Strange. You know it wasn't written in English, right?

Simple = everything you suggest
Complicated = everything that disagrees with it

I don't remember the verse that says "salvation is super simple." I do remember one that says St Paul's writing is difficult to understand.

The difference is your desire to have man play an active role or "take the first step."

If you're conceding that synergism can't actually function, than sure, we agree.

We agree completely on all the details except, it seems, the definition of synergism.

You say God provides sufficient grace to all. We agree.
You say He does this unilaterally and without any involvement by any individual. We agree.
You say some accept and some reject. We agree.

This is up to the first step. I don't see any disagreement. Am I missing something?

Zobel said:

---

We agree completely on all the details except, it seems, the definition of synergism.

You say God provides sufficient grace to all. We agree.
You say He does this unilaterally and without any involvement by any individual. We agree.
You say some accept and some reject. We agree.

This is up to the first step. I don't see any disagreement. Am I missing something?

---

We don't agree though...

I say that God's grace is sufficient from the start. That nothing I do will add to or increase what God has already given me through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Synergism says that God's grace, at least initially is not enough. That through man "taking the first step" and ongoing "cooperation" we can become Christlike enough to be worthy of salvation.

So no...you may try to use the same words to claim agreement, but the definitions are very different.

Forget the words, definitions are maybe lacking. What part do you disagree with?

You agree people can resist/reject or accept grace. Yes?

And man, I really don't understand the consistently adversarial approach. Neither of us think man takes the first step, but you keep repeating that I do.

Who is being adversarial? Not me. I just don't see the point in pretending that we agree on concepts we don't? I think it's more productive to acknowledge the differences and try to understand why. We aren't in communion because of concepts like monergism vs synergism as it relates to salvation.

Quote:

---

Neither of us think man takes the first step, but you keep repeating that I do.

---

You might want to let the Orthodox Priest's know that you disagree with them. That was the exact wording from the introductory class at I took at St. George. I wrote it because I did not know what synergism was at that time.
---------------------------

As with everything we've talked about for pages, the difference is cause and effect.

I say that God's grace is sufficient and complete. Nothing I do changes that. My works aren't done out of necessity, but out of obedience. Becoming more "christ-like" is an effect of God's grace, not a cause of my salvation.

I know when I wake up every morning, my faith in God justify me and my salvation is secure because of it. There is freedom in knowing this and that because of it, I am free to love God and love my neighbors. Not because of any concern about whether I've done enough, but because I know Jesus did more than I could ever hope to.

So yes...there is a significant difference.

Right. But, I'm really trying to ferret out disagreement.

We both believe God moves first, and that He gives grace to all, right?

We both believe some accept this and some don't, right?

So where is the real disagreement? I don't get it.

Just had time to look at this a bit longer.

Quote:

---

You might want to let the Orthodox Priest's know that you disagree with them. That was the exact wording from the introductory class at I took at St. George. I wrote it because I did not know what synergism was at that time.

---

I wasn't in your class, and I never have sat in on a catechism class at St George, so I can't really comment. There's a few possibilities - you might have misunderstood, the priest might have misspoke, or the priest could simply be wrong - or I might just disagree with his view or how he phrased it. I don't really know.

I very much doubt he said that God's grace isn't enough. I'm sorry for the confusion. I think the quotes I linked earlier from St John Chrysostom cover synergism fairly well. That being said, the idea of synergism in Orthodoxy has always been linked to the confession of man's freewill, to man's fundamental telelogical purpose in creation. Putting Orthodoxy into a Protestant-Catholic "synergist" camp next to the Armenians and opposed to Calvinists or whomever else is not quite correct. Father Stephen Freeman writes well on the subject. (Here and Here). As does Fr Andrew Stephen Damick here.

Quote:

---

I say that God's grace is sufficient and complete. Nothing I do changes that. My works aren't done out of necessity, but out of obedience. Becoming more "christ-like" is an effect of God's grace, not a cause of my salvation.

---

This is a case, I think, where there is strong agreement between us on most, but a key phrase where we may need to identify a difference.

Just in part here.
God's grace is sufficient and complete. Nothing I do changes that.
I agree.

My works aren't done out of necessity, but out of obedience
I don't know what necessity means in this sentence without further clarification. If, for example, obedience is in any way related to salvation - either as a criterion (the man who is obedient will be saved) or as a sign (the man who is saved will be obedient) then necessity is confusing. I, for my part, believe that our works are necessary, because obedience is both the criterion given by Christ at the judgment, and a sign given to us - both are true: the man who is obedient will be saved, and the man who is saved is obedient. There's plenty of scriptural support for both. I don't find them contradictory in any way. I also reject the idea of attaching a kind of quantitative notion to obedience, as this is out of character with how these concepts are presented in the scriptures - it's more about perseverance and faithfulness than efficacy, if that follows.

Becoming more "christ-like" is an effect of God's grace, not a cause of my salvation.
Here again I think there's a point to examine. Obviously becoming more Christ like is an effect of grace. How could we make ourselves more like God without God's work?

But "not a cause of my salvation" depends entirely on how you define salvation! If salvation is to become like Christ, how could it not be the direct and sole cause of your salvation? And in another way, if God's grace causes both salvation (we agree it does) and becoming more Christ-like (we agree it does) then how can you make a distinction between the grace that saves and the grace that doesnt?

If we just say, well salvation is based on the judgment, then again - who will be judged righteous: those who are Christ-like or those who are not? If so, we had better hope to be made like Him. And indeed the scriptures tell us we shall be (1 John 3:2).

If we say, well salvation is "going to heaven / not going to hell" and therefore being Christ-like is tangential or incidental, there's two issues. One, I object strenuously to this concept to begin with. And two again, even we accept the premise will there be unrighteousness in heaven or will those in heaven be Christ-like?

Quote:

---

I know when I wake up every morning, my faith in God justify me and my salvation is secure because of it. There is freedom in knowing this and that because of it, I am free to love God and love my neighbors. Not because of any concern about whether I've done enough, but because I know Jesus did more than I could ever hope to.

---

Right, and again there is something to examine.

my faith in God justify me

But is this not your choice? Is this not work? "This is the work of God, that you should believe in Him whom He has sent." Why does this continued, perseverant, dogged faithfulness and trust somehow get cast as opposing to every single other manifestation of the same?

And - as a monergist you needs must confess "my salvation is secure because of God, and not my faith, because my faith is externally given to me". This mindset is impossible for a person to have, I find. We choose to trust in God, and this is reckoned to us as righteousness. And, to be sure, this is a grace.

my salvation is secure because of it. There is freedom in knowing this and that because of it, I am free to love God and love my neighbors. Not because of any concern about whether I've done enough, but because I know Jesus did more than I could ever hope to.

Indeed, and this is a beautiful and moving picture of what I understand to be synergism. Because of our deep and abiding gratefulness to the love of God poured out on us, and because of our trust and firm hope in Him, we are set free from the world and from all aspects of it - it's notions of quantity, virtue, reciprocity, justice, and morality that may say, here is a good man measured in charitable dollars, there is a good man measured by human understanding of discipline or virtue or knowledge, this man should be saved, that man should be condemned. Because of His love, we love others as He loved us - which is completely antithetical to human ideas of condition or quantity or value. We learn what love is because we have love as love's teacher. He didn't reckon justice to us, as St Isaac said.

