Did Christ Have a Fallen Human Nature? (Fr. Emmanuel Hatzidakis) Parts (1-8)

 

Part 1

Did Christ have a sin nature?

According to our blogger fallen nature means sin nature. Is everyone in agreement with that? What does fallen nature mean? What does sin nature mean? Do we all agree with the syllogism that since Christ was 100% human and since all humans have a sin nature ergo He must have by necessity a sin nature? Or with the syllogism behind the syllogism: Christ has a human nature; human nature is fallen; therefore He has a fallen nature? Can one have a sin nature and be sinless? How can the sinless One reap the “wages of sin”? Does assuming a postlapsarian nature and remaining sinless are mutually exclusive?

Does fallen nature mean sinful nature?

Postlapsarianists want Christ to be exactly like us, fallen, yet not exactly like us, sinful. How can the two be reconciled? Despite attributing to Him a “sin nature” they claim that He resisted temptations and never sinned. But even if Christ remained totally sinless, as most postlapsarianists aver, the fact remains that as fallen He must bear all the consequences of the fall, which, besides having an irresistible tendency to sin, includes corruption, suffering, and physical and spiritual death. Did Christ inherit a fallen human nature and did He necessarily live under the conditions of fallen world, as any other human being?

Is Christ’s human nature fallen or un-fallen?

Fallen – un-fallen. This has been the binary along which Christologists have been debating Christ’s humanness. But can it be that there is an alternative? Christ does not seem to be un-fallen. He exhibits the consequences of the fall, as we all do: He tires, He hungers, He thirsts, He displays ignorance, emotions, sadness, fears; He experiences pain, both physical and emotional, and as He comes into existence so He expires and dies. Yet, He also exhibits characteristics that are beyond normal human experience: He goes on for many days without any food or drink, He floats on water, and He shows extraordinary powers. He doesn’t seem to fit either condition. What’s the answer?

Was Christ in control of the passions or under their control?

Christ has clearly exhibited characteristics that belong to fallen humanity. Could we then call Him fallen? Well, there are a few more questions that need to be answered first: Was He inherently fallen, that is, were sinfulness, corruption and mortality ingrained in His human nature or was He free of these consequences of the fall, but He voluntarily assumed only certain of these consequences, called blameless or innocent passions? Are such passions essential elements of humanity so that Christ had to necessarily assume them in order to be fully human or did He exercise control over the human passions He accepted freely for our salvation?

How did Christ’s two natures coexist?

There is another set of questions pertaining to the union of humanity and divinity in His person. Was there any interchange between His two natures? Did the union have any effect over His humanity or did the two natures function separately and independently of each other? How do we perceive that union? Should we treat Christ as a mere human being in the way He thinks, He acts, He lives, and He dies, or should we take into account the fact that the hypostatic union exerts an influence on Christ’s humanity, making Him a unique reality? What are the consequences of the hypostatic union? How does Christ function as God and man?

Could Christ have a fallen human nature?

Could He? Christ is the incarnate Son of God. Anything predicated upon the human nature of Christ is predicated upon the Person of Christ. Isn’t saying Christ’s human nature is fallen the same as saying the Son of God is fallen? Could we possibly attribute fallenness to the Son of God? How could He be subject to all the consequences of the original sin? How could Christ win a victory over death when He was doomed to die from the moment He was conceived? How could the Son of God be an un-voluntary instrument of Satan? How could the powers of His intellect and soul be feeble and His spirit deprived of God’s sanctifying grace?

---

In this blog post we’ve only posed questions. In the posts that will follow we’ll examine our blogger’s unequivocal conviction that Christ was fallen, just like we all are, and attempt to provide what we think are definitive answers, at least from an Eastern Orthodox perspective.

Life of St Martyr Eugenia of Rome (+258)

In the seventh year of the reign of the Roman Emperor Commodus, who succeeded his father Marcus Aurelius , a certain renowned nobleman named Philip was appointed ruler of all Egypt. Having received this appointment, Philip moved with his wife Claudia and their children from Rome to Alexandria. He had two sons, Avitus and Sergius, and an only daughter, Eugenia, beautiful in appearance and chaste in spirit, whose life is the subject of this account.

