[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=9585.msg142902#msg142902 date=1312949630] + Irini nem ehmot,
To say God cannot save whomever He wishes limits God's abilities. You sure you want to walk down that road?
God put orders and rules and there are plenty of verses in the NT that shows baptism is essential for salvation. There is also plenty of the Fathers writings about baptism as an essential step for salvation. You can start by reading St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures, Pope Shenouda on baptism (http://www.coptichymns.net/module-library-viewpub-tid-1-pid-7.html)
What you are saying is that there is salvation outside the Church. This is absolutely wrong.
No. I am not saying there is (an absolute statement) salvation outside the Church. I'm saying God can save whomever He wishes. He is not limited by the sacraments.
Perhaps this will help elucidate my position a bit more:
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
- Bishop Kallistos Ware (excerpt taken from The Orthodox Church)
The fact that Jesus says Baptism is necessary for salvation is all I need to hear. Now, the thief was not baptized but was saved. Some say He was baptized by his blood. This shows us that God is not limited to his own law but WILL fulfill it himself. We don't know how God will baptize those whome he saved, but rest assure he will baptize them because he has made it necessary for salvation.
We can argue all day whether Adam and Eve could have died before the fall, the fact is, neither of us were there. It seems more probable to me that they could have died before the fall because they were 100% human, there was never a point where humans were even slightly divine. And Being sinless doesn't make them any less human. The point is God says the day they eat of the tree of knowledge they will die, and obviously they did not physically die. Thus the nature that changed was not the physical. Adam conceived sin, and his spirit separated from God. The spirit being one with the Body than searched for pleasures and satisfaction within the Body because it lost all contact with God, thus man spent there lives on earth trying to fill that emptiness with pleasures of the world. It wasn't until Jesus came and gave us baptism that our spirit was reborn and able to experience God and put away the pleasures of the world. Thus our nature DID change. Though having been living a life of sin, the memory of sin caused men even close to God to fall. So it is not until we are "transformed" in the Resurrection, that our Spirits may abide in bodies that do not remember evil, and sin will not be remembered, so we will live with the Lord forever.
Theres an excellent book that deals with this very subject called "on the human condition" by St Basil.
P.S. you keep saying the Church believes St Mary was sinless her entire life, yet you also mentioned it is theologoumenon, which means its not a doctrine but an opinion, at the same time, many of our greatest fathers such as St John Chrysostom do not accept this theologoumenon. Thus I would say the Church does not believe St Mary was sinless, but at the same time her sinlessness is debatable. Also, personally havent spoken to one Orthodox Priests or Monk who agrees St Mary was sinless her entire life, and ive asked many of them. So I dont think this is the official orthodox position, I dont think we have an official position on it. I would love to see what HH Pope Shenouda has to say on this topic.
Seeing as how you've already made your decision about what you believe, what the deuce was the point of this entire conversation?
FYI: Both Sts. John Chrysostom and Athanasius write that Adam and Eve would not die before the fall (as I've illustrated in my links) and you do not wish to accept that, yet when it comes to the sinlessness of St. Mary, you appeal to St. John. Why is that?
PS. Regarding our nature transforming, care to present the writings of any of the Fathers that state that? The quotes that I've posted seem to indicate that baptism washes away sin and is a rebirth, but I see nothing about a change in our nature.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=9585.msg142907#msg142907 date=1312950864] + Irini nem ehmot,
Always absolutes with you. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
The Bible is absolute. God's commandments are absolute. The Church is founded on absolutes.
We cannot make the exceptions as general rules. Yes there were martyrs who were not baptized, yes there was the thief who did not baptize. But these are the exceptions.
No one can say that he will not receive baptism because history shows that there are individuals who became saints and yet did not receive baptism.
No salvation out of the Church. No salvation without baptism.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=9585.msg142911#msg142911 date=1312953516] + Irini nem ehmot,
Seeing as how you've already made your decision about what you believe, what the deuce was the point of this entire conversation?
FYI: Both Sts. John Chrysostom and Athanasius write that Adam and Eve would not die before the fall (as I've illustrated in my links) and you do not wish to accept that, yet when it comes to the sinlessness of St. Mary, you appeal to St. John. Why is that?
PS. Regarding our nature transforming, care to present the writings of any of the Fathers that state that? The quotes that I've posted seem to indicate that baptism washes away sin and is a rebirth, but I see nothing about a change in our nature.
I have presented Biblical verses that show that Adam and Eve would have tasted bodily death to inherit the kingdom.
No Church Father had explained otherwise explicitly. The literature you presented talks about corruption, eternal death, sinful nature, fallen nature, ... They have nothing to do with bodily or physical death.
Regarding St Mary, the Bible teaches "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. No exceptions.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=9585.msg142908#msg142908 date=1312951809] + Irini nem ehmot,
Perhaps this will help elucidate my position a bit more:
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
- Bishop Kallistos Ware (excerpt taken from The Orthodox Church)
With all due respect of Bishop Kallistoc, he also believes that nonbelievers will be saved, those who have sinned and died in their own sin will somehow be saved.
In summary he believes in Universal Salvation which in its entirety is a heresy.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=9585.msg142911#msg142911 date=1312953516] + Irini nem ehmot,
Seeing as how you've already made your decision about what you believe, what the deuce was the point of this entire conversation?
