Orthodox Bridge only approves about half of my comments, and the ones they do approve are always approved later and I rarely find the comments to them and it’s just so unwieldy. So I put them here. The paragraphs preceded by asterisks are those responding to me. My comments are in normal formatting.
***I’m interested to know what you are persuaded is the judge of truth?***
Better phrased: what is the *final* judge of truth? Before I answer that we need to get clear on the question. There can be numerous, subordinate, yet legitimate judges of truth (such as history, logic, the church–gasp!) which are not the final judge, which would be God’s Speech.
***I think this is what Robert is getting at when he points out the relative “novelty” of the Reformed tradition. Is this not your “judge of truth?” If it is not, are you the judge of truth? How many hard sciences and proofs need to converge for you to have faith in Christ’s work in the Church?***
I am not Reformed, but to continue with the question: yes, there is a subjective aspect to all of truth-judgments (not to truth itself). Everyone does it. You did it when you subjectively evaluated EO.
***You are right, antiquity IS NOT the only judge. But it seems that you are willing to be the ultimate judge of ANY evidence and .***
I am a subordinate judge of truth, as are we all. Otherwise, why bother?
***pick and choose what you’d like to acknowledge and dismiss based on it’ consistency with your worldview***
You would need to provide evidence.
***Nearly all of us here have been in your shoes. I certainly have. I understand where you are coming from. I used to walk into Orthodox Churches in Bulgaria and mutter under my breath, “pagans.” Then I’d go pick up Institutes and placate my own predilections.***
Please don’t patronize me. trust me, I’ve been there. I’ve spent years looking into this. I’ve lost friends forever because they thought I was leaving Protestantism. Even now, they refuse to talk to me.
***but my point is that many of us (Karen, Robert, me) have wrestled with the same cognitive dissonance you are and have had to challenge our own self will and our own limits to faith***
That is fideism.
***There comes a point when you must realize that the obstacle is not the evidence, but who it is you think is the proper judge of truth. If you reserve that right for yourself…so be it. But do so with full understanding of who and what it is you trust in.***
The mormon apologists I debated told me the same thing. Anyway, you made a decision based on your understanding of the relevant factors to enter EO. That is no different than what I am doing. You just don’t like my conclusions.
---------------
Hi John Doe
***Antiquity per se is not a particularly cogent epistemology. ***
Agreed. Otherwise the truth would belong to Hinduism.
***However, the Vincentian Canon is: that which was believed “everywhere, always, by everyone”.*
Vincent also thought the imputation and continuation of Adam’s Guilt was believed by everyone.
***We know that prayers to Mary were widely employed by Christians from India to Iberia in later centuries. That such an early prayer can be found lends credence to the belief that prayers to saints were part of the Apostolic deposit.***
Thank you. This is the classic example of affirming the consequent:
If this, then that.
That.
Therefore, this.
(THIS IS ORTHODOX APOLOGETICS’ FATAL MOMENT. HERE FALLS THEIR ENTIRE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. I HONESTLY FEEL LIKE I CAN CLAIM VICTORY)
***It also shows that the Church that determined the New Testament Canon also believed in petitioning the saints in prayer.***
What exactly are you trying to prove? If you mean that the “church” proximately determined the table of contents page in my Bible and *some* of these same guys also petitioned saints, then I don’t disagree.
If you take that proximate recognition as on the same level as God’s speech-act, and that those later witnesses (valuable fathers that they are) are on the same level as the Scriptural writers who warned not to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven, then I demur.
-------------
Hi Erik,
My moniker is that I believe in posting under my name. I’ve seen too many people “go crazy” under the protection of an anonymous avatar. See the Mark Driscoll fiasco.
***Does he who formulates a canon need to be infallible?***
No.
***In such case, how can you accept the Athanasian Canon of the New Testament? Athenasius believed in prayers to the saints, so by your reasoning, these are either licit, or his NT canon is not.***
One of my comments will surprise you. First of all, canonical discussions are far wider than Athanasius. Secondly, I believe the NT *canon*–formulated as canon–is fallible. The table of contents page in my bible is fallible and open to falsification. That has always been the Protestant position (though most Protestants have forgotten it).