Or, in the words of the Lord - "This is to My Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, proving yourselves to be My disciples. As the Father has loved Me, so have I loved you. Remain in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will remain in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and remain in His love. I have told you these things so that My joy may be in you and your joy may be complete. This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you."

Our choice to remain in His love is the same thing as bearing fruit. Without that choice, we cannot obey, and cannot bear fruit. Without His love, our choice is irrelevant, and we cannot obey. But what about enough? Where is enough? Nothing is enough.

This is the call to be a Christian. What is required of us? Everything, and nothing.

Quote:

---

I don't know what necessity means in this sentence without further clarification. If, for example, obedience is in any way related to salvation - either as a criterion (the man who is obedient will be saved) or as a sign (the man who is saved will be obedient) then necessity is confusing. I, for my part, believe that our works are necessary, because obedience is both the criterion given by Christ at the judgment, and a sign given to us - both are true: the man who is obedient will be saved, and the man who is saved is obedient. There's plenty of scriptural support for both. I don't find them contradictory in any way. I also reject the idea of attaching a kind of quantitative notion to obedience, as this is out of character with how these concepts are presented in the scriptures - it's more about perseverance and faithfulness than efficacy, if that follows.

---

The bolded is the problem for a couple reasons.

1. You confuse cause and effect. It's well documented in this thread my thoughts on your confusion here.

2. You want to focus on the Law. It's how you make the above interchangeable. You miss the beauty of the Gospel as the free gift. The gift that leads us to obedience instead of despair.

Quote:

---

But "not a cause of my salvation" depends entirely on how you define salvation! If salvation is to become like Christ, how could it not be the direct and sole cause of your salvation? And in another way, if God's grace causes both salvation (we agree it does) and becoming more Christ-like (we agree it does) then how can you make a distinction between the grace that saves and the grace that doesnt?

If we just say, well salvation is based on the judgment, then again - who will be judged righteous: those who are Christ-like or those who are not? If so, we had better hope to be made like Him. And indeed the scriptures tell us we shall be (1 John 3:2).

If we say, well salvation is "going to heaven / not going to hell" and therefore being Christ-like is tangential or incidental, there's two issues. One, I object strenuously to this concept to begin with. And two again, even we accept the premise will there be unrighteousness in heaven or will those in heaven be Christ-like?

---

And here it is.

Maybe we are splitting hairs earlier (I don't think so), but this is where we diverge.

Of course you continue to confuse cause and effect, but I think it's clear you either don't see it or aren't concerned. That's fine.

What's missing is that God's grace is called a gift (Romans 3). It's not contingent on anything we've done.

Like with the tree, you keep wanting to take the effects of God's grace and say that's what proves we have God's grace. That's not a scriptural argument, but an argument of the Law. But salvation and grace aren't found in the Law. Only commandments and rules are found there.

Luther would say it this way (paraphrasing). The Law is easy, we naturally understand when we've done good or bad. The Gospel is a lot tougher because it is simplistic. We don't deserve God's grace, nothing we do will earn it, and we have to realize that it is truly a free gift.

------------------------
I don't say that salvation is based on judgement, so not sure what you were trying to say there? 1 John 3:2 does say that we will be like Him, but that's not the only verses to do. That's the only logical conclusion we should be drawing from most of the salvation talks. The only way we can be with God is to made completely pure in a manner we could never have achieved in this life.

------------------------

Quote:

---

BAnd - as a monergist you needs must confess "my salvation is secure because of God, and not my faith, because my faith is externally given to me". This mindset is impossible for a person to have, I find. We choose to trust in God, and this is reckoned to us as righteousness. And, to be sure, this is a grace.

---

First, lol at saying monergism is "impossible for a person to have." Likewise I could just say it's impossible for a person to have a mindset that synergism is worthwhile. I guess we'd be at an impasse then right?

Second, your argument is silly. Your argument for monergism equates us to be robots and I know you're not going to go down the pathway of trying to claim that I believe in limited atonement again right, especially after you made it clear that we shouldn't repeated claim things about others that that person has denied?

Third, because of point 2, faith is internal to the person. Lutherans would say that salvation is monergistic (i.e. it's the free gift of God), but damnation is synergistic in that we are able to resist/reject it. God isn't going to force that upon us as I've already said in prior posts.

So given that, the most likely answer is that you have a poor definition of monergism.

----------------------------

Quote:

---

Indeed, and this is a beautiful and moving picture of what I understand to be synergism.

---

Indeed, if you can look at your life yesterday and say you were saved, you can look at yourself today and know you're saved and have confidence that tomorrow you will be saved, than it is a great feeling.

I somehow don't think you do agree that when you finish up with this "Our choice to remain in His love is the same thing as bearing fruit. Without that choice, we cannot obey, and cannot bear fruit. "

In the end, this is where you will always land. Back to an examination of the fruits.

I'll end with John 15.

Notice who is doing the pruning.
Who is the cause of bearing much fruit.
Cause and effect.

"15 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples."

It's like you think rejection is a choice but acceptance isn't.

I don't understand that. Free will isnt free if it can only resist. If we are free to resist, and God does not coerce, then we must also be free to accept.

Again, ignoring terminology (because clearly what you mean by monergism and what I mean by synergism aren't understood by the other) what is the actual difference?

Cause and effect isn't a problem. Grace always precedes. That is the cause. Humans can accept or not. Salvation - in all respects, which includes both justification and sanctification and the work of God manifesting in us - is the effect.

You can't bear fruit if you resist God.

You can't bear fruit apart from God.

God will not force you to bear fruit against your will.

You will be justified if you choose to accept grace.

You will bear fruit if you accept grace.

You will be made righteous if you accept grace.

The previous three statements can be negated with rejection (ie you will not if...)

Where do we differ? I think we don't, it seems like just terminology and emphasis.

Quote:

---

It's like you think rejection is a choice but acceptance isn't.

---

That's only because you continue to confuse free will with choice. Just because you have a choice doesn't mean you have free will.

In any other setting you wouldn't confuse the two, but because you need them to be interchangeable to justify your position, you have to make a decision here you wouldn't make elsewhere...

Quote:

---

I don't understand that. Free will isnt free if it can only resist. If we are free to resist, and God does not coerce, then we must also be free to accept.

---

Exhibit A of what I said above.

Quote:

---

Cause and effect isn't a problem. Grace always precedes. That is the cause. Humans can accept or not. Salvation - in all respects, which includes both justification and sanctification and the work of God manifesting in us - is the effect.

---

Cause and effect continues to be the problem. Even here, you can't help but tie salvation to works. So you start with the fruit and try to figure out how to make it be proof of your salvation. You start with what you want to be the conclusion and figure out why it's a cause. I get it, there's comfort in having a tangible target in the works of the Law.

We aren't justified by our works, we know that. So we can't start there.

So I start with the sacraments, that I think Lutherans really got right during the Reformation.