FYI: Both Sts. John Chrysostom and Athanasius write that Adam and Eve would not die before the fall (as I've illustrated in my links) and you do not wish to accept that, yet when it comes to the sinlessness of St. Mary, you appeal to St. John. Why is that?
PS. Regarding our nature transforming, care to present the writings of any of the Fathers that state that? The quotes that I've posted seem to indicate that baptism washes away sin and is a rebirth, but I see nothing about a change in our nature.
We are born with a corrupted nature. With baptism, this corrupted nature dies and we receive the newness of life, we put on Christ so that we may inherit the Kingdom of God. This is the transformation we receive.
1. All your bible verses talk about Adam after the Fall. None of them talk about Adam before the Fall. Therefore, to say with certainty that Adam would have died if he did not Fall using these Bible verses is ludicrous. The Fathers say Adam would not have died before the Fall. After the Fall, his nature was corrupted and he could die. It's simple really, corruption leads to death. If there is no corruption, how can there be death?
2. Bishop Kallistos Ware does not believe that everyone will be saved. He lives with the hope that all may be saved by the mercy of God. That is a huge difference.
3. Your 'theory' about absolutes in the Church is false. Ever heard of economia? The fact that there is ecclesiastical economia illustrates that not everything is absolute within the context of the Church. Likewise, there is the divine economia. I read a beautiful quote from St. Isaac the Syrian yesterday which illustrates this wonderfully: 'Do not call God just, for His justice is not evident in your deeds; Where is His justice? We were sinners and Christ died for us.' The only true absolute is Love. We know that God is Love, that Love covers a multitude of sins and that perfect Love casts out all fear. The Law is summarized by two commandments: Love God and Love they neighbor.
There are too many issues that are covered in this thread. So, let's address one by one.
Adam and Eve's death before the fall:
1. All your bible verses talk about Adam after the Fall. None of them talk about Adam before the Fall. Therefore, to say with certainty that Adam would have died if he did not Fall using these Bible verses is ludicrous. The Fathers say Adam would not have died before the Fall. After the Fall, his nature was corrupted and he could die. It's simple really, corruption leads to death. If there is no corruption, how can there be death?
You confuse eternal death with physical death.
The Bible says that the inheritance of the Kingdom was planned before the foundation of the world:
'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25:34)
The destiny of mankind is to inherit the Kingdom of heaven.
How would Adam have inherited the Kingdom in physical form?
Bishop Kallistos Ware does not believe that everyone will be saved. He lives with the hope that all may be saved by the mercy of God. That is a huge difference.
The Lord showed us the ONLY way of salvation. If one chooses not to follow it, then he will be damned. The hope we should be living with is that people may find the way to salvation because otherwise they will be doomed.
3. Your 'theory' about absolutes in the Church is false. Ever heard of economia? The fact that there is ecclesiastical economia illustrates that not everything is absolute within the context of the Church. Likewise, there is the divine economia. I read a beautiful quote from St. Isaac the Syrian yesterday which illustrates this wonderfully: 'Do not call God just, for His justice is not evident in your deeds; Where is His justice? We were sinners and Christ died for us.' The only true absolute is Love. We know that God is Love, that Love covers a multitude of sins and that perfect Love casts out all fear. The Law is summarized by two commandments: Love God and Love they neighbor.
Do not read the Church Fathers out of context.
With love I have to remember what the Bible says about justice:
"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:31)
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=9585.msg142911#msg142911 date=1312953516] + Irini nem ehmot,
Seeing as how you've already made your decision about what you believe, what the deuce was the point of this entire conversation?
FYI: Both Sts. John Chrysostom and Athanasius write that Adam and Eve would not die before the fall (as I've illustrated in my links) and you do not wish to accept that, yet when it comes to the sinlessness of St. Mary, you appeal to St. John. Why is that?
PS. Regarding our nature transforming, care to present the writings of any of the Fathers that state that? The quotes that I've posted seem to indicate that baptism washes away sin and is a rebirth, but I see nothing about a change in our nature.
Just want to point out one thing. The Bible is the inspired word of God, everything in it we can be certain is true. The Early Church Fathers differ in some teaches and in some cases have contradictory teachings with each other on other topics, however they differ on theologoumenon not doctrine. This shows the early church fathers sat and read the Bible and contemplated on these issues. With the wisdom and knowledge of the Fathers, I like to personally contemplate on issues with their guidance. However, I know they are not infallible.
I have not "made my decision" on what I believe, I am simply explaining to you what I believe based on what I have read and what the Lord has revealed to me. I know my view may change as I grow and learn more, but as of now, this seems most plausible and like I said I have a whole list of priests and monks who believe as I do.
By the way I don't think youve realized that you have done the exact same thing you have accused me of doing lol. You appeal to some fathers who say ST Mary was sinless, yet you went on to quote St John Chrysostom on the issue of death before the fall when St John does not believe in St Mary's sinlessness. Thus you accept some of his teachings and reject others of his teachings. Why is that? Its because these were there own personal opinions and people have differing opinions.
Like I said im not 100% sure, there's no way of knowing. But from the writings in genesis it seems very clear.
"Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil, and now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever" – therefore, the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
According to God, Adam and Eve already died the moment they ate of the tree, yet here God says, "lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever." It is very likely, almost obvious that here he speaks of the physical death. How can he say lest they live forever when according to Him they had already died? This than implies they would not have lived forever as humans until having eaten from the tree of life.
Once again just my own personal contemplation. p.s. the point of this entire conversation was to see the opinions of others so that I may learn from others. I dont see anything wrong with that.
Having a ‘discussion’ (and I use the term very loosely) is reminiscent of taking two sharpened pencils, placing them in one’s nose and then slamming one’s face into a table. I don’t know if you actually read what other people write, or if you just home in on certain key words, use those key words to create your own ‘response’ and then respond to that response. I’m genuinely curious as to your reading comprehension skills. Your level of tunnel vision is so extreme that anything that goes beyond your line of vision (or your limited intellectual capacity) is almost automatically wrong. Do you even think about what other people are saying, or do you just, by default, disagree. You have not, in your two posts, presented anything new except regurgitate the same, tired crap you always post (complete with identical bolding).
Everything in the Bible that relates to Adam or man’s inheritance of the kingdom of heaven must be viewed in light of the Fall. It does not speak about (or even speculate about) what God’s plan for man would have been had there been no Fall. It is stupid to think that it does. Now, you asked me ‘How would Adam have inherited the Kingdom in physical form?’ Now, surely you can’t be serious. Do you even recall the events that occurred after the Resurrection? Did Christ not possess a physical (albeit glorified) body? Did the Apostles not physically handle Christ? Did Christ not physically eat fish and honeycomb to prove He was not a spirit? Did He not state that He had flesh and bones? Or did you miss that? We will still possess physical bodies. However, these bodies will be transformed, just as Christ’s was.
As for universal salvation, get it through your thick skull; that is not what I’m suggesting (neither is Metropolitan Kallistos). We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not. We know where the Holy Spirit works; we do not know where He does not work. For you to presume to know is arrogant.
The Bible is the inspired word of God, everything in it we can be certain is true.
You sure about that? I don’t need to go far but let’s take a look at the Gospels. How many times did the cock crow before Peter denied Christ 3 times? How many angels were at the empty grave? Where were the angels at the empty grave? There are inconsistencies to be found, not just in the Gospels, but throughout the Bible. Does that mean they are wrong? No. But it is important to keep in mind that the Bible is inspired text but is not inerrant. In matters of spiritual truths, it is. But that’s it. It would be wise to keep that in mind.
By the way I don't think youve realized that you have done the exact same thing you have accused me of doing lol. You appeal to some fathers who say ST Mary was sinless, yet you went on to quote St John Chrysostom on the issue of death before the fall when St John does not believe in St Mary's sinlessness. Thus you accept some of his teachings and reject others of his teachings. Why is that? Its because these were there own personal opinions and people have differing opinions.
You are mixing apples with oranges. The teaching on St. Mary is theologoumenon. That is not the case with the teaching on the Fall. So no, I’m not doing the same thing you are.
According to God, Adam and Eve already died the moment they ate of the tree,
I don’t read that at all. God said from the beginning that if they ate of the fruit they would die, not that they would die immediately.
You sure about that? I don’t need to go far but let’s take a look at the Gospels. How many times did the **** crow before Peter denied Christ 3 times? How many angels were at the empty grave? Where were the angels at the empty grave? There are inconsistencies to be found, not just in the Gospels, but throughout the Bible. Does that mean they are wrong? No. But it is important to keep in mind that the Bible is inspired text but is not inerrant. In matters of spiritual truths, it is. But that’s it. It would be wise to keep that in mind.
Dear Kephas,
It is unfortunate that you do not believe in the absolute TRUTH of the Bible. I do not see a benefit in debating anything with you unless you accept the belief of the Church on the inspiration of the Scriptures.
The Coptic Church believes in the absolute Truth of the Bible. Any discussion should have this framework.
As for universal salvation, get it through your thick skull; that is not what I’m suggesting (neither is Metropolitan Kallistos). We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not. We know where the Holy Spirit works; we do not know where He does not work. For you to presume to know is arrogant.
I am not replying to this to debate but to warn the reader of important facts of what the Oriental Church believes in:
No salvation outside the Church No salvation without baptism Universal salvation, salvation of those outside the Church, is a heresy.
But it is important to keep in mind that the Bible is inspired text but is not inerrant. In matters of spiritual truths, it is. But that’s it.
ACCORDING TO THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCH .. THIS IS A HERESY THAT WAS PART OF THE PROTESTANT MOVEMENT.
We believe that the scriptures are the breath of God and is the absolute truth
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" Timothy 3:16
For those of you who would like to know the stance of the Oriental Orthodox Church on the Scriptures, please consult the book on Inspiration by Fr. Shenouda Maher. If you cannot get a copy, please email me and I will send a digital copy.
But it is important to keep in mind that the Bible is inspired text but is not inerrant.
ACCORDING TO THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCH .. THIS IS A HERESY THAT WAS PART OF THE PROTESTANT MOVEMENT.
We believe that the scriptures are the breath of God
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" Timothy 3:16
For those of you who would like to know the stance of the Oriental Orthodox Church on the Scriptures, please consult the book on Inspiration by Fr. Shenouda Maher. If you cannot get a copy, please email me and I will send a digital copy.
