Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
ooPnevma vs piPnevma
Some time ago, I was listening to a lecture which describes one problem of theological factions within the Coptic Church on the understanding of the Holy Spirit. This lecture was on the letters of St. Athanasius to Serapion.
He describes the history of a philological scholar of the Coptic language, Dr. Rahib Atalla, who noticed in the Coptic translation of the New Testament, there were two articles (like "a" or "the") used in front of "Pnevma" (Spirit). "ooPnevma" and "piPnevma" (a spirit and The Spirit respectively), and that in some areas of the Bible, sometimes it was written that we receive "ooPnevma" rather than "piPnevma", which then lead to interesting theological interpretations. On one part, you have the "oopnevmians" who believe what we receive in baptism is not the Holy Spirit in His whole hypostasis, but a gift or grace of the Spirit, whereas "pipnevmians" (or more accurately the anti-oopnevmians) believe that no such distinction existed in the Greek translation of the New Testament, and thus it is the whole hypostasis, whether "oo" or "pi".
I was wondering if someone here has more knowledge of the background can comment more on this. Do think both sides are too extreme? One side may make it seem we don't really receive the Holy Spirit residing in us as it does in Christ's humanity, while another side make it seem we partake of the Holy Spirit in essence. Just wanted to hear maybe some of our Coptic scholars here that might know of this problem in the Church?
Thank you.
He describes the history of a philological scholar of the Coptic language, Dr. Rahib Atalla, who noticed in the Coptic translation of the New Testament, there were two articles (like "a" or "the") used in front of "Pnevma" (Spirit). "ooPnevma" and "piPnevma" (a spirit and The Spirit respectively), and that in some areas of the Bible, sometimes it was written that we receive "ooPnevma" rather than "piPnevma", which then lead to interesting theological interpretations. On one part, you have the "oopnevmians" who believe what we receive in baptism is not the Holy Spirit in His whole hypostasis, but a gift or grace of the Spirit, whereas "pipnevmians" (or more accurately the anti-oopnevmians) believe that no such distinction existed in the Greek translation of the New Testament, and thus it is the whole hypostasis, whether "oo" or "pi".
I was wondering if someone here has more knowledge of the background can comment more on this. Do think both sides are too extreme? One side may make it seem we don't really receive the Holy Spirit residing in us as it does in Christ's humanity, while another side make it seem we partake of the Holy Spirit in essence. Just wanted to hear maybe some of our Coptic scholars here that might know of this problem in the Church?
Thank you.
Comments
Oujai
1 Corinthians 3:16
16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.
2 Timothy 1:14
14 That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.
Romans 8:9
But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
Based on the these verses, it is clear that St. Paul is referring to THE Holy Spirit. This makes sense, since Christ came to unite ourselves with Him by not only giving us His flesh and blood but even His own Spirit. As we say in the Friday theotokia: "He took what is ours, and gave us what is His, we praise and glorify Him, and exalt Him." Even Christ explicitly says that The Spirit of God is in us: "16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:16). He does not just say He will help us or be with us but that He is IN us.
To say that "a spirit" (oupnevma) dwells in us would be ambiguous and raises the question of what kind of spirit it is--this leads to ignorance and darkness causing more confusion. I even tried to replace The Spirit of God with "a spirit" just to see if it can still make sense but it simply does not.
But what about those who say that the way in which the Holy Spirit dwells in us is "by grace" or "by gifts"? I guess this is where they like to do a "Palamite" distinction so to speak to say that the Holy Spirit being God and infinite cannot LITERALLY "dwell" in a finite person. This is at least the claim made by the "ooPnevmians" I like to call them.
I have of course a personal answer to this, but I'd like to hear some thoughts here from people that may have read or understood this issue. And of course, those who read and understand Coptic and Greek, this would help a lot in the discussion.
Secondly, I do not see how you can separate the Spirit of God from its gifts( at least it does not make sense to me). If someone has the grace or gifts of the Spirit, why would it be incorrect to say that they have THE Spirit in them? How else could we explain the conviction and sanctification of the people by the Holy Spirit through Chrismation? Or repentance/confession? How can I be the temple of the Holy Spirit without Him actually residing in me?
