The Final Destruction of Demons

Final is not a word you often hear in Christian teaching. Most Christians leave the final things until, well, the End. But this is not the language of the fathers nor of the Church. A good illustration can be found in the Orthodox service of Holy Baptism. During the blessing of the waters the priest prays:

And grant to [this water] the grace of redemption, the blessing of Jordan. Make it the fountain of incorruption, the gift of sanctification, the remission of sins, the remedy of infirmities; the final destruction of demons, unassailable by hostile powers, filled with angelic might. Let those who would ensnare Your creature flee far from it. For we have called upon Your Name, O Lord, and it is wonderful, and glorious, and awesome even to adversaries.

What can it possibly mean to ask that the waters be made “the final destruction of demons”?

The nature of the waters of Baptism reveals the Orthodox understanding of the world. These waters, now in a font, are none other than the waters of the Jordan. They are an incorruptible fountain and all the things we ask for. They are the final destruction of demons because they are nothing other than Christ’s Pascha. The waters of the font are Christ’s death on the Cross and His destruction of Hades. They are the resurrection of the dead.

For this reason St. Paul can say:

Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4).

The realism of St. Paul’s teaching on Baptism is mystical realism (to coin a phrase). These waters become those waters. This event becomes that event. This time is now that time. Christ’s death now becomes my death. Christ’s resurrection now becomes my resurrection.

How utterly and uselessly weak is the thought that Baptism is merely an obedience to a command given by Christ! The idea that nothing happens in Baptism is both contrary to Scripture and a denial of the very nature of our salvation.

The anti-sacramentalism (and non-sacramentalism) of some Christian groups is among the most unwittingly pernicious of all modern errors. Thought to be an argument about a minor point of doctrine, it is, instead, the collapse of the world into the empty literalism of secularity. In the literalism of the modern world (where a thing is a thing is a thing), nothing is ever more than what is seen. Thus every spiritual reality, every mystery, must be referred elsewhere – generally to the mind of God and the believer. Christianity becomes an ideology and a fantasy. It turns religious believing into a two-storey universe.

The reality of in the Incarnate God was not obvious to those around Him: no surgery would have revealed His Godhood. The proclamation of the Gospel, from its most primitive beginnings (“the Kingdom of God is at hand”), announces the in-breaking of a mystical reality. Many modern theologians misunderstand Christ’s (and St. John the Baptist’s) preaching on the Kingdom to refer to an imminent end of the age. They hear, “The Kingdom of heaven is at hand,” to mean, “the End of the world is near.” Thus we have protestant theologians creating an “interim ethic” to cover Christian activity in the “in-between” period – between Christ’s first coming and His second. If the coming of the incarnate God into the world did not fundamentally alter something, then the preaching of Jesus was in vain and radically misunderstood by His disciples.

The Gospels presume and proclaim at every turn that in Christ, the Kingdom of God is present. Christ says, “But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Lk 11:20). There is a mystery at work in the presence of the Kingdom. Christ makes statements such as that just quoted, but also frequently says that the Kingdom of God has come near. The Kingdom is a reality and a presence that has both come near us, and come upon us. But in neither case does it simply refer to a later “someday.” The urgency of the proclamation of the Kingdom is not caused by the soon approach of an expected apocalypse. Its preaching is urgent because its coming has already begun!

The sacraments of the Church (indeed the Church itself) should never be reduced to “holy moments” or “instances of miracles” in the life of an otherwise spiritually inert world. If bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, then the Kingdom of God has come upon us! And nothing less.

The sacramental life of the Church is not an aspect of the Church’s life – it is a manifestation of the whole life of the Church. It is, indeed, the very character and nature of the Church’s life. The Church does not have sacraments – the Church is a sacrament. We do not eat sacraments or just participate in the sacraments – we are sacraments. The sacraments reveal the true character of our life in Christ. This is why St. Paul can say:

I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ liveth in me, etc. (Galatians 2:20)

I am…nevertheless I…yet not I…but Christ….  This is the language of the mystical reality birthed into the world in the Incarnation of Christ. Thus we can say: This is the Blood of Christ…nevertheless you see bread…but it is not bread…but Christ’s Body sacrificed for you. This is the Hades of Christ’s death and the Paradise of His resurrection…nevertheless it is the water of Baptism…but it is not water…but Christ’s death and resurrection into which you are baptized.

And so we see the whole world – for the “whole world is sacrament” – in the words of Patriarch Bartholomew. We struggle with language to find a way to say “is…nevertheless…yet not…but is.” This is always the difficulty in expressing the mystery. It is difficult, not because it is less than real, but because of the character and nature of its reality. Modern Christian thought and language that simply dismiss the mystery and postpone its coming, or  deny the character of its reality, change the most essential elements of the Christian faith and inadvertently create a new religion.

But we have been taught something different. We have been given the Final Destruction of Demons, the Mystical Supper, the Kingdom of God. Why should we look for something less?

 

About Fr. Stephen Freeman

Fr. Stephen is a retired Archpriest of the Orthodox Church in America. He is also author of Everywhere Present: Christianity in a One-Storey Universe, and Face to Face: Knowing God Beyond Our Shame, as well as the Glory to God podcast series on Ancient Faith Radio.



Posted

in

, ,

by

Comments

391 responses to “The Final Destruction of Demons”

  1. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    …”if”, not “of”

  2. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    No. They loved Him, but, they did this as a child loves his parents, (Immaturely) as the prodigal loved his father when he was a child in the house, knowing not good and evil experientially. Desiring its knowledge from the position of the self (self-centredly)
    Saint Maximus in fact (exceptionally) does not even allow for this ‘time’ but said that they “immediately” fell far various reasons…

    When they fell and became like the prodigal in the faraway land, knowing good and evil, even their mind became like a mind in a faraway land (compared to their heart).

    But when a Saint loves God, or when Adam repented, or when we repent, then this love towards Him has a completely different maturity (as the prodigal did after his return). Mind then returns to the heart.
    We love Him having known good and evil, yet not desiring something besides God anymore… (nothing at all)

    St John Chrysostom said that if all scripture was lost and we were left with the parable of the prodigal that would be enough…!

  3. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    “I would contend that within Protestant Christianity there is no such thing as “free will.””

    Indeed. This is the perhaps the most dire aspect of the Protestant heresy.

    As for freedom in heaven: This is far beyond our comprehension. Even the most holy saints tread gingerly around such an issue — if they approach it at all. St Chrysologus speaks of “an unshakable harmony, a secure peace, a persevering grace” that “joins and unites” the wills of the saints to the God “who is all in all.” St. Paul tells us that in the end there will be only love — and many are the saints who say that the will is perfected in the fire of divine love.

    But you and I are so impure, so lacking in true wisdom … After a certain point, our talk is but empty clanging, speculation that will lead to frustration and intellectualizaiton rather than humility and charity. We can barely understand freedom here and now, never mind before the face of incomprehensible God.

  4. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    dinoship: Thanks for your reply.

    The degree or kind of love was not at the core of my question. I simply wanted to clarify that “free will” is not necessary for love. I utterly reject the notion that love cannot grow unless the opposite is presented as an option.

    The very nature of this nature in which we reside is growth. A seed does not actually die before the plant springs forth. It already contains the embryo of that plant and grows under favorable conditions.

    I see no reason why human love should be any different (again, presuming that the Garden story is in any way true).

    My second issue with the Fall story is that it says something about god that I find horrifying. Even if mankind did disobey god, it says something pretty awful about god that all people from that point forward would, by default, be separated from him. If he couldn’t forgive a triviality and he cursed the kids as well… You see my difficulty?

    I deny that things “had to” be that way. It defies everything we know about goodness, kindness, love and mercy.

    These are why I found the story to be untrue even as poetry or a metaphysical explanation of why we are the way we are. If god was involved in any way, things are the way they are and we are the way we are because that’s how he intended it to be. I see no other possible explanation. And I’m not willing to accept such a being as anything but scary as hell.

  5. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    ” I utterly reject the notion that love cannot grow unless the opposite is presented as an option.”

    This isn’t really what I mean when I say that love requires freedom. What I mean is, true love is the total gift of one’s self to and for the sake of the other. And this offering is only genuine if it is made by choice. No one can compel someone to love someone else. Indeed, that usually causes hatred and fear and resentment.

    As for the seed: Well, it’s an analogy. It’s not perfect, but it certainly conveys the message. If it was good enough for Christ — not to mention Dostoevsky — it’s good enough for me. 😉 That said, I think you’re right to notice the element of growth. The form of the seed perishes, but in doing so, its true, albeit hidden, nature is revealed. This is just like the Christian life. Good insight.

  6. Brian Van Sickle Avatar
    Brian Van Sickle

    “Conversely, others give all manner of data/reasoning without directly answering the question, though they believe that the data/reasoning is the answer. It is a common symptom among political and religious minded people.”

    John S.,

    If I have in any way participated in this (and I probably have), I apologize.

  7. Rhonda Avatar

    John Shores:

    I am still around. I am working on an answer for you, however, I am running it through my priest first. Also, family & work demands are a factor. Please be patient 🙂

  8. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    John S. –

    I haven’t been able to keep up with this entire thread, so forgive me if my comment misses the mark.