Quote:

---

If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without God's command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps instruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to something [as a painted cross].

Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord's body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us

---

So if we start with these promises of God's grace, the perspective changes.

Why am I justified? Because of God's grace.

Why am I saved (past, present, future). Because of God's grace. What does this mean. When I wake up with sin and doubt, I don't turn to my works for comfort. I turn to God's grace. I turn to my baptism to see God's promise. I turn to confession/absolution to realize that God will forgive me. I turn to His body/blood to nourish my soul.

Sanctification does come into play and it we do cooperate in a sense, but notice what John 15 showed...the pruning is due to the Holy Spirit and it's occurring on those branches producing fruit. So subsequent to justification and subsequent to salvation.

Quote:

---

That's only because you continue to confuse free will with choice. Just because you have a choice doesn't mean you have free will.

---

Can you explain this? I don't understand what you mean here at all. I thought you believed people have free will?

But let's keep it practical and positive. Do you agree with these statements? If you disagree with them, or with one, can you explain which?

You can't bear fruit if you resist God.

You can't bear fruit apart from God.

God will not force you to bear fruit against your will.

You will be justified if you choose to accept grace.

You will bear fruit if you accept grace.

You will be made righteous if you accept grace.

The previous three statements can be negated with rejection (ie you will not if...)

I have a question.

You say you aren't saved by works, yet you haven't been able to describe salvation without appealing to works.

In your method of salvation, can you actually describe it without it coming down to your works having some standard of good or bad?

First -- an opportunity to talk about some parts of Orthodox theology that most aren't familiar with - we draw a distinction called essence vs energies. God's essence is what He is - it is unapproachable, ineffable, beyond comprehension, totally other. However, God's energies, His working, are knowable - this is His grace, His love, even also His anger. We commune with God through His energies, which are also Divine, are also God. Energy is the same root word as work in Greek, that's actually where the word energy comes from (ergon). So God's grace is His work - they are one and the same thing. Therefore work, activity, is necessary for salvation. Without work, no one will be saved, because God's work and God's grace are the same thing. But this is God's work.

Second -- Justification. As an idea, it the same word as righteousness. A distinction is made by translators in English, but it's misleading. For example, Romans 3:28 says "we reckon therefore a man to be justified by faith apart from works of the Law." But 2 Corinthians 3:9 says "if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, how much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory!" But they're the exact same word. You can swap them. It is just as correct to say we reckon a man to be made righteous by faith... and to call it the ministry of justification. We just don't use righteous as a verb, we don't righteous people, we justify them. You could just as easily translate Romans 6:13 as "yield yourselves to God...and your members to God as instruments of justification" or v 16 as "salves for obedience...to justification" or again "you have becomes slaves to justification" or again "yield your members in bondage to justification unto sanctification." Literally the same word.

Justification also has a nice remnant usage in English - when we type documents on the computer, we can justify them - left justify, right justify, whatever. We set things in line, put them in their proper place. This is also a very scriptural concept. The justice promised by God in the Day of the Lord is restorative, everything will be made right, put in its proper place. Justice will be done, and all of the injustice in the world will be fixed. There's an idea of peace, rest, because everything is as it should be. Everything from death to wickedness to the damage these things do to creation will be righted.

The other usage is a civil law reference. In a case, a judge found one party in the right, the other party in the wrong. The party in the right was found righteous, they were justified. Again, the Day of the Lord will judge all men - some will be found righteous, justified; some will not.

Thirdly. It's so important to keep in mind the whole picture presented to us in the scriptures. There was a problem with creation. Mankind was created to be a certain way, to do certain things, and it all got upended. Every single word in the scripture is about God's plan to justify creation, and that is only possible through Jesus Christ, which is why every word in the Law, Psalms, Prophets are about Him, look to Him. God is working, from the beginning, to justify mankind and creation.

Ok, so I said that to make clear what I'm talking about when I say the beginning (past tense) and end of salvation (future tense) is justification. Put in the proper place, and made righteous, judged righteous, all are aspects of the same thing, and all of these uses are found in the scriptures. God will judge His creation, and this act of judgment will justify creation - put things in their proper place, make everything right, separate good from evil. The Gospel is the victory of Christ Jesus over His enemies, which heralded the third age in which the plan and work of God will culminate in the Day of the Lord, the appearing of Christ, which will complete this judgment. The world is judged - the ruler is judged, people are set free from demonic powers, the victory is done, we are in the last age - but the end of the story isn't yet.

That is why when presented with the story of this Victory and immanent visitation of the Lord, people respond - ok. What do I have to do so that on that day I will be justified? All three aspects: made righteous, found righteous, on the right side of judgment are in this question, because they are all the same thing.

This is ontological. How can we separate righteousness (justification) from justification (righteousness), or grace from grace, God's work from God's work? You say the effect of the grace of God is that people become Christ-like. I agree - this is His work, to make people righteous. To justify them. To put them in their proper place, which is to be like Him. This is salvation.

We have teachings and parables about all three aspects. How can we be justified? Through faith (Romans 3:28). How will we know? Through fruit (Matthew 7:16) Who is righteous/justified? The one practicing righteousness (1 John 3:7). Who will be judged righteous? Those who love (Matthew 25:31-46), also those who have been made righteous (Romans 5:9). How are they made righteous? By God's work (Phil 2:13). How will we be justified? By our words (Matthew 12:37) and heart and deeds (Jer 17:10). How are we made righteous? By God becoming sin so that we may be made the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21).

It's all the same word, because it's all the same thing, the same idea. Being righteous, doing righteous things, and being judged as righteous are all the same. An unrighteous person cannot be righteous; they can't or won't do righteousness, and they will be judged as unrighteous. An unrighteous person is an unjustified person. Same word.

The last bit, you said, describe it without coming down to my works. Where have I talked about my works? The work of God makes people righteous. It justifies them. It was not on account of our righteousness that He became man. It was not on account of our obedience He gave us the Holy Spirit. It's the other way around. He did the mighty act with His own arm, He trod the winepress alone, and because of that we can becomes slaves to righteousness, which leads to being made holy, and the culmination of this is eternal life (Romans 6:19-22). He pours out His Spirit, which works in us (grace) with which we become fellow-workers with Him, and we work in His creation. Our work becomes grace because it becomes His work. This is actually the original purpose of mankind, to participate and rule over it with Him, to work with Him (Gen 1:28).

There is harmony in all of the ways the scriptures talk about salvation, judgment, condemnation, justification, and so on. We can't say, well a man will be judged on the last day by faith and not by deeds, because the scriptures quite literally say they will be judged by deeds. And, likewise, we can't say that a man will be judged righteous by deeds apart from faith, because nobody will be made righteous by their own efforts - only God makes people righteous, justifies, judges as good, and that by faith.

Not quantity. Not works. Being.

So, the very short answer to your question about why I don't describe salvation apart from works is two fold:
1. Because the scriptures don't. The words are there. I'm quoting them, not making them up
2. Because being-doing-being made are the same thing, the one who is righteous practices righteousness and vice versa. I think you agree with this, actually, because your tradition says that "faith is never alone".