------------------------
David and Erik,
My point RE Adam’s guilt is that Vincent is a two-edged sword. The very guy you guys go to for doctrinal unity taught something you do not believe and he said that was always taught by the church.
Vincent writes,
“Who ever before his monstrous disciple Cœlestius denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin?”
24.62
***Do you seriously believe Robert is arguing that Antiquity is the SOLE judge of Truth?**
No, but it seems like antiquity is being asked to carry a lot of weight.
*** course, there is specific Scriptural verification for Holy Tradition, as I sketched quickly above, also referencing Robert’s excellent blog article above “The Biblical Case for Holy Tradition”.***
I’ve seen it. I believe it commits the affirming the consequent fallacy, but that’s probably not the most germane point at the moment.
**But the Reformed often ask for some confirmation from history for Orthodox practices & Holy Tradition. That’s what you have here. Historic confirma-tion of Holy Tradition. **
Sure, but historic confirmation (like all forms of belief) comes in degrees, and this is not the same thing as a quote from Paul saying burn incense to the Queen of Heaven.
***There are also Ecc. Councils confirming Holy Tradition by hundreds if not thousands of Bishops convocating in counsel with each other to specifically discern what the Holy Spirit has taught the Church in past centuries.***
Sure, but even those decisions do not begin to cover the gamut of doctrine and practice today, as any Old Believer or Old Calendarist will tell you.
***But this is not the case with Prayers to the Saints and Mary for intercession to her Son. You have just the opposite…a consistent pattern, practice and believe throughout the Church which is confirmed by Church Councils.***
Notice I am not disagreeing with you, per se. I am simply examining the belief. Earlier I said that belief comes in degrees (or is strong or weak in varying degrees). The earlier you get the less specific the belief is.
Karen says:
I’m convinced there is nothing humans do that is completely passive. None of us (even from birth) are a tabula rasa on which our experiences just imprint themselves. God installs some hardwiring there first that makes us active processors and decision-makers from the get-go.
J. B. Aitken says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 7, 2015 at 12:22 pm
If I said stuff like that about you, my post wouldn’t be approved.
Yes, I understand how the brain works (interesting that you collapsed mind into brain), but I use “passive” in the sense of how 100.00% of studies on the brain use it.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
*** you are implicitly honoring and “praying to Mary” (and all the Saints) as Orthodox understand this as well.***
that’s begging the question, but otherwise kind of you to say so.
***I’m not convinced if you were to pray to *God* in the sense you understand prayer to Mary, you wouldn’t also be sinning (at least potentially) to be quite honest***
I wouldn’t be, because God attaches a promise to prayers to him, so I can approach him by faith. Since there is no promise attached to prayers to Mary, I cannot approach that with faith–“anything not of faith is sin” and all.
***God is not a divine vending machine, nor a genie to grant our wishes. ***
While that is a straw man, almost all of the prayers in Scripture are petitionary.
***God knows what we need before we ask, so the real purpose of prayer must be to come to know God more fully and in the process come to also more genuinely know ourselves.***
That’s a nice sentiment but not germane to the discussion.
***You cannot worship God rightly in the sense of including everything which goes to make up a fully orthodox Christian corporate liturgy without including prayers to Mary and the Saints.***
Thank you. That finally answered my question.
What did you mean by, "I am not Reformed."
ReplyDeleteI am Confessional Protestant. That is what I will say at the moment. The guys at Orthodox Bridge have no clue what Reformed or Calvinist means, so I don't use those terms
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have been reading a lot of Lutheran theology lately. You're not going Lutheran on us, are you!?
ReplyDeleteJ.B.
ReplyDeleteAaron from the above convo on Ortho-bridge following up.
Please don’t patronize me. trust me, I’ve been there. I’ve spent years looking into this. I’ve lost friends forever because they thought I was leaving Protestantism. Even now, they refuse to talk to me.
Apologies. No attempt to patronize. But I was a hostile critic of Orthodoxy. All I'm saying. I understand the consequences of which you speak...they are real.
can be numerous, subordinate, yet legitimate judges of truth (such as history, logic, the church–gasp!) which are not the final judge, which would be God’s Speech.