LOL! You accuse me of speaking like a Protestant when, in reality, it is you who are doing so. Complete with the exact same prooftext. Wow. You have illustrated your ignorance on not just Orthodoxy but Protestantism as well. That is just too funny for words. Further, you've just proved to me that you truly do not read (or understand) what anyone else says except yourself, and you superimposed your twisted thoughts and words into the writings of others so that you can go on posting random nonsense. Thank you for making that clear to me. I am in your debt.
But it is important to keep in mind that the Bible is inspired text but is not inerrant.
ACCORDING TO THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCH .. THIS IS A HERESY THAT WAS PART OF THE PROTESTANT MOVEMENT.
We believe that the scriptures are the breath of God
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" Timothy 3:16
For those of you who would like to know the stance of the Oriental Orthodox Church on the Scriptures, please consult the book on Inspiration by Fr. Shenouda Maher. If you cannot get a copy, please email me and I will send a digital copy.
LOL! You accuse me of speaking like a Protestant when, in reality, it is you who are doing so. Complete with the exact same prooftext. Wow. You have illustrated your ignorance on not just Orthodoxy but Protestantism as well. That is just too funny for words. Further, you've just proved to me that you truly do not read (or understand) what anyone else says except yourself, and you superimposed your twisted thoughts and words into the writings of others so that you can go on posting random nonsense. Thank you for making that clear to me. I am in your debt.
The reason you see the following repeated is because of its utmost importance. There is no room for wavering when it comes to the absolute truth of the scriptures.
But it is important to keep in mind that the Bible is inspired text but is not inerrant. In matters of spiritual truths, it is. But that’s it.
ACCORDING TO THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCH .. THIS IS A HERESY THAT WAS PART OF THE PROTESTANT MOVEMENT.
We believe that the scriptures are the breath of God and is the absolute truth
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" Timothy 3:16
For those of you who would like to know the stance of the Oriental Orthodox Church on the Scriptures, please consult the book on Inspiration by Fr. Shenouda Maher. If you cannot get a copy, please email me and I will send a digital copy.
I don’t read that at all. God said from the beginning that if they ate of the fruit they would die, not that they would die immediately.
I think you need to go back and read genesis again, God says the DAY you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you will die. So they died that day. I dont think you understand the idea of spiritual death, it is simply separation from God. The spirit never ceases to exist once created. And we see that clearly after the fall, Adam and Eve surely did die spiritually because they lost that special connection they once had with God, and it could not be obtained again until The coming of Jesus.
Also you didnt answer what I said about the tree of life, please do.
"Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil, and now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever" – therefore, the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
According to God, Adam and Eve already died the moment they ate of the tree, yet here God says, "lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever." It is very likely, almost obvious that here he speaks of the physical death. How can he say lest they live forever when according to Him they had already died? This than implies they would not have lived forever as humans until having eaten from the tree of life.
Keep in mind we are discussing matters relating to God, if your going to begin insulting others for any reason than please stop posting.
[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=9585.msg143017#msg143017 date=1313087515] cephas and imikhail, please chill out. cephas, can you please abstain from being so rude? thanks mabsoota.
Thanks mabsoota for being a sound of reason.
It is unfortunate for us as a group and as Christians above all to conduct conversations like Kephas'.
I personally do not care to be called names, but I do care about visitors who come here because this is supposedly a Christian forum. I am just afraid that we may fall under judgment as it is written:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" Romans 2:24
“But the contrary,” it may be said, “hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.” Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.
But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this in no respect injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little. -St. John Chrysostom, 1st Homily on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (section 6)
I don't want to enter this conversation, mainly because I know extremely little. I had just read this quote before and thought it had something to do with this thread, so I decided to post it. I am not on either of the two sides right now; I'm in the middle and I'm trying to learn.
I don’t read that at all. God said from the beginning that if they ate of the fruit they would die, not that they would die immediately.
I think you need to go back and read genesis again, God says the DAY you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you will die. So they died that day. I dont think you understand the idea of spiritual death, it is simply separation from God. The spirit never ceases to exist once created. And we see that clearly after the fall, Adam and Eve surely did die spiritually because they lost that special connection they once had with God, and it could not be obtained again until The coming of Jesus.
Death entered into the world as a result of Adam and Eve disobeying God. What kind of death? Was it just spiritual? Was it just physical? Or was it both? I would say both types of death entered into the world. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve lived in a heightened state of Grace, they lived in the presence of God. They were created mortal but incorruptible. Now, God is Life. So explain to me how it is possible for incorruptible beings, living in a heightened state of Grace, living in the presence of God (who IS Life) physically die? That makes no sense. Only corruptible things can decay and die, not incorruptible things.
[quote author=Meena_Ameen link=topic=9585.msg143016#msg143016 date=1313086657] Also you didnt answer what I said about the tree of life, please do.
"Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil, and now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever" – therefore, the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
According to God, Adam and Eve already died the moment they ate of the tree, yet here God says, "lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever." It is very likely, almost obvious that here he speaks of the physical death. How can he say lest they live forever when according to Him they had already died? This than implies they would not have lived forever as humans until having eaten from the tree of life.