Personally, I think the issue they have is the idea of Theosis and the fact that they believe we do not share the same essence as The Spirit of God. Nevertheless, the church clearly claims that by partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ through communion, we are united with Him. And I think that if we understood what it means to be united with Christ through the Eucharist, we would not have any issues regarding the topic of Theosis.
I am not an expert on theology or dogma and I personally would like someone knowledgeable to provide input.
Sorry for using the term, probably mistakenly, as I didn't think so deeply as both of you. BUT (in capital letters) I hope neither of you is suggesting that the Holy Spirit in His hypostatic form dwells in us. THAT IS WRONG.
Oujai qen `P[C
Dear minasoliman and Amoussa01,
Sorry for using the term, probably mistakenly, as I didn't think so deeply as both of you. BUT (in capital letters) I hope neither of you is suggesting that the Holy Spirit in His hypostatic form dwells in us. THAT IS WRONG.
Oujai qen `P[C
What do you mean by hypostatic form? The Spirit of God does not have a physical form; that is why He is Spirit. My question is, do you believe that the true body and blood of Christ is in you when you partake of communion? Is His (Christ's) "hypostatic form," as you call it, truly in us?
Hypostasis doesn't only refer to physical bodily form, but to the Person. We don't contain, or indeed aren't capable of containing the Holy Spirit.
During communion we partake as you said. What does that mean? Partake means part-take.. again not to contain.. I don't think you're suggesting we contain the Body and Blood of Christ, are you?
Oujai
Edit: wrong spelling corrected
Dear Amoussa01,
Hydrostasis doesn't only refer to physical bodily form, but to the Person. We don't contain, or indeed aren't capable of containing the Holy Spirit.
During communion we partake as you said. What does that mean? Partake means part-take.. again not to contain.. I don't think you're suggesting we contain the Body and Blood of Christ, are you?
Oujai
First, I think you are referring to Hypostasis. Second, I never said we contain anything. Let me make things more simple by asking a question....
Is it not possible that The Spirit of God dwells in us in the same sense that the body and blood of our Lord does? I am not referring to the act of eating by the way.
I'm so sorry for my mistake. I'll edit my previous post, it's just tricky to use the mobile and not make such spelling mistakes..
Yes I meant hypostasis. You're right in saying that it's possible, but neither does the Spirit nor the Body and Blood dwell within or enter into our bodies in His hypostatic form. Therefore I'm borrowing the expression from minasoliman, that we made a deal with Him taking His gifts and grace, rather than the whole. I hope this is clear..
Oujai
You're right in saying that it's possible, but neither does the Spirit nor the Body and Blood dwell within or enter into our bodies in His hypostatic form.
Oujai
I am very confused by this statement. Christ united His divinity with His humanity; so how can you say He does not dwell in us if we partake of His flesh and blood? God Himself united Finite with Infinite, so how can you claim this? If there is no union with Him through His flesh and blood how on earth could we possibly call this sacrament commUNION?
What is "grace"? What is "gift"? That also needs to be defined.
And leave aside the Trinity for a second. Do you not think that the "concept" of divinity between Islam and Christianity is different? I think when you explore these areas, then you will start to understand that perhaps the use of the word "hypostasis" also needs to be understood correctly as well.
Dear Amoussa01,
Hypostasis doesn't only refer to physical bodily form, but to the Person. We don't contain, or indeed aren't capable of containing the Holy Spirit.
During communion we partake as you said. What does that mean? Partake means part-take.. again not to contain.. I don't think you're suggesting we contain the Body and Blood of Christ, are you?
Oujai
Edit: wrong spelling corrected
Agape,
Ophadeece,
I think you are incorrect in your understanding of "Hypostasis" (pressing me to ask for a definition of your use of hypostasis). It seems that you are confusing the term hypostasis and prosopon. Hypostasis is one of those tricky words that have, and continue to cause a storm in the theological realm. If by containing the Holy Spirit you mean that we cannot limit him to our physical bodies, then I do not disagree. However, if you mean that the Holy Spirit does not dwell in us himself and in his fullness, then I would step back and ask for an explanation. All that is God's is given to us except for an identity of being.
Your definition for partakers is moot since it is not an English term we are debating here (and I question your etyology of that word.) Part taker does not mean that he takes only a part of a whole but that he takes part. Sharers. So we are sharers in the divine nature.
