Replies

First, see my 3952. I am officially convinced that Christ did not take on a fallen human nature. Looking back, it is obvious that the seeds of this question in my mind came from having read, many years ago, Bp. Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Way." This book is highly problematic in many aspects, with all due respect to Bp. Kallistos, who has done more to communicate Orthodoxy to the English-speaking world than any other single person.

"Leaving God out of it for this point) But if you say that our fallen nature (implicitly necessarily) results in both sin and death, then how is that not intrinsic? Would it make a difference to say a guaranteed result is intrinsic?"

If you will look at what I wrote, the Orthodox response to this hangs on the differentiation we make between the results of the ancestral sin (death and corruption) and the Western concept of "original guilt," which indicates that man, from the moment of conception is deserving of the wrath and punishment of God. We see a difference between death/corruption and moral guilt. The former we are born with as a result of the ancestral sin, and the latter we acquire as a result of our actions.

We do not believe that the Theotokos was born without the results of ancestral sin, in the sense of the tendency to death and corruption. We do believe that she lived a morally guiltless life, and was thus a worthy vessel for the conception and birth of Christ. We do not believe that "the fix was in" for her. We believe that she had no other tools at her disposal than the ones we do.

I'm not sure what K means when he says that the Virgin had a pre-fall nature. I think he means that because of her sinlessness, she was as morally guiltless as was Eve prior to the fall. I do not think that he means that she was not subject to the results of the ancestral sin -- i.e. corruption and death. For she most certainly died, and the resurrection of her body is/was just as dependent on the Resurrection of Christ as is anyone else's resurrection.

You are right that the fact that Christ was both God and man, but one person, means that he had "inside information" to a degree that no one else does. And yet, his human nature was a real one, and experienced things in a real way. What do you think that St. Mark is talking about when, in his account of the Garden of Gethsemane that Christ "began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy?"

Blessed Theophylact has the following commentary: ""He took with Him only those three disciples who had also been witnesses of His glory on Mt. Tabor, so that having seen those glorious things they might also see these sad things and understand that the Lord was also truly man, and that, like us, He felt sorrow and distress. Since He had assumed full humanness in all aspects, of course He would feel sorrow and distress in His human nature. All we humans by nature find death odious and distasteful."

"I think he means that because of her sinlessness, she was as morally guiltless as was Eve prior to the fall. I do not think that he means that she was not subject to the results of the ancestral sin -- i.e. corruption and death."

Exactly! The Sin of Adam brought sin into the world and distorted not only our nature but creation itself. One of the results of this is that every living thing dies, not necessarily because of personal moral guilt. Even in our True, Pre-Fall nature, we had free will and could choose to cut ourselves off from God as Adam and Eve did. The Theotokos, by virtue of her freely given response to God's grace, did not make that choice and thus attained perfect theosis (which is the purpose of our creation), but she still lived, as we do, in a fallen world and so died as we all will until sin itself no longer exists. Indeed, her theosis resulting in bodily resurrection is/was as dependent on Christ breaking the bonds of death as much as anyone else's because it is not necessarily personal guilt which held the souls of the righteous dead of the OT in hades but rather the general power of sin and death over all creation.

Forgive me for jumping in, but I think all three of you are going in slightly different directions. In fighting various heresies, the Church established trough Councils that Christ had two natures, one fully Divine and one fully human and that the two did not mix. As such Jesus, the Man, knew of His special blessing but was not acting like Christ the Gd. So, I reject the "inside information" theory of Forest Keeper.

If He suffered pain, He suffered it as man suffers pain, for God feels no pain. If He suffered temptation, He suffered it like we do, for God is not tempted. If He bled, He bled like all humans do, for God does not bleed, and if He died on the Cross, He died as humans die; for God did not die on the Cross.

If He was walking around with the "inside knowledge" then He was more than Adam. Unless He was in every way like us except that He (as fully human without "inside information") chose not to sin but could have sinned according to His human nature, the whole thing was a show.

Trouble is, if He was the Second Adam, where is the parallel? Adam was created with the possibility of being immortal but capable of sin; Jesus was born mortal without the possibility of sin. He had a Father but no mother. Jesus was not created and had a Mother but no Father, so the two are not identical.

We see a difference between death/corruption and moral guilt. The former we are born with as a result of the ancestral sin, and the latter we acquire as a result of our actions.

This must refer only to physical death, I am presuming. So, are you saying that all of Paul's comparisons that we have been talking about are between eternal spiritual life and only physical death? Doesn't it make more sense that he was comparing spiritual life and spiritual death? Don't all of us, as Christians, believe that physical death is merely a transition, it's what happens after that is important? "Eternally" speaking, isn't physical death, to us, really no big deal?

We do not believe that the Theotokos was born without the results of ancestral sin, in the sense of the tendency to death and corruption. We do believe that she lived a morally guiltless life, and was thus a worthy vessel for the conception and birth of Christ. We do not believe that "the fix was in" for her. We believe that she had no other tools at her disposal than the ones we do.

I think I would find this much more plausible if you said the fix WAS in. :) Mary had no other help than the rest of us, and yet she turns out to be the only human in the history of mankind (except Jesus) to choose to never sin? And, it was just a coincidence that this person turned out to be a woman? And, it was just a coincidence that she lived in an area that would bring her to Bethlehem for a census? And, it was just a coincidence that her lineage happened to be perfectly in line with scriptural requirements? I'm sure there are more. Without a special dispensation from God, what are the odds that one and only one person out of billions and billions would "choose" to never sin? I don't see it.