Posted                       

quote:

---

Likewise, the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise and the angel standing guard with the flaming sword is not an act of divine retribution but a compassionate and merciful provision lest we eat of the second tree, the Tree of Life, and die eternally. The fruit of this tree, if we had eaten it, would have condemned us forever.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Listen to St. John Chrysostom:-

"Partaking of the tree, the man and woman became liable to death and subject to the future needs of the body. Adam was no longer permitted to remain in the Garden, and was bidden to leave, a move by which God showed His love for him … he had become mortal, and lest he presume to eat further from the tree which promised an endless life of continuous sinning, he was expelled from the Garden as a mark of divine solicitude, not of necessity."

[Hom. in Gen XVIII, 3 PG 53 151]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So his sin of immaturity will not be repeated.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think I might as well post this preliminary question as well. From the link above I find this excerpt.

quote:

---

Likewise, the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise and the angel standing guard with the flaming sword is not an act of divine retribution but a compassionate and merciful provision lest we eat of the second tree, the Tree of Life, and die eternally. The fruit of this tree, if we had eaten it, would have condemned us forever.

---

What Genesis 3 v 22 says is
this - Blue letter Bible, giving AV Hebrew and Septuagint.
These two statements seems to contradict.

---

quote:

---

Ezekiel 13:18 You hunt souls for My people, and you keep souls alive for yourselves, and have desecrated Me among My people, to slay souls that will not die, and to keep alive souls that will not live.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
I find that to be contradictory. If the point of the incarnation, cross and resurrection is to deal with death

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
You are using a text which Paul himself says he writes it that way because he speaks to spiritual babies, and not grown up men, and calls it spiritual milk and not solid food, and then you take Paul's word's on slavery literally... Dear Lord!

God does not want slaves, but sons, and the whole point of the Economia is for us to finally become what we are called to be, sons of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
That said, and to speak in Paul's terms, enslaving yourself either to sin or to God presupposes your own personal free will. You enslave yourself to either God or sin. You. And that you means your free and personal will. It's not a "middle" position, but what makes Paul's use of words possible in the first place. It's what makes the gospel possible. You were sinners, Paul says. Now choose to leave all that behind you. Make a choice. Follow Christ and stop living the way you did. Get the new life Christ offers.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Is it not the case that for Christ to save us, death in both the physical and the spiritual sense must be dealt with?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

The imagery of them then taking of the Tree of Life and living forever implies that they would live despite being in disobedience and opposition to God. In other words it means that they would persist in their disobedience - a state of living death, since no one can live apart from God.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Is it not the case that for Christ to save us, death in both the physical and the spiritual sense must be dealt with?

---

I think we need to examine what salvation means.

For the Orthodox salvation is union with God, God's presence. And God's presence, which deifies us, is not something man can get by himself. This is why Pelagianism has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Even a mature Adam, an Adam that did not fall but walked the way to maturity, still needs to "get saved" by the Incarnation.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes, Freddy, but if eating the Tree of Life is the cure for death (and thereby the cure for sin - see earlier arguments) then they would not persist in their disobedience and opposition.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Mortality, or "corruption," or simply death (understood in a personalized sense), has indeed been viewed since Christian antiquity as a cosmic disease, which holds humanity under its sway, both spiritually and physically, and is controlled by the one who is "the murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44). It is this death, which makes sin inevitable and in this sense "corrupts" nature.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Errr... Adam already was "in sin".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Is it not the case that for Christ to save us, death in both the physical and the spiritual sense must be dealt with?

I can only really make sense of Genesis if eating (prematurely if you like, I accept the Orthodox argument here) of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil causes spiritual death - separation from God and a dead end as far as theosis goes, and then we are barred from the Tree of Life not as a kind of accidental consequence but as a deliberate act of mercy by God and a first step in our redemption because eating of it would have resulted in physical or eternal or existential immortality, and that combined with spiritual death is Hell.

That being the case I just can't see the argument that Christ's victory is over physical/existential death. That would just be allowing access to the Tree of Life without resolving the spiritual death and as Barnabas asks, why bar it in the first place?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
So it's the significance of physical death you are talking about in the salvation schema?

---

quote:

---

Mortality, or "corruption," or simply death (understood in a personalized sense), has indeed been viewed since Christian antiquity as a cosmic disease, which holds humanity under its sway, both spiritually and physically, and is controlled by the one who is "the murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44). It is this death, which makes sin inevitable and in this sense "corrupts" nature.

---

quote:

---

Human sin is a voluntary and case by case submission of either terror or evasion from the legacy of death as a conscious and God-alienating awareness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:

The resurrection addresses both. Spiritual death (eternal damnation) is extinguished for Christ has dealt with sin. Physical death has no more dominion over us for Christ is risen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:

I really don't see the problem.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Take away the legacy of death and where are the causes of sin?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Now andreas and Fr Gregory are arguing that the primary cause of sin in all people since Adam is death.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Now andreas and Fr Gregory are arguing that the primary cause of sin in all people since Adam is death.