Philip ruled Egypt according to Roman laws and the customs of his ancestors. He greatly disliked sorcerers and wizards and persecuted them in every way. He also disliked Jews, going so far as to refuse to hear a Hebrew name. He was most merciful to Christians and, although he expelled them from Alexandria by royal decree, nevertheless allowed them to settle peacefully and serve their God in the outskirts of that city. Philip respected Christians for their purity of life and wisdom. He himself eagerly studied Greek philosophy, in which he also raised his daughter Eugenia, wanting her to acquire a thorough knowledge of philosophy. Philip also taught Eugenia to speak Latin and Greek fluently and beautifully. Possessing a clear mind and diligence, Eugenia easily excelled in the sciences. Whatever she heard or read, she always firmly remembered, cherishing it in her heart as if it were engraved on a copper plate. She was also beautiful in face and slender in body, but even more beautiful and beautiful in the chastity of her thoughts and virginal purity. Therefore, one of the most distinguished Roman dignitaries, Aquilinus, wished to betroth her to his son Aquilius. But when her parents asked her if she would consent to marry this noble youth, Eugenia replied:

– You should choose a husband who is best for you in life, and not by birth, because you will have to live with him, and not with his family.

Other noble and rich young men also wished to betroth themselves to her, but she refused them all, under the pretext that she was not pleased with their way of life, but in reality she avoided marriage out of love for virginal purity, for her only desire and concern was to remain a virgin.

Bestial following (St Tikhon of Zadonsk)

We see that where one animal goes, other animals follow, even if it leads to harm. Many people act foolishly, acting on their feelings rather than their reason, and following one another like animals, not considering whether it will be beneficial or harmful. We see this lawless and destructive jealousy in the world. One begins throwing frequent banquets, drinking, carousing, getting drunk, and intoxicating others—and so does another, and a third. One begins to show off—and others follow him. One accumulates great wealth—and others are concerned about the same. One shameless woman smears her face with whitewash and paint—and others follow her, and they all commit a destructive act, as one. One lawless merchant asks a trader for a price higher than the goods are worth, and swears to this, and invokes the holy and awesome name of God in this lawless deed. Others like him do the same. So, too, in other ways, poor people imitate one another. They imitate, but to their own detriment and destruction. This is foolishness! This bestial adherence! This is a pestilence with which Christian souls, redeemed by the most holy Blood of Christ, are infected and perish! This is a soul-destroying fire that, having begun in one, burns down other spiritual homes! Alas, the misfortune! Alas, the woe! Evil begins in one, and everyone does it, and it becomes customary, and becomes so firmly established that it is impossible to eradicate it, like a chronic disease. – People will laugh at me if I don’t do as they do.

Life of St Anthony the Roman of Novgorod (+1147)

Saint Anthony was born in Rome in 1067, immediately after the Church of Rome had separated from the Universal Church. His parents remained faithful to the Orthodox teachings of the Eastern Churches and raised their son in a spirit of Orthodox piety. Saint Anthony received a good education and was able to read the Holy Scriptures in both Latin and Greek.
His parents died when he was seventeen and he had already decided to dedicate his life to the service of God. He was not interested in his material inheritance and, distributing it among the poor, he left the noisy city and its many distractions in search of loneliness. In a remote area of the country the young people joined a small community of monks who had also preserved their Orthodox faith.

Spirituality and soulfulness (Archbishop Averky Taushev)

“The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned” ( 1 Cor. 2:14 ).

How is this possible? Why does the natural man not receive the things of the Spirit of God , and how can he even consider them foolishness ? And what does it mean to judge spiritually ?

In secular language, a "natural man" is usually defined as someone who displays the best qualities of the soul—a kind, warm-hearted person. Why then can such a person reject what is "of the Spirit of God" and even consider it "foolishness"? Haven't we been taught from childhood that man consists of soul and body, and that although the body is created from the earth, the soul is the highest principle in man, of divine origin and striving for God? How then can such a soul be alien to God and reject what comes from the Spirit of God? But the Apostle Jude, the brother of the Lord, in his epistle to the Church, speaking of how "in the latter times there will arise mockers, walking according to their own ungodly lusts, who will separate themselves from the unity of the faith," then adds, as if by way of clarification, "these are natural men, who do not have the Spirit" ( Jude 1:19 ).