Ok. I answered your question. Can you please refer to my previous post, and see if there is any actual practical difference to our understanding of the mechanistic outline I put there?

I've been able to skim your response, but since you really want me to respond to you list of questions, since it seems you really feel you "got me" with those.

Quote:

---

You can't bear fruit if you resist God.

---

This clearly isn't true. You brought Matthew 12 into the conversation and that clearly distinguishes between good and bad fruits (along with no fruits). What you hopefully meant is that you cannot produce good fruits if you resist God and that's true, but not what you asked. Even John 15 disagrees with this. We see God "pruning" the branches to remove things that could hinder good fruits.

Quote:

---

You can't bear fruit apart from God.

---

This seems to be an insufficient statement.

It seems to not remember Romans and the potter/clay along with Ephesians 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand."

So it's not an issue of bearing fruit.

Quote:

---

God will not force you to bear fruit against your will.

---

Agree. No limited atonement. Doesn't mean we won't produce fruits.

Quote:

---

You will be justified if you choose to accept grace.

---

No.

You were justified at the cross (past tense)
You are being justified by the cross and the sacraments (present tense)
You will be justified because of the cross (future tense).

Quote:

---

You will bear fruit if you accept grace.

---

You mean, you be capable of bearing good fruit.

Which means there's something materially that's changed within the person that makes said person capable of bearing good fruit.

Quote:

---

You will be made righteous if you accept grace.

---

Again, you want everything to be future tense. It's not just future tense. If I am justified in past and present tense, I am also righteous in past and presence tense.

This is important because it makes it clear that at all times, we are in a state of sin while we are in this fallen state. There's no future even that will make us righteous. That event has already occurred and the promise is with us everyday that we exist.

Quote:

---

The previous three statements can be negated with rejection (ie you will not if...)

---

Ok...

------------------------------

So no gotcha's in this.

You also completely avoided the cause/effect issues you have that still sets works as a cause of your salvation. Sure you tried to hide it behind grace, but your basic argument boils down to "Our good works show we have God's grace."

When I ask why you're adversarial, the response here is what I mean. I'm not playing gotcha, I'm not trying to box you in or trap you. I am genuinely trying to understand your point of view, because I genuinely think that there's not very much difference between our understanding.

Quote:

---

You can't bear fruit if you resist God.

---

Ok, sure, the metaphor for bearing fruit is used sometimes of good fruit vs bad, but also good fruit vs no fruit. I was referring to John 15:2 "no fruit" but that's fine.

Let's rephrase this to: You can't bear good fruit if you resist God, and we're golden. Nice!!

Quote:

---

This seems to be an insufficient statement.

It seems to not remember Romans and the potter/clay along with Ephesians 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand."

So it's not an issue of bearing fruit.

---

I do not understand this response. Maybe "fruit" is an analogy that's overburdened. I was thinking, here, of John 15 - "apart from me you can do nothing". The point being here, that apart from God man can do no good thing.

Can we rephase it to: Man can do no good thing apart from God and agree? This is what I was getting at.

Quote:

---

God will not force you to bear fruit against your will.

---

Nice! Agree!

Quote:

---

No.

You were justified at the cross (past tense)
You are being justified by the cross and the sacraments (present tense)
You will be justified because of the cross (future tense).

---

Man I think we're really close here. In some sense everyone was absolutely saved by the Cross - from death. But not all will participate in the justification or righteousness that was made possible through the Cross. I think we agree on that. I'd quibble *a little* that the Cross is what justifies us because St Paul doesn't only talk about the Cross but the Resurrection - they're together (for example, "He was raised to life for our justification" Romans 4:25). Probably best not to overburden the Cross alone.

Can we agree that "If you choose to accept grace, you were justified, you are being justified, and you will be justified"? Because I agree with that very much.

Quote:

---

You mean, you be capable of bearing good fruit.

Which means there's something materially that's changed within the person that makes said person capable of bearing good fruit.

---

Hm, no, I don't think that is what I meant. I firmly believe that a person who accepts the grace of God will bear good fruit. "The one abiding in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit." I don't think it is possible for someone to accept the grace of God, and not be drawn inexorably toward the purpose for which they were called. Which, as you pointed out, is good works - and I'd add to that we were also made to be made like Christ, and have communion with God. He has no other will for us, so if we are doing anything else, we are resisting His will, and His work, and therefore His grace.

I think we have to say, that if a person is walking in sin they are actively resisting the grace of God (1 John 1:6, 1 John 3:4-9). And, St Paul teaches that there's no neutral ground. We are either slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness (Romans 6:16-18). So it's binary, in that regard.

But, yes, I do agree that something has changed within the person, which is dying to sin, being raised to Christ, and receipt of the gift of the Holy Spirit and with it the power of God working in us.

Quote:

---

Again, you want everything to be future tense. It's not just future tense. If I am justified in past and present tense, I am also righteous in past and presence tense.

This is important because it makes it clear that at all times, we are in a state of sin while we are in this fallen state. There's no future even that will make us righteous. That event has already occurred and the promise is with us everyday that we exist.

---

Nah, I don't mind using past and present and future. They're all in the scripture (have been saved, are being saved, will be saved). And here perhaps is our key disagreement. I don't agree that a person who was made righteous through faith at one time has attained the fullness of righteousness. I think this is contrary to scriptural teaching. There's nothing that lacks from God for us to be righteous, I agree - He has done it, there is no future event coming to make us righteous. But the fact that He has given us everything doesn't mean that His will for us has come to completion. For example, a person who is not a believer, who becomes baptized, receives the Holy Spirit - no "event" happened - the Cross, the Resurrection, all already happened - but that grace was and is and will be manifested in that person. And this continues in our life. The end (culmination) of our enslavement to God is eternal life, through being made holy -- "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the fruit you reap leads to holiness, and the outcome is eternal life." Romans 6:22

For example.
"Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me." Phil 3:12

"And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." 2 Corinthians 3:18

"Offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God, which is your rational of worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Romans 12:1-2

"Beloved, we are now children of God, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that when Christ appears, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is." 1 John 3:2

"Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made the good confession before many witnesses...Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, and to be generous and ready to share, treasuring up for themselves a firm foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life." 1 Tim 6:12,18

"Keep yourselves in the love of God as you await the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you eternal life." Jude 1:21

"Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await Him." Hebrews 9:28

"Therefore, since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from wrath through Him! For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life!" Romans 5:9-10

"It was He who...equip(s) the saints for works of ministry and to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, as we mature to the full measure of the stature of Christ.... we will in all things grow up into Christ Himself, who is the head." Eph 4:11-14.

Your sentiment here seems to border on the idea of status, which is closely linked to Roman Catholic teaching (state of sin / state of grace), rather than one of ontology or being (which, I suppose, is your tradition of imputed righteousness). But I don't think there is a promise of anything short of actual righteousness, even the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21). I think the promises are clear, that if we accept the grace of God, we become righteous. And so, the judgment is about what we are - actually righteous, actually justified, and because of that, we will bear fruit because we will have remained in Him, and we will have labored "striving with all His energy working powerfully within" us. (1 Col 1:29).