---

Having read the posts since you posted this, I just want to add that this argument, however andreas and Fr. Gregory mean it, or don't mean it, is unrelated to my own reasons for keeping Adam and Eve away from the Tree of Life.

I hope that no one actually thinks that we are talking about literal magic trees in a literal magic garden with a talking snake, animals individually named by Adam, and a God that walks around in it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
It seems to me a strange construct: First men cannot do meritorious works, and salvation does not come through works, but then Christ does a work that is meritorious and brings salvation through works! A very strange construct...

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Freddy ... after demythologising let's reconsttruct a meaning. I am, of course, going to follow the Orthodox interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
For Eden read a creation in intimate communion with God. This is why the anthropomorphisms are important in Genesis 2.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear Myrrh

We have available a history on Orange and the Christianity of that region, and nowhere is Augustine mentioned. On the contrary, the Christians who lived there were influenced by the spirit of Saint Basil's monasticism via Saint Cassian.

---

quote:

---

Augustine's influence as far as original sin is concerned, I feel, came much later, when the Franks knew Christianity via Augustine.

Anyway, that's historical speculation from my part.

---

quote:

---

While Augustine was mistaken, so was Pelagius. I am astonished as to why you defend him, especially since we don't have much of what he wrote available. But then, we have available pieces quoted in the works of those who wrote against him, and you might agree with those parts, I don't know.

---

quote:

---

It's been a long time since I last read those anti-Pelagian works, so I can't remember exactly what he wrote. If you insist, I could re-examine them.

As for my part, I accept Cassian's explanation that Pelagius was a Nestorian and that's why he was condemned by the same ecumenical council that condemned Nestorius himself.

---

quote:

---

IX. Nestorianism and Pelagianism
It is here that Nestorianism is connected with Pelagianism.
Pelagius, who lived at the same time as Nestorius, taught, as we shall see, that man is born free from stain or defect, that he is consequently able to resist sin without the help of Divine grace, and that he does not necessarily need redemption.
It has been well said that the Nestorian Christ is a fit saviour for the Pelagian man;
and so the followers of Pelagius, condemned in the West,
were welcomed at Constantinople by Nestorius,
but were condemned by the Council of Ephesus. (See pp.154-7.) (THE CHRISTIAN FAITH: AN INTRODUCTION TO DOGMATIC THEOLOGY By CLAUDE BEAUFORT MOSS, D.D.)

---

quote:

---

What is salvation? What is Grace? God. God's presence. Can man in isolation from God attain that? No. In fact, there can be no pure isolation from God, because he is the very foundation for our being. Only non-being is isolated from God. Everything that is partakes to some extent to God.

So, to consciously and fully partake in God we need two partners. God and man. God to be present, and man to be present in and with God.

---

quote:

---

Let's say Adam never fell. And let's say that he became mature. He still would not be God. He still would not be what Jesus Christ is. To be able to become what Jesus Christ is, the Incarnation is needed. Do you disagree with this? If you do, on what basis?

---

quote:

---

Would you mind us continuing discussing Pelagius on a different thread?

---

quote:

---

P.S. a) Was Cassian condemned by name by anyone? Who would have dared such a thing?
b) I would have dealt with Augustine's mistakes differently... I would bring the same arguments the ninth ecumenical council brought against his teachings (although they were not aware at the time that they were his!)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

17(b)...lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

23(b) ...but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude?

---

quote:

---

(From a quote by Beet) "By laying upon Christ the punishment of our sin, God made him to be a visible embodiment of the deadly and far-reaching power of sin.” But Chrysostom shows by his comments his acceptance not only of the vicarious atonement, but also of the gratuitous justification, as set forth concisely yet distinctly in this pregnant utterance. There are passages in these and other Homilies which look as if the author held to justification by works, but here he is outspoken to the contrary. Justification comes by grace, not merit, and the righteousness required is the free gift of God.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

JUSTIFICATION

The language here, the metaphor, is that of the court but not like any mere human court of law. The metaphor sees Man standing as it were "in the dock," hopelessly condemned by his failure to maintain the covenant relationship with God. The remedy enacted by God, however, cannot simply be understood in terms of the theory of "substitutionary atonement," that distorted but much beloved doctrine of our Protestant brethren.

According to this theory, all Christ has to do is to substitute himself for us, take our punishment for sin, and allow us to walk free. This degraded version of justification is unsatisfactory because it glosses over in some sort of cheap legal transaction the human and sacrificial elements of the death of Christ that are so vital to its converting power. Justification means, "making righteous." We lose sin and gain righteousness not in legal transactional terms but in a personal inward manner that involves a titanic struggle against the evil forces that enslave humanity. If, therefore, justification remains connected to the historical dimension of sacrifice, (as it does in St. Paul’s letters), then the legal metaphors are very useful. However, justification by itself cannot provide both the key and the context to a holistic understanding for the same reason that sacrifice cannot. The resurrection is not an integrated part of the vision of man made whole in this scheme either.