I didn't realize this needed to be commented on, seeing as how I saw it as a statement. Anyway, the tree of Life can easily be explained. The tree of Life was the means for Adam and Eve to inherit the kingdom of Heaven, as God planned. Thus, if they had not fallen, they would have eventually eaten from that tree.
Disclaimer: What follows is purely speculation as Adam and Eve did Fall.
If Adam and Eve had not fallen, they would have remained in a state of Grace, living in the presence of God, being mortal and incorruptible. However, even in this state of Grace, man could still not inherit the kingdom of Heaven, which is why the tree of Life was created. However, to be able to partake of the tree of Life, Christ would still have had to become incarnate. Why? For the same reason He became incarnate now, to take from what is ours and to give us from what is His. God became man so that man might become god. That could only be realized with the incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity. With His incarnation, Christ would have guided Adam and Eve to the way to partake of the tree of Life and thereby inherit the kingdom of Heaven.
However, the reality is Adam and Eve did fall. As such, to prevent them from inheriting the kingdom in their fallen state, God expelled them from Paradise before they could partake of the tree of Life. For us, the tree of Life is the Cross, in fulfillment of God's plan.
Death entered into the world as a result of Adam and Eve disobeying God. What kind of death? Was it just spiritual? Was it just physical? Or was it both? I would say both types of death entered into the world. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve lived in a heightened state of Grace, they lived in the presence of God. They were created mortal but incorruptible. Now, God is Life. So explain to me how it is possible for incorruptible beings, living in a heightened state of Grace, living in the presence of God (who IS Life) physically die? That makes no sense. Only corruptible things can decay and die, not incorruptible things.
I am not sure what does the phrase "living in a heightened state of Grace" mean?
There is a fundamental question that we need to answer: Did Adam and Eve live in a better state, having "more" grace, than us who live in the New Testament?
The answer is no.
We have the grace of the Holy Spirit inside us, we have the grace of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of the Son, we have the grace of God dwelling in us, we have the grace of being the bride of Son.
In summary, we have everything that Adam and Eve had in addition to the aforementioned. Thus, the premise that Adam and Eve would not have tasted physical death because of the so called "heightened grace" is a false premise.
[quote author=anba bola link=topic=9585.msg143048#msg143048 date=1313114742] “But the contrary,” it may be said, “hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.” Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.
But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this in no respect injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little. -St. John Chrysostom, 1st Homily on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (section 6)
I don't want to enter this conversation, mainly because I know extremely little. I had just read this quote before and thought it had something to do with this thread, so I decided to post it. I am not on either of the two sides right now; I'm in the middle and I'm trying to learn.
Thanks Anba Bola. These are excellent quotes that shows how the Church views the Scriptures as inerrant.
Comments
+ Irini nem ehmot,
To say God cannot save whomever He wishes limits God's abilities. You sure you want to walk down that road?
God put orders and rules and there are plenty of verses in the NT that shows baptism is essential for salvation. There is also plenty of the Fathers writings about baptism as an essential step for salvation. You can start by reading St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures, Pope Shenouda on baptism (http://www.coptichymns.net/module-library-viewpub-tid-1-pid-7.html)
What you are saying is that there is salvation outside the Church. This is absolutely wrong.
No salvation outside the Church.
No. I am not saying there is (an absolute statement) salvation outside the Church. I'm saying God can save whomever He wishes. He is not limited by the sacraments.
Always absolutes with you. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Perhaps this will help elucidate my position a bit more: - Bishop Kallistos Ware (excerpt taken from The Orthodox Church)
We can argue all day whether Adam and Eve could have died before the fall, the fact is, neither of us were there. It seems more probable to me that they could have died before the fall because they were 100% human, there was never a point where humans were even slightly divine. And Being sinless doesn't make them any less human. The point is God says the day they eat of the tree of knowledge they will die, and obviously they did not physically die. Thus the nature that changed was not the physical. Adam conceived sin, and his spirit separated from God. The spirit being one with the Body than searched for pleasures and satisfaction within the Body because it lost all contact with God, thus man spent there lives on earth trying to fill that emptiness with pleasures of the world. It wasn't until Jesus came and gave us baptism that our spirit was reborn and able to experience God and put away the pleasures of the world. Thus our nature DID change. Though having been living a life of sin, the memory of sin caused men even close to God to fall. So it is not until we are "transformed" in the Resurrection, that our Spirits may abide in bodies that do not remember evil, and sin will not be remembered, so we will live with the Lord forever.
Theres an excellent book that deals with this very subject called "on the human condition" by St Basil.
P.S. you keep saying the Church believes St Mary was sinless her entire life, yet you also mentioned it is theologoumenon, which means its not a doctrine but an opinion, at the same time, many of our greatest fathers such as St John Chrysostom do not accept this theologoumenon. Thus I would say the Church does not believe St Mary was sinless, but at the same time her sinlessness is debatable. Also, personally havent spoken to one Orthodox Priests or Monk who agrees St Mary was sinless her entire life, and ive asked many of them. So I dont think this is the official orthodox position, I dont think we have an official position on it. I would love to see what HH Pope Shenouda has to say on this topic.
Seeing as how you've already made your decision about what you believe, what the deuce was the point of this entire conversation?
FYI: Both Sts. John Chrysostom and Athanasius write that Adam and Eve would not die before the fall (as I've illustrated in my links) and you do not wish to accept that, yet when it comes to the sinlessness of St. Mary, you appeal to St. John. Why is that?