    RE: the fall. You seem very well read regarding C.S. Lewis. Have you read “A Severe Mercy” by Sheldon VanAuken? It contains quite a few of Lewis’ letters to the author. Aside from that, VanAuken tells a story of “The Fall” that might address some of your concerns…

    Blessings.

  9. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John S,
    your view of the Fall is, like for most westerners, extremely influenced by western thinking. Mine was too. It is the world we live in…
    I dare say it is part of the Fall that we see the Fall in those colours and that we see God s anything but good.
    The Fathers of the Church though often say that it was one of the great gifts given to man…
    “When man failed to believe and trust God in his immaturity, God allowed for him to become matured through tasting the subsequent pain, (fall) so that he could come to his senses and one day freely say, God if only I knew that you were my only friend all along and I was my real enemy” (Abba Dorotheus)
    It is, as stated earlier the perfect pedagogy of “consequences” rather than punishment. Think of the Prodigal and you will not go astray…It is a crucial point!

    Regarding love and free will, there is always a “voluntarity” regarding love, the option for the opposite or not is less of an issue, the issue is that an automaton cannot achieve the “image and likeness” that Man can due to his freedom.

  10. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    ‘God couldn’t forgive a trivialty and he cursed the kids as well. You see my difficulty?’

    John Shores

    Maybe. If we can understand that God doesn’t have granchildren only children. I believe that christianity can only be understood by way of the resurrection of Jesus as Fr. Stephen has said. Thus the question is: Did He really rise from the dead. If one answers no, then christianity is irrelevant and one might as well be a Hindu, Buddhist, atheist. If yes, then Jesus of Nazareth has done something that no other person has ever done and Christianity makes a world of difference. Viewed from the resurrection the cross becomes a sacrifice and not merely another Roman execution. The story of Adam and Eve is true because every child of God, every Adam and Eve who ever lived (excepting the new Adam and new Eve) has listened to and followed the devil and his demons. That is history, and the resurrection is His-story of redemption. Can we find a way ourselves to be good people living in peace with each other? The issue is life and death because there is one thing worse than listening to and following the devil and his demons, and that is actually becoming one. Thus we come to ‘The final destruction of Demons’.
    God’s covenants with his children included blessings and curses. We chose to break every covenant choosing the curses over the blessings. In the new covenant, God even accepts blame for those curses because ‘cursed is anyone hung on a tree’. I view that as a God of love, kindness and mercy.

    Ray

  11. CarieG Avatar
    CarieG

    Hello, I have been following this conversation from the beginning, and find it fascinating and enlightening and, at times, entertaining 🙂 I visit your blog, Fr. Stephen, because I find you open my heart and mind, both, to a deeper understanding of the mysterious work of Christ and His Church. Dear friends, so that you can know me, I should say I am neither Orthodox, nor Roman, nor Protestant, nor Evangelical, nor Fundamental. But I have tasted from the fount of all of these. There is just one thing that has been on my heart here that I wanted to say, and that is – John Shores, I am so, so sorry for the way you were abused with the faith. And I admire your sincerity and honesty in the wake of that. May the Beautiful Spirit of God lead you into all truth as you continue to seek.

  12. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    dinoship: How is this freedom expressed? Can you cite examples that do not have the same roots as the behaviors of other primates?

    Being of a sensitive nature, I find the idea of fallenness being a gift to be somewhat distasteful. Knowing that billions would suffer just so that everyone would have the possibility of learning to love “maturely” seems to be overkill.

    Ray: I was referring to the children of Adam/Eve. By rights, if god only has children then each of us should be born innicent and given the same testing grounds that A/E had. But this is not so. We each are born in a “fallen state” without even the option of exercising love without sin.

    I just don’t see the value if starting everyone off at a disadvantage. No one hopes that their child is born deformed.

    Carie: Thanks for your kind words. I do have very definite feelings about how Christians indoctrinate their children. I could have done with a lot less of the OT and more of the beatitudes as a child. But my father believed in a severe god. THis is why I think it’s important in our schools and our Sunday Schools to teach children how to ask questions rather than telling them what to think. Asking the right questions is a valuable skill that too many people lack (hence the current state of affairs in our nation and our churches).

    The problem with dogma is that when someone works up the nerve to ask questions, too often they are met with callous nonsense by the dogmatists. You have no idea how difficult it is to find a blog or forum like this where an honest person asking questions can dialogue with “Christians” without begin rebuffed by their malice and ignorance. If more “Christians” were like this community here, there would be far fewer antagonistic atheists and agnostics out there. I am grateful to be able to have these discussions.

  13. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Fr. Stephen – I think you meant for your last post here to be on the other thread about Ritual…?

  14. Rhonda Avatar

    Rhonda: I very propose that you understand neither love nor free-will…It seems a simple question to me. Did Adam love Eve? Did they love god before the Fall? Isn’t the whole point of salvation to reach (via Christ) a state after this life in which everyone simply loves without having to contend with the sin nature? Does god had a choice to sin or not? That there is “free will” does not mean that there has to be “free will” in order to have love.

    Except for the extra word typo “very”, I stand by my statement. Sorry for any confusion on this. My mind was thinking of several different wordings to answer you comment. I do want to state also that I truly meant no offense by it & hope that I did not come across as crass or rude.

    If the choices are “Love me or burn in hell” then there’s really no choice, is there?

    You just answered your own predicament here, John, as well as confirmed my statement. Love cannot be forced in any way or else it is not love. My husband cannot force me to love him by shouting, “Love me or I will divorce you!” nor can God force us to love Him with “Love me or burn in hell!” Love just does not work that way. My husband can encourage me to love him (& he did or else we would never have married) by showing his love for me through acts of kindness & love. He can also discourage me from loving him through acts lacking kindness & love. But he cannot force my love with “or else”. Love is only possible when a relationship—a union—exists with another in which one or both sides may end it—free-will; “or else” does not allow for this; & therefore this scenario is many things (abuse, manipulation, extortion), it is not & cannot be union.

    Many focus on commands issued by God in the OT in order to justify their preconceived notions that God is cruel, angry & vindictive. However, they seldom if ever notice the free-will (choices) that God also put before His children (Deut. 30:19, Joshua 24:15, 1 Kings 18:21) nor do they acknowledge the choices of the children. Nor do they acknowledge or understand the ultimate purpose or teaching behind all of the 618 laws which were two: 1) love God & 2) love others. IOW, the purpose of the OT law was to train God’s children in relationships/unions of mutual love. The OT covenant was not forced upon the Israelites, they chose to come under it…they made a deal, a contract, with God Himself. God never broke the contract, the people did by the committing of unloving acts (idolatry, abusing the foreigner living among them, not having compassion on the unfortunate, devising ways to circumvent the laws & etc.). Just as there are consequences today when breaking a contract (just try not paying on your house or car loans & see how long you continue to own them), so too then were there consequences.

    Isn’t the whole point of salvation to reach (via Christ) a state after this life in which everyone simply loves without having to contend with the sin nature?

    For the Orthodox no, this is not salvation. Salvation for the Orthodox is union with God, a union of mutual love or communion (common union). This union of love with God, which we enter into freely & may exit from freely, heals us from the unnatural condition of sin & death. There is no “sin nature” when one is in full communion with God. I like dinoship’s reference to immature vs. mature love. Until full communion is reached (at the final fulfillment of the Glorious Second Coming) our love for God will always have an element of the immature. At no time do the Orthodox view salvation as a goal of attaining the reward of Heaven &/or avoiding the punishment of Hell. For the Orthodox, Heaven is union with God while Hell is not having union with God. This union is started while living in our physical bodies & continues after physical death; so too does the lack of union.

    Does god had (have) a choice to sin or not?

    To quote Fr. Stephen, a dog will always act like a dog… So, too will God always act like God & in accordance with His nature which is Love. Any belief, doctrine or theological framework that portrays God as anything else other than Love is error. Any understanding/interpretation of the Holy Scriptures that render God as anything else other than Love is also error. The theological framework of Protestantism does this when God is rendered to be cruel, angry & vindictive. Such things are not in accordance to the nature of God, who is by nature Love.

    Finally, someone commented that this discussion thread of love & free-will is merely tangential to Fr. Stephen’s article “The Final Destruction of Demons” & therefore unimportant to the unoriginal posting. I disagree. Fr. Stephen is correct when he states that the demons are destroyed by the Baptismal waters (not to mention the other mysteries) which those without far-sighted thinking quickly limited his article to only the incorporeal kind. Also included in this final destruction are those that we continue to carry around with us, such as the demon of a cruel, angry & vindictive “god”. This type of “demon-god” does not exist (nor has it ever existed in the true reality where God is everywhere present & filling all things) except in a faulty theological framework where it has a rampant & destructive existence that is truly “horrifying” as you put it.

  15. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    So, too will God always act like God & in accordance with His nature which is Love. Any belief, doctrine or theological framework that portrays God as anything else other than Love is error.

    This rather begs what I am trying to convey. If that is simply god’s nature and it is immutable, what’s so hard to believe about god creating man “in his image” and with the same immutable nature which is love? Why would that kind of a man be somehow less than the man who has to struggle to love? We may admire someone who has overcome an amputation and won a marathon but we do not fail to admire a healthy person who wins a marathon.