The Significance of the Ecumenical Councils (Archbishop Averky Taushev)

The Seven Ecumenical Councils, following the Gospel of Christ, are the foundation and confirmation of our Orthodox Christian Faith, for our Faith is not only Apostolic, preached by the Holy Apostles, disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, but also Patristic, interpreted and clarified by the Holy Fathers as the legitimate, grace-filled successors of the Holy Apostles. The Holy Spirit, who rested upon the Holy Apostles on the day of Pentecost, enlightening and giving them wisdom, also rested upon the Holy God-bearing Fathers, enlightening and giving them wisdom.

In our Orthodox Church, however, there is no impious teaching about anyone’s personal infallibility – infallibility belongs only to the entire conciliar consciousness of the entire Church as a whole, which consciousness found its external expression at the Ecumenical Councils, which therefore boldly repeated the apostolic words spoken in the definition of the First Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in 51, which Council became the prototype of all subsequent Councils: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” ( Acts 15:28 ).

It is necessary to remember that not every council is infallible, but only the one that expresses and affirms the universal consciousness of the Church, which is accepted by the entire Church as ecumenical.

And although in controversial cases, councils sometimes resorted to voting to establish a "majority vote" that would prevail, the democratic principle of "majority votes" never had absolute significance in the Church. We know of numerous instances where the truth was not on the side of the majority, but rather on the side of the minority, and was even concentrated entirely in a single person. On the other hand, there have been councils in the history of the Church, some very large, which claimed to be called "ecumenical," but were rejected by the universal consciousness of the Church. One of these "councils" even received the colorful and expressive name of "Robber Council" (449).

Communism vs Orthodoxy (St Philaret of New York)

.Communion of goods in Christianity and communism.

.Violation of justice in communism.

.The ideology of Christianity and communism.

Let us now consider the question of the relationship between Christianity and communism. That communism, which now appeared before the eyes of the whole world as a fact, as an attempt to really implement socialist ideas in life, is in Soviet Russia.
Everyone knows that communism appeared directly in history as a sworn and bitter enemy of Christianity. For its part, Christianity recognizes it as completely foreign and hostile to itself, in its very spirit, in the entire content of its ideology.
The history of the Church in apostolic times tells us that in those times believers had everything in common, as the book of the Acts of the Apostles says. And even now this Christian type of community exists in cenobitic monasticism, which is considered the best form of Christian ascetic life. Therefore, communication of property from a Christian point of view is very acceptable, and moreover: this is a bright, ideally high type of Christian relationship, examples of which have been and exist in the life of the Orthodox Church.
And how much difference is there between such a Christian community of property and Marxism-communism! One is as distant from the other as the sky is from the earth. After all, the Christian community is not the goal towards which Christianity is intended. No, it exists: consequence and product of the spirit of love that the Church breathed in the early times. Furthermore, this Christian communism was completely voluntary. In it no one said: “Return what is yours, it belongs to us,” but, on the contrary, the Christians themselves sacrificed themselves in such a way that “none of them considered anything of their possessions as their own.” As for socialist communism, in it the communication of property is an end in itself, which must be achieved at all costs and whatever happens. And the creators of communism achieve this goal - simply by force, without stopping at any measures, not even the destruction of all those who do not agree... And the basis of this communism is not freedom, as in communism Christian, but violence, not sacrifice. love, but envy and hate...
The main struggle of communism is the struggle against Christianity. He goes so far as to reject even elementary justice, universally recognized. In its class ideology, communism essentially tramples on all justice. The object of his concerns is not the common good of all citizens of the state, but only the interests of his party. All groups of the population, workers, peasants and intellectuals, are left behind, outside of any care of the communist government. They may be starving, they may not have a cent of income - the ruling "spheres" have nothing to do with this. What is this if not a violation of justice and a mockery of millions of people?..
Communism, speaking of the new system of a “free” state, constantly emphasizes the fact that this system is the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. But it has been clear for some time that in Soviet Russia there is no longer any trace of this promised dictatorship of the proletariat, but instead there is a dictatorship over the proletariat. Furthermore, there are no customary manifestations of political freedom: no freedom of the press, no freedom of assembly, no inviolability of the home. Only those who have lived in Russia know the severity and strength of the oppression that reigns there. And above all there is unprecedented political terror: executions and murders, exile and imprisonment in incredibly difficult conditions. This is what communism gave to the Russian people, instead of the promised freedom...
In its political propaganda, communism claims to seek the realization of freedom, equality (i.e. justice) and brotherhood. We have already talked about the first and second; As for "brotherhood", there is no doubt that this word has been stolen from Christians who call themselves "brothers". And the apostle Peter said directly: “Honor all, love brotherhood…”. ( 1 Peter 2:17 ). But in practical life, the communists, as you know, immediately replaced the word “brother” with the word “comrade”. And this is very significant, because comrades can be both accomplices in crimes and members of some kind of bandit gang. And, of course, there is no need to talk about "brotherhood" where class struggle, envy and hatred are preached...
All these differences between Christianity and communism do not exhaust, however, the very essence of the contradiction between them. The fundamental, main and all-encompassing difference between communism and Christianity is even deeper: in the ideology of both It is not for nothing that the communists fight so fiercely and stubbornly against the Orthodox faith.
Communism denies all religion. In fact, he himself is a religion - the most fanatical that has ever existed in the world - the most intolerant and dark. Christianity is a religion that leads to Heaven, communism is a religion that leads to hell. Christianity preaches love for all; communism preaches class hatred and the destruction of those who disagree. Christianity is a sublime religion based on faith in the victory of the Truth and Love of God. Communism is a religion that pursues the goal of creating an earthly "paradise" (a paradise of animal satiety and spiritual ferocity). And it is not for nothing that a cross is placed on the grave of a Christian, and a red stake on the grave of a communist. How indicative, bright and symbolic this is for both sides! On the one hand, faith in the victory of life over death and of good over evil. On the other hand, there is darkness, darkness and hopeless emptiness, with no joy, consolation or hope ahead. And while after death the sacred relics of the ascetics of the Christian faith bloom incorruptible and are fragrant, the decaying corpse of the embalmed "Ilyich" (Lenin) is the best symbol of communism...