I find a problem with this idea that when we commune we take something but not something else. Christ is one. He is one divinity and one humanity. In one. So to say that we do not take part in the divinity of Christ in communion seems somewhat Nestorian to me since it separates divinity and humanity in Christ as though you could take one without the other. But then you would be making a dangerous "over-separation" between between his grace, and gifts and him. It would almost seem as his grace and gifts (what some have called energies) and his essence. If we do that, do we not then separate the Holy Spirit into a third and fourth hypostasis of the trinity? I am not against the distinction, but to say that one indwells and not the other is to separate the Holy Spirit (or so it seems to me).
Christ is indeed in us! It is him who is in us, and not some form of him. He in all his power, and glory has vouched to dwell within us. This is a hypostatic union. I use hypostatic here as meaning a fundamental union between man and God.
Ray
I asked priests of who dwells within us, and interestingly none of them deviated from using the same expression. I was living in Egypt then so I don't think I'm capable of explaining. Anyway, I did use to believe we have the Holy Spirit in His person within us, but I was told that was not the case. Through baptism and renewal of the covenant acts we renew the deal of receiving His gifts, one explanation implicates the fruits of the Holy Spirit.
To answer Amoussa01's and returnorthodoxy, again I may have been off the mark using the verb partake. But, I'd say whole-heartedly that of course there is union between God and us, but not to such a point where we resemble Jesus even as a creature..
I'm also so sorry as I'm extremely busy these days, I cannot promise to find sources or references, but please do take it up with your priests..
Oujai
Dr. George Bebawi has a letter on his website from Anba Gregorios, written and signed by hand, where Anba Gregorios apologized and took back the faulty research and assertions made about the distinction. Even though that distinction is incorrect, refuted, and even taken back as an incorrect theory by the author who presumed the distinction, it is still held by many ideological loyalists of the previous pope.
[quote=Ephesians 3]14 For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
Short answer: that distinction between pipnevma and oupnevma was first noted by the late Anba Gregorios, bishop of theological studies. It did create a huge divide later between Pope Shenouda (and loyalists) and Fr. Matta (and loyalists), the former who affirmed the distinction, but the latter who taught against it, both based on his own linguistics and patristics research.
Dr. George Bebawi has a letter on his website from Anba Gregorios, written and signed by hand, where Anba Gregorios apologized and took back the faulty research and assertions made about the distinction. Even though that distinction is incorrect, refuted, and even taken back as an incorrect theory by the author who presumed the distinction, it is still held by many ideological loyalists of the previous pope.
There should be a serious translation project for all of this. I think the whole debate seems to resemble "Scholastic/Hesychast" debate centuries ago.
What do we make of St. Paul here:
[quote=Ephesians 3]14 For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
Just another question I offer to Ophadece. What do you think it means when we say "the grace of the Holy Spirit" dwells in us? Do the angels worship the "grace" that is in us?
[quote author=Biboboy link=topic=14739.msg166644#msg166644 date=1386132477]
Short answer: that distinction between pipnevma and oupnevma was first noted by the late Anba Gregorios, bishop of theological studies. It did create a huge divide later between Pope Shenouda (and loyalists) and Fr. Matta (and loyalists), the former who affirmed the distinction, but the latter who taught against it, both based on his own linguistics and patristics research.
Dr. George Bebawi has a letter on his website from Anba Gregorios, written and signed by hand, where Anba Gregorios apologized and took back the faulty research and assertions made about the distinction. Even though that distinction is incorrect, refuted, and even taken back as an incorrect theory by the author who presumed the distinction, it is still held by many ideological loyalists of the previous pope.
There should be a serious translation project for all of this. I think the whole debate seems to resemble "Scholastic/Hesychast" debate centuries ago.
That's exactly it Mina. What's surprising is that this is issue is a break with the natural theological modes of the two towering schools of thought in the past 40 year of the Coptic church. What I find most surprising is that while H.H Pope Shenouda typically embraced a more scholastic (if you will) theological standpoint, he took a palamitic/hesychastic standpoint here in his embrace of this separation.
I remember of a friend of mine being extremely turned off by palamatic theology. While I'm no theologian, my personal opinion is that the terms are at best unnecessary in our present lexicon. While all words fall short of expressing theology perfectly, palamatic terms seem to be more trouble than they are worth. Still, I don't write off their usage, so long as they are used with discretion and with the knowledge of where they fall short.
