T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I wanted to keep this in a separate thread from the other. I did not want any resultant discussion (if there is any 
mixing on the two topics, since, obviously, they are very different.
In the traditional view of the Churches of the Reformation, one major area of disagreement is soteriology. Orthodoxy, while using different language, is similar to Roman Catholicism. Both see justification, not in legal or forensic terms, but in transformational at a moral level. However, one area where Rome and Protestantism have traditionally had wide agreement on, is the doctrine of original sin. Both Rome and Protestantism understand that Adam, created holy and righteous, lost that righteousness upon his disobedience. As a result, his spiritual death, has been imputed to his descendants in the form of a sinful nature. Unlike Orthodoxy, the West understands that the punishment of death is the result of the guilt of sin.
In contrast, Protestantism would see Orthodoxy has having an inadequate view of sin. This becomes apparent in its view of original sin, excluding inherited guilt from the picture and embracing a synergistic view of regeneration as well as a medicinal view of justifying grace.
To do justice to the Orthodox view, it must be recalled that the reigning paradigm is relational and transformative. Humanity is on a pilgrimage ā from innocence to mortality to immortality. It is a movement from image to likeness, from natural goodness to moral goodness. Father Palachovsky explains, āWe have been made in His image through Creation, but we must become like Him by ourselves, through our own free will. To be the image of God belongs to us by our primordial destination, but to become like God depends upon our will. Human nature has not remained intact, as some theologians teach, but has become corrupt. Nevertheless, this corruption does not go so far as the Protestant theologians teach.ā
We must appreciate the categories of Orthodox thought on this issue, since the context of early patristic development was Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and their kindred heresies in which creation and redemption were set in opposition. Matter was inherently evil because it was temporal rather than eternal, physical rather than spiritual, and so forth. It would only make sense that the church fathers would confront this pagan determinism and dualism with an emphasis on human responsibility and freedom, as well as on the goodness of the Creator God (and therefore everything He creates). Nature is not inherently sinful, and on this point, the Churches of the Reformation agree.
According to the Orthodox, the sin of Adam and Eve affected only themselves. Their descendants inherited no sin or guilt because of the fall of the first parents. The fall resulted in their descendants becoming mortal and subject to physical death. This mortality resulted in an increased tendency to sin, but only because humanity was subject to physical needs. Humanityās mortality makes people prone to sin. The sin of Adam and Eve created a barrier of mortality between God and humanity. Only God could do away with this barrier. God removed this obstacle through the incarnation of Christ.
In the following comments, hopefully, the problems with this view can be explored, as well as its relationship to the Incarnation and the Atonement.
mixing on the two topics, since, obviously, they are very different.In the traditional view of the Churches of the Reformation, one major area of disagreement is soteriology. Orthodoxy, while using different language, is similar to Roman Catholicism. Both see justification, not in legal or forensic terms, but in transformational at a moral level. However, one area where Rome and Protestantism have traditionally had wide agreement on, is the doctrine of original sin. Both Rome and Protestantism understand that Adam, created holy and righteous, lost that righteousness upon his disobedience. As a result, his spiritual death, has been imputed to his descendants in the form of a sinful nature. Unlike Orthodoxy, the West understands that the punishment of death is the result of the guilt of sin.
In contrast, Protestantism would see Orthodoxy has having an inadequate view of sin. This becomes apparent in its view of original sin, excluding inherited guilt from the picture and embracing a synergistic view of regeneration as well as a medicinal view of justifying grace.
To do justice to the Orthodox view, it must be recalled that the reigning paradigm is relational and transformative. Humanity is on a pilgrimage ā from innocence to mortality to immortality. It is a movement from image to likeness, from natural goodness to moral goodness. Father Palachovsky explains, āWe have been made in His image through Creation, but we must become like Him by ourselves, through our own free will. To be the image of God belongs to us by our primordial destination, but to become like God depends upon our will. Human nature has not remained intact, as some theologians teach, but has become corrupt. Nevertheless, this corruption does not go so far as the Protestant theologians teach.ā
We must appreciate the categories of Orthodox thought on this issue, since the context of early patristic development was Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and their kindred heresies in which creation and redemption were set in opposition. Matter was inherently evil because it was temporal rather than eternal, physical rather than spiritual, and so forth. It would only make sense that the church fathers would confront this pagan determinism and dualism with an emphasis on human responsibility and freedom, as well as on the goodness of the Creator God (and therefore everything He creates). Nature is not inherently sinful, and on this point, the Churches of the Reformation agree.
According to the Orthodox, the sin of Adam and Eve affected only themselves. Their descendants inherited no sin or guilt because of the fall of the first parents. The fall resulted in their descendants becoming mortal and subject to physical death. This mortality resulted in an increased tendency to sin, but only because humanity was subject to physical needs. Humanityās mortality makes people prone to sin. The sin of Adam and Eve created a barrier of mortality between God and humanity. Only God could do away with this barrier. God removed this obstacle through the incarnation of Christ.
In the following comments, hopefully, the problems with this view can be explored, as well as its relationship to the Incarnation and the Atonement.
