Has this show blessed you? Become a patron and support the Orthodox Mission in Cambodia with a monthly commitment at: ko-fi.com/orthodoxmissionincambodia/ You can also make a one-time donation at: www.paypal.com/paypalme/KhmerOrthodoxChurch For more information, check out www.OrthodoxChristianTheology.com/donate
hey Craig, I tried to check booth of the reference you gave around 1:03:40 and they both don't say the annunciation serves as a baptism for Her.. so is there any other source for perhaps to check on this..?
it's amazing that decree 6 says that death is a punishment of Adam's sin, a statement formerly contradicting Craig's main insistence throughout, but he has nothing to say about it
Haven't watched the video yet, but I'm wondering how you mean Father Michael Pomazansky was shielded from western influence by being in Tsarist Russia and later Poland. Peter the Great of Russia was known to have brought in jesuit priests and caused the latinization of seminaries in Russia that caused many ideas to be transferred over into russian orthodoxy. In the process, the church also began to "Ukrainize" as most of the hierarchs after this point came from borderlands that had been influenced by the polish Lithuanian commonwealths repression of orthodoxy while they ruled those territories. You may be able to make the argument that at is particular time those regions weren't directly in contact with the west, but the transfer of ideas had occurred at an earlier date so the "infection" had already been "incubated".
Good videos !!!Make pls some video to get in contact with people from ortodox Serbia..Also you can maybu get in contact with Father Predrag Popovic.He is from serbia and he has a big ortodox channel with 270 k + followers
Hello. You said:,,…He (St.Maximus) says all mankind dies because it manifests the sinfulness of Adam. So it’s not like we die because we inherited a punishment, right. It’s not punitive. God did not create death like it says in Wisdom 1:13. Rather we die because we inherit the sinfulness of Adam, the waywardness of Adam.“ Yes, we manifest the sinfulness of Adam and that is why we die. St.Cyril of Alexandria also says that by copying Adam’s transgression all have sinned and have incurred a penalty equal to his, i.e. death:,,For since we have all copied Adam’s transgression and thus have all sinned, we have incurred a penalty equal to his. Yet the world was not without hope, for in the end sin was destroyed, Satan was defeated and death itself was abolished.“ (Explanation of the Letter to the Romans, Migne PF, 74,col.784). But our manifestation of Adam’s sinfulness due to our inherited depravity of nature from him, does not mean that we have not inherited also mortality from him. But St.Genadius of (-471), Patriarch of Constantinople says:,,Everyone in the following of Adam has died, because they have all inherited their nature from him. But some have died because they themselves have sinned, while others have died only because of Adam’s condemnation-for example, children.“ (Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, New Testament Abstracts 15:362). If we do not inherit also mortality from Adam, it would not be possible for infants who have not done any personal sins and so have not yet manifested the inherited sinfulness of Adam, to die. An infant would become mortal after manifesting the sinfulness of Adam by committing a personal sin. But some infants die. So when St.Maximus says that mankind dies because it manifests the inherited sinfulness of Adam, he refers only to those who have committed personal sins. Therefore we all inherit not only the sinfulness of Adam, the inclination to sin, the waywardness but also death. In the last part of the verse of Romans 5;12, the conjuction which εφ’ ω in the Greek original, translates literally as ''for'', ''for that'', ''in that'', ''because''. In most English translations it is translated as ''because''. In the King James Version it is translated as ,,for that“:,,Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:“ (Romans 5:12, KJV). As some copy the sin of Adam as St.Cyril says and die, the literal translations - ''for'', ''for that'', ''in that'', ''because'' could be understood to refer only to the manifestation by some of the sinfulness of Adam. The non-literal translation of εφ’ ω that is not only in the Latin translation but also in the Slavic translation of Ss Cyril and Methodius is ''in whom'' which is επι in Greek. The non-literal translation ,,in whom“ clearly shows that sinning of all that is the reason for their mortality, is their sinning in Adam when he sinned, i.e. when he sinned and became mortal, all sinned in him and became mortal. This is affirmed by 1 Corinthians 15:21-22:,,For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.“ (KJV). Although death is a consequence of man turning away from God’s energy which sustains man’s life, and God Who has not created death because He has not created evil, allows it, death is still a punishment. The Orthodox confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern-Church written by St.Peter Moguila in 1645 and approved by the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch; affirmed at the Council of Jerusalem (1672) as the standard cathehism of the Orthodox Church which your referred to, clearly says that death is a punishment for mankind for Adam’s sin by the sentence of God, that Adam became guilty for his sin, that mankind became not only subject unto sin but also on account of Adam’s sin. P .30-37: Question XXIV. Whether all man are liable for the sin of Adam? Answer. As all mankind, during the state of innocence, was in Adam; so in him all men, falling from what he fell, remained in a state of sin. Wherefore mankind is become, not only subject unto sin, but also on account of sin, unto punishment; which, according to the sentence pronounced by God, was (Gen. ii. 17.) ,,In the day that thou eatest of the tree, thou shalt surely die.‘‘ And to this the Apostle alludes (Rom. v. 12.) ,,Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all men sinned.‘‘ So that we are conceived into our mother’s womb, and born in this sin, according to the holy Psalmist [Psal. li. 7.] ,,Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin hath my mother conceived me.‘‘ This is called parental or original sin; first, because that, before this, man was free from all sin; although the devil was then corrupt, and fallen, by whole temptation this parental sin sprung up in man; and Adam becoming guilty. we all likewise, who descend from him, become also guilty. Secondly, this is called original sin, because no mortal is conceived without this depravity of nature.