quote:

---

"Theopaschism" — the acceptance of formulae which affirm that the "Son of God died in the flesh" — illustrates how distinct the concepts of "hypostasis" and "nature" or "essence" really are. The distinction is stressed by one of the main Chalcedonian theologians of the age of Justinian, Leontius of Jerusalem: "The Logos," writes Leontius, "is said to have suffered according to the hypostasis, for within His hypostasis He assumed a passible [human] essence besides His own impassible essence, and what can be asserted of the [human] essence can be asserted of the hypostasis."9 What this implies is that the characteristics of the divine essence — impassibility, immutability, etc. — are not absolutely binding upon the personal, or hypostatic, existence of God. Later we shall see the importance of this fact for the patristic and Byzantine understanding of God. Meanwhile on the level of soteriology, the affirmation that the Son of God indeed "died in the flesh" reflected — better than any other Christological formula — the boundlessness of God’s love for man, the reality of the "appropriation" by the Logos of fallen and mortal humanity — i.e., the very mystery of salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

Alright, I'm a bad listener. I am trying. The best I can understand it, essence is kind of like what species God is and energies is His personality. Is that too horible? I going to look around for some definitions.

---

• Vladimir Lossky, "God in Trinity" Chapter 3 of The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (SVS Press, Crestwood, NY: 1976), pp. 44-67. jbburnett.com/resources/lossky/lossky_myst1-trinity.pdf


• Vladimir Lossky, "The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine": Chapter 4 of In the Image and Likeness of God (SVS Press, Crestwood, NY: 1974), pp. 71-96. jbburnett.com/resources/lossky/lossky_img4-process-filioq.pdf

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

Maybe we would avoid a lot of problems if these Orthodox guys you are quoting were translated into English. I might agree then. But as long as impassible means not passive or immutable means something other than unable to change people are going to be more confused than edified. If impassible in Orthodoxeese means voluntary in English, let's get some English translations. I'm not going to venture a guess as to how immutable is redefined to make it apply to God, but hopefully that's just bad word choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

Did someone say b.s.? I'm sorry, but no. No way. This is preChristian, Greek philosophy. The God of the Old testament is not immutable. I've spent a lot of time going over and discussing this elsewhere, and I'm pretty sure I'm not going there. This is a discription of the god of Plato or somebody, not Jacob's God, not David's God, not even Noah's God. Unless we go back to the old debate and start inventing new meanings for older words, no. If that quote is to be read as English and not as Orthodoxeese, I completely disagree, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find an Old Testament saint with five chapters devoted to him who would agree.

---

quote:

---

Content:

Byzantine Theology after Chalcedon.
... Exegetical traditions. Philosophical trends. The Problem of Origenism. Pseudo-Dionysius. Liturgy.

The Christological Issue.
... The Monophysites. The Strict Dyophysites. The Cyrillian Chalcedonians. The Origenists.

The Iconoclastic Crisis.
... Appearance of the Movement. Iconoclastic Theology. Orthodox Theology of Images: John of Damascus and the Seventh Council. Orthodox Theology of Images: Theodore the Studite and Nicephorus. Lasting Significance of the Issue.

Monks and Humanists.
... Theodore the Studite. Photius (ca. 820 ¯ ca. 891). Michael Psellos (1018-1078). The Trials of John Italos (1076-1077, 1082).

Monastic Theology.
... The Origins of Monastic Thought: Evagrius and Macarius. The Great Spiritual Fathers. Opposition to Secular Philosophy. Christian Faith as Experience: Symeon the New Theologian. Theology of Hesychasm: Gregory Palamas.

Ecclesiology: Canonical Sources.
... The Councils and the Fathers. Imperial Legislation. Codifications of Ecclesiastical Law. Authoritative Commentaries and Criticism. Synodal and Patriarchal Decrees. Ïéêïnïméa.

The Schism Between East and West.
... The Filioque. Other Controversies. Authority in the Church. Two Ideas of Primacy. The Meaning of the Schism.

Encounter with the West.
... The Circle of Cantacuzenos. Humanists. Palamite Theologians: Nicholas Cabasilas. Florence.

Lex orandi.
... The "Great Church" of Constantinople. The Liturgical Cycles. Hymnology.


Doctrinal Themes.

Creation.
... Creator and Creatures. The Divine Plan. The Dynamism of Creation. Sanctification of Nature.

Man.
... Man and God. Man and the World. Original Sin. The New Eve.

Jesus Christ.
... God and Man. Redemption and Deification. The Theotokos.