Bibo, would you have the link you are speaking about? If I have time I may translate it but I'm in finals so... In any case our m'3allem Dr. Mina is too busy saving lives to translate. Plus theologians like you two shouldnt translate. Leave that to your bus boys :P
Ray
No answer to your question, but definitely food for thought. However, angels won't bow down to us as bearers of the Holy Spirit, would they? Also Christ doesn't dwell in our hearts as st. Paul says, or does He? I hope you got my point.. physical nature and presence vs grace as st. Paul puts it..
Oujai
Dear minasoliman,
No answer to your question, but definitely food for thought. However, angels won't bow down to us as bearers of the Holy Spirit, would they? Also Christ doesn't dwell in our hearts as st. Paul says, or does He? I hope you got my point.. physical nature and presence vs grace as st. Paul puts it..
Oujai
Christ dwells in us TRULY. The Holy Spirit dwells in us TRULY. What was St. John doing when the pregnant Theotokos appeared to St. Elizabeth. In tradition, we consider what the fetus of St. John (notice here I say fetus of St. John...now compare that to hypostasis of the Holy Spirit) doing a form of worship, and she was bearing God, as St. Paul said, "the fullness of God indwelt".
Now, look at Ephesians 3:19. We too bear the fullness of God in us! There's no doubt about it. This issue of infinity does not mean God cannot dwell fully in us. Look what St. Athanasius says here: Discourses against the Arians 1.43
Read this and study this and read this again and again. Without mistake, St. Athanasius is speaking here something that is foreign to some ears here, and perhaps we need to take these words seriously. He takes the verses that talks about Christ being "highly exalted" and applies this to us. The Father highly exalts us in Christ by the Holy Spirit. And since the Holy Spirit dwells in us, and we become God's temple, IN US, the Lord is worshipped, IN US. Very powerful words, and words that only can give me awe and makes me shiver, and from none other than the theologian par excellence St. Athanasius.
People have always said "St. Athanasius did not delve deeply into theosis like the Byzantines today." Actually, the Byzantines today seem to lighten up compared to what St. Athanasius said here. St. Athanasius is more "provocative" if that's possible. St. Athanasius avoided philosophical words and just gave it to you straight, like a hard pill to swallow, but it is TRUTH, that God FULLY dwells in us. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. What we can say is that we BECOME by grace what Christ is by nature. But we do not say "grace dwells in us". We say the Holy Spirit dwells in us, and we partake of Him by grace. His full hypostasis dwells in us, and we take whatever we can as we grow. It's a mystery. People have a hard time defining grace. Just reading about scholastics and Palamites makes your head spin. But truly, this part right here written by St. Athanasius is a foundational understanding to theosis/theopoiesis/deification/divinization or whatever you want to call it.
What do you think we partake of in the Eucharist? A piece of Christ? NO! Far from that strange thought. Every piece Abouna cuts is, as St. Cyril of Alexandria puts it (quoted from St. Severus' Letter XXV): And St. Cyril again says:
[quote=Dialogues on the Trinity 7]“We are called ‘temples of God’ and indeed ‘gods’, and so we are. Why is that? Enquire of our opponents whether we are really sharers in a bare grace without subsistence. But that is not the case. For we are temples of the real and subsisting Spirit. And it is through him that we are called ‘gods’, since by union with him we have become partakers of the divine and ineffable nature (cf. 2 Pet. 1: 4)."
This is not a bare grace without hypostasis, St. Cyril says. Anyone who says so, St. Cyril brands as an "opponent". He repeats the same notion again in his commentary on John chapter 1: St. Cyril only repeats what St. Athanasius says in his first letter to St. Serapion:
I thank Ray and Mina for their points. Enriching as always :). You two are great resources for me.