‘‘ In the quote of Decree 6 of the 1672 Council that you even read , death is referred to as a punishment inflicted upon the man by the Divine Justice:,,…For many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as well as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, did not experience these [sins], or such like faults. But only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labor, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, finally, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death. (Bratcher 2018)“. St.John refers to death as punishment in his Homily 10 on the Epistle to the Romans: ,,…What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offence of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word "sinners" mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam's death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large. But the question now is, for what purpose was this done? …‘‘ Blessed Theodoret (393-457) says in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Part 1, Chapter 5, that when one sinned, i.e. Adam, the whole race received punishment and that when he sinned the whole race received the sentence of death: ,,…The munificence of grace, says he, goes beyond the limits of justice, for then, one having sinned, the whole race received punishment, but now, all mankind having been unholy, and transgressors, it has brought, not punishment but, the free gift of life. …18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. Doubt not, says he, concerning what I have said, while looking to Adam; for if those things be true, as indeed they are true, and when he sinned the whole race received the sentence of death; it is plain, that the righteousness of the Saviour gains life to all men… St.John Damascene also refers to death and the other blames passions that are consequences of the fall, as punishments in the Right Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 2, Chapter 28 - Concerning what is not in our hands: ,,…For the origin of all things is from God, but their destruction has been introduced by our wickedness for our punishment or benefit. For God did not create death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things. But death is the work of man, that is in Adam’s transgression, in like manner as all other punishments. …“ St.Leontius of Byzantium refers to the guilt of Adam for his sin in the ,,Dialogue against the Aphthartodocetists“:,,…The Lord came not to make the innocent Adam healthy but rather to heal the guilty for sin and already fallen, so that by suffering together with him He could lift him up together with Himself.“
That although God has not created evil and evil does not have its own existence, death is still punishment, is evident by another fact. St.Irenaeus of Lyon says in Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 23) ,,…Inasmuch as, he says, I have by disobedience lost that robe of sanctity which I had from the Spirit, I do now also acknowledge that I am deserving of a covering of this nature, which affords no gratification, but which gnaws and frets the body.“ Also St. Symeon the New Theologian (949 - 1022), says in his Homily 37, 3 that the first man lost the garment of sanctity when he fell:,,…God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin than pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who came from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin.“ Of course, evil is not created as St.Basil the Great explains:,,If then evil is neither ucreate or created by God, whence comes its nature? Certainly that evil exists, noone living in the world will deny. What shall we say then? Evil is not a living animated essence; it is the condition of the soul opposed to virtue, developed in the careless on account on their falling away from good.“ (Homily 2,4, Fathers of the Church, Nine Homilies on the Hexaemron, Apostle Arne Horn, p.20). Here he is referring to the inclination of the soul to evil - an inclination that is a condition of the soul. As evil is not created, the inclination of the postlapsarian human nature to evil, rather than good, is not a created property of our created nature because if it was, that would mean that the propensity to evil is created by God together with our whole created nature which would mean that we are determined to evil as God would be the cause of our determination to evil which of course, is blasphemous and untrue. So our inclination to evil is not a created property but is due to the loss of the robe, garment of the first sanctity from the Spirit that the first man had before the fall and whose loss and absence we have inherited from him. But St. Symeon says that man became corruptible and mortal as a result of the loss of the garment of sanctity from the Holy Spirit. Since the vivifying energies that departed from Adam are uncreated and not energies of the created world, then if death was a natural result of Adam’s sin, a natural result that He only permitted by His permissive will, an inevitable and unescapable result of the transgression and not a punishment by God as a response to the transgression, that God’s curse was not a punishment but only an acknowledgment by God of what occurred through the transgression, that would mean that the departure of the vivifying uncreated energies of the Holy Spirit from Adam due to his sin occurred not because the Spirit decided to depart by a decision of His free will but because He permitted death by necessity which implies that His will (i.e. against the common divine will of the Three Persons of the most Holy Trinity) was not free for a moment but was dependent on man’s fall. and what the first man did, and that He only acknowledged what happened, i.e. had no choice but to only agree with something against His will. That would imply a change in God’s will, i.e. a change in God which is impossible, and also undermines God’s omnipotence. God cannot be forced to do something against His will. So the Holy Spirit departed from Adam by His own will, by His decision, wherefore since he became corruptible and mortal (because before the fall he was neither mortal, nor immortal) as a result of the loss of the sanctity of the Holy Spirit as St. Symeon the Theologian says, the corruptibility and mortality are a result of God’s decision. So death is a punishment as the Orthodox confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern-Church clearly says.
