Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Sure, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". This includes the elect.
Man inherits sin of Adam as original sin. It is a state of spiritual woundedness which makes us uncapable of union with God outside of the divine Grace. It is symbolized by the clothes which which Adam and Eve sought to separate themselves from God. The original sin is not actual sin, as we are born with it, do not have control over it, and will not be punished for it. Original sin though manifests itself in disordered desires, which is a state of mind called concupiscence. That is what drives us to resist divine grace and commit actual sin, for example, of greed, envy, and ultimately murder, committed by Cain. The actual sins we must confess and repent or otherwise we cannot reach God and will be condemned to eternal punishment of Hell.
Grace, however, is available to all, even the unbaptized as God loves all and wishes salvation of all. While our nature is wounded, it is not dead. God promised to withhold the punishment of death as he expelled man from the Garden, another time as he refrained from laying a curse on the whole mankind folliwing the sin of Cain, and during the entire economy of salvation set in motion following the covenant of Noah.
We choose to respond to grace with faith, hope, and charity. These virtues set us on a path of seeking God, which we do assisted, with any luck, by the Church in a lifelong process of conversion and justification. Some succeed in combating sin and reaching a state of holiness, or sainthood, in their lifetime. That is the goal and purpose of life. Others die in a state of grace before reaching holiness, and are purified from the consequences of their sin by the prayers of the Church after they die and unable to do penance themselves. Yet some die conquered by sin, rejecting the grace and have no place to go but Hell.
I think sometimes yes, sometimes no. With the parent analogy, a parent can allow a child to get dirty by turning away as the child heads for the mud. However, if a parent does the same thing when he sees his child headed for the bathtub with a plugged-in hairdryer, then he is arrested for causing child endangerment.
But remember that we as parents are tasked to preserve the child's life on earth (typically and for the purposes of the analogy, -- there are extreme instances when we ourselves should prefer a death of our child to his perdition, see e.g. the martyrdom of the Maccabees). God's love does not stop after we experience physical death, so when God allows a death of an innocent, that death brings him closer to God and his suffering has redemptive value for the sufferer or even for the sins of others. This is that suffering of which St. Paul speaks (Col 1:24) as compounded with the suffering of Christ.
So the abandonment of an innocent to suffering and physical death, that Christ himself experienced on the cross is analogous to a parent allowing a child to play in the mud and scrape a knee. Defiance of God that condemns a hardened sinner to Hell is analogous of a child fighting off the protective parent when heading for electrocution. There is never an analogy of God watching us indifferently as we set out toward perdition, like a neglectful parent would.
Catholics pray for a good death, and beleive that suffering leading to death in a state of grace is a gift from God. But such death is a good, not an evil.
It is precisely because of my own misspent youth and "bad memories (pl) that I mentioned the demon rum! :)
" The NT is replete with references to the "sinful nature". One example is:
Gal. 5:24 - "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires."
Ah, well we certainly develop a sinful nature as we progress through life. The idea that we are born with a sinful nature is a Western one, usually attributed to Blessed Augustine. Its where the whole idea of "original sin" comes from. The Church in the East never believed that. This is not to say that, so far as I can see, a belief in Original Sin is necessarily heretical. I am aware of no Ecumenical Council (or local one for that matter) which ever anathemized those who hold that belief. There was a Western local council, the Council of Orange, which seems to have condemned the Eastern view, but as it was local it was only of local import. These local councils have said all sorts of things over the centuries. There are a number in both the East and the West which laid down some regulations we would find bizarre today, for example, did you know that you can't go to a Jewish doctor or ride in a public conveyance with a Jewish person? At any rate, the idea of being born with a sinful nature is distinctly Western. It is nothing which was ever held by the entire Church. From an Eastern point of view, however, this otherwise non-heretical view has lead to a number of problems in Western theology, for example, the usual understanding of the Latin Church dogma of the Immaculate Conception, a dogma necessitated by the underlying doctrine of Original Sin. Quick note on your scripture reference; the Greek says "the flesh", not sinful nature, is crucified.
" It (sinful nature) needs to be crucified because we were born with it. It must be eliminated before the Spirit takes its place."
This is what the East calls "dying to the self". The Church in the East, as was demonstrated I think quite forcefully by the earlier quote from +Symeon the New Theologian, believes and teaches that this dying to the self is something which takes place over time...as your own personal experience seems to indicate to you after a fashion.
Our concepts of sin are different from yours in the West. The Greek word for sin, the word the NT uses is "amartia" which means "to miss the mark". Essentially, the mark is being Christ-like; sin is when we fail at that. Words have meaning, FK, and translations make for misunderstandings.
Here's a snip from the Ascetical Homilies of +Isaac the Syrian about sin which you might find informative of the Eastern theology:
"Sin, Gehenna, and death do not exist at all with God, for they are effects, not substances. Sin is the fruit of free will. There was a time when sin did not exist, and there will be a time when it will not exist. Gehenna is the fruit of sin. At some point in time it had a beginning, but its end is not known. Death, however, is a dispensation of the wisdom of the Creator. It will rule only a short time over nature; then it will be totally abolished. Satan's name derives from voluntary turning aside from the truth; it is not an indication that he exists as such naturally."