    Said another way, you do not say, “Let’s chop of everyone’s legs so that they can learn how to run with a prosthetic.” That is what the “free will” argument sounds like to me.

  16. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John Shores,

    “dinoship: How is this freedom expressed? Can you cite examples that do not have the same roots as the behaviors of other primates?”

    The fact that a person can go against his nature (call it fallen nature if you like) in order to be sacrificed for the unseen God Whom he experiences in an ineffable way as a fire burning his very heart and piercing his very bones is something we cannot ever find in any ‘other animal’ or primate. Saint Ignatius is a very fine example of this fire, as are the martyrs in general…
    We are back to the idea of the Cross!
    Christ shows us what it is to be God, as well as what it is to be fully human (as “called” to be by our Creator), but, He does this in the way that he dies as a human being… Voluntarily going to His death (as One on Whom death has no claim). He thus shows me how dying makes me enter into real Life, a freely sacrificial Life.” (Father John Berr)

    I find the idea of fallenness being a gift to be somewhat distasteful. Knowing that billions would suffer just so that everyone would have the possibility of learning to love “maturely” seems to be overkill.

    We always have the choice not to suffer in order to learn love, few take it! Our attachment to our Ego is inconceivable!
    St John the Theologian and the Mother of God did not need to be martyred as a Father (I cannot recall) said because they were so humble and pure that they learnt to love even without suffering, very few do! Besides, the person who learns to love with that fire WANTS to suffer. St John the Theologian and the Mother of God (the two at the Cross) suffered, not in order to learn to love, but because they loved. Above all Christ did this!
    There are three inevitable Crosses in this life (the Cross is always at the centre). One is futile – that of the unbeliever, “Yestus”, the thief on the left-, one is of the believer – St “Desmas”, the thief on the right- and one, the ‘heaviest’, is of Christ – the Lover of Mankind who DESIRES more than anything to suffer out of love…
    I mentioned St Ignatius a few times because you can clearly see in his words the ‘inverted’ understanding imparted through that fire, the true love of God.
    In his words: he “cannot wait to be birthed” (he means to die as a martyr), he “does not want to die” (meaning to carry on living!)
    His is the fire of Christ’s Cross (hence the name Ignatius)

  17. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    So, in a nutshell: voluntary suffering through such fiery love is something so divine that it cannot be found in any animals, yet we have seen it in Man.

  18. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    “If that is simply god’s nature and it is immutable, what’s so hard to believe about god creating man “in his image” and with the same immutable nature which is love?”

    Do not compare created with uncreated. Time and space bound with All encompassing…
    The theology of God’s freedom is utterly beyond our rational understanding.
    We say theologically for instance:
    “He freely wills to exist” (we say this as if He “could not” exist! – His choice is to exist!)
    “He freely Loves” (as if He can “not love” – even though He is Love)
    It is anthropomorphic to say His nature is to Love in fact, because He freely (free from any possible “nature constraints”, chooses, always to do nothing but love.

    Creatures cannot understand that mode of existence rationally, it is futile to try to. Creatures are never asked if they want to exist, it is a given, they do not have that type of freedom. (Even though they can paradoxically taste it for eternity through union with their Creator.)
    They cannot understand how God’s “inability” not to Love all that exists unconditionally (including the Devil !) is combined with a total freedom of always willing this freely…
    If a creature became unable to not love, then it would be freedom-restricted and bound by it’s nature. God’s gift of freedom is therefore a necessary prerequisite in order for us to learn that free Love that He is (which we cannot rationally describe in our createdness as I explained)

  19. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    John Shores,
    It’s all rather straight-forward. If Christ is risen from the dead, then He is the key to interpreting the OT (Jn. 5:39). If Christ is risen from the dead, then the OT is rightly and radically reinterpreted. The revelation of who God is would be Christ and not the image of the wrathful torturer, etc. This radical reinterpretation is, in fact, the Orthodox Tradition to a large extent.

    Again, it begins with the resurrection of Christ. To think in an Orthodox manner on these things (or to answer the questions in an Orthodox manner), everything begins with the resurrection of Christ. Then we move backwards (through history and read it according to the Truth as made known in Christ) and forward in which all things are being made known in Christ who is the Alpha and Omega.

    But you cannot work through history to prove the resurrection or prove Christ. We cannot work backwards to prove Him. We approach the resurrection on the witness of the Apostles and proceed from there.

    Only if Jesus is raised from the dead can we say that there is a good God. If there is a good God, then, as I’ve stated, we re-read the OT. Radically. The conversation begins at the tomb of Christ.

  20. Andrew Avatar

    Well said Father Steve — absolutely spot on!

  21. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    John Shores said: “Said another way, you do not say, “Let’s chop of everyone’s legs so that they can learn how to run with a prosthetic.” That is what the “free will” argument sounds like to me.”

    I agree with you John. Maybe it would help to define the term “fallen”. Protestant (and even RC) thinking is that we were all born with legs chopped off – because of Adam and Eve. This stems from St. Augustine’s theory of original sin.

    The Orthodox say (someone will correct me if I’m wrong) that we were born with the tendency to do things that will get our legs chopped off. In our hearts we have the original good desires that God gave us but because we’re fallen, we easily turn toward things other than God – our true heart’s desire.

    In the Garden everything was handed to us. I have observed in my lifetime that human beings don’t seem to want it like that. We are determined to go through the school of hard knocks method instead – for whatever reason.

    So God gives each of us the opportunity to consciously choose Him. And the reason it’s a struggle to do so has all to do with us and our fallen tendencies and nothing to do with Him making things hard on us or being cruel.

    I know there are still a lot of pieces missing from the puzzle but I hope this helps in some way.

  22. Rhonda Avatar

    The Final Destructin of Demons:
    this topic is just like the Energizer Bunny–it just keeps going & going &… 😉

  23. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    drewster2000,

    regarding St Augustin, the misuse of our original good desires, the ‘school of hard knocks’, well said 🙂

    We say that man is never inherently evil, -the Enemy uses what is good in us to deceive us. And, The best thing in us becomes the worst when misused. So, our desire for union with God, is hidden behind our most fallen/perverted desires.
    Remember the original question of the serpent to Eve?
    Seen another way though, we now say that God is what I really want when I am hungry, thirsty, when I lust for pleasure or when I am magnetised by any of creation. This notion helps reorient one’s soul.

  24. Eleftheria Avatar
    Eleftheria

    Dinoship –

    “Besides, the person who learns to love with that fire WANTS to suffer”

    So much of what you write reminds me of the words of +Geronda Paisios! I can hardly wait until all of his volumes are translated into English and published – they will be of such help to so many.

    Blessings,
    Eleftheria

  25. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    I think that this connection of true love with a fervor to suffer is the essence of living out the Cross.
    It is not painful, but joyous, when God’s grace fans and inspires it.

    It is particularly connected to the love of ‘enemies’, when inspired thus. And it is yet another marked difference form ‘natural’ love or any animal love… (JohnS)
    It signifies authenticity of Spirit.

    I remember that when asked: “How should one discern a genuine union with God from imagined experiences of philosophical or pantheistic nature?” Saint Silouan gave this criterion: “loving the enemies” and “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there rules unconditionally humble love for the enemy and prayer for the world” .

  26. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    JS,
    You wouldn’t find that (last sentence) in any primates!
    😉

  27. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    I don’t know how to respond except with frustration.

    it begins with the resurrection of Christ.

    Regardless of where it begins, the questions arise because of the Cross and/or resurrection. I simply cannot have faith without some level of reasonableness to it.

    In our hearts we have the original good desires that God gave us but because we’re fallen

    You see? There is no escaping it. The faith requires accepting that we are born handicapped. This is why this story gives me such trouble.

    We say that man is never inherently evil

    A day in a room full of two year olds will dispel this idea.

    “loving the enemies”…”You wouldn’t find that in any primates!”

    Yes, you will: http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html

    “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there rules unconditionally humble love for the enemy and prayer for the world”

    I double-dog-dare you to give one example in all of human history (outside of the god-man) where this has been proven true. Not one human being has lived this truth either before or after Christ without “falling” (e.g. behaving like a human being) again. No, not one.

  28. Edward Curreri Avatar

    AHJ is looking for partners in the medicine niche. AHJ is a medicine content site containing a significant library of high quality health videos. We are seeking site owners who may be interested in featuring our videos. We can offer content exchanges, link exchanges, and exposure to your brand. Contact us at our contact form on our site.

  29. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    “loving the enemies” and “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there rules unconditionally humble love for the enemy and prayer for the world”

    You wouldn’t find that (last sentence) in any primates!

    Certainly not the Primate of the CEC.

  30. Andrew Avatar

    JS – are you sure about that? I mean, unequivocally?

  31. CarieG Avatar
    CarieG

    By their fruit you will recognize them.
    Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Matt 7:20-21)

    What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)

    That, of course, applies to me, and you, and any Primate.

  32. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    John S.

    You pose many good questions. I think of free will as one of the things that differentiates us from daisies. Daisies cannot choose to be good or bad daisies – nor do they suffer. But they also do not have the option to go beyond just being a flower that’s here and gone.

