Second, let’s look at the quote you apparently want us to go to:

For in the font of baptism a man can trip up and vanquish the devil, because there the Lord has crushed the head of the dragon and given him as food to the Ethiopian people. [See Ps. 73:15] For no others have been nourished and gladdened by this dragon except those who are darkened and black in soul and have no share in the divine light.

First the LXX mistranslates masoretic text “leviathan” as “dragon” and “desert people” as “Ethiopians.” Thus the better English AV at Ps. 74:14: Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Second, even if you want to say that the LXX translation is inspired, it is still a very great leap to conclude from this verse that all negroes are children of the devil.

Moreover, it is not clear that Theophylact intends his exegesis to refer to literal Ethiopians, since he refers to a universal spiritual condition, “those who are darkened and black in soul” which could apply metaphorically (of course) to persons of any tribe or nation.

I commend a couple of nearby psalms to your attention as well:

Ps 72:10-11 The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.

And above all, clinching our point:

Ps 68:31-32 Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God. Sing unto God, ye kingdoms of the earth; O sing praises unto the Lord.

Both which clearly indicate that millennial hope that all nations will come to God and worship him in spirit and truth.

Thesis #3. The fathers believed that Christ came to make us gods.

Answer: well, evidently not the fathers that approved the Chalcedonian Creed, which speaks of our Lord “to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably…” And if the divine Person of our Lord has taken on human nature that will never be either confused or changed into the divine, then a fortiori the same must be said of us.

Any “father” that would contradict this is actually heterodox at that point.

There may be a moderate use of “divinization” that would refer to ethical conformity to the divine nature, or the image of God, but I don’t think that’s what you mean.

St. Maximus the Confessor:
“The scriptural Word knows of two kinds of knowledge of divine things. On the one hand, there is relative knowledge, rooted only in reason and ideas, and lacking in the kind of experiential perception of what one knows through active engagement; such relative knowledge is what we use to order our affairs in our present life. On the other hand, there is that truly authentic knowledge, gained only by actual experience, apart from reason and ideas, which provides a total perception of the known object through a participation by grace. By this latter knowledge, we attain, in the future state, the supernatural deification that remains unceasingly in effect.” (Ad Thalassium 60)

TJH. this is PRECISELY what the fathers think.
And this is why Protestantism is in the mess it is. Being unwilling to believe that Christ came to redeem our humanity, to ‘make us gods’ as the Fathers teach, means that we are no different from the ‘nations round about us.’

And the Evolutionist is true, and the Sacraments are not efficacious, for they do not feed that humanity that is being divinized by the undcreated energies of the trinity, something that rationalist, Filioquist Westerners just don’t get….

I am not making this frustration over issues that are Foundational to Christendom, because it is some sort of ‘adiophora’; as I stated, it was only after I had read the Fathers, did I come to see that the Roman model of a ‘multicultural,’ (yet monolithic statist approach to Christianity) was in complete contrast to the ethnic, ‘each nation her own church’ model of Holy Orthodoxy.

As to ‘quoting the Fathers,’ I have done that over at my blog in a recent 13-part series on the subject of the Incarnation of Christ. I also have in my files a URL for an amazing website that clearly shows/quotes the early church, which was clealry racially exclusionary in the main. But I have to search an entire hard drive for that. Give me time on that one.

For now, how about my 13-part series? I know that you, (as a protestant) are not going to believe anything I say in it, for the Fathers and the Councils mean nothing to you (Nor will the Novus Ordo Orthodox, who already are papists in everything but name only). But I am willing to lay that branch down, in a gesture of hope that your salvation from the sin of mamzerism may yet be curable on your part.

First, Fr John, you quote MB as making some point about heaven being more or less “incarnational.” However, MB never used that word or concept. We are not divine beings that “take on flesh,” nor are we flesh that is to be divinized. It is bad enough to think that way; even worse to falsely impute that way of thinking to someone else.

Now, to your theses:

1. Jesus said “I am come only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” thus, salvation has to do with race.

Answer. I believe the quote comes from Matt 15:24, the incident with the “woman of Canaan.” But it is clear that she was, in the end, received and accepted for her faith. Why Jesus put her through such an ordeal would be an interesting discussion, but not relevant to our point here. Likewise, the question of why Jesus began his ministry with an exclusive Israel-focus would be interesting, but quickly take us into redemptive-historical themes that do not lend themselves to the pithy character of blog posts. But again, such a digression is not needed to overthrow thesis #1. A little later, Jesus said (Matt 21:43) “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” When you recall that the word for nation (ethnos) basically means “tribe,” no clearer proof could be asked that salvation was not confined to Israel, nor limited tribally. But if you take it that “the jews” were imposters rejected in Matt 21:43 in favor of the “real” Israel which had been scattered to the four winds and not regathered, then that model is still shown to be wrong by the first reference (Matt 15:24) as well as Ezra/Nehemiah.

2. The witness of the church is that the jews are not the Israel of God.

Answer. The church when it is sound testifies that jews cannot lay claim to Abraham as a sufficient way to God, apart from Christ. In this sense, the church is, and always has been the Israel of God. But “Israel” is obviously metaphorical in such a usage. It is just as obviously not identical to tribal Israel.

Greek Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have many problems, but teaching salvation by race is not one of them. Please give me just one example of a church father who taught anything like this.

I have not desire to wrestle with a tar baby and from your comment, I would guess you are one. But Scripture is clear that salvation is not through race. Think of Pentecost, think of the Ethiopian eunuch.

It is obvious that our views of Christianity are quite different. And your version is quite different from Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

There are many fish to fry, but yours is too small to bother with. Please use the padded room to post any further comments along these lines.