I'd ask you to be clearer here..."God's speech?" I'm assuming you are saying "God's word." I then have to try to delineate whether you are speaking cryptically of the incarnate Word or the written word of scripture. If it is the later...this is simply circular, for you become judge for yourself of the meaning of scripture. There can be no truth in the subjectivity of scripture, and the Papal authority of the self. You simply follow the impious lies of Luther and the other Refor....oh I mean "Confessional Protestants" in believing that “In matters of faith each Christian is for himself Pope and Church.” It is a lie and a deception from Satan.
yes, there is a subjective aspect to all of truth-judgments (not to truth itself). Everyone does it. You did it when you subjectively evaluated EO.
DeleteI don't care if everyone does it. I care if we are called to resist doing it because it leads to sin. The subjective aspect to truth judgements which you speak is reliance on a fallen mind, which the gospel tells us a "darkened mind" cannot comprehend and will resist naturally. Only to the degree that I am able, by God's grace to crucify that subjective self, will I be led to truth. The constant struggle of the Christian life is against this fallen ego and the falsities that give birth to sin and false worldviews through it. To rely on subjective reason to discover truth is madness and is worldly reason and self delusion.
That is fideism.
Not exactly fideism, perhaps semi-fideism. But sure...And I'm fine with that. And this is one of the major issues at hand. You trust all of your reason and rationality? That sir is a mistake. The fallen human mind is subject to sin and deception...even the Christian one. Yes, even mine. To believe that one can independently come to right conclusions based on rationality is completely unbiblical. (1 Cor 2:14, John 14:17, 1 Cor 1:18 - 21, 1 Cor 3:1, Ephesians 4:18, Romans 1, James 3:15 and esp. Jude 1:19) Of course I accept the Apostle's and Church Father's admonitions that attempts to rationalize your way into faith are suspect because of our fallen state and tendency towards sin which require becoming subject to the Spirit. This is an excercise is letting go of our fallen reason (i.e. rationalism) and letting true reason, healed reason to be born in us, "transforming us from glory to glory." Even as Christians we can "quench the Spirit." (1 Thess 5:19 ) I would contend that fallen "bare knowledge" (ψιλη γνοσισ) of the mind (dionoia) cannot be trusted as a subjective judge to truth. Emphasis on the mind and rationality and intellect as the apprehension of God leads us to false conclusions. Intellect and dianoia alone "bare knowledge" is still "forgetfulness" of God.
One can only receive "true rationality" or "mindfulness" of God through crucifixion of the fallen dianoia and healing by God's grace of the noetic faculty, and this only in stages and in part.
I am a subordinate judge of truth, as are we all. Otherwise, why bother?
DeleteWhy bother to crucify our self important and self reliant ego? Why bother to let faith be faith? Because this was what we were created to be. Adam and Eve's first sin was to be the judge of truth for themselves, blaming it then on the serpent. You say you are a subordinate judge of truth, but you pick and chose what you are subordinate to. You are therefore subordinate to yourself and your fallen human dialectic. You are as subordinate to Satan as Adam and Eve were subordinate to his deception. And so am I when I rely only on my fallen "reason."
The mormon apologists I debated told me the same thing. Anyway, you made a decision based on your understanding of the relevant factors to enter EO. That is no different than what I am doing. You just don’t like my conclusions.
Mormons, really? That's simply fodder. EO and Mormonism are apples and oranges and to conflate the two is simply a way to obfuscate. Scripture is clear, the fallen mind must be born of the Spirit and we must cooperate with the Spirit to root out sin and false notions from our minds and hearts. Instead you rely on rationalism and your subjective mind.
You can tell me I do the same as you in subjectively evaluating the truth..and you'd be right, I often do. That is the root of sin in my life, of which I must work against constantly ("don't fight like a boxer beating the air) in order to fight against the lies of Satan and my own fallen faculties. I pray that this is not what I used in coming to the EO Church. God knows.
I trust in God that it is different than what you are doing in that I submit to His Church and His Spirit and not to my unrepentant mind and rationalism.