    I know people have been throwing at you so much reading material that no one could possibly take it all in. If you are interested in just a few pages, here is a link to something I wrote about evil and suffering a few years ago. I’m sure there are flaws in my thinking but I have struggled with such notions myself. https://www.box.com/shared/a1sbx068kt

  33. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    Father Stephen – could you eliminate the comment above? I messed up the link so it goes to the wrong place. Thanks.

  34. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    My day for messing up! Did not realize that Father Stephen is away – so my comment awaiting moderation (in which my link was incorrect probably will not appear anyway). So please forgive any confusion I may have caused.

    Blessings to all.

  35. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    are you sure about that? I mean, unequivocally?

    Absolutely. Although I was jesting about the CEC, “unconditionally humble love” is not to be found in any human at any time in history. This was part 2 of my problem with Christianity (after the Fall); it does not provide an actual cure for this “fallen” state. But that’s an entirely new discussion. (Shall we go for 400 posts?)

  36. Andrew Avatar

    “unconditionally humble love” is not to be found in any human at any time in history. This was part 2 of my problem with Christianity (after the Fall); it does not provide an actual cure for this “fallen” state.

    After Pascha there was no need for a cure.

  37. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    “unconditionally humble love” is not to be found in any human at any time in history

    it is such a pity that the all pervasiveness of the fall leads a person to even say this…
    There is volition in wanting to, or not wanting to find these examples of unconditionally humble love. The Orthodox Saints are all proofs of this very thing you doubt. Repetitions of Christ….
    Martyrs who loved their friends as well as their torturers, who had their limbs chopped off without the smile from their face not even flinching, causing a wave of witnesses to instantly follow their example. Ascetics who prayed for the entirety of Adam to their last breath, with copious tears, more than any grieving mother.
    I could provide a list of names if you want help in your research…
    The examples are endless, many are still alive. But, one needs to search in the right places like a bee looking for nectar, not like a fly looking for dirt…
    “unconditionally humble love” is the natural consequence of God’s touch on a soul.

  38. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    The touch of God that causes this “unconditionally humble love” is “attracted” through (sorely missing) purity though…!
    If one is willing to purify one’s senses as ascetics like Saint Silouan did, then he does “hear Christ speak to him”,indeed he beholds Christ who changes him in the aforementioned manner – filling him with Joy and effortless love towards friends and enemies. This purification is most intimately connected to the ‘subtraction of egoism form our being’ though, – to humility. So, somewhat paradoxically, (not really though): It is humility and purity “attempted” that bring true humility and purity “as a gift”.
    As God in Exodus says, “only to Moses I speak face to face because he is the most humble man on earth” The pridefull Israelites could not stand this and created a visible calf for their unpurified senses to see. There is great depth in that story, mostly missed in its western understanding.
    I am reminded of the hymn we sing on the night of Pascha:

    “Let us purify our senses and we shall behold Christ, radiant with the unapproachable light of the Resurrection, and we shall clearly hear Him say, “Rejoice!” As we sing the triumphal hymn!
    Glory to thy Holy Resurrection oh Lord!

  39. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Re: human examples of unconditionally humble love, a few thoughts . . .

    JS is perhaps a little like the Apostle Thomas. We need to pray perhaps he meets a living example of such in the flesh.

    On the other hand, humility and love are not necessarily simply self-effacement or self debasement, but the ability to see oneself and all things accurately in light of the Truth and be willing to live and speak consistent with that. It seems to me, therefore, a very humble person could be quite bold and assertive in declaring what he sees, and be perceived in our relativistic culture as “prideful” because he is confident in the Truth of something.

    Here is where a degree of purity of heart in the one who perceives comes into play. The capacity to perceive rightly (i.e., a degree of humility) is indeed a requirement as well for someone who wants to see such humble love in another. For someone with a cynical bent, it could take years in the presence of a such a person and being able to see them in quite a few different contexts before it would dawn on him the extent of the love and humility being demonstrated.

  40. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    The reference for the principle I was discussing in my last comment is found in Titus 1:15.

  41. Rhonda Avatar

    John Shores:

    This was part 2 of my problem with Christianity (after the Fall); it does not provide an actual cure for this “fallen” state.

    The “actual cure” has been provided–& that cure is Christ. In Orthodoxy this was the purpose of the Incarnation, Crucifixion & Resurrection.

    After Pascha there was no need for a cure.

    Actually, Pascha WAS the cure!

  42. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    Pascha is the cure indeed; the Christian at every moment experiences what we sing on that blessed night:

    “It is the Day of Resurrection! Let us be radiant, all yea peoples! Pascha! The Lord’s Pascha! For Christ God has brought us from death unto life, and from earth unto Heaven, as we sing the triumphal hymn!”

    …from death unto life…

  43. CarieG Avatar
    CarieG

    “unconditionally humble love” is not to be found in any human at any time in history.

    JS, I agree with you. for the most part. Certainly not in the way we long for and were built (created) for, that is: always and perfectly. Except for Jesus, of course. The rest of us, the lucky ones, maybe taste that kind of love, or experience that kind of love, only sometimes, and imperfectly, from other human beings. I believe even the Saints were completely human and not loving perfectly all the time. That is best left for those in close relationship with them to say.

    But I think the real question, the important one, is – do we long for that? Do we, with honesty, long to be able to love, our friends let alone our enemies, with unconditional humble love? Because if we do, beyond all other longing, that is a sign of the Spirit. We have no way of comprehending that kind of love until we have tasted it as a gift from the only One who IS Love. Without the Spirit, it is impossible, and we are left with the vague stirrings of sentiment or self-preservation. It is the saddest thing of all, to me, that so many self-described ‘Christians’ have never tasted this kind of love from God, and so, not knowing what they are missing, are not able to desire with their whole being to live it.

  44. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    “Ask and you will receive”
    God wants to grant us this gift more than anything, but, as you said CarieG, do we really long for that?
    As St. Isaac of Syria sais: The man who has found love eats and drinks Christ every day and hour and so is made immortal. ‘Whoever eats of this bread’, He says, ‘which I will give him, will never taste death.’ Blessed is he who consumes the bread of love, which is Jesus! He who eats of love eats Christ, the God over all, as John bears witness, saying, ‘God is love.’

    If you are given to taste it even briefly, even once, then you know that the potential exists in your very self. It is through the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, that we can indeed taste it (not primates 🙂 )
    If we could not it would have been folly to be commanded, “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:35)

  45. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    The “actual cure” has been provided–& that cure is Christ.

    Then explain Church history. Looks to me the the church is as equally plagued with defective human beings as any other group of people.

  46. Eleftheria Avatar
    Eleftheria

    John Shores,

    “Looks to me the the church is as equally plagued with defective human beings as any other group of people.”

    We Orthodox KNOW that we humans are defective; that is why we know the Church to be our spiritual hospital. The point is that we continue going to the Church, receiving confession, communion…and most of all, that we continue to pray – corporately (in church)and individually (alone).

    An excellent book on Church history: (Bishop) Timothy Ware: The Orthodox Church.

    Since Fr. Stephen’s original post is on demons, and since you ask about all us defective people in church, I am reminded of something our priest once described:
    In ecstasy, a saint ( I cannot recall who) was being raised by an angel toward heaven. Looking down at earth, he saw his church, but the dome was horribly disfigured – or so it seemed. Terrible beings were crawling all over it. As he looked further, some of those beings were going in and out of the windows. Aghast,he asked the angel, “What are those beings on top of the church?” The angel replied, “Those on top are demons providing misguided thoughts to the people within. Those going in and out of the windows are those who have succeeded in getting any within to entertain those misguided thoughts.”

    In Christ,
    Eleftheria

  47. Rhonda Avatar

    John Shores:

    Looks to me the the church is as equally plagued with defective human beings as any other group of people.

    Quite true! I do not claim that those in the Church are holy, righteous, pure, perfect…I for one certainly know that I am not; nor do I know anyone in the Church who claims to be; & not even our “bearded lumbering bears” will claim such a thing. Furthermore in the writings by our Saints you will not find such claims for themselves, actually just the opposite! Ironically, the only ones that I have ever heard do so are Protestants, although even they are few & far between.

    Just as bodily healing when under the care of a physician is not instantaneous, but rather a process over time, so too is the spirtitual healing (salvation) provided by Christ through the Church.

    Just as bodily healing under a physician requires us patients to closely follow the physician’s guidance & take our medication, so too does salvation require us patients to do our part (prayer, fasting, attending services, participating in the mysteries [sacraments], charitable works, almsgiving, spiritual reading & etc.), i.e. we have to be willing for the healing to occur & to put some effort into it.

    The healing salvation through Christ is available to all, but it takes time, our whole lives in fact! It begins with our Baptism & Chrismation; it continues as we participate in Confession & receive Communion; it develops further when we daily strive to live sacramental lives.

    There are 2 things Orthodoxy does not believe in: 1) instant salvation & 2) once saved always saved (one always has the free-will to turn away from the love of Christ).