You said:,,Pomazansky is a time capsule before the Orthodox thought was overtly corrupted by interaction of the West.“ The idea of the Western captivity is first expressed by Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky in his book ,,Ways of Russian theology“, Part I, 1937, p.85: ,,X. The Pseudomorphosis of Orthodox thought From the cultural and historical points of view, Kievan learning was not a mere passing episode but an event of unquestionable significance. This was the first outright encounter with the West. One might even have called it a free encounter had it not ended in captivity or more precisely, surrender. But for this reason, there could be no creative use made of the encounter. A scholastic tradition was developed and a school began, yet no spiritually creative movement resulted. Instead, there emerged an imitative and provincial scholasticism, in its literal sense a theologica scholastica or ,,school theology“. This signified a new stage in religious consciousness. But in the process theology was torn from its living roots. A malignant schism set in between life and thought. Certainly the horizon of the Kievan erudites was wide enough. Contact with Europe was lively, with word of current searchings and trends in the West easily teaching Kiev. Still, the aura of doom hovered over the entire movement, for it comprised a ,,pseudomorphism“ of Russia’s religious consciousness, a ,,pseudomorphosis“ of Orthodox thought.“ Father Georges ascribes the supposed scholastic Western captivity, the pseudomorphosis as he calls it, that Orthodox thought supposedly ended in, to Peter Mogila. p.64:,,…Educated in the West, or, more exactly, in Poland and in a Polish fashion, Peter Mogila became in taste and habit a sophisticated and lifelong westerner. P.66:,,…He was quite ready to accept what he found in Roman books as traditional and ,,Orthodox“. That is why in theology and worship Mogila could freely adopt Latin material…“ P. 69:,,…New bishops were now hastily and uncanonically chosen by Orthodox delegates to the Diet rather than by local diocesan conventions and immediately confirmed by the King. It was in this way that Peter Mogila, aristocrate and Polonophile, was elected metropolitan of Kiev.“ The theory of the Western scholastic captivity of Russian Orthodox thought is a myth because protopesbyter Georges Florovsky considers the legal understanding of the penal subsitutionary atonement to be a supposedly product of the scholastics in whose captivity the Orthodox thought had ended according to him: ,,…Finally, there could hardly be any retributive justice in the Passion and death of the Lord, which might possibly have been in the death of even a righteous man. ….Nor is this to be explained by the idea of a substitutional satisfaction, the satisfactio vicaria of the scholastics. Not because substitution is not possible. Christ did indeed take upon Himself the sin of the world. But because God does not seek the sufferings of anyone, He grieves over them. How could the penal death of the Incarnate, most pure and undefiled, be the abolition of sin, if death itself is the wages of sin, and if death exists only in the sinful world? …The Cross is not a symbol of Justice, but the symbol of Love Divine.“ (Creation and Redemption, p.101-103). It must be added that Protopresbyter Georges is an ecumenist. If St.Peter Mogila was the reason for the supposed scholastic captivity of Orthodox thought regarding the supposedly scholastic legalistic understanding of the original sin and the penal substitutionary atonement of the personal sins, then that legalistic approach regarding the original sin and the penal substitution would have been condemned by the Orthodox in the cases with their polemics with the West in the centuries before 17th century because during those attempts there clearly arose the dogmatic differences between the East and the West . The 17th century is not the first century of the first outright encounter with the West. The first encounters after 1054 refer to the rejection of the Union of Lyons by most monasteries on the Mount Athos. If we go through the history of the Orthodox polemics with the West after 1054 and before the 17th century regarding the Western deviations of the ancient faith we will see nowhere a rejection by the Orthodox theologians of the western legalistic understanding of the original sin and the legal aspect of the penal subsitutionary atonement as supposedly Western heresies. For example in the 1444 Encyclic of St.Mark Ephesus in a response the attempt for the Ferraro-Florentine union. There he expresses in detail the Roman heresies and mentions nothing about a legal understanding of the original sin and the penal subsotution. The 1583 Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem which condemned the Gregorian calendar and its new Paschalion, also reviewed and condemned all heresies of Rome but did not mention anything about a legal understanding of the original sin and the penal subsitutionary atonement.
Yes death is called a punishment and this is quoted by me. The issue is how it works. It is not arbitrarily imposed on man but as st Cyril states it is done for our good so sinfulness would not be eternal for Adam and those who repent. As for the infants they do not die for personal sins but they have concupiscence/passions, the existence of which divorce one from eternally abiding int he grace of God and bring about death. I suggest you come out with who you are and your "agenda" if you will because you appear pseudonymous and instead of making your point you are not being forthright it appears to me.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology You said:,,The devil deceived Eve and Adam, and induced them to transgress God's commandment.“ (Question 158 of the longer Catechism of St.Philaret of Moscow). So like I spoke about earlier, thy were deceived and that’s why they transgressed, right. They had the perfect knowledge since we right to see in Peter Mogila, they weren’t going to choose the wrong thing without deception. Question 160 says that eating from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil brought death to man. It says:,, Because it involved disobedience to God's will, and so separated man from God and his grace, and alienated him from the life of God.“ Now this is important. Remember when I was saying that death and the Orthodox doctrine of original sin is not punitive? It is the natural result from turning away from God, turning away from His divine energies. So we see that right here.“ Regarding the punitive language of St.Justin Martyr on death, you said:,,So is punishment figurative or is this literally kind of a punitive thing given to man which would contradict Wisdom 1:13 that says God is not the author of death and we read the Council - not the author of evil?’’ Yes, He is not the author of evil as the Decree 4 of the 1672 Confession of Dositheus which you quoted, says. Evil does not have an ontological existence and God has not created evil. I also have never said that God has created evil or that evil is created. In my second comment I quoted St.Basil who explains that evil does not have an ontological existence:,,If then evil is neither ucreate or created by God, whence comes its nature? Certainly that evil exists, noone living in the world will deny. What shall we say then? Evil is not a living animated essence; it is the condition of the soul opposed to virtue, developed in the careless on account on their falling away from good.