All Christians should pray without ceasing (St Gregory Palamas)

Let no one think, my Christian brethren, that only clergy and monks have the duty to pray unceasingly and always, and not the laity. No, no; all of us Christians have the duty to always remain in prayer. For consider what His Holiness Philotheus, Patriarch of Constantinople, writes in his Life of St. Gregory of Thessaloniki. This saint had a beloved friend, Job by name, a simple man, but full of virtue, with whom, while conversing one day, the bishop said of prayer that every Christian in general must strive in prayer always, and pray without ceasing, as the Apostle Paul commands all Christians in general: "Pray without ceasing" ( 1 Thessalonians 5:17 ), and as the prophet David says of himself, despite being a king and having care for his entire kingdom: "I have set the Lord before me continually" ( Psalm 16:8 ), that is, I always mentally see the Lord before me in my prayer. And Gregory the Theologian teaches all Christians and tells them that they should remember the name of God in prayer more often than they breathe air.

Orthodox view of the monophysites/miaphysites/non-chalcedonians (oriental orthodox)

Be careful not to confuse the Orthodox Church with the pseudo-Orthodox Miaphysite Church, which is the epitome of the Monophysitism heresy, which claims that Christ has a mixed Divine-human nature, making Him neither fully God nor fully man. Instead, we follow the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), which condemned this heresy by proclaiming that Christ has two natures in one Person. Christ is 100% God and 100% man, and not in between, with a mixed nature as they claim. The Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, and Syriac churches belong to this pseudo-church.

1. Against monophysites by monk Leontius of Jerusalem
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Leontij_Ierusalimskij/protiv-monofizitov/

2. Fr Theodore Zisis, Is the Armenian Church Orthodox?
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feodor_Zisis/javljaetsja-li-armjanskaja-tserkov-pravoslavnoj/

Youtube playlist on this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3QQ7jHr1GrTO3WLauMBQ6kbTEphu2rHg

To translate the sites into your preferred language, use google translator.

Orthodox Christianity on Life after death

A collection of sources

1. Soul After Death (St Seraphim Rose)
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Serafim_Rouz/dusha-posle-smerti/

2. Life after death (Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos)
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ierofej_Vlahos/zhizn-posle-smerti/

3. Life after death according to the Orthodox tradition (Professor Jean-Claude Larchet)
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Zhan_Klod_Larshe/zhizn-posle-smerti-soglasno-pravoslavnoj-traditsii/

4. The Mystery of Death (Nicholas Vassiliades)
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/bogoslovie/tainstvo-smerti/

5. Eternal Mysteries Beyond the Grave (Archimandrite Panteleimon)
https://azbyka.ru/fiction/tajny-zagrobnogo-mira/

To translate the books into your preferred language use google translator.