not enough time for a common mode to have developed here - there
are many new immigrants (of all kinds) with their own needs as well as brand
new converts (of all kinds) with their own needs, as well as older parishes
with their own distinct identities.)

The best thing to do is to visit your two local options and see how each
priest and parish feels.  Sometimes you may respond quite well to a certain
priest, but not his parish.  Sometimes both will speak to you.  Give it some
time, too.  No need to make a decision immediately, though a stable rhythm
of church life should begin to take form after awhile.  Take advice from
whichever priest you feel most comfortable with, be open with him about any
concerns you have about Orthodox, a given parish, your family's needs, etc.
There's very little you will be able to bring up that they haven't heard
before.

If you have further questions, ask.



On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:10 PM, waynewhitmer <waywhit@...> wrote:

>
>
> I just posted this on Monachos.net and would also like to hear the opinions
> of my fellow Lutherans.
>
> I just read an article regarding Fr Peter Gilquist and it states:
>
> "Gilquest said he chose to join the Antiochan Orthodox Church because he
> asked himself when the church in Antioch died, and realized it never did."
>
> What are the essential distinguishing characteristics of each Orthodox
> jurisdiction? Is there a good article which addresses their origins and
> differences? Were I to convert to Orthodoxy I would have 2 choices locally
> and 1 choice within an hour away from my residence. 1. OCA 2. GOARCH and the
> 3rd an hour away would be AOCANA.
>
> Does it really matter or is one more open to converts than others? I know
> in the end I need to visit these parishes to understand however I'm
> interested in your thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>
> Wayne Whitmer
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Some of the things people are saying aren't really paralleling what I have
experienced.  For instance, I go to a church that is "Russian" in
style/ethos/music, but is under the Patriarch of Bulgaria.  Much of the OCA has
been influenced by "Russian" practices, but of course it is not under Moscow.

---And I think what Wikileaks says about the Patriarchate of Moscow is a whole
topic that would take some research and fair discussion, and would have no
relevance to somebody deciding what parish to go to...esp since only a handful
of parishes in the US are under Moscow.


I think we all tend to form our own views on the topic of the differing
jurisdictions, and it would be best to just visit the different parishes and see
what fits best, see which feels right for you. We are not like RC in this sense,
where you are expected to go  to the nearest church.  We recognize that
different people fit in better  at different places.  It's the same with people
interested in becoming monastics; they visit different monasteries as sees
what's the best fit.


I have found that how visitors/converts are greeted isn't a function of the
archdiocese, but the particular parish.  (The same as in Lutheranism, in other
words.)


Just remember that all Orthodox are still sinners, just like we were in the
NT...and I think you will be staggered by the grace you experience (and also by
the demons' attacks)...

Prayers,

R.















________________________________
From: waynewhitmer <waywhit@...>
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 12, 2010 1:10:40 PM
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Orthodox Jurisdictions


I just posted this on Monachos.net and would also like to hear the opinions of
my fellow Lutherans.


I just read an article regarding Fr Peter Gilquist and it states:

"Gilquest said he chose to join the Antiochan Orthodox Church because he asked
himself when the church in Antioch died, and realized it never did."

What are the essential distinguishing characteristics of each Orthodox
jurisdiction? Is there a good article which addresses their origins and
differences? Were I to convert to Orthodoxy I would have 2 choices locally and 1
choice within an hour away from my residence. 1. OCA 2. GOARCH and the 3rd an
hour away would be AOCANA.


Does it really matter or is one more open to converts than others? I know in the
end I need to visit these parishes to understand however I'm interested in your
thoughts?

Regards,

Wayne Whitmer




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree with Randy.  Most of the things I mentioned are not really pertinent
to an inquirer, catechumen or new convert.  I took the question too much in
the abstract, academically.  Each parish is a microcosm of the church and
should be investigated on its own terms.  It's a blessing to have a choice
in your area (I have even more being in NYC), though that ability to choose
causes its own problems.

I will second the comparison with monastics.  Any novice I have known has
visited a number of monasteries to find one that 'fits'.  The monastic
brotherhood is getting to know the potential novice, too.  It's much the
same way with finding the right parish home.  Good thing all things work
together for the good of them who love God.  I find we all have available to
us exactly what we need.

Christopher


On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:52 PM, randall hay <stortford@...>wrote:

>
>
> Some of the things people are saying aren't really paralleling what I have
> experienced. For instance, I go to a church that is "Russian" in
> style/ethos/music, but is under the Patriarch of Bulgaria. Much of the OCA
> has
> been influenced by "Russian" practices, but of course it is not under
> Moscow.
>
> ---And I think what Wikileaks says about the Patriarchate of Moscow is a
> whole
> topic that would take some research and fair discussion, and would have no
> relevance to somebody deciding what parish to go to...esp since only a
> handful
> of parishes in the US are under Moscow.
>
> I think we all tend to form our own views on the topic of the differing
> jurisdictions, and it would be best to just visit the different parishes
> and see
> what fits best, see which feels right for you. We are not like RC in this
> sense,
> where you are expected to go to the nearest church. We recognize that
> different people fit in better at different places. It's the same with
> people
> interested in becoming monastics; they visit different monasteries as sees
> what's the best fit.
>
> I have found that how visitors/converts are greeted isn't a function of the
>
> archdiocese, but the particular parish. (The same as in Lutheranism, in
> other
> words.)
>
> Just remember that all Orthodox are still sinners, just like we were in the
>
> NT...and I think you will be staggered by the grace you experience (and
> also by
> the demons' attacks)...
>
> Prayers,
>
> R.
>
> ________________________________
> From: waynewhitmer <waywhit@... <waywhit%40gmail.com>>
> To:
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, December 12, 2010 1:10:40 PM
> Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Orthodox Jurisdictions
>
>
> I just posted this on Monachos.net and would also like to hear the opinions
> of
> my fellow Lutherans.
>
> I just read an article regarding Fr Peter Gilquist and it states:
>
> "Gilquest said he chose to join the Antiochan Orthodox Church because he
> asked
> himself when the church in Antioch died, and realized it never did."
>
> What are the essential distinguishing characteristics of each Orthodox
> jurisdiction? Is there a good article which addresses their origins and
> differences? Were I to convert to Orthodoxy I would have 2 choices locally
> and 1
> choice within an hour away from my residence. 1. OCA 2. GOARCH and the 3rd
> an
> hour away would be AOCANA.
>
> Does it really matter or is one more open to converts than others? I know
> in the
> end I need to visit these parishes to understand however I'm interested in
> your
> thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>
> Wayne Whitmer
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "waynewhitmer" <waywhit@...> wrote:
>
> I just posted this on Monachos.net and would also like to hear the opinions of
my fellow Lutherans.
>
> I just read an article regarding Fr Peter Gilquist and it states:
>
> "Gilquest said he chose to join the Antiochan Orthodox Church because he asked
himself when the church in Antioch died, and realized it never did."
>
> What are the essential distinguishing characteristics of each Orthodox
jurisdiction? Is there a good article which addresses their origins and
differences? Were I to convert to Orthodoxy I would have 2 choices locally and 1
choice within an hour away from my residence. 1. OCA 2. GOARCH and the 3rd an
hour away would be AOCANA.
>
> Does it really matter or is one more open to converts than others? I know in
the end I need to visit these parishes to understand however I'm interested in
your thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>
> Wayne Whitmer
>

Music styles are different. Greek and Antiochians will use Byzantine chant. OCA
is more Russian (polyphonic), although Antiochians use lots of Russian choral
music too. My Antiochian parish mixes both Russian choral and Byzantine chant.
Food is different too. Yummy baklava and falafels.

At my old Lutheran parish, majority were of German descent, services were
changed over from German to English after WWII I'm told.  Now, at my Orthodox
parish there is more ethnic diversity, (Syrian, Palestinian, Russian, Greek,
Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, the USA), but we all sign the +cross the same way!

No, it doesn't really matter what jurisdiction. I'd say, first, decide if you
want to pursue Orthodoxy. If yes, let nothing deter you. Focus on worship at the
Divine Liturgy and/or Vespers. The services alone are more than sufficient. The
rest will fall into place.

I'd like to affirm these wise words from Orthogrammy.  Everything eventually
falls into place.

In my area I opted to attend the local Greek parish only 10 minutes from our
home, rather than the OCA parish over an hour from my home.  Now I preferred
the OCA parish for a few reasons...everything is done in English and I
prefer Russian polyphonic music as opposed to the Byzantine Chant.
Additionally I was drawn to the piety of the folks at the OCA parish and it
is loaded with converts.  But I also knew I would want to be active in my
parish and be able to attend as many services as possible (having spent a
half a lifetime without Orthodoxy, I figured I have a lot of lost time to
make up attending the services!)  And the Greek parish, being the only
Orthodox Church in a college town tends to be a little less Greek drawing
all kinds of Orthodox attend there, Russian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian,
you name it so they use more English than some--which for me was very
important.

Nonetheless, it is still Greek and that becomes more obvious especially when
attending events at the Cathedral or with other parishes like the St. John
Chrysostom Oratorical festivals or even holding our own Greek festival.  At
first I struggled with the Greek thing.  There isn't one iota of Greek in
me.  But over time, as Orthogrammy points out, everything has fallen into
place and I am quite at home being a non-Greek in our Greek parish.