“ (Homily 2,4, Fathers of the Church, Nine Homilies on the Hexaemron, Apostle Arne Horn, p.20). When he is saying that evil is not created or uncreated, he is specifically referring to our incilination to evil and says that evil is a condition of the soul opposed to virtue in the falling away from good, i.e. the condition of the soul after the fall. Of course, St.Basil does not mean that evil originates in the soul and not in the body in the sense that the soul is determined to evil, and he does not imply such a distinction. You also mentioned the falsehood of such a distinction. So I am not implying such a distinction when quoting St.Basil. Neither the soul, nor the body, are determined to evil. Wisdom 1:13 refers to the fact that God has not created death. Yes, I also have never stated that death is created when I referred to death as an arbitrarily imposed punishment. But as death is done for our good as you said above which is true and I don’t deny it, that contradicts your words that death is evil. The is one place where bodily death is referred to as evil but not in the sense that it is evil in essence, it is referred to being evil only to the evil people, i.e. the reference is to the perception of death as evil in the case:,,Of the first and bodily death, then, we may say that to the good it is good, and evil to the evil“. (St.Augustine, City of God, Book 13, Chapter 2 - Of that Death which can affect an immortal soul and of that to which the body is subject). But that death is not evil and is done for our good, and is for our benefit as St. John Damascene says, still does not mean that it is created. I also said a few times that it is not created. In my second comment I said that corruption and mortality are consequences of the loss of the garment of sanctity by first man as a result of his transgression as St.Symeon the New Theologian says which I quoted, i.e. consequences of the departure of the uncreated grace of God from the first man due to his sin. As far as I understand, you think that if it is said that death is a punishment that is arbitrarily imposed on man, that inevitably leads to the conclusion that death is created, i.e. that God has created it and given it to man. You said I had not made my point. My point was that even if death which is a result, a consequence of the transgression and the following departure of the uncreated energies of God from man, wherefore it is not created as I said many times, that does not mean that it is not a punishment that is arbitrarily imposed because God decided by His free divine will that His uncreated energies would depart from man due to his transgression. We distinct between Hypostases, essence and energy in God but they are inseparable. If death is natural in the sense that it is not arbitrarily imposed on Adam, that would mean that after Adam’s sin God’s uncreated energies departed from Adam by necessity, i.e. not by the sovereign decision of God according to His free divine will but by bypassing His will. It would turn out that God departed from Adam against His own will which would mean that after the first man sinned by his free will, God departed from him against His own will. In other words, in that case God’s free divine will was dependent on the fall of man, i.e. dependent on man’s free will. That is impossible because God is omnipotent and there is no change in Him. It is said:,,For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding, and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in.“ (Wisdom of Solomon 1:5, KJV). He flees according to His free will, not by necessity. If death is not an arbitrarily imposed punishment, it would not be said in Decree 6 (1672) that it the Divine Justice that imposed it on man. That death is a punishment that is arbitrarily imposed on man, does not mean that God is the cause of the inclination to sin. I am not saying that. The inclination to sin and mortality are due to the garment of the sanctity of the Holy Spirit, the uncreated energies of God departing from man as a result of the transgression. So the inclination to sin is not a created property of the nature that God creates, as I had written. Man’s free will, although depraved, is not lost. We still sin with the consent of our free will as you also said. So we are not determined to evil. There is not a contradiction between the definition of death as an arbitrarily imposed punishment as it is expressed in St. Justin Martyr that you quoted, and the other passages from the Holy Fathers referring to death as a consequence of the divorce of man with God’s uncreated energies because that divorce does not derogate the freedom of God’s divine will. Such a derogation is implied by the assumption that sinfulness and death are just natural consequences of the fall in the sense that His energies automatically departed from the first man as if God in Whom are distincted Hypostases, sense and energy, departed from man by necessity and not by His sovereign decision according to His free divine will.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Quote, 1:00:45-1:01:10:,,We Orthodox believe infants are sinless but they are still purified by baptism. Why? Because they get the grace of God and as long as they cooperate with that grace from that baptism, they don’t ever have to sin, right? They still have a fallen will, so they always have to turn from every passion and cooperate with the grace of God.“ If I understand correctly, you reject that regarding infants the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is true because you do not mention that they are purified of Adam’s sin in the sense that it is forgiven them as all humans are guilty of it as the answer to Question 24 of the Catechism of St. Peter Mogila affirmed by the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), explicitly says. That also is in contradiction with the Local Council of Carthage (419 CE), Canon 110. ,,Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned (Romans 5:12), than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.‘‘ The Catechism of Protopresbyter Dmitriy Vladikov (1863-1955) is published on the website of the missionary center dedicated to the New Martyr Daniel Sysoev - ,,Missionary center after the name of Hiereus Daniel Sysoyev“, A course of lectures. (,,Миссионерский центр имени иерея Даниила Сысоева, Курс лекции.). (mission-center.com/netraditsionnie/410-seventh-day-adventists/9506-netr-advent-krech-mladenchev). It says the following regarding the original sin: ,,According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, all men by descending according to the flesh from Adam who sinned and was condemned, are born not only with a sinful depravity of their spiritual-bodily nature but also guilty before God for their sinful state…“ (The Orthodox Church and sectarians. Part 8. The baptism of infants and the universality of the original sin. Protopresbyter Dmitriy Vladikov (1863-1955)). (,,Православная Церковь и сектанты“, Часть 8. Крещение младенцев. Всеобщност первородного греха. По учению православной Церкви все люди как происходящие по плоти от Адама, согрешившего и осужденного, рождаются не только с греховною поврежденностью своей духовно-телесной природы, но и виновными пред Богом за свое греховное состояние…“).