REDEMPTION

There are two different words for redemption in the New Testament. The first, lytro-o, (lutrow ) means to "buy off" or "ransom." It has three applications: -

1. ransoming from captivity … as in the release of prisoners. Christ has forgiven our sins by his sacrificial death.

2. ransoming from debt … as in the forgiveness of money owed. Christ has dealt with what we owe God from whom we have estranged ourselves.

3. ransoming from slavery … the meaning of this is clear. Christ has set us free from the curse of our own moral helplessness and the death that is its due.

Unlike sacrifice and justification, ransom is much more focussed on the goal of salvation being our liberation from sin, suffering, evil and death by the victory of Christ. It embraces the resurrection as the crowning glory of Christ’s justifying sacrifice for our freedom. Not unsurprisingly, therefore, it is redemption that is most often used by the Church Fathers as the key and context to the experience of salvation in the Church; precisely because it incorporates the other biblical ideas connected with sacrifice and righteousness in a paschal frame of reference. The great deliverance of humanity from the grip of evil and death was secured at the resurrection but it will not be manifest in its entirety until the Last Day, the Judgement and the New Creation.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
We lose sin and gain righteousness not in legal transactional terms but in a personal inward manner that involves a titanic struggle against the evil forces that enslave humanity.

---

How do you square that with passages like Romans 4 and Ephesians 2 where very strong language is repeatedly used to stress that 'grace is a gift' and that 'this is nothing of ourselves'?

Indeed (whether or not Paul wrote Ephesians ) it seems that one of the major themes of his writings is this point that salvation is 'nothing of ourselves'.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Dear Barnabas

Out of necessity, I will make two posts. In this post I will address all the verses you have already referred to. In the post that will follow I will address the quote you just made, because I want to read the whole text first.

---

quote:

---

Let's get started...

2 Cor. 5.21: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Here's what St. John Chrysostom says about that:

quote:

---

For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He hath both well achieved mighty things, and besides, hath suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? “Him that knew no sin,” he says, Him that was self-righteousness “He made sin,” that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, to die as one cursed.

---

I note that a) he doesn't say that God gave His Son instead of us, or in our place, but for us, that is for our benefit. There is atonement here, but not substitutionary atonement. Just like the Credo says. "For us and for our salvation"
b) "made sin" refers to Jesus Christ's death.

In a like manner, St. Cyrill of Alexandreia explains the verse: When you hear that he became sin, do not think that he did sin. Rather that for our sin he was given by God the Father, and he is called sin like the sacrifices for sin under the Law of Moses they called sin.

Note that both these fathers said nothing about Jesus Christ experiencing a so called separation from God the Father which is the alienation we sinners experience and this is why he is called sin. They say nothing of the sort, even though you Barnabas have given that explanation for the verse. On the contrary, they explain that the verse refers to Jesus Christ's death on the Cross.

---

quote:

---

Romans 5.12: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, in which all sinned

What does this mean "in which all sinned" asks Saint John Chrysostom? After he fell (Adam), and those that did not eat from the tree became from him all mortal. Again, no mention of Original Sin, just the basic understanding of the ancestral sin, in which with Adam's personal sin death enters creation.

---

quote:

---

1 Cor. 15.22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Saint Cyril explains it thus: Just like in Adam all were condemned, since the human nature "suffered" death, so after we get justified in Christ when we will put aside sin we will also put aside the death that came from it. The "condemnation" for the Saint has always been death. Again, no mention of Original Sin, just Ancestral Sin which brought death...

Saint John is even more revealing (which is natural, since we have fragments from Saint Cyril while we have whole books from Saint John):

What then? Tell me, have we all died the death of sin? How then was Noah righteous in his generation? How was Abraham? How was Job? How were the all rest? And what does it mean that we will all find life in Christ (if you interpret the death to mean a death of sin)? Where are then those that will go to Gehenna? If this word (verse) have been said on the body, then it stands. If it has been said on righteousness, it does not stand.

Which is exactly the opposite, Barnabas, you have been saying!

---

quote:

---

To conclude: A) In the "made sin" verse the fathers understand Jesus Christ's human death and not a spiritual alienation from God the Father which is the result of sin.
B) "In which all sinned" refers to death which entered creation because of the ancestral sin. The verse is not understood by the fathers to refer to what we now call Original Sin.
C) "in Adam all die" is understood to mean human death and not sin. In fact, the very notion of an Original Sin is condemned strongly by the fathers!

---

quote:

---

I hope I covered all the verses from Paul that were mentioned, and I didn't miss anything. I also hope that the translations from the two fathers I gave show that they had nothing to do with the explanations put forth today for those verses.

Barnabas, what do you say? Those verses have been mentioned. You have explained how you understand them, I have explained how I understand them. Now we see how two Saints understood them. Is it clear that they did not understood the verses the way you propose, but the way I proposed? It would be a big step if we got that clarified...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude?

---