Huh, that is inaccurate. This phrase underwent too much editing. God promised victory over Satan as he promised that Adam's seed (alternate translation is Eve's seed) will crush Satan's head. The punishment that God consistently withholds is a curse on all mankind, which indicates woundedness but not spiritual death of utter depravity that the Calvinists postulate.
I couldn't have said it better about you and others in your camp. I was mocking you precisely because I can't take seriously self-appointed representatives of "true faith in Christ" who teach that God creates and uses evil to His satisfaction. That doesn't even qualify as a heresy!
It qualifies as ungodlyness that only the very "select" could have bought into. For, what else can one call teachings that the Christian God profits from evil!? Judaism holds that the devil is but a willing servent of God. I wonder where you get yours from. Certainly not from Christ.
That is not true. Even the Catholic Church admits that God is not limited in His options. Salvation if from God, and with God all things are possible. The Orthodox Church echoes the Roman teaching that salvation is made possible in the (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) Church.
Luther, on the other hand, taught that salvation is only in Christ and not in Church -- in line with his pathological denial of any ecclesiastical authority -- completely dissociating Christ from the Church, denying that the Church is the Body of Christ.
That's interesting, I didn't know that. Do you know how this fits in with "In the beginning was the Word"? Is this a legitimate reference to before the beginning?
Of course. You got it exactly right, but given that the thing was explained to Harley many times, I allowed myself a bit of levity in 556.
No He didn't.
"When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth." (Luke 11:12)
He never said "and in My name."
No He didn't.
"When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth." (Luke 11:12)
He never said "and in My name."
Forest Keeper: That's interesting, I didn't know that. Do you know how this fits in with "In the beginning was the Word"? Is this a legitimate reference to before the beginning?
Wrong again. The generation of the Word (Jesus Christ) and procession of the Holy Spirit by the Wisdom (Father) is not temporal but eternal, and always simultaenous. God the Father existed before all ages and so did the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-substantial, sharing one essence or nature -- Divine -- as three distinct Persons, not "forms" as Harley's theology states somewhere earlier.
They are distinct in that the Father is the source of everything and all, including the Divinity. The Son is generated and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Latins will say 'and from the Son'). In this last detail the Orthodox and the Latins have not been able to reconcile their difference in terms of terminology and theology, although the Latin Church does not use the "and from the Son" (filioque) in all places (i.e. the Vatican and the Eastern Catholic Churches).
All three are distinct in God's accomplishment of our salvation (aka Divine Economy), in created time and space.
Annalex, reading this I have realized that thanks to the Protestant presence here I can clearly see now more than before how close Orthodox and Latins are, and, mor eimportantly, how trivial, in comparison with their theoogy of a God who uses evil to His satisfaction, our differences seem. We are, but in comparatively minor details, one Church and that realization is in itself awesome. It birngs to mind St. Nikolai (Velimirovich), who asked God to bless his adversaries "for they have brought me closer to you!"
Meant to ping you to #574 as well, sorry.
I like the way you talk.
"Your illustration shows satan's minions plucking people off the ladder."
Actually, it doesn't. What it shows is temptation. Try Googling for a larger image.
" The Bible clearly states that nothing will pluck us from his hand."
True enough...once we are "in" God's hand, at the top of the Ladder.
"If you want a more accurate illustration, you should show the saved getting on an escalator and the damned bypassing the escalator and insisting on climbing the ladder themselves."
What an excellent similie to the Protestant "no fuss, no muss, sin vigorously because you're "elect" theology of salvation!
Much obliged.
"Annalex, reading this I have realized that thanks to the Protestant presence here I can clearly see now more than before how close Orthodox and Latins are, and, mor eimportantly, how trivial, in comparison with their theoogy of a God who uses evil to His satisfaction, our differences seem. We are, but in comparatively minor details, one Church and that realization is in itself awesome."
Ah, my Balkan brother, what did our Thomas Merton say? "The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men!"
Thank you for saying that. It has always been my deep conviction, that nothing between the East ad the West is unbridgeable in principle, and when the Holy Ghost wills it.
It is not to say that the differences are not profound as they seem today, specifically over the Filioque. But they reflect centuries of very limited exchange of thought; a reinvigorated exchange might close the gap.
Quite another issue is whether the ecumenical movement is wise for the health of the Orthodox Church given the profound cultural crisis rampant in the West. Why on earth would you want altar girls and clown masses? I think the Latin Church should move toward lower-case orthodoxy internally first and regain her balance, befor rushing headlong to embrace the East. I wouldn't have posted this half a year ago, but I came to appreciate the caution that the Russians felt toward John Paul II. I think this pontificate will be critical for ecumenism precisely because Benedict XVI shows that his concentration will be in the West. Moreover, the pastoral needs in the West are the exact opposite of the pastoral needs in the East. We need a strong centralizer and disciplinarian in Rome. But this is not a model useful for the East, where autocephaly was so beneficial in preserving the faith despite the near-loss of the Middle East and then Russia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.