The Holy Spirit.
... The Spirit in Creation. The Spirit and Man’s Redemption. The Spirit and the Church. The Spirit and Man’s Freedom.

The Triune God.
... Unity and Trinity. Hypostasis, Essence, and Energy. The Living God.


Sacramental Theology: The Cycle of Life.
... Number of Sacraments. Baptism and Chrismation. Penance. Marriage. Healing and Death.

The Eucharist.
... Symbols, Images, and Reality. Eucharist and Church.

The Church in the World.
... Church and Society. The Mission of the Church. Eschatology.

Conclusion.
... Antinomies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel


2. Read this by Meyendorff, from LINK above:

quote:

---

"Theopaschism" — the acceptance of formulae which affirm that the "Son of God died in the flesh" — illustrates how distinct the concepts of "hypostasis" and "nature" or "essence" really are. The distinction is stressed by one of the main Chalcedonian theologians of the age of Justinian, Leontius of Jerusalem: "The Logos," writes Leontius, "is said to have suffered according to the hypostasis, for within His hypostasis He assumed a passible [human] essence besides His own impassible essence, and what can be asserted of the [human] essence can be asserted of the hypostasis."9 What this implies is that the characteristics of the divine essence — impassibility, immutability, etc. — are not absolutely binding upon the personal, or hypostatic, existence of God. Later we shall see the importance of this fact for the patristic and Byzantine understanding of God. Meanwhile on the level of soteriology, the affirmation that the Son of God indeed "died in the flesh" reflected — better than any other Christological formula — the boundlessness of God’s love for man, the reality of the "appropriation" by the Logos of fallen and mortal humanity — i.e., the very mystery of salvation.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

The formula of Christ dying in the flesh. Sounds like a system. Must be heresy.

If the system is scriptural, what's the problem? The ideas that God is impassible or immutable are not scriptural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

The formula of Christ dying in the flesh. Sounds like a system. Must be heresy.

If the system is scriptural, what's the problem? The ideas that God is impassible or immutable are not scriptural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

if you are going to accuse me of being trapped or what did you say?... nested within a school of thought, you might want to look in the mirror.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

I agree that this isn't going anhywhere.

---

quote:

---

John of Damascus.

An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith


Book III.


Chapter XXVI.

Concerning the Passion of our Lord’s body, and the Impassibility of His divinity.

The Word of God then itself endured all in the flesh, while His divine nature which alone was passionless remained void of passion. For since the one Christ, Who is a compound of divinity and humanity, and exists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that part which is capable of passion suffered as it was natural it should, but that part which was void of passion did not share in the suffering. For the soul, indeed, since it is capable of passion shares in the pain and suffering of a bodily cut, though it is not cut itself but only the body: but the divine part which is void of passion does not share in the suffering of the body.

Observe, further309 , that we say that God suffered in the flesh, bat never that His divinity suffered in the flesh, or that God suffered through the flesh. For if, when the sun is shining upon a tree, the axe should cleave the tree, and, nevertheless, the sun remains uncleft and void of passion, much more will the passionless divinity of the Word, united in subsistence to the flesh, remain void of passion when the body undergoes passion310 . And should any one pour water over flaming steel, it is that which naturally suffers by the water, I mean, the fire, that is quenched, but the steel remains untouched (for it is not the nature of steel to be destroyed by water): much more, then, when the flesh suffered did His only passionless divinity escape all passion although abiding inseparable from it. For one must not take the examples too absolutely and strictly: indeed, in the examples, one must consider both what is like and what is unlike, otherwise it would not be an example. For, if they were like in all respects they would be identities, and not examples, and all the more so in dealing with divine matters. For one cannot find an example that is like in all respects whether we are dealing with theology or the dispensation.


Chapter XXVII.

Concerning the fact that the divinity of the Word remained inseparable from the soul and the body, even at our Lord’s death, and that His subsistence continued one.

Since our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin (for He committed no sin, He Who took away the sin of the world, nor was there any deceit found in His mouth311 ) He was not subject to death, since death came into the world through sin312 . He dies, therefore, because He took on Himself death on our behalf, and He makes Himself an offering to the Father for our sakes. For we had sinned against Him, and it was meet that He should receive the ransom for us, and that we should thus he delivered from the condemnation. God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant313 . Wherefore death approaches, and swallowing up the body as a bait is transfixed on the hook of divinity, and after tasting of a sinless and life-giving body, perishes, and brings up again all whom of old he swallowed up. For just as darkness disappears on the introduction of light, so is death repulsed before the assault of life, and brings life to all, but death to the destroyer.