I could care less about your conclusions, they don't hurt me...they only hurt you and others to whom you spout them to. I am simply asking you to repent ("change your mind") and be renewed by the spirit of your mind (nous - not dionoia). It may be instructive for you to discover the difference.
My prayers will be for you and yours, and for all of us as we ALL struggle with the same sin of self-reliance. I am no different than you in that I am subject to this sin...but I fight against it and cling to Christ and His Church, through whom the Spirit flows to lead us "into all truth."
Hi Aaron,
DeleteI will try to address your comments as best I can.
***I'd ask you to be clearer here..."God's speech?" ***
I was referring to God's speech-act.
***this is simply circular, for you become judge for yourself of the meaning of scripture.***
The circle is open. I admit that I am fallible and open to correction (usually by other subordinate, yet legitimate authorities).
I thought about responding to your other comments, but once I saw the snarky replies that I am following impious lies and Satan, then why bother?
Did you come here actually wanting to dialogue or just to...I have no idea what you want.
***The circle is open. I admit that I am fallible and open to correction (usually by other subordinate, yet legitimate authorities
DeleteThis gets back to the original discussion. Your position seems to be that we ALL dictate and judge who and what the "legitimate authorities" are through reason. Indeed you told me above that you do it unabashedly and then you speculate that is what I did to bring myself into EO.
I challenge the very basis of your contention about the validity of rationality being capable of bringing us to truth as subjective judges. We cannot be subjective judges because of sin and the fallen human dialectic. Only through kenosis and mutual submission in Love within the Body can we defeat the constant assaults on us by sin and the Devil.
***Did you come here actually wanting to dialogue or just to...I have no idea what you want.
I did. I want to talk about the epistemological basis of our faith traditions. My references to Satan and his spiritual warfare against us all is TOTALLY in line with Christian dialogue and COMPLETELY germane to the dialogue and to Scriptural witness to Satan working through false doctrines and philosophies of men and against the unity of the faith. Ignoring that aspect of Christian faith would be silly. We are all fighting against Satan in our lives. I happen to place rationality and scholasticism as a deception of the Evil One. You disagree. Good. Tell me how it is that your epistemological faith in your reason somehow is free from the taint of sin and the fallen human dialectic. It seems you reserve the right to DECIDE who is authority and who is not. Okay. But how is that possible if you are using a fallen human state as the measure to come to truth? This is the crux of the divide. Citing scripture as an authority or some "legitimate subordinate authority" still leaves you to decide who and what those authorities are. You retain for yourself the right to decide in matters of faith by congregating with those who also reject the consiliar nature of Love and by deciding through academic scholasticism what the scriptures mean. I'm perplexed by this epistemology and how you can maintain it as a basis for faith.
After reading through your comments and seeing how often I am "subject to Satan" and "impious lies," I thought about deleting them. The guys at Orthodox Bridge have deleted far more cordial comments of mine (or whenever I make a good argument). I decided to leave the comments up, though. You are a good example of converts to Orthodoxy and how they treat Protestants. That is far more persuasive than any rebuttal I give.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry that your comments are mediated there. I understand why that frustrates you.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCorrected post. JB. You and I both believe in Satan and his ability to deceive us. This is a broad based Christian belief. Why is it a problem for two people who claim Christ to speak of the possible lies of the Evil One in the fallen human dialectic? As subject to his lies as both you AND I CAN BOTH BE in our fallenness, I state that COMMON BOND quite clearly in my previous post – We are both subject to being bound by the lies of our own sin and of Satan. It is my point that by relying on our own individual reason as epistemological foundations of truth, we lean into the fallen dialectic and in turn “quench the Spirit.” This is the major grounds of the difference between Orthodox epistemology and Western epistemology. My point is that your epistemological foundation of faith denies that the mind and reason can be fallen, and believes that one can be rationally led to "truth" through speculative reason. The result of that rationality is variant reading of scripture because EVERYONE is using their own reason. Even I believe that Luther and Calvin are rolling in their graves over what their movement has unleashed. I happen to believe that the very fact that humanity is in a fallen state predisposes us to rely on our rationality as a judge…which cannot be reliable…thus…the need for the revelation of God and His establishment of the Church as “pillar and ground of truth” discerned through Love and unity. This is exactly why Love becomes supreme and overarching to Faith throughout scripture. Faith must be subordinate to Love (unity) and the Spirit working through the ecumenia. “(1 Cor 13:13, Colossians 3) Faith alone does not work, when scripture clearly states that Love is greater than faith…that Love activates faith, and that Love brings the ecumenia into harmony. This is the struggle for the image and likeness recapitulated for us through Christ. Faith alone does not work when James clearly states…”not by faith alone.” We are saved by Love alone through Love alone – and not Love as some vague ideological notion, but Love as unity in consilarity and selflessness and kenosis of the fallen dialectic.