Has this show blessed you? Become a patron and support the Orthodox Mission in Cambodia with a monthly commitment at: ko-fi.com/orthodoxmissionincambodia/
You can also make a one-time donation at: www.paypal.com/paypalme/KhmerOrthodoxChurch
For more information, check out www.OrthodoxChristianTheology.com/donate
hey Craig, I tried to check booth of the reference you gave around 1:03:40 and they both don't say the annunciation serves as a baptism for Her.. so is there any other source for perhaps to check on this..?
love you too much bro.......may God give you a long time to preach his message.
please pray for me
Craig, keep up the great work!
Thanks for this video! This was really informative!
Good Job Craig
concupiscence is the same as cupidity - a disorderly mode of desire
it's amazing that decree 6 says that death is a punishment of Adam's sin, a statement formerly contradicting Craig's main insistence throughout, but he has nothing to say about it
Haven't watched the video yet, but I'm wondering how you mean Father Michael Pomazansky was shielded from western influence by being in Tsarist Russia and later Poland. Peter the Great of Russia was known to have brought in jesuit priests and caused the latinization of seminaries in Russia that caused many ideas to be transferred over into russian orthodoxy. In the process, the church also began to "Ukrainize" as most of the hierarchs after this point came from borderlands that had been influenced by the polish Lithuanian commonwealths repression of orthodoxy while they ruled those territories. You may be able to make the argument that at is particular time those regions weren't directly in contact with the west, but the transfer of ideas had occurred at an earlier date so the "infection" had already been "incubated".
Good videos !!!Make pls some video to get in contact with people from ortodox Serbia..Also you can maybu get in contact with Father Predrag Popovic.He is from serbia and he has a big ortodox channel with 270 k + followers
Any relation to St Justin?
Hello. You said:,,…He (St.Maximus) says all mankind dies because it manifests the sinfulness of Adam. So it’s not like we die because we inherited a punishment, right. It’s not punitive. God did not create death like it says in Wisdom 1:13. Rather we die because we inherit the sinfulness of Adam, the waywardness of Adam.“
Yes, we manifest the sinfulness of Adam and that is why we die. St.Cyril of Alexandria also says that by copying Adam’s transgression all have sinned and have incurred a penalty equal to his, i.e. death:,,For since we have all copied Adam’s transgression and thus have all sinned, we have incurred a penalty equal to his. Yet the world was not without hope, for in the end sin was destroyed, Satan was defeated and death itself was abolished.“ (Explanation of the Letter to the Romans, Migne PF, 74,col.784). But our manifestation of Adam’s sinfulness due to our inherited depravity of nature from him, does not mean that we have not inherited also mortality from him. But St.Genadius of (-471), Patriarch of Constantinople says:,,Everyone in the following of Adam has died, because they have all inherited their nature from him. But some have died because they themselves have sinned, while others have died only because of Adam’s condemnation-for example, children.“ (Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, New Testament Abstracts 15:362). If we do not inherit also mortality from Adam, it would not be possible for infants who have not done any personal sins and so have not yet manifested the inherited sinfulness of Adam, to die. An infant would become mortal after manifesting the sinfulness of Adam by committing a personal sin. But some infants die. So when St.Maximus says that mankind dies because it manifests the inherited sinfulness of Adam, he refers only to those who have committed personal sins. Therefore we all inherit not only the sinfulness of Adam, the inclination to sin, the waywardness but also death.
In the last part of the verse of Romans 5;12, the conjuction which εφ’ ω in the Greek original, translates literally as ''for'', ''for that'', ''in that'', ''because''. In most English translations it is translated as ''because''. In the King James Version it is translated as ,,for that“:,,Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:“ (Romans 5:12, KJV). As some copy the sin of Adam as St.Cyril says and die, the literal translations - ''for'', ''for that'', ''in that'', ''because'' could be understood to refer only to the manifestation by some of the sinfulness of Adam. The non-literal translation of εφ’ ω that is not only in the Latin translation but also in the Slavic translation of Ss Cyril and Methodius is ''in whom'' which is επι in Greek. The non-literal translation ,,in whom“ clearly shows that sinning of all that is the reason for their mortality, is their sinning in Adam when he sinned, i.e. when he sinned and became mortal, all sinned in him and became mortal. This is affirmed by 1 Corinthians 15:21-22:,,For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.“ (KJV).
Although death is a consequence of man turning away from God’s energy which sustains man’s life, and God Who has not created death because He has not created evil, allows it, death is still a punishment. The Orthodox confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern-Church written by St.Peter Moguila in 1645 and approved by the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch; affirmed at the Council of Jerusalem (1672) as the standard cathehism of the Orthodox Church which your referred to, clearly says that death is a punishment for mankind for Adam’s sin by the sentence of God, that Adam became guilty for his sin, that mankind became not only subject unto sin but also on account of Adam’s sin. P .30-37:
Question XXIV.