PS. Regarding our nature transforming, care to present the writings of any of the Fathers that state that? The quotes that I've posted seem to indicate that baptism washes away sin and is a rebirth, but I see nothing about a change in our nature.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Always absolutes with you. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
The Bible is absolute. God's commandments are absolute. The Church is founded on absolutes.
We cannot make the exceptions as general rules. Yes there were martyrs who were not baptized, yes there was the thief who did not baptize. But these are the exceptions.
No one can say that he will not receive baptism because history shows that there are individuals who became saints and yet did not receive baptism.
No salvation out of the Church. No salvation without baptism.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Seeing as how you've already made your decision about what you believe, what the deuce was the point of this entire conversation?
FYI: Both Sts. John Chrysostom and Athanasius write that Adam and Eve would not die before the fall (as I've illustrated in my links) and you do not wish to accept that, yet when it comes to the sinlessness of St. Mary, you appeal to St. John. Why is that?
PS. Regarding our nature transforming, care to present the writings of any of the Fathers that state that? The quotes that I've posted seem to indicate that baptism washes away sin and is a rebirth, but I see nothing about a change in our nature.
I have presented Biblical verses that show that Adam and Eve would have tasted bodily death to inherit the kingdom.
No Church Father had explained otherwise explicitly. The literature you presented talks about corruption, eternal death, sinful nature, fallen nature, ... They have nothing to do with bodily or physical death.
Regarding St Mary, the Bible teaches "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. No exceptions.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Perhaps this will help elucidate my position a bit more: - Bishop Kallistos Ware (excerpt taken from The Orthodox Church)
With all due respect of Bishop Kallistoc, he also believes that nonbelievers will be saved, those who have sinned and died in their own sin will somehow be saved.
In summary he believes in Universal Salvation which in its entirety is a heresy.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Seeing as how you've already made your decision about what you believe, what the deuce was the point of this entire conversation?
FYI: Both Sts. John Chrysostom and Athanasius write that Adam and Eve would not die before the fall (as I've illustrated in my links) and you do not wish to accept that, yet when it comes to the sinlessness of St. Mary, you appeal to St. John. Why is that?
PS. Regarding our nature transforming, care to present the writings of any of the Fathers that state that? The quotes that I've posted seem to indicate that baptism washes away sin and is a rebirth, but I see nothing about a change in our nature.
We are born with a corrupted nature. With baptism, this corrupted nature dies and we receive the newness of life, we put on Christ so that we may inherit the Kingdom of God. This is the transformation we receive.
A few notes:
1. All your bible verses talk about Adam after the Fall. None of them talk about Adam before the Fall. Therefore, to say with certainty that Adam would have died if he did not Fall using these Bible verses is ludicrous. The Fathers say Adam would not have died before the Fall. After the Fall, his nature was corrupted and he could die. It's simple really, corruption leads to death. If there is no corruption, how can there be death?
2. Bishop Kallistos Ware does not believe that everyone will be saved. He lives with the hope that all may be saved by the mercy of God. That is a huge difference.
3. Your 'theory' about absolutes in the Church is false. Ever heard of economia? The fact that there is ecclesiastical economia illustrates that not everything is absolute within the context of the Church. Likewise, there is the divine economia. I read a beautiful quote from St. Isaac the Syrian yesterday which illustrates this wonderfully: 'Do not call God just, for His justice is not evident in your deeds; Where is His justice? We were sinners and Christ died for us.' The only true absolute is Love. We know that God is Love, that Love covers a multitude of sins and that perfect Love casts out all fear. The Law is summarized by two commandments: Love God and Love they neighbor.
Adam and Eve's death before the fall: You confuse eternal death with physical death.
The Bible says that the inheritance of the Kingdom was planned before the foundation of the world:
'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25:34)
The destiny of mankind is to inherit the Kingdom of heaven.
How would Adam have inherited the Kingdom in physical form?
The hope we should be living with is that people may find the way to salvation because otherwise they will be doomed.
Do not read the Church Fathers out of context.
With love I have to remember what the Bible says about justice:
"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:31)
UNIVERSAL SALVATION IS A HERESY.
Salvation is granted only through the Church.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Seeing as how you've already made your decision about what you believe, what the deuce was the point of this entire conversation?
FYI: Both Sts. John Chrysostom and Athanasius write that Adam and Eve would not die before the fall (as I've illustrated in my links) and you do not wish to accept that, yet when it comes to the sinlessness of St. Mary, you appeal to St. John. Why is that?
PS. Regarding our nature transforming, care to present the writings of any of the Fathers that state that? The quotes that I've posted seem to indicate that baptism washes away sin and is a rebirth, but I see nothing about a change in our nature.
Just want to point out one thing. The Bible is the inspired word of God, everything in it we can be certain is true. The Early Church Fathers differ in some teaches and in some cases have contradictory teachings with each other on other topics, however they differ on theologoumenon not doctrine. This shows the early church fathers sat and read the Bible and contemplated on these issues. With the wisdom and knowledge of the Fathers, I like to personally contemplate on issues with their guidance. However, I know they are not infallible.