  48. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    JohnShores
    The existence of “defective human beings” in Church is like the existence of sick people in a Hospital. Even amongst the Lord’s disciples there will be Judas’s, amongst Paul’s followers Dismas’s, that certainly does not indicate anything like what you are suggesting!
    It does not preclude the simultaneous existence of St. John!
    But, as I said earlier,
    “The examples are endless, many are still alive. But, one needs to search in the right places like a bee looking for nectar, not like a fly looking for dirt…”

    We mustn’t forget that we voluntarily choose to concentrate on the good amongst the dirt like a bee or the dirt amongst the good

  49. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    I meant: “We mustn’t forget that we voluntarily choose to concentrate on the good amongst the dirt like a bee looking for nectar, or the dirt amongst the good like a fly (and then we will always find the Judas’s and Dismas’s) – it is our choice”

  50. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Sometimes I think that far too many of us take a Bill Cosby approach to our faith and our salvation. One of his old routines was about faking being sick so that he did not have to go to school. After school let out he was suddenly well. He explained to his mother: “An angel came down and said..poof, you’re well. Go out and play.”

  51. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John S,
    that reasoning concerning morality in animals is deeply flawed, it reminds me of Carl Sagan’s agnosticism approaching everything through the vehicle of science and scientific reasoning, leaving no room for the knowledge that prerequisites faith.
    For a start, you seem to forget we are clearly referring to “love of enemies“, (in other words)the Cross! the Cross that was born by ALL of Christ’s true disciples… (Not about some ‘cooperation’, ‘morality’, ‘sympathy’ etc. but about “Love of enemies” – the ultimate test of real freedom)

    This is actually a big difference between Protestantism and Orthodoxy you are highlighting:
    Protestantism does not truly believe in disspassion and complete love of all mankind as real possibilities for humans, while Orthodoxy clearly believes and knows it is no more than the first real step (not the last), in the true life of the Spirit. I have personally witnessed a person with such humble love in Mount Athos, and indeed, one cannot remove the thought that such a person is a repetition of Christ when encountering him – a man that has lived up to what he was meant to be. He might be dirty and missing teeth, but you have never encountered such sweet beauty on the face of the earth before!

    However, act “like a bee” and you will find them, act “like a fly” and you will not be able to discern them even when they are staring you in the face!
    Loving your torturers as a martyr – it is this special characteristic (not to be found in other “heroes”) that has changed thousands of witnesses/onlookers through the course of Orthodox Church history, from the thief at the right on the Cross, to the 150 philosopher orators who witnessed St Catherine’s martyrdom, to the man (Elder Sophrony of Essex) who wrote the Life of Saint Silouan I quoted earlier about this “unconditional humble love of enemies”.
    I agree, it is not something you see that often in everyday life in this world, as even amongst so-called Christians, true repentance (which leads to that state as an inevitability) is not even desired. Not really. That does not mean they do not exist though! Far from it…
    If you look at the stories of Martyrs they are resplendent with these examples.
    It can be done, but only from one who believes first… “If thou canst believe! All things are possible to him that believeth”

  52. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    So, first, my post from November 7, 2012 at 5:46 pm was just displayed (sorry Mr. Moderator. I forgot about the link thingy).

    Now…

    We Orthodox KNOW that we humans are defective; that is why we know the Church to be our spiritual hospital… The existence of “defective human beings” in Church is like the existence of sick people in a Hospital.

    First, this implies that there are people who are not in the hospital and are well. But this is not so.

    Second, people who go to the hospital on a regular basis are generally terminally ill and the care they receive is not actually a cure but more maintaining whatever level of health that can be expected. Using this metaphor, Christ becomes no cure at all but perhaps more of a schedule 3 narcotic for pain management.

    What I am talking about is cure, that point at which people leave the hospital as whole beings and go home.

    So, once again, if people are sick both before and after “encountering Christ”, what’s the deal?

    Said another way, I have a hard time believing that such horrific pain, suffering and death (followed by a resurrection) was intended as ingredients for pain management. And yet, there has not been one person cured. So what am I supposed to think then?

    Just as bodily healing when under the care of a physician is not instantaneous, but rather a process over time, so too is the spiritual healing (salvation) provided by Christ through the Church.

    Respectfully, why is it that no one has managed to become whole in all this time then?

    Please don’t read any bitterness or contrariness in this. I simply do not want to settle for pain management if a cure is possible. If a cure is not possible, then I’d like to know that up front.

    This is why I tend toward the biology potential rather than a “fallen state” possibility. With biology, we have a method of looking for a way to alter humans so that they are naturally altruistic and whatnot. The spiritual path (of any religion) has not demonstrated efficacy in altering human beings.

    Which always circles me back – if there is no cure then was there really a disease to begin with? I just don’t see that there is. The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that people are the way they are because that’s how they are. People can (and do) change their behavior through force of will or fear of consequences but internal motives are the same in every person, regardless of their belief system.

    If there is an outside influence (e.g. god) then I’d welcome him (her or it) to show up here and now and go about influencing me. Even if if cost me everything, I’d rather that then to find out after I die that this thing that makes no sense to me was true. That would uber-suck.

  53. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    My replies aren’t posting. I thing the web gods are telling me something…

  54. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John Shores,
    I have had the same issue with replies not posting, sometimes -not always- they appear later on. I got your previous comment in my email inbox, it is to that I responded only just above, although I notice it hasn’t appeared with the rest of the comments here…
    I’ll attempt posting it myself for you and see if it works 🙂

  55. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    My previous comments about the Martyrs’ witness etc. was a response to this one by John:

    John Shores commented on The Final Destruction of Demons.

    I don’t know how to respond except with frustration.
    “it begins with the resurrection of Christ.”
    Regardless of where it begins, the questions arise because of the Cross and/or resurrection. I simply cannot have faith without some level of reasonableness to it.
    “In our hearts we have the original good desires that God gave us but because we’re fallen”
    You see? There is no escaping it. The faith requires accepting that we are born handicapped. This is why this story gives me such trouble.
    We say that man is never inherently evil
    A day in a room full of two year olds will dispel this idea.
    “loving the enemies”…”You wouldn’t find that in any primates!”
    Yes, you will: http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html
    “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there rules unconditionally humble love for the enemy and prayer for the world”
    I double-dog-dare you to give one example in all of human history (outside of the god-man) where this has been proven true. Not one human being has lived this truth either before or after Christ without “falling” (e.g. behaving like a human being) again. No, not one.

  56. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there rules unconditionally humble love for the enemy and prayer for the world”
    I double-dog-dare you to give one example in all of human history (outside of the god-man) where this has been proven true. Not one human being has lived this truth either before or after Christ without “falling” (e.g. behaving like a human being) again. No, not one.

    I might as well address the issue of ‘falling’ after having that experience as a human being. Especially since I mentioned the martyrs who obviously were (usually) in their last hours (sometimes, months and years too though…).
    It seems you were obviously aware of examples such as Saint Stephen the first martyr asking Go to forgive his persecutors/torturers in the Acts?
    But the argument concerning primates and the evolutionary (supposedly chance) appearance of the moral law, is not about the issue of immutability anyway! You are confusing your self with your own reasoning there. The argument is about the existence of God-inspired “Love of enemies” as manifested for instance, in the lives of the Saints and martyrs and whether it appears in man (as it does not obviously appear in primates). It is not about someone becoming ‘cemented’ and immutable in that state, that is another matter (and another 380 comments perhaps 🙂 )… Why the addition of the phrase

    “without “falling” (e.g. behaving like a human being) again”

    then?

  57. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    Sorry I omitted addressing the previous comment to John Shores

  58. Andrew Avatar

    I double-dog-dare you to give one example in all of human history (outside of the god-man) where this has been proven true. Not one human being has lived this truth either before or after Christ without “falling” (e.g. behaving like a human being) again. No, not one.

    Human beings can only “fall” when they are in a state of grace. Human beings are “fallen” not “falling”. More importantly, to understand anything at all about “the fall”, one must know firsthand what grace looks like.

    If this bit is missing, then the entire argument falls apart — no pun intended.

  59. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    Andrew,
    I agree with you fully that in order to truly understand the Fall, one must know Grace first-hand…
    Even the entire knowledge and reasoning of the world can never substitute for a lack of such first-hand experience to people speculating on such matters.
    Absolutely.

  60. Rhonda Avatar

    dinoship & John:

    I want to make comments but I am hesitatnt because it is apparent that I am not seeing all of the posts. If & when one of you can, please send a copy (copies) to my gmail address: email hidden; JavaScript is required. In the meantime I have enabled follow-up comments & posts by email. Thanks!

  61. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John Shores,

    Respectfully, why is it that no one has managed to become whole in all this time then?

    I guess that you want to “know the tree from its fruits” and you evidently have not seen the fruits you hoped for in the trees you have been looking at.
    That mustn’t make you assume all trees are like that…
    If that really is the logic you go by, I would say that sampling the fruit of an , as far as is possible pure and unadulterated, version of all the available ‘trees’ might be a way of approaching the “exception” of Orthodoxy.