Whether all man are liable for the sin of Adam?
Answer.
As all mankind, during the state of innocence, was in Adam; so in him all men, falling from what he fell, remained in a state of sin.
Wherefore mankind is become, not only subject unto sin, but also on account of sin, unto punishment; which, according to the sentence pronounced by God, was (Gen. ii. 17.) ,,In the day that thou eatest of the tree, thou shalt surely die.‘‘ And to this the Apostle alludes (Rom. v. 12.) ,,Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all men sinned.‘‘ So that we are conceived into our mother’s womb, and born in this sin, according to the holy Psalmist [Psal. li. 7.] ,,Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin hath my mother conceived me.‘‘ This is called parental or original sin; first, because that, before this, man was free from all sin; although the devil was then corrupt, and fallen, by whole temptation this parental sin sprung up in man; and Adam becoming guilty. we all likewise, who descend from him, become also guilty. Secondly, this is called original sin, because no mortal is conceived without this depravity of nature.‘‘
In the quote of Decree 6 of the 1672 Council that you even read , death is referred to as a punishment inflicted upon the man by the Divine Justice:,,…For many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as well as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, did not experience these [sins], or such like faults. But only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labor, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, finally, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death. (Bratcher 2018)“.
St.John refers to death as punishment in his Homily 10 on the Epistle to the Romans:
,,…What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offence of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word "sinners" mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam's death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large. But the question now is, for what purpose was this done? …‘‘
Blessed Theodoret (393-457) says in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Part 1, Chapter 5, that when one sinned, i.e. Adam, the whole race received punishment and that when he sinned the whole race received the sentence of death:
,,…The munificence of grace, says he, goes beyond the limits of justice, for then, one having sinned, the whole race received punishment, but now, all mankind having been unholy, and transgressors, it has brought, not punishment but, the free gift of life.
…18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. Doubt not, says he, concerning what I have said, while looking to Adam; for if those things be true, as indeed they are true, and when he sinned the whole race received the sentence of death; it is plain, that the righteousness of the Saviour gains life to all men…
St.John Damascene also refers to death and the other blames passions that are consequences of the fall, as punishments in the Right Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 2, Chapter 28 - Concerning what is not in our hands:
,,…For the origin of all things is from God, but their destruction has been introduced by our wickedness for our punishment or benefit. For God did not create death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things. But death is the work of man, that is in Adam’s transgression, in like manner as all other punishments. …“
St.Leontius of Byzantium refers to the guilt of Adam for his sin in the ,,Dialogue against the Aphthartodocetists“:,,…The Lord came not to make the innocent Adam healthy but rather to heal the guilty for sin and already fallen, so that by suffering together with him He could lift him up together with Himself.“
That although God has not created evil and evil does not have its own existence, death is still punishment, is evident by another fact.
St.Irenaeus of Lyon says in Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 23)
,,…Inasmuch as, he says, I have by disobedience lost that robe of sanctity which I had from the Spirit, I do now also acknowledge that I am deserving of a covering of this nature, which affords no gratification, but which gnaws and frets the body.“
Also St. Symeon the New Theologian (949 - 1022), says in his Homily 37, 3 that the first man lost the garment of sanctity when he fell:,,…God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin than pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who came from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin.“
Of course, evil is not created as St.Basil the Great explains:,,If then evil is neither ucreate or created by God, whence comes its nature? Certainly that evil exists, noone living in the world will deny. What shall we say then? Evil is not a living animated essence; it is the condition of the soul opposed to virtue, developed in the careless on account on their falling away from good.“ (Homily 2,4, Fathers of the Church, Nine Homilies on the Hexaemron, Apostle Arne Horn, p.20). Here he is referring to the inclination of the soul to evil - an inclination that is a condition of the soul. As evil is not created, the inclination of the postlapsarian human nature to evil, rather than good, is not a created property of our created nature because if it was, that would mean that the propensity to evil is created by God together with our whole created nature which would mean that we are determined to evil as God would be the cause of our determination to evil which of course, is blasphemous and untrue. So our inclination to evil is not a created property but is due to the loss of the robe, garment of the first sanctity from the Spirit that the first man had before the fall and whose loss and absence we have inherited from him.
But St. Symeon says that man became corruptible and mortal as a result of the loss of the garment of sanctity from the Holy Spirit. Since the vivifying energies that departed from Adam are uncreated and not energies of the created world, then if death was a natural result of Adam’s sin, a natural result that He only permitted by His permissive will, an inevitable and unescapable result of the transgression and not a punishment by God as a response to the transgression, that God’s curse was not a punishment but only an acknowledgment by God of what occurred through the transgression, that would mean that the departure of the vivifying uncreated energies of the Holy Spirit from Adam due to his sin occurred not because the Spirit decided to depart by a decision of His free will but because He permitted death by necessity which implies that His will (i.e. against the common divine will of the Three Persons of the most Holy Trinity) was not free for a moment but was dependent on man’s fall. and what the first man did, and that He only acknowledged what happened, i.e. had no choice but to only agree with something against His will.
That would imply a change in God’s will, i.e. a change in God which is impossible, and also undermines God’s omnipotence. God cannot be forced to do something against His will. So the Holy Spirit departed from Adam by His own will, by His decision, wherefore since he became corruptible and mortal (because before the fall he was neither mortal, nor immortal) as a result of the loss of the sanctity of the Holy Spirit as St. Symeon the Theologian says, the corruptibility and mortality are a result of God’s decision. So death is a punishment as the Orthodox confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern-Church clearly says.