So do what makes sense for you.  As my priest says "soak up the services."
Expect that there will be cultural differences.  Open your mind and heart to
them.  You'll learn to appreciate them over time.  And they will learn to
appreciate what you bring to the parish...especially if you bring Bavarian
Brezen to the covered dish luncheons! ;)  -----R


On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:31 AM, E <orthogrammy@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "waynewhitmer" <waywhit@...> wrote:
> >
> > I just posted this on Monachos.net and would also like to hear the
> opinions of my fellow Lutherans.
> >
> > I just read an article regarding Fr Peter Gilquist and it states:
> >
> > "Gilquest said he chose to join the Antiochan Orthodox Church because he
> asked himself when the church in Antioch died, and realized it never did."
> >
> > What are the essential distinguishing characteristics of each Orthodox
> jurisdiction? Is there a good article which addresses their origins and
> differences? Were I to convert to Orthodoxy I would have 2 choices locally
> and 1 choice within an hour away from my residence. 1. OCA 2. GOARCH and the
> 3rd an hour away would be AOCANA.
> >
> > Does it really matter or is one more open to converts than others? I know
> in the end I need to visit these parishes to understand however I'm
> interested in your thoughts?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Wayne Whitmer
> >
>
> Music styles are different. Greek and Antiochians will use Byzantine chant.
> OCA is more Russian (polyphonic), although Antiochians use lots of Russian
> choral music too. My Antiochian parish mixes both Russian choral and
> Byzantine chant. Food is different too. Yummy baklava and falafels.
>
> At my old Lutheran parish, majority were of German descent, services were
> changed over from German to English after WWII I'm told. Now, at my Orthodox
> parish there is more ethnic diversity, (Syrian, Palestinian, Russian, Greek,
> Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, the USA), but we all sign the +cross the same
> way!
>
> No, it doesn't really matter what jurisdiction. I'd say, first, decide if
> you want to pursue Orthodoxy. If yes, let nothing deter you. Focus on
> worship at the Divine Liturgy and/or Vespers. The services alone are more
> than sufficient. The rest will fall into place.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=20800963&postID=4490495829949773765>
    God Hates Accountants; or, 'God is love, and love does not keep account
of evil' <http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2011/01/hidden-gem.html>

*

[Love] Does not behave itself rudely, seeks not her own, is not easily
provoked, thinks no evil… (I Corinthians 13:5)

* I’ve often quoted the second phrase here, “seeks not her own,” to people
who think God needs to avenge or restore His honor, supposedly sullied by
sinners, or to inflict “just retribution” upon them. But it’s that last
phrase I have only this moment discovered. That’s because whoever translated
it in the King James and other versions *mistranslated it* to suit his own
theology of retribution.

What [this passage] really says is not “*thinks* no evil” but “does not make
an account of evil.” The verb is *logisomai*, and here are all its meanings,
according to Strong’s Concordance.


1) to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over

a) to take into account, to make an account of

1) metaph. to pass to one's account, to impute
2) a thing is reckoned as or to be something, i.e. as availing for or
equivalent to something, as having the like force and weight

b) to number among, reckon with
c) to reckon or account

2) to reckon inward, count up or weigh the reasons, to deliberate
3) by reckoning up all the reasons, to gather or infer

a) to consider, take into account, weigh, meditate on
b) to suppose, deem, judge
c) to determine, purpose, decide


God is Love, and love (we are told on authority of Scripture, although
everyone already knows it) does not keep account of evil.

*God does not keep account of evil!*

** *- *"A Hidden
Gem<http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2011/01/hidden-gem.html>"
by Anastasia Theodoridis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> CBS TV's weekly news magazine 60 Minutes will air a 40-minute segment on
> the Holy Mountain of Athos in Greece on Sunday, April 24, 2011 (Pascha
> Sunday). It will include scenes of worship and daily life, as well as
> interviews with the abbots of several of the Mountain's twenty monasteries.
>
> Check local listings for details.
>

Christos Anesti! Christos Voskrese!  Christ is Risen! (in advance)

Christopher


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sorry guys.  My email is spamming people.  I'm working on the problem.
Please forgive me if this causes you any problem.

Sal


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

No worries.  I've erased it.

Christopher



--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, Salvatore Sberna <salsberna@...>
wrote:
>
> Sorry guys.  My email is spamming people.  I'm working on the problem.
> Please forgive me if this causes you any problem.
>
> Sal
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I came across a new book (well, very old!) of Irenaeus' Againt Heresies
translated/revised by James Payton.  It looks finally to be a new version of
Ireneaus' text in current English (with some of the most tedious parts on
Gnosticism to be condensed).

But then I saw that he also wrote Light from the Christian East: An Introduction
to the Orthodox Tradition.  Have any of you read this?  If so, what is your
opinion of the book?

R. Futrell

I have found Light from the Christian East to be one of the best intros to EO,
esp geared toward the Protestant mindset. It is VERY well written, researched,
with lots of great references. I have bought many for our parish library adn
bookstore. I think I reviewed it on amazon too.

Matt
--- On Thu, 6/16/11, Richard <PastorFutrell@...> wrote:


From: Richard <PastorFutrell@...>
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Jame's R. Payton's Light from the Christian East
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 6:49 PM


 



I came across a new book (well, very old!) of Irenaeus' Againt Heresies
translated/revised by James Payton. It looks finally to be a new version of
Ireneaus' text in current English (with some of the most tedious parts on
Gnosticism to be condensed).

But then I saw that he also wrote Light from the Christian East: An Introduction
to the Orthodox Tradition. Have any of you read this? If so, what is your
opinion of the book?

R. Futrell








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition"
by Payton came highly recommended to me.  I found it to be a good enough
introduction to Orthodoxy, but it didn't offer more than what was already
available.  I don't believe he's Orthodox, but if one were looking for a
non-Orthodox introduction to Orthodoxy I found Clendenin's introductory text
as well as his 'reader' to offer much the same.  Payton didn't offer a book
much shorter than Ware's two introductory classics, but Ware packed in more
details, an insider's objective view, and was equally readable and better
written.  In short, I don't remember it being either good or bad, it was an
acceptable introduction with a bad cover and nothing much to differentiate
it from other texts.

If you like Irenaeus' "Againt Heresies", you may also want to read through
the various works of Fr. John Behr, Dean and Professor of Patristics at St.
Vladimir's Seminary (see http://fwd4.me/04Sn for bio and written work).  His
early work was on issues of asceticism and anthropology, focusing on St.
Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria.  His D.Phil. Thesis at Oxford
was "Godly Lives: Asceticism and Anthropology, with Special Reference to
Sexuality, in the Writings of St Irenaeus of Lyons and St Clement of
Alexandria", he wrot*e "Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement*"
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), and he translated and edited* "St
Irenaeus of Lyons: On the Apostolic Preaching"* (Crestwood: SVS Press,
1997).  Irenaeus plays a central part in Behr's "The Way to Nicaea", Volume
1, 'Formation of Christian Theology' series (which is condensed as "*The
Mystery of Christ: Life in Death*" (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2006).

Christopher


On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Richard <PastorFutrell@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I came across a new book (well, very old!) of Irenaeus' Againt Heresies
> translated/revised by James Payton. It looks finally to be a new version of
> Ireneaus' text in current English (with some of the most tedious parts on
> Gnosticism to be condensed).
>
> But then I saw that he also wrote Light from the Christian East: An
> Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition. Have any of you read this? If so,
> what is your opinion of the book?
>
> R. Futrell
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A nice book on St. Irenaeus's theology is "Man and the Incarnation" by
Gustaf Wingren.  I read it first in seminary, and it was influential in my
journey to Orthodoxy, though it is not written by an Orthodox author.  I
recommended it to my priest, who thought it was very good, too.  It used to
be out of print, but is available again.  (I just ordered it for myself the
other day.)

In Christ,
Benjamin Harju


On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:

> "Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition"
> by Payton came highly recommended to me.  I found it to be a good enough
> introduction to Orthodoxy, but it didn't offer more than what was already
> available.  I don't believe he's Orthodox, but if one were looking for a
> non-Orthodox introduction to Orthodoxy I found Clendenin's introductory
> text
> as well as his 'reader' to offer much the same.  Payton didn't offer a book
> much shorter than Ware's two introductory classics, but Ware packed in more
> details, an insider's objective view, and was equally readable and better
> written.  In short, I don't remember it being either good or bad, it was an
> acceptable introduction with a bad cover and nothing much to differentiate
> it from other texts.
>
> If you like Irenaeus' "Againt Heresies", you may also want to read through
> the various works of Fr. John Behr, Dean and Professor of Patristics at St.
> Vladimir's Seminary (see http://fwd4.me/04Sn for bio and written work).
>  His
> early work was on issues of asceticism and anthropology, focusing on St.
> Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria.  His D.Phil. Thesis at Oxford
> was "Godly Lives: Asceticism and Anthropology, with Special Reference to
> Sexuality, in the Writings of St Irenaeus of Lyons and St Clement of
> Alexandria", he wrot*e "Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and
> Clement*"
> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), and he translated and edited* "St
> Irenaeus of Lyons: On the Apostolic Preaching"* (Crestwood: SVS Press,
> 1997).  Irenaeus plays a central part in Behr's "The Way to Nicaea", Volume
> 1, 'Formation of Christian Theology' series (which is condensed as "*The
> Mystery of Christ: Life in Death*" (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2006).
>
> Christopher
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Richard <PastorFutrell@...
> >wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I came across a new book (well, very old!) of Irenaeus' Againt Heresies
> > translated/revised by James Payton. It looks finally to be a new version
> of
> > Ireneaus' text in current English (with some of the most tedious parts on
> > Gnosticism to be condensed).
> >
> > But then I saw that he also wrote Light from the Christian East: An
> > Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition. Have any of you read this? If so,
> > what is your opinion of the book?
> >
> > R. Futrell
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I understand (perhaps, incorrectly) that Eastern Orthodoxy holds that when Adam
fell into sin, it was a fall, but that did not include the loss of the image of
God.

I'm reading Irenaeus' Against Heresies.  He says in a couple of places that we
lost the image of God in the Fall.  Here's one quotation:

"When [Jesus] became incarnate and was made human, he began anew the long line
of human beings and, to state it briefly, furnished us with salvation. 
Consequently, what we had lost in Adam--namely, the image of likeness of God--we
recovered in Christ Jesus" (Against Heresies, 3:18,1).

I'd like an EO response and understanding on this.

The topic of the image of God in man is addressed differently by different
fathers of the Church.  Some see it in man's reason, some in his free will,
some in his immortality.  The vast majority of fathers apply the term to the
higher qualities of the soul of man, and a minority (including St. Irenaeus)
to the whole man.

For St. Irenaeus, the image and likeness of man is a path of growth.  Only
Christ is the actual image and likeness of God; man is made in this image
and likeness, that is, man is created for Christ and to be like Christ.
When man is created, the image and likeness is not actually demonstrated in
it's maturity, because man is created as a child that must grow into
maturity.  That full maturity looks like the Incarnate Son of God, and it is
only when Christ comes that the image of God in man is demonstrated, via the
Incarnation.  That the image and likeness of God is destroyed in man for St.
Irenaeus means that man in his child-status has been removed from the
pathway of growth in the Life that he received from God.  Rather than
abiding in communion, man is held captive under Satan.  It is not possible
for man to mature in union with God anymore, and thus St. Irenaeus says the
image is lost.  The image is a dynamic growth in sanctity through communion
with God.