I have not "made my decision" on what I believe, I am simply explaining to you what I believe based on what I have read and what the Lord has revealed to me. I know my view may change as I grow and learn more, but as of now, this seems most plausible and like I said I have a whole list of priests and monks who believe as I do.
By the way I don't think youve realized that you have done the exact same thing you have accused me of doing lol. You appeal to some fathers who say ST Mary was sinless, yet you went on to quote St John Chrysostom on the issue of death before the fall when St John does not believe in St Mary's sinlessness. Thus you accept some of his teachings and reject others of his teachings. Why is that? Its because these were there own personal opinions and people have differing opinions.
Like I said im not 100% sure, there's no way of knowing. But from the writings in genesis it seems very clear.
"Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil, and now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever" – therefore, the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
According to God, Adam and Eve already died the moment they ate of the tree, yet here God says, "lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever." It is very likely, almost obvious that here he speaks of the physical death. How can he say lest they live forever when according to Him they had already died? This than implies they would not have lived forever as humans until having eaten from the tree of life.
Once again just my own personal contemplation. p.s. the point of this entire conversation was to see the opinions of others so that I may learn from others. I dont see anything wrong with that.
imikhail,
Having a ‘discussion’ (and I use the term very loosely) is reminiscent of taking two sharpened pencils, placing them in one’s nose and then slamming one’s face into a table. I don’t know if you actually read what other people write, or if you just home in on certain key words, use those key words to create your own ‘response’ and then respond to that response. I’m genuinely curious as to your reading comprehension skills. Your level of tunnel vision is so extreme that anything that goes beyond your line of vision (or your limited intellectual capacity) is almost automatically wrong. Do you even think about what other people are saying, or do you just, by default, disagree. You have not, in your two posts, presented anything new except regurgitate the same, tired crap you always post (complete with identical bolding).
Everything in the Bible that relates to Adam or man’s inheritance of the kingdom of heaven must be viewed in light of the Fall. It does not speak about (or even speculate about) what God’s plan for man would have been had there been no Fall. It is stupid to think that it does. Now, you asked me ‘How would Adam have inherited the Kingdom in physical form?’ Now, surely you can’t be serious. Do you even recall the events that occurred after the Resurrection? Did Christ not possess a physical (albeit glorified) body? Did the Apostles not physically handle Christ? Did Christ not physically eat fish and honeycomb to prove He was not a spirit? Did He not state that He had flesh and bones? Or did you miss that? We will still possess physical bodies. However, these bodies will be transformed, just as Christ’s was.
As for universal salvation, get it through your thick skull; that is not what I’m suggesting (neither is Metropolitan Kallistos). We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not. We know where the Holy Spirit works; we do not know where He does not work. For you to presume to know is arrogant.
Meena_Ameen,
First things first: You sure about that? I don’t need to go far but let’s take a look at the Gospels. How many times did the cock crow before Peter denied Christ 3 times? How many angels were at the empty grave? Where were the angels at the empty grave? There are inconsistencies to be found, not just in the Gospels, but throughout the Bible. Does that mean they are wrong? No. But it is important to keep in mind that the Bible is inspired text but is not inerrant. In matters of spiritual truths, it is. But that’s it. It would be wise to keep that in mind. You are mixing apples with oranges. The teaching on St. Mary is theologoumenon. That is not the case with the teaching on the Fall. So no, I’m not doing the same thing you are. I don’t read that at all. God said from the beginning that if they ate of the fruit they would die, not that they would die immediately.
It is unfortunate that you do not believe in the absolute TRUTH of the Bible. I do not see a benefit in debating anything with you unless you accept the belief of the Church on the inspiration of the Scriptures.
The Coptic Church believes in the absolute Truth of the Bible. Any discussion should have this framework.
No salvation outside the Church
No salvation without baptism
Universal salvation, salvation of those outside the Church, is a heresy.
We believe that the scriptures are the breath of God and is the absolute truth
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" Timothy 3:16
For those of you who would like to know the stance of the Oriental Orthodox Church on the Scriptures, please consult the book on Inspiration by Fr. Shenouda Maher. If you cannot get a copy, please email me and I will send a digital copy.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143004#msg143004 date=1313071269] ACCORDING TO THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCH .. THIS IS A HERESY THAT WAS PART OF THE PROTESTANT MOVEMENT.
We believe that the scriptures are the breath of God
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" Timothy 3:16
For those of you who would like to know the stance of the Oriental Orthodox Church on the Scriptures, please consult the book on Inspiration by Fr. Shenouda Maher. If you cannot get a copy, please email me and I will send a digital copy.
LOL! You accuse me of speaking like a Protestant when, in reality, it is you who are doing so. Complete with the exact same prooftext. Wow. You have illustrated your ignorance on not just Orthodoxy but Protestantism as well. That is just too funny for words. Further, you've just proved to me that you truly do not read (or understand) what anyone else says except yourself, and you superimposed your twisted thoughts and words into the writings of others so that you can go on posting random nonsense. Thank you for making that clear to me. I am in your debt.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg143004#msg143004 date=1313071269] ACCORDING TO THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCH .. THIS IS A HERESY THAT WAS PART OF THE PROTESTANT MOVEMENT.