You said:,,Pomazansky is a time capsule before the Orthodox thought was overtly corrupted by interaction of the West.“
The idea of the Western captivity is first expressed by Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky in his book ,,Ways of Russian theology“, Part I, 1937, p.85:
,,X.
The Pseudomorphosis of Orthodox thought
From the cultural and historical points of view, Kievan learning was not a mere passing episode but an event of unquestionable significance. This was the first outright encounter with the West. One might even have called it a free encounter had it not ended in captivity or more precisely, surrender. But for this reason, there could be no creative use made of the encounter. A scholastic tradition was developed and a school began, yet no spiritually creative movement resulted. Instead, there emerged an imitative and provincial scholasticism, in its literal sense a theologica scholastica or ,,school theology“. This signified a new stage in religious consciousness. But in the process theology was torn from its living roots. A malignant schism set in between life and thought. Certainly the horizon of the Kievan erudites was wide enough. Contact with Europe was lively, with word of current searchings and trends in the West easily teaching Kiev. Still, the aura of doom hovered over the entire movement, for it comprised a ,,pseudomorphism“ of Russia’s religious consciousness, a ,,pseudomorphosis“ of Orthodox thought.“
Father Georges ascribes the supposed scholastic Western captivity, the pseudomorphosis as he calls it, that Orthodox thought supposedly ended in, to Peter Mogila. p.64:,,…Educated in the West, or, more exactly, in Poland and in a Polish fashion, Peter Mogila became in taste and habit a sophisticated and lifelong westerner. P.66:,,…He was quite ready to accept what he found in Roman books as traditional and ,,Orthodox“. That is why in theology and worship Mogila could freely adopt Latin material…“ P. 69:,,…New bishops were now hastily and uncanonically chosen by Orthodox delegates to the Diet rather than by local diocesan conventions and immediately confirmed by the King. It was in this way that Peter Mogila, aristocrate and Polonophile, was elected metropolitan of Kiev.“
The theory of the Western scholastic captivity of Russian Orthodox thought is a myth because protopesbyter Georges Florovsky considers the legal understanding of the penal subsitutionary atonement to be a supposedly product of the scholastics in whose captivity the Orthodox thought had ended according to him:
,,…Finally, there could hardly be any retributive justice in the Passion and death of the Lord, which might possibly have been in the death of even a righteous man. ….Nor is this to be explained by the idea of a substitutional satisfaction, the satisfactio vicaria of the scholastics. Not because substitution is not possible. Christ did indeed take upon Himself the sin of the world. But because God does not seek the sufferings of anyone, He grieves over them. How could the penal death of the Incarnate, most pure and undefiled, be the abolition of sin, if death itself is the wages of sin, and if death exists only in the sinful world? …The Cross is not a symbol of Justice, but the symbol of Love Divine.“ (Creation and Redemption, p.101-103). It must be added that Protopresbyter Georges is an ecumenist.
If St.Peter Mogila was the reason for the supposed scholastic captivity of Orthodox thought regarding the supposedly scholastic legalistic understanding of the original sin and the penal substitutionary atonement of the personal sins, then that legalistic approach regarding the original sin and the penal substitution would have been condemned by the Orthodox in the cases with their polemics with the West in the centuries before 17th century because during those attempts there clearly arose the dogmatic differences between the East and the West .
The 17th century is not the first century of the first outright encounter with the West. The first encounters after 1054 refer to the rejection of the Union of Lyons by most monasteries on the Mount Athos. If we go through the history of the Orthodox polemics with the West after 1054 and before the 17th century regarding the Western deviations of the ancient faith we will see nowhere a rejection by the Orthodox theologians of the western legalistic understanding of the original sin and the legal aspect of the penal subsitutionary atonement as supposedly Western heresies. For example in the 1444 Encyclic of St.Mark Ephesus in a response the attempt for the Ferraro-Florentine union. There he expresses in detail the Roman heresies and mentions nothing about a legal understanding of the original sin and the penal subsotution. The 1583 Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem which condemned the Gregorian calendar and its new Paschalion, also reviewed and condemned all heresies of Rome but did not mention anything about a legal understanding of the original sin and the penal subsitutionary atonement.
Yes death is called a punishment and this is quoted by me. The issue is how it works. It is not arbitrarily imposed on man but as st Cyril states it is done for our good so sinfulness would not be eternal for Adam and those who repent. As for the infants they do not die for personal sins but they have concupiscence/passions, the existence of which divorce one from eternally abiding int he grace of God and bring about death.
I suggest you come out with who you are and your "agenda" if you will because you appear pseudonymous and instead of making your point you are not being forthright it appears to me.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology You said:,,The devil deceived Eve and Adam, and induced them to transgress God's commandment.“ (Question 158 of the longer Catechism of St.Philaret of Moscow). So like I spoke about earlier, thy were deceived and that’s why they transgressed, right. They had the perfect knowledge since we right to see in Peter Mogila, they weren’t going to choose the wrong thing without deception. Question 160 says that eating from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil brought death to man. It says:,, Because it involved disobedience to God's will, and so separated man from God and his grace, and alienated him from the life of God.“ Now this is important. Remember when I was saying that death and the Orthodox doctrine of original sin is not punitive? It is the natural result from turning away from God, turning away from His divine energies. So we see that right here.“ Regarding the punitive language of St.Justin Martyr on death, you said:,,So is punishment figurative or is this literally kind of a punitive thing given to man which would contradict Wisdom 1:13 that says God is not the author of death and we read the Council - not the author of evil?’’