    I was blessed to be ‘born’ Orthodox and know that it is through God’s foreknowledge, as I would have surely perished without such a head start… However, I wasted precious time in acquiring considerable “practical research” (to use a very flattering term for what the british would call a “well-dodgy past”), which brought me in contact with many different cultures (their extremes, to be more precise).
    I would say that the ‘fruits’ of pure Hinduism historically were: Casts, Inequality, Exploitation. For Western Christianity: Secularization, Confusion, Lack of freedom, and a Caricature of the Truth, for Atheism: amorality, desperation and arrogance, and anywhere I look I cannot really find – just like you say yourself- THAT perfection…
    Looking at the purest of traditional Orthodoxy however, I see a profoundly admirable authenticity of life, (now largely lost in multicultural modernity). Furthermore, in the unbroken chain of the Saints of the eastern tradition, I find ample examples of persons who have truly attained what seems like a dream “fruits”. Saints who:
    sacrificed their lives for their very persecutors,
    saints who weeped for the salvation of the world,
    saints who were so lifted by the Spirit that they “knew not” the difference between man and woman, even in the most irresistible of temptations,
    saints who were given the power of healing the sick in soul, not just the body, saints whose authenticity changed lives by simply meeting them once,
    saints who lived only with God, without meeting a single human being for more than two, three, four decades and yet knew about all that goes on in the world,
    saints who never learnt to read yet miraculously knew all of scripture … (Saints Dionysius, Silouan, Nektarios, Fantinos, Barsanuphius, Mary…)
    I have met monks who are humble beyond comprehension to the point you don’t realize they are also completely clairvoyant until hours later (“Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”)

    People might possibly one day say that Napoleon or Hitler never existed, or something ridiculous like that, but these saints and their testament will never cease being true; they never lied to us. Even if just one of them was truthful, as they all in fact, were, their testament is true! Even their mere relics are miraculous for goodness sake… Extremely so!

  62. Eleftheria Avatar
    Eleftheria

    Dinoship,

    Thank you for reminding us that there are saints among us.

    Once, in need of “spiritual surgery”, I went to a priest – geronda actually – who was not my spiritual father. How is it – if not by the grace of God – that he addressed me by my name when I entered? And further – that he began talking about the part of St. Ephraim the Syrian’s psalter I had read the day before?

    Glory to God! Heaven and Earth are full of His glory!

    In Christ,
    Eleftheria

  63. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    I have only a few minutes before bed tonight – God has richly blessed my “desert” visit.

    Dinoship,
    Your witness is so true. The “fruit” of the vine is indeed the saints birthed in the bosom of the Church – and they continue to flow to this day. Not hucksters, frequently “hidden” rather than drawing any attention to themselves. They are the “treasure” in every Orthodox land.

    The Orthodox Church under communist persecution produced martyrs – many more than all the earlier centuries combined. But among those martyrs, there are those whose stories compare with those of the Great Martyrs. And there were confessors as well. The survival of the Church through that period is nothing less than the resurrection. And its rebirth and renewal in recent decades gives testament that the vine is still alive.

    Most in the West have no knowledge of these things – and they even less knowledge of the great tragedies endured by the Orthodox. Greece itself, most in the West do not know, is a land of “refugees.” The ancient Orthodox culture of Asia Minor (Turkey) that produced saints, holy hierarchs and every sort of wonder, was forceably destroyed in the 1920’s by the Turkish government, and its citizens exiled (sent to Greece). Thus that Orthodox country had to absorb a massive movement of peoples who endured the total disruption of the lives. Greece has never recovered (but that is a longer story). Such stories could be multiplied so many times – but we are strangers to such histories in the West.

    Orthodox lives and bears its holy fruit, but it has been a vine that was dug-up, burned, smashed, every conceivable device used against it (the Bolsheviks even tried to force a “reform” into the Church’s life which would have utterly destroyed it). That it exists (and is still the world’s second largest group of Christians) is staggering.

    God exists.

    I complete my retreats tomorrow and fly home on Monday. May God bless you all!

  64. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    “If there is an outside influence (e.g. god) then I’d welcome him (her or it) to show up here and now and go about influencing me. Even if it cost me everything…”

    John S. – you are wise, for indeed it DOES cost everything. And I think the “outside influence” is influencing you – because you have invited him/her/it to do so. Perhaps because it is a process it is not so evident to you that it is happening.

    I don’t think we are born “handicapped” but rather born with the capacity to choose good or evil. We could have been made to be good without choice, but then we couldn’t truly love. (If you had no choice but to love your wife, could you really call that love?)

    As dinoship eloquently noted, there are many who have chosen good and been made holy through the grace of God. But there are “evil” choices made all of the time in our world, some large, some small. When anyone chooses evil, it creates a “fallen-ness” in humanity because suffering is introduced into the world – and that impacts others’ abilities to choose good. (This is why loving one’s enemy is so central – as good is chosen even in the face of suffering.)

    We do get to go Home from the hospital. And there is a cure. However, for most of us, the process of healing may not be complete before we leave our bodies. Because of suffering and the impact of evil, the struggle to choose good is often a process that goes in fits and starts.

    Learning to choose good is like learning to love, utterly, completely, totally. We want to choose it but we relapse and need to keep renewing our choice. But that is not all bad – as the grace that purifies us after each relapse is so glorious and teaches us so much…

    I cannot prove any of this. But I believe it.

  65. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    Our conversation here reminds me of this parable. It was created by a rabbi, (Y. M. Tuckachinsky.)

    Two twins are growing peacefully in the warmth of the womb. Their mouths are closed, and they are being fed via the navel. Their lives are serene. The whole world, to these brothers, is the interior of the womb. Who could conceive anything larger, better, more comfortable? They begin to wonder: “We are getting lower and lower. Surely, if it continues, we will exit one day. What will happen after we exit?”

    Now the first infant is a believer. He is heir to a religious tradition which tells him that there will be a “new life” after this wet and warm existence of the womb. A strange belief, seemingly without foundation, but one to which he holds fast. The second infant is a thoroughgoing skeptic. Mere stories do not deceive him. He believes only in that which can be demonstrated. He is enlightened, and tolerates no idle conjecture. What is not within one’s experience can have no basis in one’s imagination.

    Says the faithful brother: “After our ‘death’ here, there will be a new and great world. We will eat through the mouth! We will see great distances, and we will hear through the ears on the sides of our heads. Why, our feet will be straightened! And our heads will be up and free, rather than down and boxed in!”

    Replies the skeptic: “Nonsense. You’re straining your imagination again. There is no foundation for this belief. It is only your survival instinct, an elaborate defense mechanism, a historically conditioned subterfuge. You are looking for something to calm your fear of ‘death.’ There is only this world. There is no world to come!”

    “Well, then,” asks the first, “what do you say it will be like?”

    The second brother snappily replies with all the assurance of the slightly knowledgeable: “We will go with a bang. Our world will collapse and we will sink into oblivion. No more. Nothing. Black void. An end to consciousness. Forgotten. This may not be a comforting thought, but it is a logical one.”

    “But, I, sometimes feel that She exists! As if we are inside of her!”, says the believer…

    “Now don’t start mentioning that Mother name again! I have never heard of a more devious lie to control naive people like you…”

  66. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    My retreats have been excellent. I look forward to returning home on Monday. My suggestion for this discussion is that it waits for another day and another post. Nearly 400 comments turns the comments section into a forum. No one would want to work their way through them.

    I look forward to being back. Thank you all for your prayers.

  67. Andrew Avatar

    Dinoship – wonderful parable, thank you for posting it.

  68. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    it reminds me of Carl Sagan’s agnosticism approaching everything through the vehicle of science and scientific reasoning, leaving no room for the knowledge that prerequisites faith.

    Agnosticism is, IMHO, the only honest way to approach anything. It is the only path that says “I don’t know but I’m willing to know.” If it leads to a point at which you can say, “I cannot yet comprehend the answer but I have faith that, because of the trends of data, the answer is likely to be (fill in the blank)…” (I’m thinking here about “string theory” in particular), then there is a measure of faith that is acceptable (we have lots of data and cannot create conditions under which to test the theory but it does account for all the data that we do have).

    you seem to forget we are clearly referring to “love of enemies”

    Who is your enemy? Someone you don’t like? Someone who does not like you? Is an enemy a concept? Or is it someone who has actually caused you harm?

    You will find all of these within the animal kingdom. You may not find “love” but you will find conflict and reconciliation, both of which are common to human experience as well. You will see clearly that some animals have a clear concept of fairness and will react to unfairness just as you or I would.

    While these are not on the same levels as humans (we are far more complicated after all), the foundations and fundamentals are present. One would not expect to find this in non-sapient animals. We have a long tradition of trying to elevate ourselves as much as possible from the other primates (“humans are not proud of their ancestors and never invite them round for dinner.”). We have tried everymeasure that we can think of to make the distinction. But the more we observe and learn, the more we come to realize how very alike we are to other primates – even when it comes to ideas like morality.

    This conversation reminds me of a discussion in the movie “Gettysburg” in which one Confederate general says:

    Perhaps there are those among you who think that you are descended from an ape. I suppose it’s possible that there are those of you who believe that I’m descended from an ape, but I challenge the man to step forward who believes that General Lee is descended from an ape.

    To which another general replies:

    All science trembles before the searing logic of your fiery intellect.

    Dinoship said:

    Why the addition of the phrase “without “falling” (e.g. behaving like a human being) again” then?

    The phrase was in response to

    where the Spirit of the Lord is, there rules unconditionally humble love for the enemy and prayer for the world.

    If you are going to say that “the Spirit of the Lord” is not everywhere at all times then I agree the addition to the phrase is irrelevant. It seems, though, that you are implying that it is a condition that is temporary and intermittent. Note that it was not said that “where a person is in agreement with the spirit of the Lord.” Hence the comment.