While later fathers may not express the terminology of image and likeness
the same way, the point St. Irenaeus makes is thoroughly an Orthodox one.
Man is created for a Life of growth and maturity in communion with God, but
sin, death, and the devil have (among other things) derailed this path.
Christ's Incarnation accomplishes the complete healing and recapitulation of
man's nature in an objective fashion, and His crucifixion-resurrection frees
all of us from bondage so as to return to the Life of communion with God we
were made for.  We return by being united with Christ, who recapitulated the
image that He is as Son in the human nature that He united to His divine
nature (which is our common human nature).

In Christ,
Benjamin Harju


On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Richard <PastorFutrell@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I understand (perhaps, incorrectly) that Eastern Orthodoxy holds that when
> Adam fell into sin, it was a fall, but that did not include the loss of the
> image of God.
>
> I'm reading Irenaeus' Against Heresies. He says in a couple of places that
> we lost the image of God in the Fall. Here's one quotation:
>
> "When [Jesus] became incarnate and was made human, he began anew the long
> line of human beings and, to state it briefly, furnished us with salvation.
> Consequently, what we had lost in Adam--namely, the image of likeness of
> God--we recovered in Christ Jesus" (Against Heresies, 3:18,1).
>
> I'd like an EO response and understanding on this.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ben,

Thanks. I'm not sure I'm buying what you are saying, but that may be
why I'm Lutheran.  My readings of the Fathers has primarily centered on
Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Irenaeus (and the Didache), the 1st
and 2ng generation Christians.

But I do appreciate this forum to ask questions and to help understand
"Eastern" thinking.  As a former Lutheran, you can help "translate"
word meanings and understandings I may not otherwise pick up.


   --
Rich Futrell, Pastor
Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
http://sothl.com

Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the
Augsburg Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith
of Christ Jesus, His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins,
His flesh and blood given and poured out for us, and His gracious gift
of life for body, soul, and spirit.



Quoting Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>:
> The topic of the image of God in man is addressed differently by different
> fathers of the Church.  Some see it in man's reason, some in his free will,
> some in his immortality.  The vast majority of fathers apply the term to the
> higher qualities of the soul of man, and a minority (including St. Irenaeus)
> to the whole man.
>
> For St. Irenaeus, the image and likeness of man is a path of growth.  Only
> Christ is the actual image and likeness of God; man is made in this image
> and likeness, that is, man is created for Christ and to be like Christ.
> When man is created, the image and likeness is not actually demonstrated in
> it's maturity, because man is created as a child that must grow into
> maturity.  That full maturity looks like the Incarnate Son of God, and it is
> only when Christ comes that the image of God in man is demonstrated, via the
> Incarnation.  That the image and likeness of God is destroyed in man for St.
> Irenaeus means that man in his child-status has been removed from the
> pathway of growth in the Life that he received from God.  Rather than
> abiding in communion, man is held captive under Satan.  It is not possible
> for man to mature in union with God anymore, and thus St. Irenaeus says the
> image is lost.  The image is a dynamic growth in sanctity through communion
> with God.
>
> While later fathers may not express the terminology of image and likeness
> the same way, the point St. Irenaeus makes is thoroughly an Orthodox one.
> Man is created for a Life of growth and maturity in communion with God, but
> sin, death, and the devil have (among other things) derailed this path.
> Christ's Incarnation accomplishes the complete healing and recapitulation of
> man's nature in an objective fashion, and His crucifixion-resurrection frees
> all of us from bondage so as to return to the Life of communion with God we
> were made for.  We return by being united with Christ, who recapitulated the
> image that He is as Son in the human nature that He united to His divine
> nature (which is our common human nature).
>
> In Christ,
> Benjamin Harju
>
>

I might add a bit to Benjamin's reply.

St Irenaeus wrote at a very early date, before terminology related to
image/likeness had been dealt with at length.  At another point in this work he
states the Orthodox position in more typical terminology:


"If the Spirit indeed is wanting in the soul, he...possesses indeed the image in
his formation; but (does) not receive the similitude through the Spirit"
(5.6.1).

The image is what we're born with; we had no power to give it to ourselves, or
to take it away.  The likeness (here translated "similitude") is what we can
lose or gain in our own spiritual walk.


I might also remark, though, that no one person is infallible in Orthodoxy.  No
father is infallible; no patriarch, no saint, no elder.  INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT
INFALLIBLE!  We don't have any popes at all. None.  Zero. Only the body of
Christ is infallible.  The ecumenical councils reached infallible conclusions
not only because they were pronounced by hierarchs, saints and theologians from
around the world together; but because the masses of faithful at large accepted
their rulings.  There were many false ecumenical councils, which were rejected
by the body of Christ.


Truly, we "have the power to comprehend" the heights and depths only "with all
the saints,"   Eph. 3:18.


Some fathers made errors, and after understanding the rulings of the Church at
large repented and confirmed.  The outstanding exegete Theodorus of Cyrus, for
example, was a Nestorian and had writings condemned the the fitfth (?)
ecumenical council....then he realized his error, repented and ended up a saint,
whose orthodox writings are greatly venerated and still in print.


Not even the holy apostles reached acted as individuals when important  matters
came up...in Acts 15 they had recourse to council, and it has been the model for
our councils since.


The reason we do things in a conciliar way is because we're created in the image
of the Trinity.  The Gospel of John frequently points out how the Father,Son and
Holy Spirit work in concert and unity together...but it even goes back to
Genesis, where the Persons of the Trinity discussed our creation.  "Let us make
man in Our image."


Hope this helps--
R.









________________________________
From: Richard <PastorFutrell@...>
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, July 1, 2011 5:59:26 PM
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Irenaeus, the Fall, and the Image of God


I understand (perhaps, incorrectly) that Eastern Orthodoxy holds that when Adam
fell into sin, it was a fall, but that did not include the loss of the image of
God.

I'm reading Irenaeus' Against Heresies.  He says in a couple of places that we
lost the image of God in the Fall.  Here's one quotation:

"When [Jesus] became incarnate and was made human, he began anew the long line
of human beings and, to state it briefly, furnished us with salvation.
Consequently, what we had lost in Adam--namely, the image of likeness of God--we
recovered in Christ Jesus" (Against Heresies, 3:18,1).

I'd like an EO response and understanding on this.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pr. Futrell,

What in particular are you not buying, my reading of St. Irenaeus or my
comment about Orthodox theology?  If St. Irenaeus, then how do you read the
statements where he indicates the image was lost?  What is this image for
St. Irenaeus then?

For the record, my instruction in St. Irenaeus comes from Concordia
Theological Seminary and the materials I received there.  My statement has
nothing to do with Lutheranism or Orthodoxy, but with St. Irenaeus.

In Christ,
Benjamin Harju

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Richard K. Futrell <
PastorFutrell@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Ben,
>
> Thanks. I'm not sure I'm buying what you are saying, but that may be
> why I'm Lutheran. My readings of the Fathers has primarily centered on
> Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Irenaeus (and the Didache), the 1st
> and 2ng generation Christians.
>
> But I do appreciate this forum to ask questions and to help understand
> "Eastern" thinking. As a former Lutheran, you can help "translate"
> word meanings and understandings I may not otherwise pick up.
>
> --
> Rich Futrell, Pastor
> Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
> http://sothl.com
>
> Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the
> Augsburg Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith
> of Christ Jesus, His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins,
> His flesh and blood given and poured out for us, and His gracious gift
> of life for body, soul, and spirit.
>
> Quoting Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>:
> > The topic of the image of God in man is addressed differently by
> different
> > fathers of the Church. Some see it in man's reason, some in his free
> will,
> > some in his immortality. The vast majority of fathers apply the term to
> the
> > higher qualities of the soul of man, and a minority (including St.
> Irenaeus)
> > to the whole man.
> >
> > For St. Irenaeus, the image and likeness of man is a path of growth. Only
> > Christ is the actual image and likeness of God; man is made in this image
> > and likeness, that is, man is created for Christ and to be like Christ.
> > When man is created, the image and likeness is not actually demonstrated
> in
> > it's maturity, because man is created as a child that must grow into
> > maturity. That full maturity looks like the Incarnate Son of God, and it
> is
> > only when Christ comes that the image of God in man is demonstrated, via
> the
> > Incarnation. That the image and likeness of God is destroyed in man for
> St.
> > Irenaeus means that man in his child-status has been removed from the
> > pathway of growth in the Life that he received from God. Rather than
> > abiding in communion, man is held captive under Satan. It is not possible
> > for man to mature in union with God anymore, and thus St. Irenaeus says
> the
> > image is lost. The image is a dynamic growth in sanctity through
> communion
> > with God.
> >
> > While later fathers may not express the terminology of image and likeness
> > the same way, the point St. Irenaeus makes is thoroughly an Orthodox one.
>
> > Man is created for a Life of growth and maturity in communion with God,
> but
> > sin, death, and the devil have (among other things) derailed this path.
> > Christ's Incarnation accomplishes the complete healing and recapitulation
> of
> > man's nature in an objective fashion, and His crucifixion-resurrection
> frees
> > all of us from bondage so as to return to the Life of communion with God
> we
> > were made for. We return by being united with Christ, who recapitulated
> the
> > image that He is as Son in the human nature that He united to His divine
> > nature (which is our common human nature).
> >
> > In Christ,
> > Benjamin Harju
> >
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ben,

I just take it that when Irenaeus says that we lost the image of God in the
Fall, that's what he means.  We lost it completely.  I happen to agree with
Irenaeus.

Ben, I may be understanding what you are saying incorrectly.  Here’s what I
hear you saying:

    Ben’s words: "That the image and likeness of God is destroyed in man for
St. Irenaeus means that man in his child-status has been removed from the
pathway of growth in the Life that he received from God."

    What Rich hears: Lost image = being stuck in an immature status and unable to
grow.  Thus, the lost image was not really lost but stuck in a state of
immaturity until Christ comes into the person’s life.  If so, then

         - Ben: The image of God that is lost is only seriously wounded and
diminished until Christ starts to vivify it.
         - Rich: The image is completely gone and begins to be restored when
Christ comes into a person’s life.

Is my understanding of your word accurate?

