A Critical Commentary on the Book "On the Nature of Christ" by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III

[مايكل فيت]

سلام ونعمة
.................

My dear brother
1-thank You for your comment,of course God did not create death that's refused as well as creating a sinner by nature to live with him.In the liturgy of saint GREGORY we say about the LOGOS Who, for the sake of goodness only, formed man out of what existed not, and put him in the paradise of joy.And when he fell, through the guile of the enemy and disobedience of Thine commandment,and Thou desiredst to renew him, and to restore him to his first estate.THAT'S our faith in the same liturgy we say
One plant did Thou forbid me to eat of.That concerning which Thou said to me, “Do not eat of it
only.”

I did eat, out of my will.I put away from me Thy law out of my counsel.I became slothful about Thy commandments.I plucked for myself the sentence of death
2-I read the The Ancestral Sin as you told me from the firs time you advised me &it is great
3-the page is 15 ,chapter 6 that explain why God incarnated

[John of the Ladder]

That is different from what I have heard Pope Shenouda III once, that God condemned by death Adam and Eve and all their offspring (he used the terms man sperms and woman eggs) which approves that the Original Sin in the context of the Coptic Church theology, is biologically inherited. Otherwise, we can say, again, that there is some departure from the ancient teaching of the Coptic Church in these days.

Anyway, regarding St. Athanasius and his statements quoted by you previously, as I said we must understand them in the theology context of St. Athanasius as a whole, and not making out-of-context quotations, which may lead to misunderstanding. Listen what St Athanasius says in the same book: On the Incarnation of the Word:

For God has not only made us out of nothing; but He gave us freely, by the Grace of the Word, a life in correspondence with God. But men, having rejected things eternal, and, by counsel of the devil, turned to the things of corruption, became the cause of their own corruption in death, being, as I said before, by nature corruptible, but destined, by the grace following from partaking of the Word, to have escaped their natural state, had they remained good. 2. For because of the Word dwelling with them, even their natural corruption did not come near them, as Wisdom also says : “God made man for incorruption, and as an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the devil death came into the world.” But when this was come to pass, men began to die, while corruption thence-forward prevailed against them, gaining even more than its natural power over the whole race, inasmuch as it had, owing to the transgression of the commandment, the threat of the Deity as a further advantage against them.

So, God by His knowledge in advance, warned Adam from eating from the forbidden tree, because when he eats from it, he will sin, and this sin separates him from God, the Life-Giving, which leads naturally to death and corruption.

Shall we continue?

In IC XC

[مايكل فيت]

سلام و نعمة
..................

Dear John
I said:-

We were all sinners so the judgment is a normal consequence of sin due to the corrupt nature

So, God by His knowledge in advance, warned Adam from eating from the forbidden tree, because when he eats from it, he will sin, and this sin separates him from God, the Life-Giving, which leads naturally to death and corruption.

You are right death was not the well of God it was the man's own well so I also said

In the liturgy of saint GREGORY we say about the LOGOS Who, for the sake of goodness only, formed man out of what existed not, and put him in the paradise of joy.And when he fell, through the guile of the enemy and disobedience of Thine commandment,and Thou desiredst to renew him, and to restore him to his first estate.THAT'S our faith in the same liturgy we say One plant did Thou forbid me to eat of.That concerning which Thou said to me, “Do not eat of it only.” I did eat, out of my will.I put away from me Thy law out of my counsel.I became slothful about Thy commandments.I plucked for myself the sentence of death

HOPE IT'S CLEAR NOW

I WANT YOU TO CONTINUE TILL TH END OF THE BOOK OF
His Holiness Pope Shenouda III

[John of the Ladder]

As a conclusion on this part, and all parts at once, can you give me precisely what the Original Sin means, citing a reliable reference from the Coptic church patriarchate? because I feel that I am confused by contradictory here, as with the "One Nature" term. You say something, and explain something else. Where is the connection between what you say, and what you mean? Pardon me, but your explanation alone does not represent the official stand of the Coptic church on this matter.

I may not continue, because, if just one paragraph took all these comments, imagine if I write the whole book.

I may continue in one condition, with no comments which aimed for dialogue, and at the end, you can take this subject and study it alone, with references from our Church. I am not here to spent my time to explain our Faith in words, not because it is not worthy, but rather, because it is already there in the Website, and well expressed by great Orthodox saints and theologians, ancient and contemporary.

I pray for you

[مايكل فيت]

سلام و نعمة
....................

can you give me precisely what the Original Sin means, citing a reliable reference from the Coptic church patriarchate?

You can read the encyclopedia of the Bishop Gregory part one when he discuses theory of saint Augustin contra pillagios He explained the term "original sin" saying that It was the sin of the origin of mankind (Adam he meant)so it's by this meaning only It equals ancestral sin

I may continue in one condition, with no comments which aimed for dialogue,

I agree.......&pray for You and all my brothers

[John of the Ladder]

Dear Mike, thanks for your replies, and the explanation of the Original Sin according to the Bishop Gregory. But our debate is about the meaning of the Original Sin, its consequences and effects as relating to us. Anyway, as I said, I don't want to go through this any more.

OK then, I will continue, as soon as I can

[John of the Ladder]

Appolinarius

The Coptic Church condemns Appolinarius because he taught that Christ did not have a human soul when He became Incarnate. He preached that Christ had a divine nature but since he did not believe that Christ had a human soul, Appolinarius did not believe in Christ having a fully human nature.

However Appolinarius like Pope Shenouda also taught that Christ had only One Nature after the union for, ”just as man is one nature, so is Christ Who has come in the likeness of men...One incarnate nature of the Divine Word”.1 This statement sounds dangerously close to what the Coptic Pope says. Appolinarius was actually the first to introduce the word hypostasis2 in Christology.3 However Appolinarius mostly used the term prosopon4 for Christ’s Person, whereas Pope Shenouda uses the term hypostasis. According to St. John of Damascus, the followers of Appolinarius taught that, the Word only was made flesh”,5meaning that Christ did not take flesh from the Virgin, even though He was born from her. So in Appolinarius’ view Christ was not consubstantial with mankind. Obviously the Coptic Church condemn Appolinarius, but the, perhaps unwilling, overemphasizing of the divine nature, and somewhat erronous understanding of the Chalcedonian use of the terms person and nature, might result in the over-emphasizing of respectively both the divine and the human nature in Christ, depending on the context.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Kelly p. 293.
2 Ιποστασις – Substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. (Bauer) Used by the Orthodox Church to describe the Persons in the Holy Trinity.
3 Kelly p 293.
4 Προσωπον – Face, countenance (Bauer). Used in ancient pagan Greek drama for ”mask”.
5 Writings p. 131.

Note: With all of my respect, any response from a non-Chalchedonian that aim for controversy will be deleted without any notification