I HIGHLY recommend "The Appropriation of Divine Life in Cyril of Alexandria" By Daniel Keating! That is perhaps one of the best books i have ever read and has previously been recommended by Fr. Peter. (i say this with On The Incarnation being my de facto favourite book ever written :)).
pray for me and for my exams everyone :)
I'm not that well learned. I'll definitely ask again and try to understand more
Oujai
ⲛ̀ⲧⲉ Ⲫⲛⲟⲩϯ (I am testing out Unicode fonts. That should say ouepneuma ente Vnouti. Let me know if you see Coptic letters or just boxes) Notice, it is the indefinite partitive article. "Spirit of God" is another mass noun. Since the Spirit of God divided as tongues of fire on the Pentecost, how much Spirit of God did each disciple get? The entire Spirit of God, not just 1/12 the Holy Spirit (1/120 if you count all the women and all the Apostles). Again, a little Spirit of God is exactly the same as the entire Spirit of God since it cannot be divided into differentiated parts but it can be "divided" into undifferentiated parts. I put "divided" in quotes because if a noun can't be counted, then it can't be divided. But that is the language used liturgically.
The question then leads to what is grace? If we can be sympathetic to the "oopnevmians" in their cause that we cannot partake of or in (I see no difference, it's silly semantics to those who fight against the "in"...we're "knit into the Godhead" as St Athanasius says) the essence of God, that we cannot be as the Son exactly is in eternity, which is a true Orthodox tenet, then we need to define grace. Grace as defined by the oopnevmians as a work, or an act of God, but "how" is a mystery. Okay, I grant them that indeed it's a work. But grace also requires the presence of God and His deifying power. You cannot divorce grace from the divine uncreated nature. The full presence of the Holy Trinity is in the grace. Grace is a term used to differentiate our relationship with God and the Son and the Holy Spirit's relationship with God. Nevertheless, we are still united in God, into His Godhead, and we take in however we can in the state of our limitations.
The Palamites developed an "energy/essence" distinction that finds itself misunderstood at times. Likewise, the Scholastics developed the grace/essence distinction that also finds itself misunderstood. In Palamas, grace is the uncreated energy of God, by which we take an attribute of God and see God FULLY present in this attribute. Therefore, to them, when they say the grace of God dwells in them, "grace" is taken to mean that God fully dwells in them, but the relationship between man and God is not the same as it is between the persons of the Trinity, but different, and yet the divine nature permeates through the fiber of our being. The Scholastics or the Thomists see the grace of God as a result of what that grace is, not an attribute of God. In their minds, the simplicity of God is in jeopardy if you talk about "differing" energies that are "uncreated". They see it as polytheistic. In them, they use Aristotelian language, that the essence of God truly dwells in man, the full essence, and that man partakes of God, resulting in grace, that is an effect in their humanity.
We in the Alexandrian Church have an opportunity to set right that both the Palamites and Thomists are talking past one another. In the Alexandrian Church, the grace of God is the full presence of God working in us and changing us. The grace is not divorced from the divine nature, and is truly an extension of the divine nature, but it is also not divorced from its created effects in man either. Grace is both uncreated and created, it is both simple and different, one and many. Grace is where God and man meet. This is where grace is centered in Christ our Lord, who being God by His very nature became man truly, fully consubstantial and equal with all mankind, that man by grace can become God, and I capitalize the G here symbolizing an important part of deification. Deification is not just receiving powers like a Hollywood movie of a superhero vs. a supervillain, or some sort of magic. Deification is receiving the powers personified, that is when we receive love, it is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Love, who makes us Sons of Love, that we may be truly One with the Source of Love, the Father. The attributes are uncreated, the humanity unchanged yet growing endlessly into the Light of the Divinity, and the hypostases of the Trinity truly dwell fully in each and everyone of us and we dwell fully in each and everyone of them, so that we enter into eternal Triune relationship by grace, because the Son of God entered into human relationship. The capital G is a stress of the fact that God fully dwells in us, not a part of God, not a force, not a creation, but true and eternal God, who guides us into all virtues, all morality, all incorruption, all immortality, all eternity. We do not become God as God eternally is, but we do not become mere imitators of God as Muslims believe. We live in God and God lives in us, and this is all possible because of the incarnation, because God carries along what happened in the incarnation in us as well. To say that the body of Christ is not the same body as our's or not equal to our body is the heresy of Julian which St. Severus fought against. Christ is like us in all things except sin. But the exaltation given to Jesus is the exaltation that will be given to us as well, as St. Athanasius teaches, since Christ's exaltation is His own by nature is in no need for exaltation.