Rich

I'm not sure what the original Greek (or Latin) is or how this section may
be translated differently, but in the selection you provided, Irenaeus is
not saying saying we (in Adam) lost the "image of God" but the " the image
of likeness of God".  I take this latter phrase to mean basically
"likeness".

Coindidentally, I read an interview with Sr. Nonna (Verna) Harrison this
morning on her new book, *God's Many-Splendored Image: Theological
Anthropology for Christian Formation* (Baker Academic, 2010),
207pp<http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Many-Splendored-Image-Theological-Anthropology/\
dp/080103471X?ie=UTF8&tag=eastern-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969>,
about which the publisher tells us:

*What does it mean to be a human being made in the image of God? This book
makes the case that the divine image can be seen in not just one or two
aspects of human identity but in all of them. *The author, a specialist in
early Christianity, reveals the light that leading theologians of the early
church shed on contemporary discussions of what it means to be human. Each
chapter explores a different facet of the divine image and likeness and maps
out a path that can lead toward wholeness and holiness. This fresh approach
to theological anthropology brings Greek patristic theology to students in a
readable fashion. [emphasis mine - CO]*
*

In the interview, Sr. Nonna "highlights a different facet of the image of
God in humankind:

(1) our freedom of choice;
> (2) our relationship with God and with Christ;
> (3) our capacity to perceive spiritual realities;
> (4) the many human virtues;
> (5) the dignity of every human person;
> (6)the necessity of the body in fulfilling our vocation as God’s image;
> (7) our roles in the crested world;
> (8) the practice of the arts and sciences;
> (9) human community as image of the Holy Trinity;
>
> and in conclusion, the inexhaustible mystery of the image of God."
>

In short, I don't think one can easily summarize what "that Eastern
Orthodoxy holds" concerning the image of God - or just about any theological
point, unlike the "German" systematics of Lutheranism or the "Latin" book
theology of Catholicism.  Salvation isn't boiled down to anything as simple
and straightforward as "justification by grace alone through faith alone" -
and that isn't to know the doctrine, just to note its succinct statement in
contrast to the lack of summarization in Orthodoxy, period.

The entire interview with Sr. Nonna can be read
here<http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2011/07/interview-sr-nonna-harris\
on-on-gods.html>
.

A summary of the image and likeness distinction can be found starting on p.
50 of Met. Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Way" (see
here<http://books.google.com/books?id=WpE8MwHLffEC&lpg=PA52&ots=Ds3pDEfMWN&dq=wa\
re%20image%20likeness&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q=image&f=false>)
or p. 219 of his "The Orthodox Church" (see
here<Man:%20his%20creation,%20his%20vocation,%20his%20failure%20%20%E2%80%98Thou\
%20hast%20made%20us%20for%20Thyself%20and%20our%20hearts%20are%20restless%20till\
%20they%20rest%20in%20Thee.%E2%80%99%20%28Augustine,%20Confessions,%201,%201%29%\
20Man%20was%20made%20for%20fellowship%20with%20God:%20this%20is%20the%20first%20\
and%20primary%20affirmation%20in%20the%20Christian%20doctrine%20of%20man.%20But%\
20man,%20made%20for%20fellowship%20with%20God,%20everywhere%20repudiates%20that%\
20fellowship:%20this%20is%20the%20second%20fact%20which%20all%20Christian%20anth\
ropology%20takes%20into%20account.%20Man%20was%20made%20for%20fellowship%20with%\
20God:%20in%20the%20language%20of%20the%20Church,%20God%20created%20Adam%20accor\
ding%20to%20His%20image%20and%20likeness,%20and%20set%20him%20in%20Paradise%20%2\
8The%20opening%20chapters%20of%20Genesis%20are%20of%20course%20concerned%20with%\
20certain%20religious%20truths,%20and%20are%20not%20to%20be%20taken%20as%20liter\
al%20history.%20Fifteen%20centuries%20before%20modern%20Biblical%20criticism,%20\
Greek%20Fathers%20were%20already%20interpreting%20the%20Creation%20and%20Paradis\
e%20stories%20symbolically%20rather%20than%20literally%29.%20Man%20everywhere%20\
repudiates%20that%20fellowship:%20in%20the%20language%20of%20the%20Church,%20Ada\
m%20fell,%20and%20his%20fall%20%E2%80%94%20his%20%E2%80%98original%20sin%E2%80%9\
9%20%E2%80%94%20has%20affected%20all%20mankind.%20%20The%20Creation%20of%20Man.%\
20%22And%20God%20said,%20let%20us%20make%20man%20according%20to%20our%20image%20\
and%20likeness%22%20%28Genesis%201:26%29.%20God%20speaks%20in%20the%20plural:%20\
%22Let%20us%20make%20man.%22%20The%20creation%20of%20man,%20so%20the%20Greek%20F\
athers%20continually%20emphasized,%20was%20an%20act%20of%20all%20three%20persons\
%20in%20the%20Trinity,%20and%20therefore%20the%20image%20and%20likeness%20of%20G\
od%20must%20always%20be%20thought%20of%20as%20a%20Trinitarian%20image%20and%20li\
keness.%20We%20shall%20find%20that%20this%20is%20a%20point%20of%20vital%20import\
ance.%20%20Image%20and%20Likeness.>),
as well as in "The Image And Likeness Of God" by Dr. Darren J. Torbic  (see
here <http://www.stgeorgeserbian.us/darren/darren03.htm>), not to mention
Vladimir Lossky's "In the Image and Likeness of God".

I would also note that part of what's being said here is that the
incarnation, life, suffering, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ
has renewed human nature.  Not only is the pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian
distinction important when discussing what man can and cannot do, even more
important is what man can and cannot do before Christ and after Christ,
before our nature was united to the divine nature in the person of Christ
and after that significant, ontological change in our very substance.  We
are saved by grace alone, but that grace was given in the Incarnation, et al
to all of human nature - it isn't simply a reserved gift given individually
to some who will be saved.  Since Christ, we really can cooperate with God
in our salvation, because of what he did for us, by grace alone, then.

Christopher

PS.  let me know if the links I provided above came through or not.


On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Richard <PastorFutrell@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I understand (perhaps, incorrectly) that Eastern Orthodoxy holds that when
> Adam fell into sin, it was a fall, but that did not include the loss of the
> image of God.
>
> I'm reading Irenaeus' Against Heresies. He says in a couple of places that
> we lost the image of God in the Fall. Here's one quotation:
>
> "When [Jesus] became incarnate and was made human, he began anew the long
> line of human beings and, to state it briefly, furnished us with salvation.
> Consequently, what we had lost in Adam--namely, the image of likeness of
> God--we recovered in Christ Jesus" (Against Heresies, 3:18,1).
>
> I'd like an EO response and understanding on this.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sorry, that should have been "and that isn't to KNOCK the doctrine" and "don't
think one can easily summarize what 'Eastern Orthodoxy holds' concerning the
image of God".  I'm sure there were other mistakes.  It's late, and hot, and
I was out with a two year old all day.  Please forgive.

Christopher



On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:

> I'm not sure what the original Greek (or Latin) is or how this section may
> be translated differently, but in the selection you provided, Irenaeus is
> not saying saying we (in Adam) lost the "image of God" but the " the image
> of likeness of God".  I take this latter phrase to mean basically
> "likeness".
>
> Coindidentally, I read an interview with Sr. Nonna (Verna) Harrison this
> morning on her new book, *God's Many-Splendored Image: Theological
> Anthropology for Christian Formation* (Baker Academic, 2010),
207pp<http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Many-Splendored-Image-Theological-Anthropology/\
dp/080103471X?ie=UTF8&tag=eastern-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969>,
> about which the publisher tells us:
>
> *What does it mean to be a human being made in the image of God? This book
> makes the case that the divine image can be seen in not just one or two
> aspects of human identity but in all of them. *The author, a specialist in
> early Christianity, reveals the light that leading theologians of the early
> church shed on contemporary discussions of what it means to be human. Each
> chapter explores a different facet of the divine image and likeness and maps
> out a path that can lead toward wholeness and holiness. This fresh approach
> to theological anthropology brings Greek patristic theology to students in a
> readable fashion. [emphasis mine - CO]*
> *
>
> In the interview, Sr. Nonna "highlights a different facet of the image of
> God in humankind:
>
> (1) our freedom of choice;
>> (2) our relationship with God and with Christ;
>> (3) our capacity to perceive spiritual realities;
>> (4) the many human virtues;
>> (5) the dignity of every human person;
>> (6)the necessity of the body in fulfilling our vocation as God’s image;
>> (7) our roles in the crested world;
>> (8) the practice of the arts and sciences;
>> (9) human community as image of the Holy Trinity;
>>
>> and in conclusion, the inexhaustible mystery of the image of God."
>>
>
> In short, I don't think one can easily summarize what "that Eastern
> Orthodoxy holds" concerning the image of God - or just about any theological
> point, unlike the "German" systematics of Lutheranism or the "Latin" book
> theology of Catholicism.  Salvation isn't boiled down to anything as simple
> and straightforward as "justification by grace alone through faith alone" -
> and that isn't to know the doctrine, just to note its succinct statement in
> contrast to the lack of summarization in Orthodoxy, period.
>
> The entire interview with Sr. Nonna can be read
here<http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2011/07/interview-sr-nonna-harris\
on-on-gods.html>
> .
>
> A summary of the image and likeness distinction can be found starting on p.
> 50 of Met. Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Way" (see
here<http://books.google.com/books?id=WpE8MwHLffEC&lpg=PA52&ots=Ds3pDEfMWN&dq=wa\
re%20image%20likeness&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q=image&f=false>)
> or p. 219 of his "The Orthodox Church" (see here), as well as in "The
> Image And Likeness Of God" by Dr. Darren J. Torbic  (see
here<http://www.stgeorgeserbian.us/darren/darren03.htm>),
> not to mention Vladimir Lossky's "In the Image and Likeness of God".
>
> I would also note that part of what's being said here is that the
> incarnation, life, suffering, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ
> has renewed human nature.  Not only is the pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian
> distinction important when discussing what man can and cannot do, even more
> important is what man can and cannot do before Christ and after Christ,
> before our nature was united to the divine nature in the person of Christ
> and after that significant, ontological change in our very substance.  We
> are saved by grace alone, but that grace was given in the Incarnation, et al
> to all of human nature - it isn't simply a reserved gift given individually
> to some who will be saved.  Since Christ, we really can cooperate with God
> in our salvation, because of what he did for us, by grace alone, then.
>
> Christopher
>
> PS.  let me know if the links I provided above came through or not.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Richard <PastorFutrell@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> I understand (perhaps, incorrectly) that Eastern Orthodoxy holds that when
>> Adam fell into sin, it was a fall, but that did not include the loss of the
>> image of God.
>>
>> I'm reading Irenaeus' Against Heresies. He says in a couple of places that
>> we lost the image of God in the Fall. Here's one quotation:
>>
>> "When [Jesus] became incarnate and was made human, he began anew the long
>> line of human beings and, to state it briefly, furnished us with salvation.
>> Consequently, what we had lost in Adam--namely, the image of likeness of
>> God--we recovered in Christ Jesus" (Against Heresies, 3:18,1).
>>
>> I'd like an EO response and understanding on this.
>>
>>
>>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pr. Futrell,