If we talk about status, then yeah, I totally see the problem for your vantage point. If status is reckoned to us, if being justified is something different than being made righteous, and if we are never going to actually be righteous, if we're always in a state of sin...then what we do is absolutely not relevant, because we will never be righteous anyway, so it doesn't reflect what we are. I don't think that a person is sometimes in a state of sin and a state of grace in any meaningful way, any more than when I'm in a bad mood or a good mood I'm a different person. Now, if I'm always rude and nasty to people, it's probably because I'm a nasty, rude person. But if I'm normally a very patient person and I die a moment after losing my temper, I don't think there is a momentary judgment of who I am. Obviously this is simplified, but it points to the difference between status and being. Likewise, I don't think the holy ones of God were in a state of sin - because this is foreign to God - but were being renewed. I don't think it is binary. And again, not that we're saying, well you were mostly sinful in your life, or you had mostly sinful days, so you're condemned. That's quantitative again - God is compassionate and merciful, patient and abounding in steadfast love. That kind of metric or judgment or understanding of us is not what the scriptures promise, and I think this makes understanding the many, many scriptural passages about judgment very difficult.

Quote:

---

Our good works show we have God's grace.

---

Well, sure. If a person can do nothing apart from God (and certainly nothing good) then when a person does good, they do that by God's grace. QED.

"Little children, let no one lead you astray; the one practicing righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous." 1 John 3:7. It seems fairly simple.

Now does that mean that any person can say - well, a person did x y or z therefore they are righteous? Or therefore they should be saved? No, because the goodness of our works comes from God, and only He can judge what is good (which he extends to us as we become like Him - Romans 12:2). The challenging thing is not confessing that anything that is good comes from God, therefore good works show God's work which is His grace. It's following up with saying - and you should not judge because you are not God to know what is good.

If there's a singular hallmark of the saints, it is that as they become more like God, they see both God and their sin more clearly. They see the difference between God and man, which is the root of Christian humility. And, as they understand their sin their repentance grows, along with the joy they have in the forgiveness they have received, which propels them further into obedience and love. And this continues, constantly, in a neverending struggle.

The teaching of the saints reflect this:
"Do not fall into despair because of stumbling. I do not mean that you should not feel contrition for them, but that you should not think them incurable. For it is more expedient to be bruised than dead. There is, indeed, a Healer for the man who has stumbled, even He Who on the Cross asked that mercy be shown to His crucifiers, He Who pardoned His murders while He hung on the Cross. 'All manner of sin,' He said, 'and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men,' that is, through repentance."

All of us sin constantly. We slip and fall. In reality, we fall into a trap set by the demons. The Holy Fathers and the Saints always tell us, 'It is important to get up immediately after a fall and to keep on walking toward God'. Even if we fall a hundred times a day, it does not matter; we must get up and go on walking toward God without looking back. What has happened has happened it is in the past. Just keep on going, all the while asking for help from God."

Even if you are not what you should be, you should not despair. It is bad enough that you have sinned; why in addition do you wrong God by regarding him in your ignorance as powerless? Is he, who for your sake created the great universe that you behold, incapable of saving your soul? And if you say that this fact, as well as his incarnation, only makes your condemnation worse, then repent; and he will receive your repentance, as he accepted that of the prodigal son and the prostitute. But if repentance is too much for you, and you sin out of habit even when you do not want to, show humility like the publican: this is enough to ensure your salvation. For he who sins without repenting, yet does not despair, must of necessity regard himself as the lowest of creatures, and will not dare to judge or censure anyone. Rather, he will marvel at God's compassion.

Do not be surprised that you fall every day; do not give up, but stand your ground courageously. And assuredly the angel who guards you will honor your patience. While a wound is still fresh and warm it is easy to heal, but old, neglected and festering ones are hard to cure, and require for their care much treatment, cutting, plastering and cauterization. Many from long neglect become incurable. But with God all things are possible.

We have within us deeply rooted weaknesses, passions, and defects. This can not all be cut out with one sharp motion, but patience, persistence, care and attention. The path leading to perfection is long. Pray to God so that he will strengthen you. Patiently accept your falls and, having stood up, immediately run to God, not remaining in that place where you have fallen. Do not despair if you keep falling into your old sins. Many of them are strong because they have received the force of habit. Only with the passage of time and with fervor will they be conquered. Don't let anything deprive you of hope.

Do not say: 'I have sinned much, and therefore I am not bold enough to fall down before God.' Do not despair. Simply do not increase your sins in despair and, with the help of the All-merciful One, you will not be put to shame. For He said, 'he who comes to Me I will not cast out.' And so, be bold and believe that He is pure and cleanses those who draw near to Him. If you want to accomplish true repentance, show it with your deeds. If you have fallen into pride, show humility; if into drunkenness, show sobriety; if into defilement, show purity of life. For it is said, 'Turn away from evil and do good.'

If a man loves God with all his heart, all his thoughts, all his will, and all his strength, he will gain the fear of God; the fear will produce tears, tears will produce strength; by the perfection of this the soul will bear all kinds of fruits.

You certainly wrote a lot and I want to commend you for that.

My hot take is that there's a lot of problematic things in this though.

Quote:

---

We have teachings and parables about all three aspects. How can we be justified? Through faith (Romans 3:28). How will we know? Through fruit (Matthew 7:16) Who is righteous/justified? The one practicing righteousness (1 John 3:7). Who will be judged righteous? Those who love (Matthew 25:31-46), also those who have been made righteous (Romans 5:9). How are they made righteous? By God's work (Phil 2:13). How will we be justified? By our words (Matthew 12:37) and heart and deeds (Jer 17:10). How are we made righteous? By God becoming sin so that we may be made the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21).

---

This paragraph really stood out to me as a good summation of the issues I had.

I guess the purpose here is to claim they are all God's works? If that's was your argument I'd be pretty good with it, but then you want to turn around and take Matthew 12:37 completely out of context to say it's not God, but us.

Lets actually look at Matthew 12 and not just verse 37 because I think you give a really bad misread of the text itself.

"33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.""

Notice what Jesus is saying is the real problem is that in this parable. Why does the parable say our words condemn us? Because they are a window into the condition our heart. So once again, cause and effect.

Jesus is truly saying this is a first commandment issue and what will justify/condemn us is our faith. If in our heart, we truly loved God, then our words would show that. We know this is true because Paul also makes the same case in Romans 10:

"10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

So once again notice that the justification starts in the heart and from that comes salvation. Cause and effect

---------------------------

Quote:

---

The last bit, you said, describe it without coming down to my works. Where have I talked about my works?

---

I mean...this is a little silly right? You've spent pages arguing we will be judged by our fruits and now want to claim you've never said that? If I take into account all that you've previously said, you're now claiming that God is the cause of bad fruits? Or God actively decides to create bad fruits? You run into a whole host of problems when you try to argue this.

Further, if you want to exclude yourself from the equation and say it's all God's work, then there also doesn't seem to be room for your will to be involved, though I suspect you'll try to sneak it back in.