DeleteWe are all open to being deceived through rationality which is part of the fallen nature. I clearly state that I am as subject to this as well when I rely on rationality. I'm treating you with a call to repent from this and with prayer for you and yours. Somehow speaking to the ability of Satan to deceive us through epistemology is treating you badly? Then you best never call anyone in your congregation to repentance. This isn't an intellectual exercise Jacob. This is Union with Christ and fulfillment of our calling. I'm speaking against the basic epistemological flaw that defines your faith and to which you proudly proclaim and teach others to cling to. Yes, I believe it is a lie that each man is for himself “Pope and Church.”
Jacob. "He who wrestles with God". It is hard to kick against the goads. I have not treated you badly By speaking to the possibility of darkness infecting any of our epistemology.
You admit to being “fallible” but then deny that by subordinating faith to your own reason, and denying the place of consiliar Love (God is Love) as the only true authority. The core of all of what I have been writing is the epistemological foundations of faith. How is pointing out that the human dialectic being fallen as a result and influence of Satan’s deception, which has brought US ALL into death and corruption somehow an attack? It is a foregone conclusion of Christian faith that Satan seeks to deceive us and destroy the unity of Love in the Church, and therefore the image and likeness of Trinitarian Love God recapitulated for us by Christ.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJacob, apologies for the wording about the workings of the brain. I was intending to express surprise, not disrespect. If brain studies use the word "passive" in the sense you did, then I think I need a further explanation about the distinctions. This could be one more area where materialist science and a genuinely Christian spiritual world view do not meet. I am aware that mind and brain are not synonymous, but my point was even on the most basic level of brain chemistry, our inner workings are far from passive (in the sense I understand this). This wasn't a discussion of the relationship between mind and brain, after all. But in any case, perhaps you'd agree that "watching" is not a *spiritually* passive activity--and since my understanding is the discussion at OB is primarily about the spiritual nature of Orthodox practicel that was how I was approaching this question.
ReplyDeleteSo to conclude maybe I'm missing something, but Jesus seems in the Gospels to put a lot more import on our internal states and motivations of our hearts (the spiritual meaning of our actions) than any of the ways those are expressed externally. Two people in Scripture can do identical things with their bodies and one be condemned while the other be commended because the context in which these things are done and the internal motivation of the person is different in either case. Commands in Scripture related to what we do with our bodies can't be divorced from commands in Scripture about the nature of the internal dispositions which give rise to these and which ultimately make those bodily actions either good or evil.
My point about a possibly erroneous view of "prayer to Mary" was to stress that the essence of prayer is communion and not a magical, mechanistic or contractual exchange (such as, for instance, some of the teachings on prayers to the Saints in the Medieval Catholic Church might have made these seem, and which assumptions about the nature of these prayers the Reformers were working with). I'm not suggesting that you believe prayer is a mechanistic exchange (as with the Divine vending machine, etc.), but by elaborating on my thoughts in this way I was just intending to show that as an Orthodox Christian neither do I believe it is that sort of mechanistic or contractual exchange. I certainly don't disagree petition (from the proper motivation) is a predominant form of prayer in Scripture, which makes sense considering the nature of our life in this world as sinners in need of change and Divine help. To "pray" in the English language as you know just means to "ask" for something. But prayer in the deeper and broader sense this is understood in the Orthodox Church is also an inner state in which we come into a true loving communion with other persons. It involves humbling ourselves which necessarily means honoring the other--and especially Christ in the other, as the statement from St Porphyrios I quoted elsewhere in the thread at OB illustrates.
Hope this helps clarify where I was coming from.
Hi Karen,
Delete***So to conclude maybe I'm missing something, but Jesus seems in the Gospels to put a lot more import on our internal states and motivations of our hearts (the spiritual meaning of our actions) than any of the ways those are expressed externally. Two people in Scripture can do identical things with their bodies and one be condemned while the other be commended because the context in which these things are done and the internal motivation of the person is different in either case. Commands in Scripture related to what we do with our bodies can't be divorced from commands in Scripture about the nature of the internal dispositions which give rise to these and which ultimately make those bodily actions either good or evil***
I don't disagree with any of that.
****My point about a possibly erroneous view of "prayer to Mary" was to stress that the essence of prayer is communion and not a magical, mechanistic or contractual exchange (such as, for instance, some of the teachings on prayers to the Saints in the Medieval Catholic Church might have made these seem, and which assumptions about the nature of these prayers the Reformers were working with).****
"Communion" may very well be the essence of prayer, but most of the prayers in Scripture are petitionary (Or supplication, or thanksgiving, and not necessarily "communion").
***But prayer in the deeper and broader sense this is understood in the Orthodox Church is also an inner state in which we come into a true loving communion with other persons. It involves humbling ourselves which necessarily means honoring the other--and especially Christ in the other, as the statement from St Porphyrios I quoted elsewhere in the thread at OB illustrates.***
And I agree with that. My point was that there is no promise attached to prayers to Mary. God does not promise to bless that.
And is there a direct promise that God blesses the prayers of the righteous man (from the verse in James)? Do we need a direct promise, or can we make inferences from the totality of what the Scriptures teach? It's clearly okay in Scripture to prayer for one another and ask one anthers' prayers in the Body of Christ, isn't it?
DeleteI am all for asking for the prayers of a righteous man, but the situation between praying to departed saints/Mary is not analogous to asking Brother Earl at church. The former are dead (or at least, we can say their body is dead).
DeleteWe simply do not have any warrant or any evidence for praying to departed people.
But that's really not the main kicker. If someone wants to pray to Elijah along the lines of "Elijah, pray for me," I wouldn't be too bothered. It's the attributing of quasi-divine attributes to Mary.
Does the fact whether our bodies are dead or not make a difference to the spiritual reality of our communion in Christ? "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob . . . is not the God of the dead, but of the living," Christ says. He speaks with Elijah and Moses on the Mt. of Transfiguration in the presence of Peter, James and John. Which transcends the other, material reality or spiritual reality? Our real communion with each other is what being "in Christ" means--we have communion with all others who are "in Christ." We either embrace that communion or we do not. This is what this question really revolves around, as far as I'm concerned. But we've been all around this "mulberry bush" before, haven't we? I don't expect to resolve it at this point, but thanks for the chance of conversation. God bless!
DeleteWhat happened when Saul spoke to the departed Samuel?
DeleteYou are inferring a false equivalence here. Does the fact that Saul *used a medium* in direct disobedience to one of God's commands mean anything to you? Find me the commandment of God in the Scripture that forbids us to ask a fellow believer to pray for us after they have passed on. Where are Orthodox seances and mediums, pray tell? Are you aware of any accounts from Church history of the Theotokos or the Saints appearing and rebuking believers for asking for their prayers now that they have passed into God's presence? Are you aware of pious Orthodox trying to use the Saints as their personal genie or for information about the future, or do we rather ask them to pray for our salvation and repentance according to the will of God modeled after the prayers found in our Liturgy?
DeleteI don't dispute that we can ask a fellow believer to pray for us. My contention is that for your claim about praying to Mary to work, she would have to have at least hte divine attribute of omniscience (otherwise, how could she hear all these prayers simultaneously).
Delete***Are you aware of any accounts from Church history of the Theotokos or the Saints appearing and rebuking believers for asking for their prayers now that they have passed into God's presence?***
How would such accounts even be independently verified (or falsified) apart from so-and-so's say so? Further, if you bring in your accounts of supernatural revelation, then I get to bring in mine (especially where they falsify the EO claim on toll houses).
Mary would not have to have the divine attribute of omniscience in order to be enabled by the grace of the Holy Spirit to hear and answer the prayers of believers addressed to her. Jesus prophesied that his disciples would do even greater things than He did and by the Holy Spirit miracles have taken place throughout the history of the Church, which were contrary to normal human abilities. What are the Scriptural grounds for assuming the laws of nature pertaining to this temporal sphere still apply when we have passed beyond time and space into the Presence of God in Eternity? Since "words" of wisdom and knowledge are gifts of the Spirit given even in this age, why would He not share His abilities with faithful believers in even greater measure in Eternity? All believers have been called, according to the Apostle Peter, to become "partakers of the Divine nature." In any event, Orthodox do not claim any abilities for Mary, they do not also claim for any believer as the end result of the realization of theosis. No Orthodox claims Mary or any Saint is capable of supernatural knowledge or ability apart from the working in them of the Holy Spirit.
Delete***Mary would not have to have the divine attribute of omniscience in order to be enabled by the grace of the Holy Spirit to hear and answer the prayers of believers addressed to her.***
DeleteThis is ad hoc since you have no evidence for this point.
***Jesus prophesied that his disciples would do even greater things than He did and by the Holy Spirit miracles have taken place throughout the history of the Church, which were contrary to normal human abilities.***
You would need to demonstrate this is precisely what Jesus had in mind.
***What are the Scriptural grounds for assuming the laws of nature pertaining to this temporal sphere still apply when we have passed beyond time and space into the Presence of God in Eternity?***
When you affirm Chalcedon, you affirm that Jesus has a human nature in a human body. The only way that works is if Jesus has the most basic attributes of a human body (one place in one time, at the right hand of the Father).
The only way you can get out of this is by affirming, contrary to most of your tradition, that Mary is just a soul in heaven. This creates a problem, though, for the final resurrection when she receives a body and thus moves down on the scale of being.
***"When you affirm Chalcedon, you affirm that Jesus has a human nature in a human body. The only way that works is if Jesus has the most basic attributes of a human body (one place in one time, at the right hand of the Father)."***
DeleteWhat part of "it is sewn a mortal body, it is raised a spiritual body" did you not understand? Being in one place at one time only pertains necessarily to this mortal state. The Father, by definition, is a bodiless Spirit Who is everywhere. How can He have a "right hand" for Jesus, even in His human resurrection body, to be limited to?
I'm sorry, Jacob, but here you are just talking nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Very earthbound nonsense.
Does having a "spiritual body" mean that Jesus (or the saints) no longer has a nature like ours? That comes very close to rejecting Chalcedon.
Delete***How can He have a "right hand" for Jesus, even in His human resurrection body, to be limited to?**
I can accept that it's a metaphor, but now you are forced to affirm that Christ's humanity is omnipresent. But let's get back to the issue at question:
a) Does Mary have the necessary attributes in heaven to hear millions of prayers at once? Text and verse?
b) Is this not just ad hoc?
***earthbound nonsense.***
Assetion.
Would you like to supply chapter and verse for where in the Scriptures it teaches that an essential part of our glorified humanity is that we are confined to a body that is limited to one spot in space and time (never mind that it is explicit in its teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 that we will no longer be bound to the terrestrial)? Two can play at that game, Jacob, but I think I'm done playing in the sandbox for now.
DeleteSimple. Flesh is circumscribed. Otherwise it is spirit. You ask for averse and then you say you are done. Well, which is it?
DeleteFrom that, I will have to conclude that according to you, St. Paul is using an oxymoron of our resurrected state since he says our natural (fleshly) body is raised a "spiritual body." It seems to me God likes playing outside of the lines you draw. It seems to me also it's more fitting to give Him glory for that, than to argue about what is, ultimately, outside both of our experience (at least, I claim no heavenly visions like St. Paul--I'm happy to defer to his authority). Have a good day!
DeleteIs the flesh of Jesus circumscribed?
Delete