Okay, I'll try to clarify.  Not only was man "stuck in an immature status
and unable to grow," but this immature man was also thrown into bondage to
the devil.  He became corrupt, which is a spiritual injury.  Gustaf Wingren,
a Lutheran scholar, writes on the subject in "Man and the Incarnation" p.20
"...but he [man] is different from the rest of Creation in that in addition
he was created in order to become like God--to become the very image of
God.  This is his destiny.  Irenaeus does not say that he _is_ this image,
nor was this destiny wholly realised [sic] in Creation before sin entered
the world, because man was a _child_.  This means, in part, that man has not
arrived at his appointed destiny in Creation, because he is not the son of
God in that sense, but it also means that, if he grew up to maturity without
being confused by the adversary, he would reach the end which has been
ordained for him by God."

If man is not actually the image yet because he is a child and needs to
attain to the image, then to lose the image cannot mean that he lost
something he had in full, but rather he lost the potentiality to something.
He lost the ability to mature into the likeness of God.

Pr. Futrell, in saying on your part that St. Irenaeus lost the image, you
have not said what you believe that image is for Irenaeus yet.  That makes
it hard to understand what you mean when you say you hold to Irenaeus losing
the image and that I only say the image was wounded/diminished.  In
_Irenaeus_ to lose the image is to lose the potentiality to be like God
through growth in union with God.  What do you think this image is that is
absolutely lost?

In Christ,
Benjamin Harju

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Richard K. Futrell <
PastorFutrell@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Ben,
>
> I just take it that when Irenaeus says that we lost the image of God in the
> Fall, that's what he means. We lost it completely. I happen to agree with
> Irenaeus.
>
> Ben, I may be understanding what you are saying incorrectly. Here’s what I
> hear you saying:
>
> Ben’s words: "That the image and likeness of God is destroyed in man for
> St. Irenaeus means that man in his child-status has been removed from the
> pathway of growth in the Life that he received from God."
>
> What Rich hears: Lost image = being stuck in an immature status and unable
> to grow. Thus, the lost image was not really lost but stuck in a state of
> immaturity until Christ comes into the person’s life. If so, then
>
> - Ben: The image of God that is lost is only seriously wounded and
> diminished until Christ starts to vivify it.
> - Rich: The image is completely gone and begins to be restored when Christ
> comes into a person’s life.
>
> Is my understanding of your word accurate?
>
> Rich
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ben,

Sorry for my tardy response.  I've haven't religiously :-) been checking my
e-mail during the Independence Day weekend.

You said, "Pr. Futrell, in saying on your part that St. Irenaeus lost the image,
you have not said what you believe that image is for Irenaeus yet."

Short answer: Only man was created in God’s image.  We were created to be like
God, never to die, as we lived in communion with Him and could live holy lives
according to His will.  The image of God and ability to live in such communion
was lost in Adam (Genesis 5:3; Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:20–24).  In
Christ, it is restored and will be fully restored on the Last Day (1 Corinthians
15:49; Romans 8:29).

BTW, you can call me "Rich" if you would like.  It is not a sign of disrespect;
I know you were a Lutheran pastor.  It is simply being informal, and I hope,
always cordial.

  --
  Rich Futrell, Pastor
Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
http://sothl.com

Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the Augsburg
Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith of Christ Jesus,
His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins, His flesh and blood given
and poured out for us, and His gracious gift of life for body, soul, and spirit.

Chris,

You wrote: "I'm not sure what the original Greek (or Latin) is or how this
section may be translated differently, but in the selection you provided,
Irenaeus is not saying saying we (in Adam) lost the "image of God" but the " the
image of likeness of God". I take this latter phrase to mean basically
"likeness"."

Response: I can only go by how the translator translated it, as I do not know
what the original said.  If I do otherwise, then (to me) it’s doing the same
“twisting” of a text we see Protestants do all the time (and I know you
consider me a Protestant ;-( ).

For Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, I believe the only complete text we have is in
Latin, which was a translation from the original Greek.  I do know we have
quotations of the Greek text in Eusebius’ Church History.  So the probability
of error or an improperly nuanced translation is increased as Against Heresies
is a translation of a translation.

We also have to factor in any translator bias.  For example, I was reading
several different translations of Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians.  One
translator had “justify” and another had “sanctify.”  I thought, “What
is going on?”  Fortunately, one of the translations was a diglot, so I looked
at the Greek and the Greek word was “dikiao.”  The translator who rendered
dikiao as “sanctify” was a Roman Catholic.  Go figure!

All that being said, I’m going to stick with how the translator, James Payton,
translated it.  Next year, Steenberg and Unger are supposed to release their
translation of Against Heresies, Book 3!  It’ll be interesting to see how they
translate "When [Jesus] became incarnate and was made human, he began anew the
long line of human beings and, to state it briefly, furnished us with salvation.
Consequently, what we had lost in Adam--namely, the image of likeness of God--we
recovered in Christ Jesus" (Against Heresies, 3:18,1).


  --
  Rich Futrell, Pastor
Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
http://sothl.com

Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the Augsburg
Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith of Christ Jesus,
His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins, His flesh and blood given
and poured out for us, and His gracious gift of life for body, soul, and spirit.

Since we look a lot like Jesus who became incarnate well after the Fall, I've
always taken that to mean we did not completely lose the image of God in the
Garden.  Our likeness with Him is alone the difference between us - apart from
sin and divinity, that is.

Christopher

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Richard K. Futrell" <PastorFutrell@...>
Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 21:51:25
To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Irenaeus, the Fall, and the Image of
	 God

Ben,

Sorry for my tardy response.  I've haven't religiously :-) been checking my
e-mail during the Independence Day weekend.

You said, "Pr. Futrell, in saying on your part that St. Irenaeus lost the image,
you have not said what you believe that image is for Irenaeus yet."

Short answer: Only man was created in God’s image.  We were created to be like
God, never to die, as we lived in communion with Him and could live holy lives
according to His will.  The image of God and ability to live in such communion
was lost in Adam (Genesis 5:3; Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:20–24).  In
Christ, it is restored and will be fully restored on the Last Day (1 Corinthians
15:49; Romans 8:29).

BTW, you can call me "Rich" if you would like.  It is not a sign of disrespect;
I know you were a Lutheran pastor.  It is simply being informal, and I hope,
always cordial.

  --
  Rich Futrell, Pastor
Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
http://sothl.com

Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the Augsburg
Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith of Christ Jesus,
His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins, His flesh and blood given
and poured out for us, and His gracious gift of life for body, soul, and spirit.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rich,

Regarding your translation issue with Clement's letter, it has been a
longstanding (but not always uniform) practice in early Christian and
patristic hermeneutics to translate dikaios as either justify or sanctify,
because the force behind each option was always considered the same in both
Western and Eastern theology.  One is to make righteous, the other to make
holy, but the cause of making one either righteous or holy is the divine
energy of Grace [note, though, that RCs claim this is a created substance
and EO teach it's uncreated energy that is distinct from God's essence].
Often we use the word "sanctify" to mean more than just make holy, but also
to be positively affected or changed by God's energy and/or operation.  In
such a case where this Grace operates on a person, holiness and
righteousness become very closely related terms.  It was the Protestant
reformation that began insisting that to justify referred to a
non-sanctifying activity, actually a forensic activity outside of man and
rather in the heart of God concerning justice.

Regarding St. Irenaeus, I hear you saying that the image of God is 1) to be
like God, 2) not to die, 3) to live a holy life, and 4) these occur through
communion with God.  So if this image was *lost*, then that would mean that
man ceases to be like God in every respect (not just in part), he dies
(though I'm unsure what you mean by death), he can do only evil and not good
anymore (including the civil realm), and this happens through a break in
communion with God.  Obviously all of this is not so, especially since St.
Irenaeus demonstrates that man has the freedom to choose the good and to
believe in Christ and is not consigned only to evil and unbelief through his
own power (Book IV, Chapter 37).   So I don't think your take on the image
in St. Irenaeus matches up with his own statements.

If, though, we said to lose the image was to become less like God, to die
but maintain existence, to misuse freedom to do evil, and that this locates
in a break in communion, then this would seem as if the image is only
injured and not lost.  Yet this is much closer to what St. Irenaeus
teaches.

What is missing from both approaches is the link in St. Irenaeus between
image and likeness (and the issue of growth). These are not one and the same
for him, but two interrelated concepts.  From Book V, Chapter 16, par. 2:

"And then, again, this Word was manifested when the Word of God was made
man, assimilating Himself to man, and man to Himself, so that by means of
his resemblance to the Son, man might become precious to the Father. For in
times long past, it was said that man was created after the image of God,
but it was not [actually] shown; for the Word was as yet invisible, after
whose image man was created, Wherefore also he did easily lose the
similitude. When, however, the Word of God became flesh, He confirmed both
these: for He both showed forth the image truly, since He became Himself
what was His image; and He re-established the similitude after a sure
manner, by assimilating man to the invisible Father through means of the
visible Word."

So Christopher's comment about loosing the likeness is not out of bounds at
all.  In fact, if we read the original passage in question again from the
public domain electronic collection of Ante-Nicene fathers...

"...but when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh(1)
the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive
manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam -- namely, to be
according to the image and likeness of God -- that we might recover in
Christ Jesus" [III:18:1].