-------------------------------------------------

So in the end, I'm really not sure you answered my questions. I guess you answered around the question, but in the end, good works are truly a necessity to justify your salvation.

Its confusing - we seem to be saying the same thing, but then you say we disagree.

What a person does reflects what they are. Just as the example you cited - the mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart. So what is the difference between a person being justified by what they say and what is in their heart? They're the same thing, aren't they? The one signifies the other, and God judges truly.

So when you say, "If in our heart, we truly loved God, then our words would show that." I say - exactly! Which is why, when we are judged we will be judged by every word we say, and this is a judgment of our heart. So it's not an error when the Lord says, by your words will you be justified - any more than it is when the Prophet says, God judges the heart. They mean the same thing.

I am not saying - by our words will we be made righteous, if that's what you understood from that.

So course we will be judged by our "fruits" which is our words and deeds, and like you say, they are a window into the condition of our heart - or, as I've said, our being. It's ontological.

Quote:

---

If I take into account all that you've previously said, you're now claiming that God is the cause of bad fruits? Or God actively decides to create bad fruits? You run into a whole host of problems when you try to argue this.

---

I don't really understand the connection between what I wrote and attributing bad to God.

We agree God doesn't force, and God gives grace, and man can do nothing good apart from God. We also agree we're judged by our fruits (I think). The simple answer here is that our disobedience, our resistance to grace, is the cause of bad fruits. Not God. And our acceptance of grace, allowing God to work in us, is necessary for good fruits. Not our work, as in, our own efforts apart from God. He works in us mightily as we labor, but not against our will.

Quote:

---

Further, if you want to exclude yourself from the equation and say it's all God's work, then there also doesn't seem to be room for your will to be involved, though I suspect you'll try to sneak it back in.

---

The way I see it, we simply can't be excluded if God does not coerce. He can lead us, plead with us, beg us, but if we "are not willing" (Luke 13:34) what will He be able to do? If we break off our yoke, tear off our chains, and defile ourselves with sin and turn ourselves into a rotten vine (Jeremiah 2:20-21), is it His fault? What more could He have done for His vineyard than he already did for it? (Isaiah 5:4)

Quote:

---

good works are truly a necessity to justify your salvation.

---

Only insofar as they show the state of your heart, as you said. You can't be righteous and practice unrighteousness, any more than an evil treasure can bring forth good. So when God judges by deeds, He is also judging whether or not we are righteous. They're the same.

I would expect that we would agree on many things since we both claim to follow the orthodox (lower case o) teaching of the church.

Quote:

---

The difference is that sheep are born sheep and goats are born goats but no person is born or predetermined for condemnation. We choose by what we do, responding to or resisting Gods love and grace in our lives. So those choices to become a goat and being correctly identified as a goat are the same thing.

---

Too bad Jesus didn't use insects as an example, instead of sheep and goats. Insects use the same DNA template but based on their surrounds can become all kinds of different forms. The phenomenon is called polyphenism.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211006518#:~:text=Polyphenism%20is%20the%20phenomenon%20where,for%20the%20study%20of%20epigenetics.

Locusts are a very biblical example. Under most circumstances, grasshoppers are solitary, peaceful and a necessary part of a balanced ecosystem. However, under the right combination of circumstances they become social, migratory, invasive, and can absolutely destroy ecosystems. When this happens they look different, act different, have different body chemistry, and are almost a different species than the passive, solitary ones. Seems like a good analogy for humans.

I can appreciate the sentiment, but this is probably a better argument for limited atonement than anything else.

I think calvinists would probably agree wholeheartedly with this statement:

Quote:

---

Whether we're weeds or wheat, or sheep or goats, is who we are, and is the result of our entire life of allowing God to make us the way He wants us, or being rebellious and becoming something else.

---

God creates the goat/weeds to be goats/weeds and so they live as such.

God creates the sheep/wheat to be sheep/wheat and so they live as such.

That's limited atonement 101.
-------------------------------

Quote:

---

The difference is that sheep are born sheep and goats are born goats but no person is born or predetermined for condemnation. We choose by what we do, responding to or resisting Gods love and grace in our lives.

---

I also don't think these sentences work together.

On one hand you want to claim we are born without condemnation, but on the other, we require an external entity (God) to avoid condemnation (presumably) in the end. And you have to utilize God because to claim we can avoid condemnation on our own would be outright pelagianism.

This is why I think original sin holds up better than ancestral sin. It better represents what Scripture says is our fallen state

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 19:12 Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults.

-------------------------------------

I also don't think what you wrote holds up to Scripture which is full of language about becoming something new.

Just a couple that come to mind.

Ephesians 2: 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind

John 3: 3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God."

1 Peter 1: 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

Romans 6: 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

And probably many more.

So I think it actually makes sense to say we are all born as weeds or goats and that through God's grace, we all have the opportunity to be reborn into wheat or sheep.

I think the biggest challenge in a conversation like this is not reading what I'm saying through the lens of the great western debates about atonement and salvation.

Fix two ideas firmly in your mind, because these are everywhere and always in the fathers: ontology and teleology. Salvation is ontological, it is a matter of what we are and become for the first. And for the second no human has any other end or destiny in God's will except salvation.

To the first point, God creates no one to be anything other than sheep, or wheat, or to be saved. "God wills all men to be saved." Calvinists would never agree that what we are is the result of US allowing God or being rebellious. They would say that it's fixed and what we do or choose is irrelevant.

To your second point, reiterate. Whether we are born one way or another doesn't matter. Whatever your opinion is on that, there is no other will for any man, regardless of how they are born or even who they are up til now, than to be saved. Not that we are born saved, or born without condemnation, but that we are born an created with a very absolute and singular purpose: to be saved, to be joined to God.

The third statement - we're born as goats - while I don't personally accept that, I can understand how within the discussion you're working in, how you view salvation, you need to say that. To that point, the idea is that everyone is dead in sin and will/would not be saved but for grace. Yes - I can agree with that. But this is looking again at sheep or goats as the outcome of the decision, instead of an ontological evaluation of who the person is. My little children were not goats when they were born. They weren't evil, they didn't do any of the things ascribed to wickedness when they were infants. And, frankly, they weren't righteous either - they didn't do the things the Lord says make a distinction between sheep and goats.

St Paul always frames this as God working in the world, and we either choose be a part of His plan or we throw our lot in with the enemies of God. Infants have done neither. And in this context, God willing there should be very few people condemned with the demons. I don't think there will be sad people in hell, people who tried but weren't good enough, people who wanted to be saved but slipped up one time too many. The people who will be condemned will go in anger, gnashing their teeth at God, in hatred. The man possessed by Legion is an image of demonic hatred - madness, violence. Not mourning, per se.

It takes a certain dedication to a theological argument to damn infants to hell that I quite honestly lack. I just don't believe it. I won't believe it. And I don't think first that it is in the scriptures, and second that it is in character of a God who is free to have mercy on who He will have mercy, who can have compassion on whomever He will, and as near as I can tell has chosen to have compassion and mercy on everyone.

