I suppose the very essence of what salvation means is one of the major differences between the different Christian faiths. In any event, if theosis, then, is restoration to the pre-Fall Adamic state, and as you said this includes the potentiality for sin, then do the Orthodox believe that the saved enter Heaven finally with the potential to sin further? I would be very surprised if this was the case. I would say that once we had our glorified bodies there would be no potential for sin. And no, that would not make us Divine. It would make us finally changed.
Paul makes it abundantly clear that (in his mind) there is one God, the Father (1 Cor 8:6).
Paul gave full credit to Christ for being God:
FK, the "kingdom of God" or the "heavenly kingdom" refers to Israel, God's own kingdom on earth. Apocalyptic Judaism believed in the restored, perfected earth, new earth with the new Jerusalem, not a castle in the sky.
The Bible refers to more than one "kingdom". There is God's kingdom on earth and an extraterrestrial (not of this earth) eschatological kingdom. I was talking about the one the elect will spend eternity going forward in:
This kingdom is obviously not on earth.
What does "in presence of God" mean? besides, 2 Cor 5:8 doesn't say that. He says we prefer to be without the body but "at home with the Lord."
It means there is no weigh station after physical death in which we are tortured or otherwise purified by pain, subject to being bailed out by money or prayer. :) Since we often speak of the deceased as being at home with the Lord, I would use the two phrases you quote above synonymously.
Yes indeed, FK. The differences between what the Latin Church since the Great Schism (or even perhaps since the 4th century) and its offspring the Protestant communities since the Reformation believe and what Eastern Christians believe are extensive, even vast. This is why I on occasion remark that we worship different Gods. "In any event, if theosis, then, is restoration to the pre-Fall Adamic state, and as you said this includes the potentiality for sin, then do the Orthodox believe that the saved enter Heaven finally with the potential to sin further." Orthodoxy teaches that when we die, our souls experience the "particular Judgment" and go to the "Place of the Dead" to await the Last Judgment. The Last Judgment is just what you think it is. In neither event can the deceased sin anymore. In fact, the deceased can't do anything after death one way or the other to effect where he or she will spend eternity. As always, that depends 100% on the mercy of God. "It means there is no weigh station after physical death in which we are tortured or otherwise purified by pain, subject to being bailed out by money or prayer. :)" The Russians have a concept of weigh stations where the soul is examined after death and some sort of foretaste of what awaits in eternity, but it is not dogmatic at all. FK, to understand Eastern Christianity, one has to understand that for us all creation is full of God's immeasurable and boundless love. This is fundamental to our understanding of everything. Without understanding this, no one can understand Orthodox Christianity. As +Isaac the Syrian said, "'Among all His actions there is none which is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and the end of His dealings with us'" +Isaac goes on to say: "'Everyone has a single place in His purpose in the ranking of love, corresponding to the form He beheld in them before He created them and all the rest of created beings, that is, at the time before the eternal purpose for the delineation of the world was put into effect... He has a single ranking of complete and impassible love towards everyone, and He has a single caring concern for those who have fallen, just as much as for those who have not fallen'" On God's Mercy and Justice, +Isaac says this: "'Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves... Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul. As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God's use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy. As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obscured by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of His creatures" Very different from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", isn't it!
We can reasonably conclude, based on grammar, that it is a done an accomplished package deal without regard what comes first or last.
As the articles cited indicate, the totality of scripture describes at least three uses of the concept of sanctification
So far I have seen only aorist used; not future tense.
If we claim "Ah-Ha", the Bible is wrong because it uses the concept of sanctification in more that one tense or sense, then we might as well say the same thing about the concept of love
I asked where does it say it is a life-long process, FK, not whether the Bible is at fault. But since you mentioned it, the veracity of the Bible is a matter of faith, not fact.
We will be restored to His image without the stain of sin...the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body. [Phil 3:20-21]
It is not the image but the likeness of God that man lost in the Fall. In other words, being, and not looking God-like. As for the Philippians, Christ never promised that to his hand-picked disciples. Why should I believe a self-appointed apostle on his word?
That's interesting. I wonder what their interpretation is of verses like Rom. 8:30.
In Slavonic, as in Greek, it has a slightly different "flavor": them whom he predefined, he also invited, and the ones he invited them he excused, and the ones he excused them he celebrated.
The elect can all be saved, perfected, inheritors of the kingdom and glorified all still without having the eternal essence or Divine nature of God.