... we see that what was lost was to be _according to_ the image and
likeness of God, which St. Irenaeus says is Christ.  We have lost being
according to Christ, which in St. Irenaeus involves not just initial
creation but also growth, hence the distinction he indicates between image
and likeness.

I can only recommend that you spend some time with St. Irenaeus to discover
the relationship between image and likeness in Against Heresies.  The
patristic scholar at the Ft. Wayne seminary (when I was there) highly
recommended Gustaf Wingren's "Man and the Incarnation" during my freshman
year, calling it the best presentation on St. Irenaeus's theology out
there.  At the time it was out of print, but not so any more.  I just
purchased a copy (which I've been desiring for 11 years) shortly before this
thread popped up.  You can also check out "One Right Reading?: A Guide to
Irenaeus" by Mary Ann Donovan.  This book was part of the curriculum in an
STM level course I took on St. Irenaeus with the same professor near the end
of my time at seminary.  The outlines in the Donovan book alone make the
book worthwhile to own.

Personally I find St. Irenaeus to be a very good introduction to Orthodoxy
and Orthodox patristics.

Regarding your Scripture quotes, Gen. 5:3 is an argument from silence (and
could be reversed from silence to demonstrate a retention of God's image),
Rom. 5:12-21 demonstrates only a broken communion and bondage to death
(...death reigned over Adam...), not an answer to whether the image is lost
or distorted, and the same for 1 Co. 15:20-24.  In actuality Scripture
demonstrates that man remains created in God's image, as God says after the
Fall in Genesis 9:6.  We might even be persuaded by St. James 3:9, though he
uses the word likeness (homoiwsis) and not image (eikon).

In Christ,
Benjamin Harju




On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 10:12 PM, <xcjorr@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Since we look a lot like Jesus who became incarnate well after the Fall,
> I've always taken that to mean we did not completely lose the image of God
> in the Garden. Our likeness with Him is alone the difference between us -
> apart from sin and divinity, that is.
>
> Christopher
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Richard K. Futrell" <PastorFutrell@...>
> Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 21:51:25
> To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com>
> Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Irenaeus, the Fall, and the Image of
> God
>
> Ben,
>
> Sorry for my tardy response. I've haven't religiously :-) been checking my
> e-mail during the Independence Day weekend.
>
> You said, "Pr. Futrell, in saying on your part that St. Irenaeus lost the
> image, you have not said what you believe that image is for Irenaeus yet."
>
> Short answer: Only man was created in God’s image. We were created to be
> like God, never to die, as we lived in communion with Him and could live
> holy lives according to His will. The image of God and ability to live in
> such communion was lost in Adam (Genesis 5:3; Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians
> 15:20–24). In Christ, it is restored and will be fully restored on the Last
> Day (1 Corinthians 15:49; Romans 8:29).
>
> BTW, you can call me "Rich" if you would like. It is not a sign of
> disrespect; I know you were a Lutheran pastor. It is simply being informal,
> and I hope, always cordial.
>
> --
> Rich Futrell, Pastor
> Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
> http://sothl.com
>
> Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the
> Augsburg Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith of
> Christ Jesus, His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins, His
> flesh and blood given and poured out for us, and His gracious gift of life
> for body, soul, and spirit.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ben,

You know your stuff!  I have yet to read book 4 in this translation.  So what
you are saying is that my understanding of the loss of the image of God does not
purport with Irenaeus'.  Fair enough--and you make your case with that rather
soundly.

So with Irenaeus, loss of God's image does not mean what I take it to mean. 
That seems to be the case (I'll wait until I get through book 4).

So with Ireneaus, he is saying we lost the image, but the ramifcations of that
are different than I hold the ramifications to be.  (And your assessment of my
position, if you were doing that, is not what I hold it all to be, but that's
OK, for I didn't spell all that out).

I also at some later time plan to read Wingren's take on Irenaeus.


Rich

BTW; Thank you for taking tiem to write lenghty posts opn this as needed to
continue the conversation in a good way.  That's refreshing.


  --
  Rich Futrell, Pastor
Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
http://sothl.com

Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the Augsburg
Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith of Christ Jesus,
His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins, His flesh and blood given
and poured out for us, and His gracious gift of life for body, soul, and spirit.

Rich,

I apologize if I took the wording of your description of St. Irenaeus's
position too far into distortion.  It would be good conversation to read
your full take on St. Irenaeus's position, but in the context of this list
it might be more fruitful to discuss the image and likeness of God in
Lutheran and Orthodox terms, and place St. Irenaeus in those contexts, as
Randall Hay did.  I especially like how Randall demonstrates that Orthodox
teaching is a matter for the entire Church Catholic, not just what one
teacher says as if that's that.

In Christ,
Benjamin Harju

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Richard K. Futrell <
PastorFutrell@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Ben,
>
> You know your stuff! I have yet to read book 4 in this translation. So what
> you are saying is that my understanding of the loss of the image of God does
> not purport with Irenaeus'. Fair enough--and you make your case with that
> rather soundly.
>
> So with Irenaeus, loss of God's image does not mean what I take it to mean.
> That seems to be the case (I'll wait until I get through book 4).
>
> So with Ireneaus, he is saying we lost the image, but the ramifcations of
> that are different than I hold the ramifications to be. (And your assessment
> of my position, if you were doing that, is not what I hold it all to be, but
> that's OK, for I didn't spell all that out).
>
> I also at some later time plan to read Wingren's take on Irenaeus.
>
> Rich
>
> BTW; Thank you for taking tiem to write lenghty posts opn this as needed to
> continue the conversation in a good way. That's refreshing.
>
> --
>
> Rich Futrell, Pastor
> Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
> http://sothl.com
>
> Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the
> Augsburg Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith of
> Christ Jesus, His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins, His
> flesh and blood given and poured out for us, and His gracious gift of life
> for body, soul, and spirit.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Prayers to Saints in the Pre-Nicene
Era<http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/prayers-to-saints-in-the\
-pre-nicene-era/>
  *By Perry Robinson, posted at Energetic
Procession<http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/prayers-to-saints\
-in-the-pre-nicene-era/>
*

It is commonly claimed that the practice of praying to departed saints and
to angels is a late development in Christianity, probably post-dating the
Council of Nicea. In this post, I will try to argue that prayers to departed
saints were relatively common in the pre-Nicene Church. There are 5 to 8
clear post-Apostolic references from at least 3 locations. Some of the
references come from official Christian teachers. The earliest reference may
be first or second century, and many of the second and third century
writers’ beliefs probably reflect the customs of even earlier times.

  Below are three lists of quotations (with some interpretive notes) from
Christians writing before 325 AD. The first list has quotations which state
or imply the belief that angels and deceased humans can be requested by
Christians alive on earth to pray for them. The second list has quotations
which state or imply the belief that angels and deceased humans are aware of
the prayers of Christians on earth, and join them mystically in prayer.
Quotes in the third list are ambiguous but support the doctrine of communion
with the departed in one way or another. I follow these lists with a brief
analysis of the evidence and what it implies about the antiquity of the
practice of praying to saints.

  Let it be made clear that by “prayers” is meant any kind of request for
action made by one person to another. It is uncontroversial that Christians
can pray to saints in the following sense: a Christian can ask another
Christian who is alive on earth to pray for him or her. What is more
questionable is whether Christians can pray to saints in the following
sense: pray to angels or Christians who have departed from earthly life and
await resurrection. This latter sense is what I mean by “prayers to saints”
for the rest of this article. For longer texts, or texts that are unclear in
meaning, I have written the relevant portions in bold lettering. I realize
that there are theological objections to this practice; there is also lots
of popular-level apologetic material replying to many of these objections.
Please read material that replies to these objections on the internet before
offering these objections in the comment section.

  *1. Some prayers to Saints*

  I take the texts in the first category to show examples of this practice of
prayers to Saints, or express approval of this practice (as in the case of
Origen). Let us briefly review their content.

  1.1 Hermas of Rome:

*I prayed [to the Angel of Repentance, who is called the Shepherd] much that
he would explain* to me the similitude of the field…And he answered me
again, saying, “Every one who is the servant of God, and has his Lord in his
heart, asks of Him understanding, and receives it, and opens up every
parable; and the words of the Lord become known to him which are spoken in
parables. But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask
anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives
without fail to all who ask Him. But you, having been strengthened by the
holy Angel, and having obtained from Him such intercession, and not being
slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from
Him?” I said to him, “Sir, having you with me, I am necessitated to ask
questions of you, for you show me all things, and converse with me; but if I
were to see or hear these things without you, I would then ask the Lord to
explain them.”

  *The Shepherd of Hermas, 3.5.4
Rome, Date questionable; perhaps as early as AD 85-90, perhaps as late as AD
140-155 [1]*

  Hermas writes about various visions he receives and commandments that are
issued to him by “the angel of repentance” who appears to him in the form of
a Shepherd. [11] This angel does not seem to be Christ, but rather a
creature. Hermas says that he prayed to this angel, to help him understand
the teachings he was being given. The angel of repentance speaks of how he
has received intercession from an Angel that strengthens him. Schaff and
Wade seem to think that this angel is Christ, capitalizing “Him” and
“Angel”. Perhaps this is so. But regardless, Hermas does pray to the angel
of repentance, showing that he prays to saints and believes that prayers to
saints are legitimate. And if the second Angel is not Christ, but is simply
the angel of repentance referring to himself, then we have a reference to an
angel’s intercession to God on behalf of Hermas.

  1.2 St. Hippolytus of Rome:

Tell me, *you three boys, remember me, I entreat you, that I also may obtain
the same lot of martyrdom with you*, who was the fourth person with you who
was walking in the midst of the furnace and who was hymning to God with you
as from one mouth? Describe to us his form and beauty so that we also,
seeing him in the flesh, may recognize him.

  *Commentary on Daniel, 30.1[2]
Rome, Circa AD 202-211*

  St. Hippolytus makes a request of the three Holy Youths of the book of
Daniel. He asks them to “remember” him. The object of this remembrance is
that he may be martyred like they were thrown into the fire. These youths
are deceased, and so St. Hippolytus is praying to saints.