    Andrew said:

    Human beings can only “fall” when they are in a state of grace.

    In what state, then, were Adam and Eve created? Were they in a state of grace or innocence? (Grace implies fallenness.)

    In order to truly understand the Fall, one must know Grace first-hand

    I once heard that “Experience is the best teacher, but a fool learns only form his own.” I tend to agree with that. I see no value in everyone having to go through the dregs just to appreciate the sunlight.

  69. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    “I see no value in everyone having to go through the dregs just to appreciate the sunlight.”

    It wasn’t clear…: Is this your words or are you quoting someone else?

    Because, you came across as someone who only wants to learn through their own experience of God, (like St Thomas) rather than someone who would learn from the experience of others or the testament of the Martyrs and Saints

  70. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    It is surprisingly easy to think of yourself as an impartial Agnostic (like Sagan thought himself) when in fact you will go to the greatest lengths and create the most extreme theories, in order to keep God out of the equation…!
    A man who tries to speculate on the existence of God (or not) through scientific reasoning (a rationality that is separated from faith), is deluding himself.

    “Agnosticism is, IMHO, the only honest way to approach anything. It is the only path that says “I don’t know but I’m willing to know.”

    I am afraid that although it should be that indeed,
    yes,
    but,
    it more often than not becomes “I am only willing to know through rational thinking based on my own experience (concerning God), although I am willing to BELIEVE a scientific theory as plausible even if it entails belief in things I have no personal experience of”

  71. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    JS,
    I am sorry for the rushed posts John… (sent while multitasking I am afraid!)

    I think there is a communication chasm pertaining to what Father Stephen referred to as :
    <blockquote.Most in the West have no knowledge of these things

    My previous long post about the witness of the Saints, old and new, tried to provide you with those very “proofs” of the Orthodox faith, the “fruits of the tree”…
    These proofs do indeed go against many of the supposed ‘explanations for this world without God’ you keep re-coursing to.
    But they are proofs that cannot be explained away without making one look like those ‘children that close their ears in the face of the truth’.

    Maybe, if you were once disillusioned by a caricature of the true Faith,
    what you now need might be a disillusionment of what you uphold as robust rationality based on scientific thinking (“atheist” -I would term), concerning an ‘explanation of this existence’.

  72. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    Sorry, I meant:

    I think there is a communication chasm pertaining to what Father Stephen referred to as :

    Most in the West have no knowledge of these things

  73. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    Concerning any similarities or differences between humans and primates – so hotly discussed in the West – I think the Orthodox answer might be: “So what????”

    You might even encounter a particular Primate who is better than a particular Human. So what?

    Orthodoxy is the first to say, as Saint Gregory the Theologian said, that: Man is an animal, but, he is the only animal that can become god! (“zoon theoumenon”)

  74. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    “I am only willing to know through rational thinking based on my own experience (concerning God), although I am willing to BELIEVE a scientific theory as plausible even if it entails belief in things I have no personal experience of”

    I disagree. Personal experience doesn’t enter into it. And when it does, then a good scientist will ask how reliable an experience is (go to ted_dot_com and watch “Scott Fraser: Why eyewitnesses get it wrong.)

    There is no lack of proof that when a closely-held scientific theory is proved wrong, it is abandoned, even by its most ardent proponents. This is rarely the case in a faith, which is why it is faith in the first place. Faith is the substance; when physical substance contradicts it, faith usually trumps it.

    This reliance on “personal experience” actually (in my estimation) makes a thing more suspect. If god is the same yesterday, today and forevermore and can be experienced then the experiences by all people should be consistent. As far as I can tell, this is not the case (hence different religions, different sects etc).

    (That would make a good book title: Sects and violence.)

  75. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    In fact,

    If god is the same yesterday, today and forevermore and can be experienced then the experiences by all people should be consistent

    Is completely true in within Orthodoxy.
    It is astounding how the experience of God in His Uncreated Light is the same in all those Orthodox Saints that encountered God, no matter where on earth, when in history, from whatever background…

  76. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    Hey all:

    Bouteneff’s “Beginnings” is available on Google Books. At least, a lot of it is. I’ve already read a dozen pages or so. I assume much more is accessible for free — perhaps all of it. John, I suggest you go immediately to “Paul and the Paradise Narrative: Sin and Death.”

  77. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    PJ,
    great find, although owing and studying the book is far more gratifying…
    Here’s a little slightly paraphrased sample:

    From Bouteneff “Beginnings” :

    The Fall’s status as universal was only established in the light of Christ. Paul’s starting point is Christ, Lord and Saviour. Paul does nothing less than define the direction and the sequence, as it were, of Christian reflection on Christ. This direction is not the one commonly associated with Christianity, namely, a kind of chronological sequence from a perfect pre-fallen state, to a one-event calamitous fall, and then to a salvation that comes in the year 33 CE. It is a sequence that begins with Christ himself: rather than Adam being a model or image for humanity or even the first real human being, it is Christ who is both. Christ is the first true human being, and Christ is the image of God and the model for Adam…
    “Adam’s humanity is a provisional copy of the humanity that is in Christ”
    Paul sees Adam as a kind of beginning – the beginning of a death-bound mode of life. “But it is a beginning that does not need to be followed; it does not overcome human free choice. Humanity simply constantly re-enacts the little scene in the Garden of Eden. There never was a golden age. There is no point looking back to one. Adam was what we all are, a man of sin. However, no one has to be Adam. We are so freely and on our own responsibility”(Karl Barth)
    Paul came to focus on Adam as a result of his finding Christ. His reading of the Old Testament as illumined by and illuminating Christ was groundbreaking and became the guiding rubric under which the Christian fathers read Scripture. Saying that “the rock was Christ” or that Adam is a type of Christ stems from Paul’s reading of the function of the entire Scripture. As he shows in 2 Corinthians (3:12-4:7), to read Scripture in sheerly chronological terms, as a history of the world or as a story of the nation of Israel, is to have a veil over one’s eyes. One lifts the veil when one turns to the Lord (3:16). The Scriptures are about Christ, the treasure who lies within the clay jars (4:7).
    The description of the meeting of the Lord on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24 ascribes the same function to the Old Testament. There it is the risen Lord, unrecognized by the two disciples, Who opens the Scriptures to them, showing how the Scriptures are about Himself.

  78. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Marc: Kind of taking dinoship’s story about two babies debating life after birth, it seems to me that until they are born they have no reference points for what is yet to come. More importantly, to my mind, is that those fetuses (feti?) are connected to the mother and continue to grow regardless of what they believe about the life to come. There is nothing they can do, short of gnawing through the umbilical cord (which is impossible without teeth anyways), that will affect the outcome.

    Whether I “believe that there is a spiritual creation apart from the material creation” is, perhaps, irrelevant.

    I believe that the Orthodox position is not that “there is a spiritual creation apart from the material creation” but that they are intertwined. I have a far easier time with a more naturalistic approach (that god is revealed through nature) than any other. This would be in line with the whole concept of a womb and is an approach that, as an agnostic, I am quite comfortable with because it does not give prescriptions or demand that there is a “narrow way” that only a few (certainly non-agnostics) will ever find. To my mind, the idea that “god is good” means something very different than what is held within the Christian doctrine.

  79. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Hi Marc: To me, if one is to compare god to a Father (as Jesus frequently did), I have to assume that this is intentional. Being a father, I get some idea of what this implies. Being an imperfect father, I have a really good idea of what a perfect father would be like.

    I will first present what I think is the Orthodox view:

    Mankind is fallen (for whatever reasons) and therefore on something of a bad footing with his relationship to god. This fallenness is the cause of corruption (both physical and spiritual) leading to death. So, god became a human, lived a perfect life, suffered the cruelest death, and rose again, all to restore us to a right relationship with god and to free us from death. (Please forgive me if I’m missing something here.)

    As a father, I look at this story and while part of me says, “Hell yeah I’d do anything to save my kids too!” another part of me says, “Is all of this really necessary?” I mean, couldn’t I (as god) find another, less traumatizing and more intimate way of reconciling with my kids?

    The whole things becomes more and more impersonal the further down the timeline that we get from Christ too. It’s human nature to take bad news stoically when we don’t know the people involved but when bad things happen to people we know or who live in our community (I’m thinking of the Aurora shootings that happened the same week we moved to Aurora), it impacts us more closely. It’s how we function as human beings.

    So, as a father, I would be totally dissatisfied with any methods of reconciliation that were not clear and present to my kids. I would use bloody death as a very last resort. And I most assuredly would not delegate any of my kids who are on good terms with me to go out and tell the other kids how great it is; I’d go to my kids myself. Anything short of that is half-assed and sends a very different message than I think is intended. Inaction can speak as loudly as actions.

    So, all in all, the thing strikes me as rather poorly conceived and executed (no pun intended). I just have a hard time attributing the adjective “good” to a person who sort of dive-bombs into human history and then relies on a sort of network marketing approach to getting the word out (especially considering how good humans are at lying to each other). That doesn’t sound like a father to me.