We believe that the scriptures are the breath of God
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" Timothy 3:16
For those of you who would like to know the stance of the Oriental Orthodox Church on the Scriptures, please consult the book on Inspiration by Fr. Shenouda Maher. If you cannot get a copy, please email me and I will send a digital copy.
LOL! You accuse me of speaking like a Protestant when, in reality, it is you who are doing so. Complete with the exact same prooftext. Wow. You have illustrated your ignorance on not just Orthodoxy but Protestantism as well. That is just too funny for words. Further, you've just proved to me that you truly do not read (or understand) what anyone else says except yourself, and you superimposed your twisted thoughts and words into the writings of others so that you can go on posting random nonsense. Thank you for making that clear to me. I am in your debt.
Whatever man ..........
The reason you see the following repeated is because of its utmost importance. There is no room for wavering when it comes to the absolute truth of the scriptures. ACCORDING TO THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCH .. THIS IS A HERESY THAT WAS PART OF THE PROTESTANT MOVEMENT.
We believe that the scriptures are the breath of God and is the absolute truth
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" Timothy 3:16
For those of you who would like to know the stance of the Oriental Orthodox Church on the Scriptures, please consult the book on Inspiration by Fr. Shenouda Maher. If you cannot get a copy, please email me and I will send a digital copy.
Also you didnt answer what I said about the tree of life, please do.
Keep in mind we are discussing matters relating to God, if your going to begin insulting others for any reason than please stop posting.
please chill out.
cephas, can you please abstain from being so rude?
thanks
mabsoota.
cephas and imikhail,
please chill out.
cephas, can you please abstain from being so rude?
thanks
mabsoota.
Thanks mabsoota for being a sound of reason.
It is unfortunate for us as a group and as Christians above all to conduct conversations like Kephas'.
I personally do not care to be called names, but I do care about visitors who come here because this is supposedly a Christian forum. I am just afraid that we may fall under judgment as it is written:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" Romans 2:24
But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this in no respect injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little. -St. John Chrysostom, 1st Homily on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (section 6)
I don't want to enter this conversation, mainly because I know extremely little. I had just read this quote before and thought it had something to do with this thread, so I decided to post it. I am not on either of the two sides right now; I'm in the middle and I'm trying to learn.
[quote author=Meena_Ameen link=topic=9585.msg143016#msg143016 date=1313086657] I think you need to go back and read genesis again, God says the DAY you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you will die. So they died that day. I dont think you understand the idea of spiritual death, it is simply separation from God. The spirit never ceases to exist once created. And we see that clearly after the fall, Adam and Eve surely did die spiritually because they lost that special connection they once had with God, and it could not be obtained again until The coming of Jesus.
Death entered into the world as a result of Adam and Eve disobeying God. What kind of death? Was it just spiritual? Was it just physical? Or was it both? I would say both types of death entered into the world. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve lived in a heightened state of Grace, they lived in the presence of God. They were created mortal but incorruptible. Now, God is Life. So explain to me how it is possible for incorruptible beings, living in a heightened state of Grace, living in the presence of God (who IS Life) physically die? That makes no sense. Only corruptible things can decay and die, not incorruptible things.
[quote author=Meena_Ameen link=topic=9585.msg143016#msg143016 date=1313086657]
Also you didnt answer what I said about the tree of life, please do.
I didn't realize this needed to be commented on, seeing as how I saw it as a statement. Anyway, the tree of Life can easily be explained. The tree of Life was the means for Adam and Eve to inherit the kingdom of Heaven, as God planned. Thus, if they had not fallen, they would have eventually eaten from that tree.
Disclaimer: What follows is purely speculation as Adam and Eve did Fall.
If Adam and Eve had not fallen, they would have remained in a state of Grace, living in the presence of God, being mortal and incorruptible. However, even in this state of Grace, man could still not inherit the kingdom of Heaven, which is why the tree of Life was created. However, to be able to partake of the tree of Life, Christ would still have had to become incarnate. Why? For the same reason He became incarnate now, to take from what is ours and to give us from what is His. God became man so that man might become god. That could only be realized with the incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity. With His incarnation, Christ would have guided Adam and Eve to the way to partake of the tree of Life and thereby inherit the kingdom of Heaven.
However, the reality is Adam and Eve did fall. As such, to prevent them from inheriting the kingdom in their fallen state, God expelled them from Paradise before they could partake of the tree of Life. For us, the tree of Life is the Cross, in fulfillment of God's plan.
There is a fundamental question that we need to answer: Did Adam and Eve live in a better state, having "more" grace, than us who live in the New Testament?
The answer is no.
We have the grace of the Holy Spirit inside us, we have the grace of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of the Son, we have the grace of God dwelling in us, we have the grace of being the bride of Son.
In summary, we have everything that Adam and Eve had in addition to the aforementioned. Thus, the premise that Adam and Eve would not have tasted physical death because of the so called "heightened grace" is a false premise.
“But the contrary,” it may be said, “hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.” Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.
But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this in no respect injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little. -St. John Chrysostom, 1st Homily on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (section 6)
I don't want to enter this conversation, mainly because I know extremely little. I had just read this quote before and thought it had something to do with this thread, so I decided to post it. I am not on either of the two sides right now; I'm in the middle and I'm trying to learn.
Thanks Anba Bola. These are excellent quotes that shows how the Church views the Scriptures as inerrant.