  1.3 Origen of Alexandria:

Now supplication and plea and thanksgiving may be offered to people without
impropriety. Two of them, namely pleading and thanksgiving, might be offered
not only to saints but to people alone in general, whereas *supplication
should be offered to saints alone, should there be found a Paul or a Peter,
who may benefit us and make us worthy to attain authority for the
forgiveness of sins.*

  *On Prayer, 14.6 [3]
Alexandria, Circa AD 253*

  In Origen’s discussion of prayer, he distinguishes the kind of prayer that
should be offered to God alone, and the kind of prayer that should be
offered to humans. Remember that prayer is any kind of “asking”. Among the
prayers that can be offered to humans, the kind of prayer that should be
offered to only saints (which could mean Christians alive on earth or
Christians departed) is supplication, while the kinds of prayer that can be
offered to all people (saints or not) are plea and thanksgiving. The context
is ambiguous about whether Origen means by saints the living or the
departed; he uses “saints” in both senses depending on context. Four factors
contribute to the conclusion that he is talking about departed saints.
First, he clearly teaches (see the Origen quote included in section 2 below)
that departed saints can pray for us (though this point considered all by
itself does not support the interpretation that these are departed saints).
Second, he speaks as though it is difficult to find saints of the kind he is
discussing, implying that it is not merely normal Christians he is talking
about. Third, he mentions Peter and Paul as examples of the kind of
difficult-to-find saints, and they are indeed deceased and lived a holy
life, implying that it is Christians of the deceased and holy variety that
are hard to find, but permissible to pray to. Fourth, he speaks of how these
saints “may benefit us and make us worthy to attain authority for the
forgiveness of sins.” This suggests that the power or authority that they
make available is spiritual strength to overcome the power of sin: again,
this could not just be a request made to any Christian. Perhaps this power
for forgiveness could be a reference to absolution by a priest; but given
the mention of Peter and Paul this is not likely.

  1.4 3rd Century Papyrus:

As we sing to Father Son and Holy Spirit, *may all the powers join with us
to say Amen.* To the only giver of all good things be power and praise.
Amen.

  *Probably Egyptian, 3rd Century AD hymn [4]*

  The text in this papyrus may seem like a mere expression of praise to God
with unimportant references to “angels”. But let us look more closely. The
first sentence contains a request: “may…the powers…say”. This is indeed a
prayer to the powers. And it is not merely a request that the heavenly
powers be involved in praising God together with the Christians. It also
involves a request to the heavenly powers to give the “Amen”, to say to God
“may it be”. The request really amounts to asking the powers “please say to
the Father, Son, and Spirit, that all of our sung prayers may be answered”.
So it is a request for help addressed to the powers (which some would call
“angels”).

  1.5 John Ryland’s Papyrus:

Beneath your compassion
we take refuge, Theotokos.
Our petitions do not despise in time of trouble,
but from dangers ransom us,
Only Holy, Only Blessed

  *3rd Century Letter [5]
Egypt, Circa AD 250*

  This prayer to the Theotokos is very clear. It is a direct request that the
Mother of God, who is among the saints with her Son, aid the troubled
Christian.

  1.6 Inscription on the Tomb of St. Sabina:

Atticus, sleep in peace, secure in your safety, and pray anxiously for our
sins

  *Funerary inscription near St. Sabina’s Tomb
Rome, Circa AD 300*

  1.7 Inscription on the Tomb of St. Sabina:

Pray for your parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year, fifty-two days

  *Funerary inscription near St. Sabina’s Tomb [6]
Rome, Circa AD 300*

  1.8 Another inscription from the catacombs in Rome:

Anatolius made this for his well-deserving son, who lived seven years, seven
months, and twenty days. May thy spirit rest well in God. Pray for thy
sister.

  *Funerary inscription [7]
Rome, Circa AD 325*

  These last three references may or may not be pre-Nicene. Frederick Edward
Warren noted that they are difficult to date. [8] They all attest to belief
that a Christian can ask prayers of a departed Christian, even if that other
person is not canonically a saint.

  *2. Some Prayers with Saints:*

  Texts in the second category do not explicitly state or clearly imply that
prayers to saints are permissible; but they do express the same worldview as
the Christian writers who teach that such prayers are permissible (and
perhaps they do imply that St. Clement and St. Cyprian thought praying to
saints was permissible, if these authors had other assumptions in common
with Christians who pray to saints).

  2.1 St. Clement of Alexandria

In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays
in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never
out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the
saints standing with him [in prayer]

  *Miscellanies 7:12
Alexandria, AD 208*

  St. Clement reflects belief in the intercessory power of the angels and
their presence with the Christian in prayer. Though there is no explicit
teaching that Christians should pray to angels, or that angels pray for the
Christian, one could argue that people who pray together pray for each
other, and they often request the prayers of others.

  2.2 Origen of Alexandria

“But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely,
but also the angels… as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen
asleep”

  *On Prayer 11
Alexandria, AD 233*

  Origen believes that angels and departed saints pray for Christians. This
quote helps demonstrate that Origen thought that prayers are made by
Christians who have already departed, and that such people can be called
“saints”.

  2.3 St. Cyprian of Carthage

“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides
[of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and
afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine
condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence
of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the
presence of the Father’s mercy”

  *Letters 56[60]:5
Carthage, AD 253[8]*

  St. Cyprian’s teaching does not seem to be a request to departed saints,
though it is a request to saints who will depart. It reflects the same
belief as Hermas, St. Hippolytus, Origen, and other early writers: that
departed Christians pray for us who are on earth. It also could mean that
departed Christians have a continual awareness of what goes on with those on
earth.

  *3. Ambiguous References:*

  If the definition of prayer is widened to include any kind of thanksgiving
or acknowledgement of a person who is not presently embodied, then we can
include all of the ambiguous texts below:

  3.1 Inscription on a Catacomb:

  Mayest thou live among the saints!

  *From a Roman Catacomb [9]
AD 268 or 269*

  Here is some kind of expression of acknowledgement and hope being made
towards a deceased Christian. It does not clearly imply belief in the
ability of a Christian to answer prayers, but it is an example of praying
for the departed, and perhaps of addressing them and communicating with
them. This practice of praying for departed Christians is at least as clear
and widespread early on as the practice of praying to saints. I will examine
it in a later post.

  3.2 From the Apocryphal Acts of John

(27) *The painter, then, on the first day made an outline of [John the
Apostle]* and went away…*later John…went into the bedchamber, and saw the
portrait of an old man crowned with garlands, and lamps and altars set
before it.* And he called him and said: Lycomedes, what meanest thou by this
matter of the portrait? can it be one of thy gods that is painted here? for
I see that thou art still living in heathen fashion. And Lycomedes answered
him: *My only God is he who raised me up from death with my wife: but if,
next to that God, it be right that the men who have benefited us should be
called gods -it is thou, father, whom I have had painted in that portrait,
whom I crown and love and reverence as having become my good guide.*

(28) And John who had never at any time seen his own face said to him: Thou
mockest me, child: am I like that in form, [excelling] thy Lord? how canst
thou persuade me that the portrait is like me? And Lycomedes brought him a
mirror. And when he had seen himself in the mirror and looked earnestly at
the portrait, he said: As the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, the portrait is like
me: *yet not like me, child, but like my fleshly image*; for if this
painter, who hath imitated this my face, desireth to draw me in a portrait,
*he will be at a loss*…

(29) …But this that thou hast now done is *childish and imperfect:* thou
hast drawn a *dead likeness of the dead.*

  *The Apocryphal Acts of John, 27-29 [10]
Circa AD 150*

  This text is spurious and heterodox. It probably is not a valuable source
of historical information about the life of St. John the Theologian and
Apostle. And it clearly has a Gnostic doctrinal bent, as evidenced in the
talk of “fleshly image” and “dead likeness of the dead [body]” which does
not reflect a Christian view of matter. But it is a response to and critique
of the orthodoxy of its time. And it would be odd if the Gnostic polemicist
wrote something that was in no way a response to orthodox practice. More
likely, this is a criticism of an existing orthodox practice: the veneration
of icons of departed saints. It clearly attests to belief in prayers to
saints in the sense of thanksgiving for the departed; and arguably it
attests to supplication too, because of the emphasis the “fleshly,
non-spiritual Christian” Lycomedes places on St. John’s good guidance and
benefits. If Lycomedes’ practice corresponds to a present-day (circa AD 150)
“sarxist” (the opposite of Gnostic) then this character’s talk of St. John
as a god-by-grace, a good guide, and one who benefits him could easily
correspond to the “sarxist” practice of praying to the departed St. John,
who is not alive at AD 150.

  3.3 Inscription in a Church:

Under the holy place of M[ary?]
I wrote there the [names]
The image I adored
Of her…

  *The Grotto of the Annunciation in Jerusalem [11]
Date highly uncertain; sometime between first and third centuries*

  This inscription is hard to decipher because the letters are worn. But from
what little we can still translate, it again indicates at least a belief in
the veneration of departed saints, because it reflects belief that there is
a holy place where the image of a woman is adored; and given that the name
begins with “M”, it is likely that woman is the Mother of God, Mary. It is
not clear what names were written underneath St. Mary’s image. But the fact
that a list of names was written under the holy place of St. Mary’s image
suggests that here too we have supplication being made to the Theotokos on
behalf of Christians on earth.

  *Analysis*

  Scholarship has established that the practice of praying to saints was
present in some circles of Judaism before and after the appearing of
Christianity. [12] This creates a kind of precedent for the possibility that
Christians would permit this practice. There is no time to look at any
possible biblical basis for prayers to saints in this post, but perhaps some
arguments can be made at a later time that Scripture permits such prayers
and that there are examples of such prayers in both the Old and New
Testaments.

  Here it is necessary to consider the patristic witness and what kind of
evidence it gives. For those who do not accept the inherent divine authority
of the Church Fathers, the Fathers’ claims (and those of other early
Christians) can still count as historical witness to what Christians
believed during, before, or after their writings. The initial argument to be
made in favor of a pre-Nicene practice of prayers to saints is very short
and simple. We have examples of pre-Nicene Christians praying to saints;
therefore it was probably permissible. But it is not enough to note this.
Instead, their testimonies must be weighed and criticized carefully on five
bases: the (a) quantity or number of testimonies, (b) the orthodoxy of the
writers, (c) their position or office in the Church, (d) their antiquity,
and (e) locations.
  *(a) Quantity.* An obvious objection to the simple argument above is that
the references are not numerous enough to warrant the conclusion that early
Christians prayed to saints:

  If all you have are 5-8 references to a practice, does that really prove
that it was normal for Christians? There are so many other texts that do not
refer to this practice.

  In response, we must indeed grant 5-8 references do not conclusively prove
that it was normal. But the sparseness of these numbers should not be
grounds for dismissing the evidence, which might still make it probable that
prayers to saints was a normal practice. Many Christian writings have been
destroyed over the centuries. Many things Christians considered important
were not written down until later times when it became easier to be a
Christian. And the fact that this practice is not referred to in all texts
is also not grounds for denying that it was normal. After all, not every
writer would write about everything pertaining to Christian life and faith.
And we do not assume that because St. Clement of Rome does not refer to St.
Mary’s betrothal to Joseph that he therefore does not believe in it. Absence
of evidence is not always evidence of absence. Furthermore, if we pick a
doctrine like the eternal generation of the Son, the few handfuls of
references to it in pre-Nicene Christianity, and the lack of objection to
it, are considered adequate grounds for saying it is likely that the
pre-Nicene Church believed it. And though the attestation of prayers to
saints is not as numerous, we can apply the same criteria and say: why not
think that it is somewhat likely that the pre-Nicene Church practiced
prayers to saints?

  *(b) Orthodoxy.* A second problem arises when we ask about the orthodoxy of
the writers:

  Not every opinion expressed by early Christians was genuinely Christian.
Many of the authors mentioned above held questionable beliefs. Hermas’
Christology is quite suspect, appearing sometimes to identify the Logos and
the Holy Spirit. St. Hippolytus was a schismatic. Origen, for all his piety,
held to a highly-Platonized version of Christianity, which included
believing in an eternal cycle of fall and redemption, as well as a
questionable Christology that seems at different points Nicene, Nestorian,
or Arian. St. Clement of Alexandria’s thought has Gnosticizing tendencies.
St. Cyprian believed in the total invalidity of heretical baptisms. And of
course with the many anonymous inscriptions and texts included, we cannot be
sure that the writers were representing actual Christian teaching at the
time. Perhaps all of these writers were heretics on this exact same point:
they all thought prayers to saints were permissible.

  By way of reply, there are not just a few, but many examples of Christians
favorable to these practices. There are between 5 and 8 examples of
Christians explicitly praying to saints documented above. There are no
examples of orthodox Christians opposed to these practices. Even if not all
of the writers are totally orthodox (by Protestant, Roman Catholic, or
Eastern Orthodox standards) or if the orthodoxy of some is in doubt, the
number of testimonies will outweigh questions about the detailed correctness
of their faith. If all of those who prayed to saints held an heretical
belief in common, then that might be grounds for thinking this belief led to
the practice of prayers to saints. Then perhaps we would have reason to
dismiss their testimony, and say that they all fabricated this practice
based on their private heretical opinions. But such is not the case.

  *(c) Office.* An objection based on the office or position of the witnesses
can be voiced as follows:

  Not all of the prayers to saints are known to be made by bishops or priests
or deacons. The anonymous inscriptions might not be made by official
teachers. We can hardly take these as representative sources of Christian
teaching at the time if we do not know who said them.

  In reply, the fact that we do have confirmation from bishops and presbyters
shows that prayers to saints were considered permissible by at least some
teachers. Also, though it would be suspicious if only the laypeople in one
location were favorable to a practice, the fact that the practice is
widespread (see below) makes it less-likely that this is an isolated
lay-movement, transmitted by lay-theology. And we must also bear in mind the
attitude that teachers had towards writings of non-teachers that expressed
prayers to saints. For instance, St. Irenaeus did not refer to prayers to
saints in his writings. But he did think that the book called the Shepherd
of Hermas was Scripture. Hence he wrote:

Truly, then, the Scripture declared, which says, “First of all believe that
there is one God, who has established all things, and completed them, and
having caused that from what had no being, all things should come into
existence:” (book ii. sim. 1.) He who contains all things, and is Himself
contained by no one.

  [13]

  This suggests that St. Irenaeus believed that the Shepherd’s doctrines were
true (whether he believed absolutely all of them were true, or whether he
accurately interpreted them all is another story). But if much of Hermas’
book is full of prayers to saints, and St. Irenaeus regarded that book as
Scripture, then there must be some kind of presumption that St. Irenaeus
believed that prayers to saints were permissible.

  *(d) Antiquity.* Perhaps we can object to the argument that prayers to
saints was a common practice by saying the references are not early enough:

  Hermas may be early, but he is less-trustworthy. St. Hippolytus is later,
writing in the third century. Origen is not very trustworthy, and he is
writing later. The papyri are mid-to-late third century and early fourth.
This could be an instance of the gradual corruption of Christianity,
admitting more and more of paganism as it became acclimated to its
surrounding culture.

  The earliest datable example of a prayer to saints we have is from Hermas,
whether we pick the earlier (85-90) or the later date (140-155). That means
we have at least one reference probably from before 155. An advantage to the
witness of St. Hippolytus is that he is liturgically hyper-conservative;
this makes it much more likely that his prayer to the Three Holy Youths
reflects a practice that predates the writing of his commentary (202-211).
Perhaps in the 190s, when he was about 20 years old, St. Hippolytus would
begin to care about which practices were established and which were not. If
so, he would be unlikely to adopt a practice that did not have some pedigree
and at least an apparently reliable claim to apostolicity. So it is likely
that here we have implicit attestation to the practice being older than 170.
If St. Irenaeus approves of Hermas’ prayers to saints, then he is also an
example of someone who approves of prayers to saints in AD 180 while he
wrote Against Heresies. But again, it is likely that he believed in this
before he wrote the text itself, which should put us back at least a decade
by conservative estimates; so he gives attestation to permission of prayers
to saints around 170 as well. Origen’s work in the early 200s likely does
not reflect a new practice in Egypt, given that the practice was probably in
place elsewhere. So let us be conservative in dating the practice and say
that he believed in prayers to saints by 240. The papyrus from 250 could
perhaps be pushed back another decade to 240 as well. The dates of the other
texts are less-certain, but again, the origination of a practice generally
precedes its first recorded incident. So by a conservative date for the
origins of the practice, we have about five references to prayers to saints
before 250. If we are more liberal and read the evidence charitably, then we
should take Christians at their word when they speak of the Church as a
conservative institution that preserved and did not create traditions, and
if we grant that its teachers thought they could trace their doctrinal
lineage back to the Apostles, then we should be inclined to grant that this
practice was indeed Apostolic in origin. Regardless of how early we date
these writings or their sources, for fairness sake we should think about how
early the records of doctrines like eternal generation have to be in order
for us to think they were taught by the pre-Nicene Church as part of
Apostolic tradition. Applying this kind of standard makes it difficult to
deny that prayers to saints were quite early.

  *(e) Location.* Finally, let us consider the possibility that the locations
of the sources are not widespread enough:

  Much of the practice is concentrated in Rome—with Hermas and Hippolytus.
And it is no surprise that we see the inscriptions to deceased Christians
here too.

  However, it is false to say that the evidence just reflects a Roman belief.
St. Irenaeus, if we may include him, was located in present day Lyons,
France. But he probably grew up in Asia Minor, based on the fact that he
learned from St. Polycarp. We can combine this testimony with that of the
Egyptians: Origen, St. Clement, and the papyrus. If we again grant that the
Church was a conservative institution and was not making things up on a wide
scale, then it is plausible that St. Irenaeus picked up belief in prayers to
saints while still in Asia Minor.

*Conclusion:*

  We are left with at least three significant locations where several
Christians (including some official teachers) believed in prayers to saints
at a relatively early date, perhaps almost a century before Nicea. This may
not prove to those with a Protestant mindset that the practice is Apostolic.
Nor will it convince every listener that the prayers to saints were
practiced “everywhere, at all times, by all”. But it does provide some
evidence that the practice was quite widespread, quite early, and taught by
some important Christians. If we abide by the same standards of evidence
that we use for other doctrines (the eternal generation of the Son, baptism
in the name of the Trinity, the divinity of the Holy Spirit) then it is hard
to deny that prayers to saints were common among early Christians.

*Endnotes *

  [1] For a review of the dating controversy, see the Wikipedia page:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherd_of_Hermas#Authorship_and_date

[2] The Commentary is available online for free here:
http://www.chronicon.net/chroniconfiles/Hippolytus%20Commentary%20on%20Daniel%20\
by%20TC%20Schmidt.pdf

[3]
http://books.google.com/books?id=o1O1ITrJo-EC&pg=PA143&dq=origen+prayers+to+sain\
ts&hl=en&ei=EbExTsL6A4bHsQLn9d3gCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0C\
C8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=origen%20prayers%20to%20saints&f=false

[4] Published in Oxy. Pap. 1786 along with the music it was sung to, and
again in PO 18.507. The papyrus has a 3rd century mercantile account on the
reverse side. The hymn must therefore have been in Egypt soon after the time
of Athenagoras. Reference from the introduction to Athenagoras in Embassy
for the Christians, The Resurrection of the Dead (Ancient Christian Writers,
23)

[5] Taken from John Ryland’s papyrus #470, referenced here:
http://theoblogoumena.blogspot.com/2007/08/john-rylands-papyrus-470.html

[6] These two references taken from Catholic Answers:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp

[7] Reference from The Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante-Nicene Church by
Frederick Edward Warren available online here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=C4YRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA154&dq=origen+prayers+to+sain\
ts&hl=en&ei=EbExTsL6A4bHsQLn9d3gCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0C\
EkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=origenprayers
to saints&f=false

[8] These three references taken from Catholic Answers:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp

[9] Reference taken from The Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante-Nicene Church

[10] Text available at: http://www.gnosis.org/library/actjohn.htm. For
discussion and analysis see pages 94-98 in Steven Bigham’s Early Christian
Attitudes Towards Images.

[11] Quoted from Bigham, pg 100-102

[12] See the excellent essay “Prayers of Jews to Angels and Other Mediators
in the First Centuries CE” available here:
  http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~testsm/Angels_Intermed.html
  Part of the book Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity,
available here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=MnaIr_rovqUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=saints+and+\
role+models+in+judaism+and+christianity&hl=en&ei=GAMyTtC_JNGfsQK9yv2lCw&sa=X&oi=\
book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[13] See The Shepherd of Hermas 1.5 available here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.ii.ii.v.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]