    My Protestant-indoctrinated view is more like this:

    Suppose you have God-like powers. Now suppose that you are boiling water and you tell your child, “Do not go near the stove or you’ll get burned.” So, of course, as soon as your back is turned, your child races over, tips the pan and gets scalded in the face so badly that she ends up permanently disfigured and losing sight in one eye. Your first reaction is to curse the child so that every one of her descendants is born with a disfigured face and one blind eye. Then you kick her out of the house and leave her on the streets to fend for herself. Of course you keep an eye on her and her children but you only talk to them whenever they have done something wrong and then you blame her children for not being good enough to live in your house while at the same time telling them that you really long for them to be whole and pure enough to live with you. Then, you send your other child, who was not deformed, out into the world so that your deformed children would kill him thus making it possible for your deformed children to become hole and return to your house.

    That’s essentially what the Protestant view boils down to. Those people are nuts.

    And this isn’t even taking into consideration the words and actions attributed to god in the OT. No way that person qualifies as “good” (unless you think the Manson family is also good).

    No matter how I look at it, I still come away baffled.

    This is why the naturalistic view makes more sense to me. If we are on this earth being incubated by god, that actually would make a kind of sense to me. It’s a pretty freaking awesome planet after all (for the time being). It’s when I try to get my head around the idea of god being personal or being a father in the Christian sense that I can’t make heads or tails of it.

    Which is why I keep coming back to where the heck is this god person? This would be so much better if dad was around.

  80. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    As a means of helping you understand me perhaps a little better, let me offer that I am of the opinion that the only faith that is worth having is one that is immutable to the believer. If one is going to take the trouble to believe something then one is only a true believer if they believe with their whole heart. Being an “all or nothing” sort of person myself, I have never really understood people who could be casual believers in anything. Once one is convinced that something is true, especially if that something is the framework for how one lives their life, it seems to me somewhat psychotic not to live that life completely. Such a half-hearted approach to faith is to me like a soldier who takes it for granted that there is an enemy somewhere about but simply takes cover whenever he feels inclined to and casually fires his weapon in whatever direction his fancy takes.

    I do not disrespect anyone here for their firmly held beliefs. I think what I really want is to have something worth believing in that manner.

  81. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    how their lives and their potentials are connected to the lives of all the other people who are alive today, and even those people who have lived and died since the beginning…I am struck with the amazing connections of our lives.

    That is too far for me to reach, rather like the fetus feeling around and trying to discern the meaning of the mother’s bladder, liver and bowels. I find it far easier on the soul to just chill and accept that things are the way they are. Even if I could see or comprehend such connections, that wouldn’t change anything.

    When I was a Protestant, I wanted to understand every nuance of the faith and took delight in profundity. My dad was a preacher after all and a Protestant preacher is always looking for the clever story to make connections to ethereal matters. I find that “I don’t know” is rather satisfying and far less taxing.

    I appreciate your comments though. I am honestly quite pleased that you have found purpose in your faith.

  82. Shane Avatar
    Shane

    John Shores said:
    “another part of me says, “Is all of this really necessary?” I mean, couldn’t I (as god) find another, less traumatizing and more intimate way of reconciling with my kids?”

    John, in the Orthodox view, God suffered and died in order to fully partake of our suffering and mortality – He knows exactly how we feel because He walked a mile in our shoes. God descended into suffering, death, and hell because that was exactly where He would be able to find us.

    As one Orthodox hymn says: “When You descended to Death, oh Life Immortal, You slew Hell with the splendor of your Godhead, and when from the depths you raised the dead, all the powers of heaven cried out, Giver of Life, Christ our God, glory to You.”

    Or as Metropolitan Anthony Bloom describes it
    “What also astonished me at the time, and which I would probably have expressed quite differently then, is that God – and this is the very nature of love – is able to love us so much, that he is prepared to share everything with us to the last: not only creation through his Incarnation, not only the limiting of life through sin, not only physical suffering and death, but that which is the most terrible – mortality as a state of being, hell as a state of being: the deprivation and loss of God, from which man dies. That cry on Christ’s on the cross: ‘My God! My God! Why hast Thou forsaken me?’ – this experience not only of being abandoned by God but also of being deprived of God, which kills a man, this readiness of God to share our loss of God, as if descending with us into hell, because Christ’s descent into hell was precisely a descent into the Old Testament abyss, that is, to the place where God is not. This amazed me because it meant that there was no limit to God’s readiness to share man’s fate, in order to find man.”

  83. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    JohnShores,
    You are very right when saying:

    “Once one is convinced that something is true, especially if that something is the framework for how one lives their life, it seems to me somewhat psychotic not to live that life completely. Such a half-hearted approach to faith is to me like a soldier who takes it for granted that there is an enemy somewhere about but simply takes cover whenever he feels inclined to and casually fires his weapon in whatever direction his fancy takes.”

    Everything of the faith that makes no sense to you, makes total sense to those who live this whole-heartedy, (yet they cannot ‘wordify’ it convincingly to one who does not live the same). Living this whole-heartedly leads to the Purity of Heart that enables man to “See God”.

    Everywhere.

    As the ascetic Fathers of the East keep repeating: when man guards his senses and voluntarily avoids all ’causes’ that weaken his guarding of the inner and outer senses, he arrives at that desired purity. Whoever does this (called “Nepsis”) knows that God will guard them if and when the ’causes’ (which weaken even the strong) come to them uninvited (involuntarily)…
    Without the Nepsis we end up losing even our faith one day and justifying our path along the way. With it we justify Him and see Him and the meaning behind everything is also revealed to us.

    On your rationalistic understanding level you also keep forgetting that Christ’s sacrifice shows once and for all that

    “there is no limit to God’s readiness to share man’s fate, in order to find man.”

    Stop trying to make sense of it with human reasoning! The unborn child can only understand Mom’s love in a face-to-face manner when it finally looks her in the eye… Not in the womb. Being extremely resistant to wanting to dive into this certainty of his Love, and allowing one’s mind to keep fighting it with reasonable arguments (doing the Enemies job for him in other words), makes one exactly like the unbelieving baby which complains for not having hard enough evidence of Mom…
    This rationalistic understanding (misunderstanding rather) of Orthodoxy is wrong”

    “So, all in all, the thing strikes me as rather poorly conceived and executed (no pun intended). I just have a hard time attributing the adjective “good” to a person who sort of dive-bombs into human history and then relies on a sort of network marketing approach to getting the word out (especially considering how good humans are at lying to each other). That doesn’t sound like a father to me.”

    If only we would

    “just chill and accept that things are the way they are.”

    within the True Church” we would be living the truth “full-heartedly”. But we become our own worst enemy when we put ourself in the position of judging God’s ways based on our rational human, and jaundiced, conception of them. When we do that, there is no need for a serpent to whisper to us -we have become the serpent ourselves. It IS in our own power to ignore that internal voice – the sycophant of God- that is a key part of “Nepsis”.

  84. Micah Avatar
    Micah

    Father — this is shockingly beautiful iconography. Where is it to be found please?

  85. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Micah, I’m not sure. It’s rather old.

  86. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Father, bless!

    Regarding the Icon, I recognize the Theotokos and also Adam whom Christ grasps by the wrist. Who are the king and queen among the Saints on the right?

  87. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Karen,
    Usually it’s Sts. Constantine and Helen

  88. Micah Avatar
    Micah

    Thank you Father, Karen.

  89. Nicole Avatar

    The post states: The Gospels presume and proclaim at every turn that in Christ, the Kingdom of God is present. Christ says, “But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Lk 11:20). There is a mystery at work in the presence of the Kingdom. Christ makes statements such as that just quoted, but also frequently says that the Kingdom of God has come near. The Kingdom is a reality and a presence that has both come near us, and come upon us. But in neither case does it simply refer to a later “someday.” The urgency of the proclamation of the Kingdom is not caused by the soon approach of an expected apocalypse. Its preaching is urgent because its coming has already begun!

    I agree, Christ is here now and in Heaven. John the Baptist preached in Matthew 1, Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand. He was proclaiming the arrival of Christ. As you stated He has already come once, the return will not be in the form of a man but in Glory. This will be to usher in the time of His throne upon Earth. We may not understand all but we should understand He is with all.

  90. Steve Avatar
    Steve

    Nicole,

    You say:

    As you stated He has already come once, the return will not be in the form of a man but in Glory.

    A quick clarification, if I may:

    His return is indeed in the form of man (cf. John 20:26). and as you rightly point out, in glorified form (cf. Zech 12:8).

    You say:

    We may not understand all but we should understand He is with all.

    At his return, the “necessity” of understanding is replaced by the “necessity” of loving. Two necessities, one born of the fall, the other, of God.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Subscribe to blog via email

Support the work

Your generous support for Glory to God for All Things will help maintain and expand the work of Fr. Stephen. This ministry continues to grow and your help is important. Thank you for your prayers and encouragement!


Latest Comments

  1. Fr. Stephen: What do you mean by physical worship?

  2. Nathan said: “Language in the Orthodox Church about body became for me “how I think of my body.”” How does…

  3. Dear Joan and Father, Thank you both for your beautiful comments–an inspiration for me also. I tend to read the…

  4. Joan, I once had a patient in my hospice chaplain years, who put a mark in the back of her…

  5. In my former work as a clinical research coordinator, I had an opportunity to speak to an elderly woman and…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives