Discuss the holy Mysteries and the liturgical life of the Church such as the Hours, Vespers, Matins/Orthros, Typica, and the Divine Liturgy. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
I am currently reading the homily of St. Gregory Palamas for the Sunday of the Prodigal Son.
If I find anything pertinent, I will post it here.
The heretical teachings on the "angry God" and the "total depravity of mankind" have unleashed an avalanche of theological works condemning this Protestant heresy as many Protestants have become Orthodox and are struggling with these teachings.
What is the background of the Admin at Monachos? Is he a Protestant convert?
Father David Moser is a moderator on Monachos.net and he says concerning himself: "I too come from a strong evangelical Protestant background and the idea of Jesus Christ as my personal Savior is strong in my upbringing."
See: http://www.orthodox.net/articles/personal-savior.html
The other notable person on Monachos.net is, of course the founder of the site:
V. Revd. Prof. Archimandrite Irenei (Steenberg)
This what we are told about him:
He is widely known beyond academic circles through his work to bring Orthodox patristic and monastic study to a wider audience. He founded the Monachos.net web site on Orthodoxy through patristic and monastic study in 1999, which is today the largest resource for such materials on the internet. The website’s message forum, known as the Discussion Community, is one of the only forums on the internet dedicated to patristic and monastic discussions. In 2008 he began weekly internet radio broadcasts for Ancient Faith Radio, in a series called A Word From the Holy Fathers. These broadcasts, which focus each week on a patristic writing and its pastoral impact, are among the most listened-to podcasts on the station
I've been asking the same questions about this article over at monachos.net, where I also learned that Fr Steenberg is the author of this article. He himself has not replied in the thread to answer questions about his article, but we seem to have arrived at a consensus that by "fallen nature" he had in mind the Calvinist notion of "total depravity". While there is an Orthodox use of the term "fallen nature", the Orthodox meaning, set forth in the Council of Jerusalem that Maria quoted, must not be confused with the Calvinist one.
St Athanasius in particular seems to agree with Fr Irinei Steenberg, namely that the spread of sin is a result of the separation from God, i.e. loss of grace, and not because of a nature that was corrupted and turned to evil itself. This strikes me as very important, since if we believe our nature was affected so as to make it more prone to evil, we could always blame our nature for our own sins. However, we are strictly forbidden from doing so; our sins are always our responsibility, since we have always been able to choose good over evil.
What is true about fallen nature is that separation from God, from the Kingdom, creates a "snowball" effect. Our life of sin causes us to become accustomed to sin, so that only by some supernatural intervention are we able to be "called to our senses" and choose to repent and do good. So the prompting to do good must come from God and can't originate in ourselves (that would be the Pelagian heresy, I believe).
But by these <119> fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatsoever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature
This Council of Jerusalem seems to say that we do not have a fallen nature; otherwise, St. John the Baptist and the Most Pure Theotokos could not have lived such a pure and saintly life.
I think it is talking about natural needs or realities, like increased pains in childbearing are not in any way under the control of women. It is a fact of their biology, and is in no way a function of their personal walk with God or choices in life. On the other hand, the soul that produces actual sin does so not by compulsion, or by some means beyond the control or will of the person doing the sin. Rather, sin is something we always have the freedom to overcome and reject. Hence, we can be rewarded or punished for rejecting the temptation or for committing the sin.
St Athanasius in particular seems to agree with Fr Irinei Steenberg, namely that the spread of sin is a result of the separation from God, i.e. loss of grace, and not because of a nature that was corrupted and turned to evil itself. This strikes me as very important, since if we believe our nature was affected so as to make it more prone to evil, we could always blame our nature for our own sins. However, we are strictly forbidden from doing so; our sins are always our responsibility, since we have always been able to choose good over evil.
What is true about fallen nature is that separation from God, from the Kingdom, creates a "snowball" effect. Our life of sin causes us to become accustomed to sin, so that only by some supernatural intervention are we able to be "called to our senses" and choose to repent and do good. So the prompting to do good must come from God and can't originate in ourselves (that would be the Pelagian heresy, I believe).
Does this seem correct to you all?
Wow! This is getting really difficult and deep. I fear to tread here. I accept that we are always capable and free to choose the good and reject evil. I accept and believe that due to the Fall the Earth was made subject to disease, difficulty, and death. I believe that the a weakness entered into our souls where we have a desire to sin and that these can develop through habit into passions that can eventually bind and enslave us to certain sins, which can look and feel a lot like a kind of compulsive slavery to sin. And finally, that Christ has come in grace and truth to set the captive free and that now, through the gospel and the mysteries of the Church we can be raised to new life in Christ and be the bondservants of Christ in word and deed doing the things that please God, and that this sonship with God makes us all citizens of Heaven.
Does that agree with what you wrote, Jonathan? I dare not say more than that for fear of speaking about something beyond my depth.
St Athanasius in particular seems to agree with Fr Irinei Steenberg, namely that the spread of sin is a result of the separation from God, i.e. loss of grace, and not because of a nature that was corrupted and turned to evil itself. This strikes me as very important, since if we believe our nature was affected so as to make it more prone to evil, we could always blame our nature for our own sins. However, we are strictly forbidden from doing so; our sins are always our responsibility, since we have always been able to choose good over evil.
What is true about fallen nature is that separation from God, from the Kingdom, creates a "snowball" effect. Our life of sin causes us to become accustomed to sin, so that only by some supernatural intervention are we able to be "called to our senses" and choose to repent and do good. So the prompting to do good must come from God and can't originate in ourselves (that would be the Pelagian heresy, I believe).
Does this seem correct to you all?
Yes, the Pelagian heresy teaches that we can get to Heaven on our own bootstraps. Thus, we do not need the grace of God.
What is the meaning of this passage?
But by these fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatsoever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature
When I read the above quote, I took it to mean that we have a hereditary [inheritance] of fallen nature, let us say, something perhaps best described as an inclination to sin, but not ACTUAL GUILT for anything Adam and Eve did. We inherited the conditions produced by the fall, but not the guilt.