Wherefore, although314 He died as man and His Holy Spirit was severed from His immaculate body, yet His divinity remained inseparable from both, I mean, from His soul and His body, and so even thus His one hypostasis was not divided into two hypostases. For body and soul received simultaneously in the beginning their being in the subsistence315 of the Word, and although they were severed from one another by death, yet they continued, each of them, having the one subsistence of the Word. So that the one subsistence of the Word is alike the subsistence of the Word, and of soul and body. For at no time had either soul or body a separate subsistence of their own, different from that of the Word, and the subsistence of the Word is for ever one, and at no time two. So that the subsistence of Christ is always one. For, although the soul was separated from the body topically, yet hypostatically they were united through the Word.


Chapter XXVIII.

Concerning Corruption and Destruction.

The word corruption316 has two meanings317 . For it signifies all the human sufferings, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, the piercing with nails, death, that is, the separation of soul and body, and so forth. In this sense we say that our Lord’s body was subject to corruption. For He voluntarily accepted all these things. But corruption means also the complete resolution of the body into its constituent elements, and its utter disappearance, which is spoken of by many preferably as destruction. The body of our Lord did not experience this form of corruption, as the prophet David says, For Thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine holy one to see corruption318 .

Wherefore to say, with that foolish Julianus and Gaianus, that our Lord’s body was incorruptible, in the first sense of the word, before His resurrection is impious. For if it were incorruptible it was not really, but only apparently, of the same essence as ours, and what the Gospel tells us happened, viz. the hunger, the thirst, the nails, the wound in His side, the death, did not actually occur. But if they only apparently happened, then the mystery of the dispensation is an imposture and a sham, and He became man only in appearance, and not in actual fact, and we are saved only in appearance, and not in actual fact. But God forbid, and may those who so say have no part in the salvation319 . But we have obtained and shall obtain the true salvation. But in the second meaning of the word “corruption,” we confess that our Lord’s body is incorruptible, that is, indestructible, for such is the tradition of the inspired Fathers. Indeed, after the resurrection of our Saviour from the dead, we say that our Lord’s body is incorruptible even in the first sense of the word. For our Lord by His own body bestowed the gifts both of resurrection and of subsequent incorruption even on our own body, He Himself having become to us the firstfruits both of resurrection and incorruption, and of passionlessness320 . For as the divine Apostle says, This corruptible must put an incorruption321 .


Chapter XXIX.

Concerning the Descent to Hades.

The soul322 when it was deified descended into Hades, in order that, just as the Sun of Righteousness323 rose for those upon the earth, so likewise He might bring light to those who sit under the earth in darkness and shadow of death324 : in order that just as He brought the message of peace to those upon the earth, and of release to the prisoners, and of sight to the blind325 , and became to those who believed the Author of everlasting salvation and to those who did not believe a reproach of their unbelief326 , so He might become the same to those in Hades327 : That every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things in earth and things under the earth328 . And thus after He had freed those who had been bound for ages, straightway He rose again from the dead, shewing us the way of resurrection.

309 Photius, Cod. 46
310 Athan., De salut. Adv. Christi
311 Is. liii. 9 ; St. John i. 29.
312 Rom. v. 12.
313 Greg., Orat. 42
314 Cf. Epiph., Hoeres. 69; Greg. Nyss., Contr. Eunom., II. p. 55.
315 uJpovstasi", hypostasis.
316 Leont. De sect., Act. 10, and Dial.cont.Aphthartodoc.
317 Anast Sinait., Hodegus, p. 295
318 Ps. xvi. 10
319 Anast. Sinait., Hodegus, p. 293.
320 1 Cor. xv. 20.
321 Ibid. 53.
322 Cf. Ruf., Expos. Symbol. Apost.; Cassian, Contr. Nestor, bk. vi.; Cyril, Calech. 14.
323 Mal. Iv. 2.
324 Is. Ix. 2.
325 Is. Lxi. I; St. Luke iv. 19.
326 1 Pet. iii. 19.
327 Iren., iv. 45; Greg. Naz., Orat. 42.
328 Phil. ii. 10.BOOK IV

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-28.htm#P2572_1620805

Book One.

---

quote:

---

Chapter XIV.

The properties of the divine nature.

Uncreate, without beginning, immortal, infinite, eternal, immaterial229 , good, creative, just, enlightening, immutable, passionless, uncircumscribed, immeasurable, unlimited, undefined, unseen, unthinkable, wanting in nothing, being His own rule and authority, all-ruling, life-giving, omnipotent, of infinite power, con-raining and maintaining the universe and making provision for all: all these and such like attributes the Deity possesses by nature, not having received them from elsewhere, but Himself imparting all good to His own creations according to the capacity of each.