Quite specifically though my objection is this: the judgment is about who you have become, but being born is about your nature itself, what you are. Being born with a damaged and fallen nature does not mean we are born with a nature worthy of condemnation and hell. And, being found as righteous doesn't mean that our human nature is completely healed! Because then who would be saved? That will not happen until the age to come. Both the sheep and the goats still have a damaged human nature, because they are still mortal, and have not yet received a nature of glory.

I do think there is a very interesting question here about how we were born. In Genesis the scriptures say God killed an animal in front of Adam and Eve, and then made them garments of flesh. Modern readers tend to take this as God killed an animal to make them clothes, like out of leather. But the fathers say He was showing them what death was, and then in a second point unrelated to the first, He made them fleshly garments, as in, the fleshly body we have today. Which is different than the body they had before the Fall, and different again from the body we will have in the Resurrection. My understanding, based on the fathers and the careful distinction St Paul makes between flesh and body, and how he talks about various bodies, is that part of the becoming that will happen is toward this kind of being. As the fathers talk about it (St Athanasius and St Maximos especially) from being to well-being to eternal being. That is absolutely a becoming, and a transformation. And it is the way St John talks about eternal life being something we participate in immediately, today, even though we still die and will one day be raised.

In my opinion, far too much weight is placed on a judicial, and particularly criminal justice, motif in all of these parables and metaphors used about salvation. They are very much concepts and ideas foreign to the first century and I think they really strain the text. The idea of judgment, mishpat, righteousness are much more broad in the scriptures. See for example the Judges, who never once sat and judged a case. The Lord is the Judge in that sense.

Great post.

Honestly, my responses had little to do with western thought. I simply took your example at face value. Most of your second response either add or changes what you initially wrote. That's fine.

I also don't think waving away "western thought" or debate is really a sufficient answer. I realize you are EO and there's a desire to wave off what the west was done, but I think that's to your own detriment, just as the west should not waive off the east. It's actually why I like Lutheranism so much is they are clear that they will look to all to see what the arguments are and what are scriptural, not just what's "homegrown" if you will.

Quote:

---

The third statement - we're born as goats - while I don't personally accept that, I can understand how within the discussion you're working in, how you view salvation, you need to say that. To that point, the idea is that everyone is dead in sin and will/would not be saved but for grace. Yes - I can agree with that. But this is looking again at sheep or goats as the outcome of the decision, instead of an ontological evaluation of who the person is. My little children were not goats when they were born. They weren't evil, they didn't do any of the things ascribed to wickedness when they were infants. And, frankly, they weren't righteous either - they didn't do the things the Lord says make a distinction between sheep and goats.

---

I did want to respond more in-depth to this though because I don't think you understood my response.

You seem to understand the conundrum you have, and it really seems you just try to brush past it.

From birth we have a problem, you and I both acknowledge that. We are born into a state that isn't compatible with what God's commands or expects from his creation. You know I've got kids too, and like you I don't look at them and see evil. I think this is a misunderstanding on your part of western thought (maybe?) or original sin (maybe?). However, we cannot ignore the fact that the Scriptures say that from conception we are afflicted with this ailment (Psalm 51). It doesn't change that Paul points out that through Adam sin came into this word (Romans 5) and so forth.

What's important is that we both acknowledge that there's an issue with this original state. It's insufficient. No matter what we do, our abilities will never get us where we need to go.

So as I said above and you seem to agree, an external source is needed. God's grace. I think it's wise to take Jesus at his word that we need to be "born again." You said you didn't think your kids were born goats. That's not language I would use. I think it's fair to say we are initially born separated from God, but through faith in Jesus, we are reborn into something that is now compatible with what God commands.

Quote:

---

Quite specifically though my objection is this: the judgment is about who you have become, but being born is about your nature itself, what you are. Being born with a damaged and fallen nature does not mean we are born with a nature worthy of condemnation and hell. And, being found as righteous doesn't mean that our human nature is completely healed! Because then who would be saved? That will not happen until the age to come. Both the sheep and the goats still have a damaged human nature, because they are still mortal, and have not yet received a nature of glory.

---

The first part is really where synergism becomes untenable for me and really skirts pelagianism. If our original nature is such that we are not condemned to hell (or simply separation from God), than there has to be a theoretical opportunity for someone to become one with God without the necessity of Jesus. If we exclude that theoretical opportunity, than we are saying that there's something wrong with our original state that needs to be addressed. I think you create a logical contradiction to say we are not in a state of separation from God at birth, yet also say that we require God's grace to be joined with God in the end.

The second part I can agree with. This is, where I believe Lutherans and Roman Catholics differ on Original Sin. I believe that Roman Catholics believe that through baptism, Original Sin is washed away completely and our will is completely free. Hence why they then have mortal/venial sin distinctions. Luther pointed out that by willfully ignoring venial sins, in reality Roman Catholic are actually allowing sin, but that's a different argument. Lutherans believe that even after baptism, we are still stained with original sin. We can do good, in relation to God, but it's incomplete and nowhere near the level when we are united with God at death or the return of Jesus (whichever comes first). So we strive to do good, but accept that in nearly every moment of our lives, we will continue to sin.

Right, I think the difference is the nature of the problem. For us, our understanding of the problem for humanity isn't that we're going to hell. It's that our nature is damaged, and this damage results in mortality. The first problem is death. The other result of the damage is sin, which separates us from God and prevents us from union with Him.

So, to the idea of Pelagianism. Even if you followed the Law perfectly, and beyond perfectly - even if you hypothetically never sinned, that still wouldn't fix you. You're still mortal, and you're still not where you were intended to be - union with God. The Law was never made for that, which is why it can't save us from death. It also can't help us achieve union with God. At best it gets you back to even, it doesn't get you into "positive" divine territory. Again, it was never for that.

I don't think being born of the Spirit (merely) makes us compatible with commands... I don't think that's the saving method. Commandment keeping in and of itself doesn't save - before or after being regenerated by baptism and the Spirit. That's just keeping the Law all over again. What's more, people who were without the Holy Spirit were told and expected to follow the commands. The Lord tells the crowds to judge for themselves what is right, they were expected to do so. Even so, doing so wouldn't save them from death, and it didn't actually fix them. It's no issue to say that the Prophet David followed the Law and was blameless before it, or that St Simeon or Sts Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous before the Law. They still died. We were promised better things.

So being born with this nature, this problem, is not the same thing as working wickedness. The scriptures are clear that each person is judged for their own sin (Ezekiel 18:4,20, Deut 24:16, 1 Kings 8:32, 2 Kings 14;6, Isaiah 3:10-11, Jeremiah 31:30). Being born is not a sin.

Salvation is not merely the absence of condemnation.

Quote:

---

If our original nature is such that we are not condemned to hell (or simply separation from God), there has to be a theoretical opportunity for someone to become one with God without the necessity of Jesus

---

No, because merely the absence of sin is not union with God. Sin prevents us from communion with God. Removing it does not grant communion. This is a key point. Our original nature enables us to know God, we have this in our nature. It is part of what we were created for and to be. Sin prevents that, but being able to know God is useless without God's grace toward us.

Jesus' affected part of this with the Incarnation, He joined in Himself the two natures, Divine and Human. He also defeated death by death. And, in the age to come, when all participate in the Resurrection, the divine work will be completed, and God will be all in all. None of that is accomplished by us being sinless, or even by us working good.

There is a difference between our nature and what we do, even though they are very much related. We are born a certain way, and then God works to make us what we were always intended to be. Sin prevents that; not sinning doesn't enable it. But God does force us to become what we are to be - He does not coerce, but He enables us, He works in us, to accomplish His will.

What I'm noticing is you're not really responding to the arguments. Instead you're just responding with "here's what the EO believes."

It's interesting you should choose Ezekiel 18:4 and Deut 24:16 (I didn't look at everything you listed).

Lets look at that these:

4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.

6 "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Yet you just argued the following:

"Even if you followed the Law perfectly, and beyond perfectly - even if you hypothetically never sinned, that still wouldn't fix you. You're still mortal"

It doesn't seem your response fits with those verses. In the example of a sinless man, what would be the cause for his death? Being sinless would seem to negate a reason for death. For those verses to support your claim, you actually can't allow a person to be sinless or it becomes problematic.

Quote:

---

Being born is not a sin.

---

No-one said that. It's not a sin to be born. That doesn't mean we aren't born in a fallen state.
-----------------------------------

To me the verses above actually make a decently strong case for why original sin would be more correct. It doesn't run into the scriptural issues.

Look I get it, this is one of the downsides of Christian history. The West and East have been on different paths for so many hundreds of years, that topics like this weren't debated as they should have been. So we are going to differ on things. It's unfortunate, but the reality of a church that's been on different paths almost from the start.

Being born mortal is a consequence of the fall, not a consequence of individual sin. Death is not God punishing us.

If you read those verses they are not taking about salvation but the principle that people are not punished for the sins that their parents commit. However in other places God talks about visiting to several generations. These don't conflict - consequences persist. But individuals are not judged for their hereditary sins. In the context of the last judgment, the scriptures are explicit that we are judged by what each person does. So merely being born doesn't condemn us in the context of the judgment seat. However being born in a sinful state absolutely does consign us to mortality - "in Adam all die." And, that sinful state we are born into also results in sin, and therefore individual guilt.

I'm not particularly arguing or disagreeing with you about most of this...I can appreciate the EO view. I don't think it's sufficient enough, but I can appreciate it.

Quote:

---

If you read those verses they are not taking about salvation but the principle that people are not punished for the sins that their parents commit.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

But individuals are not judged for their hereditary sins. In the context of the last judgment, the scriptures are explicit that we are judged by what each person does. So merely being born doesn't condemn us in the context of the judgment seat. However being born in a sinful state absolutely does consign us to mortality - "in Adam all die." And, that sinful state we are born into also results in sin, and therefore individual guilt.

---

This, especially the last sentence really borders back to original sin, which is good. The problem is this still actually doesn't explain why a sinless man would need to die. The verses you provided said they would be judged on their own sin and I can agree. So a sinless man is innocent and so why death? I realize you'll claim it's not a punishment, but it seems that if a man can achieve what Adam had pre-fall, he should not die as Adam would not have. So we are again left with an unanswered question. Something has to pass down to us that essentially requires that we will do something that causes death. The interesting thing is we both agree on this point. I think if we take the perspective that it was sin that caused the fall and it is sin that caused God to grant Adam death.

The more I've thought about this, it makes sense. As you pointed out, the EO didn't participate in the Pelagian controversies of the West and so you didn't have to really develop doctrine to rebut it. You hand waved it away by claiming "this sinful state results in sin," but that doesn't answer the "why" question.

The west had to spend time understanding the why and because of that, we get statements like the Augsburg Confession which give the why.

Quote:

---

Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost. They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.

---

This statement removes the possibilities that pelagian introduced. It also removes the possibility of a sinless man from my example. It also makes it clear why every person will have the same death that was given to Adam.

So in short, I think there's probably a lot of agreement between the west and the east on these things. We may use different words, but we get close. The bigger point of difference seems to really be connected to the east not having participated in the controversy and subsequent doctrinal development and so that leaves some vagueness that the west addresses more fully.

Quote:

---

So a sinless man is innocent and so why death? I realize you'll claim it's not a punishment, but it seems that if a man can achieve what Adam had pre-fall, he should not die as Adam would not have.

---

But this is simple - man's nature, what makes him what he is, was damaged in the fall. Humans no longer are what Adam was before the fall. You can't heal your nature by not sinning.

No human being has to do anything to die. We are born mortal. Death is a consequence of the fall, and comes to all men. It is not a consequence of individual sin.

It isn't vague. From my vantage point you're conflating condemnation vs righteousness at the judgment (which is personal, and individual) with death which is not personal, is part of our damaged nature.

Sorry. Big weather events tend to take up my time. I hope all is well with your family.

Quote:

---

However being born in a sinful state absolutely does consign us to mortality

---

This is what I'm saying is vague and your response does not answer the "why" this is relevant.

If we are mortal and die, that means we inherit something from our fathers. Otherwise being sinless is an option.

You haven't explained why this is the case?

We're all good, thanks. Hope y'all are good too.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Mortality is inherited, because nature is inherited. Snakes make snake babies. Birds make bird babies. Humans make human babies. We have the nature of our father. The scriptures express this as Adam's son Seth being in Adam's image and likeness, while Adam was made in God's image and likeness. And all of Adam's descendants died because they all inherited his mortal nature. That is the message of Genesis 5. He died, he died, he died.

Being born mortal as a consequence of sin and being born guilty of sins are two entirely different things. One condemns us to die. Sinning ourselves destines us for guilt and judgment.

And, our nature was also fallen and damaged beyond being mortal. We also inherit this damaged and sinful nature, being made in Adam's image and likeness in sinfulness as well. And so we all sin. We don't inherit sins or guilt. We do inherit sin - a mortal and sinful nature, which is why we are mortal and do sins. St Paul makes a distinction this same way between sin in general and sins in specific, sins which belong to the individual versus sin the condition.

Even the hypothetical sinless human would die, because their nature is mortal because of Adam's sin. But all are born into sin, and all have sinned their own sins. The two halves of that are saying different things.

Christ died for all, to save all from death. But not from judgment. "...One died for all, therefore all died. And He died for all..."

Quote:

---

Even the hypothetical sinless human would die, because their nature is mortal because of Adam's sin. But all are born into sin, and all have sinned their own sins. The two halves of that are saying different things.

---

I think I finally figured out what problem I have with this.

It's really only relevant by exception on. In this it follows the same logic as Roman Catholics use for the Immaculate Conception.

We know that there's ample Scripture in the OT and NT that all sin. So to even have a hypothetical situation where someone could be sinless seems to be a fools errand. You can acknowledge that we are in a fallen state. That we have a sinful nature, yet you want to leave open the opportunity that given all that, we could still hypothetically overcome that and choose not to sin.

Edit: Wanted to add that I've seen the logic used around Mary that at least some within EO will say that Mary could have sinned, but chose not to. So the hypothetical is not actually a hypothetical under your structure.