I agree that what makes God God is his (presumed) eternal nature which obviously humans can never have. They will still fall short of God's glory, so what is there to glorify?
if theosis, then, is restoration to the pre-Fall Adamic state, and as you said this includes the potentiality for sin, then do the Orthodox believe that the saved enter Heaven finally with the potential to sin further? I would be very surprised if this was the case
I don't know. However, the pre-Fall Adam did have that potential. Only God can have free will and never commit sin. Which means, your perfected man will not have free will. How "perfect" (complete) is that?
So far, the "glorified" man will not share God's eternal nature and will not have free will. Doesn't sound very perfected or worthy of glory to me, FK. :)
He does, because he describes Christ as the demiurge, the firstborn of all creation...However, Paul refers only to the Father as God in no uncertain terms: "there is but one God, the Father.."
Phil 2:6- Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God...
Your NIV is misleading you, FK. The Greek text uses the word mophe which means "external appearance," not the nature or essence. But this wouldn't be the first NIV doctrinally motivated alteration of the scriptures, and probably not the last. :)
I was talking about the one the elect will spend eternity going forward in: Matt. 16:19
Having the keys to the kingdom in heaven does not say the "elect" will spend eternity [sic] there. It simply means the disciples will be given the means to act on God's behalf as his trusted servants (which seems a little ridiculous given that God is (1) omnipotent and omniscient, and (2) already has obligate servants—angels—specifically created for that purpose, who did just about all his work on earth in the Old Testament; why does he need a new set of proverbilal "elfs" is curious).
And eternity, FK, is something that applies to prehistory as well as the future, without the beginning and without the end. Those who have been created in time can never live in eternity because there was a time when they did nto exist.
It means there is no weigh station after physical death in which we are tortured or otherwise purified by pain, subject to being bailed out by money or prayer. :) Since we often speak of the deceased as being at home with the Lord, I would use the two phrases you quote above synonymously.
Prayer, the Orthodox Church believes, does not bail out the soul in unrepentant sin, but eases its discomfort (caused by shame) in the presence of God.
The memorial services (panikhidas) are not petitions for God to save the soul of the departed, but services of gratitude in hopes that he did.
Since we often speak of the deceased as being at home with the Lord, I would use the two phrases you quote above synonymously
You yourself said that one can not know if another person is saved or not. Saying that the deceased is "at home with the Lord" contradicts your statement by implying that one does know.
Whether the elect sin or not is irrelevant concerning their salvation, but there are temporal consequences here on earth.
Big deal. What can here on earth match the guaranteed limo ride to heaven to cause one to change his ways?
I have no credible information that leads me to think that Andrea Yates is/was saved (elect) so I'm not sure why you would think Protestants make such an assumption about her. We do not take profession as proof of belief.
Because they say that the departed is in a "better places" or "at home with God" or "in heaven" etc. And because Paul indented the idea that the spouse of a believer is automatically saved, along with children, even if the other spouse is not a believer.
Of course we would say that our sinning matters to God. God says He hates sin.
That's like a billionaire living in a dump and saying he hates it! Why doesn't he make the sin just go away?
We have to make the distinction that post-conversion sins do not cancel the salvation of the elect because of the promises of Christ. If Christ was a liar, then those sins could cost us our salvation. But this doesn't make those sins meaningless. They have consequences and God will definitely and many times painfully discipline those He loves.
Baloney, FK. The Bible is full of examples that God ordered destruction of children. Religious nuts tell us that God sends hurricanes to tsunamis to "punish" the world. Even some Church Fathers believed these were 'pedagogic" punishments for a "greater" good. Killing innocents for a greater good...beginning with the Flood...and still no improvement.
Salvation is not earned by racking up enough points by doing works. Grace through faith is what matters.
Obviously because what we do doesn't matter. Whether you drown five children or kill six million Jews and three million Poles, and a few millions others, or whether you perform 1,000 fornications a day (the example given by Luther) it doth not matter as long as you believe. By the time you die you will be "glorified." In God's eyes Andrea Yates and Hitler could be as "innocent" as Mary.
I think most Bible-believing Protestants would say that their faith is not a religion at all but rather a relationship. That is an important distinguishing characteristic.
It is a religion because they share basic tenets common to all of them, namely the authority of the same Bible, same core beliefs, that one is saved by faith alone, "justified", glorified", etc. Saying it's a relationship does not describe Protestant mindset. Everything is a relationship, FK. It's how we deal with he world. Protestant mindset is defined and shared by other Protestants in an organized manner and shared tenets of faith. That make sit as religion.