The subsistences dwell and are established firmly in one another. For they are inseparable and cannot part from one another, but keep to their separate courses within one another, without coalescing or mingling, but cleaving to each other. For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit, but there is no coalescence or commingling or confusion230 ú And there is one and the same motion: for there is one impulse and one motion of the three subsistences, which is not to be observed in any created nature.

Further the divine effulgence and energy, being one anti simple and indivisible, assuming many varied forms in its goodness among what is divisible and allotting to each the component parts of its own nature, still remains simple and is multiplied without division among the divided, and gathers and converts the divided into its own simplicity231 . For all things long after it and have their existence in it. It gives also to all things being according to their several natures232 , and it is itself the being of existing things, the life of living things, the reason of rational beings, the thought of thinking beings. But it is itself above mind and reason and life and essence.

Further the divine nature has the property of penetrating all things without mixing with them and of being itself impenetrable by anything else. Moreover, there is the property of knowing all things with a simple knowledge and of seeing all things, simply with His divine, all-surveying, immaterial eye, both the things of the present, and the things of the past, and the things of the future, before they come into being233 . It is also sinless, and can cast sin out, and bring salvation: and all that it wills, it can accomplish, but does not will all it could accomplish. For it could destroy the universe but it does not will so to

---

quote:

---

Chapter VI.

Concerning the question, when Christ was called.

The mind was not united with God the Word, as some falsely assert17 , before the Incarnation by the Virgin and from that time called Christ. That is the absurd nonsense of Origen18 who lays down the doctrine of the priority of the existence of souls. But we hold that the Son and Word of God became Christ after He had dwelt in the womb of His holy ever-virgin Mother, and became flesh without change, and that the flesh was anointed with divinity. For this is the anointing of humanity, as Gregory the Theologian says19 . And here are the words of the most holy Cyril of Alexandria which he wrote to the Emperor Theodosius20 : “For I indeed hold that one ought to give the name Jesus Christ neither to the Word that is of God if He is without humanity, nor yet to the temple born of woman if it is not united with the Word. For the Word that is of God is understood to be Christ when united with humanity in ineffable manner in the union of the oeconomy21 .” And again, he writes to the Empresses thus22 : “Some hold that the name ‘Christ’ is rightly given to the Word that is begotten of God the Father, to Him alone, and regarded separately by Himself. But we have not been taught so to think and speak. For when the Word became flesh, then it was, we say, that He was called Christ Jesus. For since He was anointed with the oil of gladness, that is the Spirit, by Him Who is God and Father, He is for this reason23 called Christ. But that the anointing was an act that concerned Him as man could be doubted by no one who is accustomed to think rightly.” Moreover, the celebrated Athanasius says this in his discourse “Concerning the Saving Manifestation:” “The God Who was before the sojourn in the flesh was not man, but God in God, being invisible and without passion, but when He became man, He received in addition the name of Christ because of the flesh, since, indeed, passion and death follow in the train of this name.”

And although the holy Scripture24 says, Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness25 , it is to be observed that the holy Scripture often uses the past tense instead of the future, as for example here: Thereafter He was seen upon the earth and dwelt among men26 . For as yet God was not seen nor did He dwell among men when this was said. And here again: By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down; yea wept27 . For as yet these things had not come to pass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

Well then, back to my study....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sometimesisquint

If you're simply studying the issue for yourself and neglecting all conversations of disagreement, then why even post on a public forum?

---

quote:

---

"...For our Lord by His own body bestowed the gifts both of resurrection and of subsequent incorruption even on our own body, He Himself having become to us the firstfruits both of resurrection and incorruption, and of passionlessness 320 . For as the divine Apostle says, This corruptible must put on incorruption 32..."

---

quote:

---

"...The Word of God then itself endured all in the flesh, while His divine nature which alone was passionless remained void of passion. For since the one Christ, Who is a compound of divinity and humanity, and exists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that part which is capable of passion suffered as it was natural it should, but that part which was void of passion did not share in the suffering. For the soul, indeed, since it is capable of passion shares in the pain and suffering of a bodily cut, though it is not cut itself but only the body: but the divine part which is void of passion does not share in the suffering of the body.

Observe, further309 , that we say that God suffered in the flesh, bat never that His divinity suffered in the flesh, or that God suffered through the flesh. For if, when the sun is shining upon a tree, the axe should cleave the tree, and, nevertheless, the sun remains uncleft and void of passion, much more will the passionless divinity of the Word, united in subsistence to the flesh, remain void of passion when the body undergoes passion310. ..."

---