Yes, He is not the author of evil as the Decree 4 of the 1672 Confession of Dositheus which you quoted, says. Evil does not have an ontological existence and God has not created evil. I also have never said that God has created evil or that evil is created. In my second comment I quoted St.Basil who explains that evil does not have an ontological existence:,,If then evil is neither ucreate or created by God, whence comes its nature? Certainly that evil exists, noone living in the world will deny. What shall we say then? Evil is not a living animated essence; it is the condition of the soul opposed to virtue, developed in the careless on account on their falling away from good.“ (Homily 2,4, Fathers of the Church, Nine Homilies on the Hexaemron, Apostle Arne Horn, p.20). When he is saying that evil is not created or uncreated, he is specifically referring to our incilination to evil and says that evil is a condition of the soul opposed to virtue in the falling away from good, i.e. the condition of the soul after the fall. Of course, St.Basil does not mean that evil originates in the soul and not in the body in the sense that the soul is determined to evil, and he does not imply such a distinction. You also mentioned the falsehood of such a distinction. So I am not implying such a distinction when quoting St.Basil. Neither the soul, nor the body, are determined to evil.
Wisdom 1:13 refers to the fact that God has not created death. Yes, I also have never stated that death is created when I referred to death as an arbitrarily imposed punishment. But as death is done for our good as you said above which is true and I don’t deny it, that contradicts your words that death is evil. The is one place where bodily death is referred to as evil but not in the sense that it is evil in essence, it is referred to being evil only to the evil people, i.e. the reference is to the perception of death as evil in the case:,,Of the first and bodily death, then, we may say that to the good it is good, and evil to the evil“. (St.Augustine, City of God, Book 13, Chapter 2 - Of that Death which can affect an immortal soul and of that to which the body is subject). But that death is not evil and is done for our good, and is for our benefit as St. John Damascene says, still does not mean that it is created. I also said a few times that it is not created. In my second comment I said that corruption and mortality are consequences of the loss of the garment of sanctity by first man as a result of his transgression as St.Symeon the New Theologian says which I quoted, i.e. consequences of the departure of the uncreated grace of God from the first man due to his sin.
As far as I understand, you think that if it is said that death is a punishment that is arbitrarily imposed on man, that inevitably leads to the conclusion that death is created, i.e. that God has created it and given it to man. You said I had not made my point. My point was that even if death which is a result, a consequence of the transgression and the following departure of the uncreated energies of God from man, wherefore it is not created as I said many times, that does not mean that it is not a punishment that is arbitrarily imposed because God decided by His free divine will that His uncreated energies would depart from man due to his transgression. We distinct between Hypostases, essence and energy in God but they are inseparable. If death is natural in the sense that it is not arbitrarily imposed on Adam, that would mean that after Adam’s sin God’s uncreated energies departed from Adam by necessity, i.e. not by the sovereign decision of God according to His free divine will but by bypassing His will. It would turn out that God departed from Adam against His own will which would mean that after the first man sinned by his free will, God departed from him against His own will. In other words, in that case God’s free divine will was dependent on the fall of man, i.e. dependent on man’s free will. That is impossible because God is omnipotent and there is no change in Him. It is said:,,For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding, and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in.“ (Wisdom of Solomon 1:5, KJV). He flees according to His free will, not by necessity.
If death is not an arbitrarily imposed punishment, it would not be said in Decree 6 (1672) that it the Divine Justice that imposed it on man. That death is a punishment that is arbitrarily imposed on man, does not mean that God is the cause of the inclination to sin. I am not saying that. The inclination to sin and mortality are due to the garment of the sanctity of the Holy Spirit, the uncreated energies of God departing from man as a result of the transgression. So the inclination to sin is not a created property of the nature that God creates, as I had written. Man’s free will, although depraved, is not lost. We still sin with the consent of our free will as you also said. So we are not determined to evil.
There is not a contradiction between the definition of death as an arbitrarily imposed punishment as it is expressed in St. Justin Martyr that you quoted, and the other passages from the Holy Fathers referring to death as a consequence of the divorce of man with God’s uncreated energies because that divorce does not derogate the freedom of God’s divine will. Such a derogation is implied by the assumption that sinfulness and death are just natural consequences of the fall in the sense that His energies automatically departed from the first man as if God in Whom are distincted Hypostases, sense and energy, departed from man by necessity and not by His sovereign decision according to His free divine will.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Quote, 1:00:45-1:01:10:,,We Orthodox believe infants are sinless but they are still purified by baptism. Why? Because they get the grace of God and as long as they cooperate with that grace from that baptism, they don’t ever have to sin, right? They still have a fallen will, so they always have to turn from every passion and cooperate with the grace of God.“
If I understand correctly, you reject that regarding infants the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is true because you do not mention that they are purified of Adam’s sin in the sense that it is forgiven them as all humans are guilty of it as the answer to Question 24 of the Catechism of St. Peter Mogila affirmed by the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), explicitly says. That also is in contradiction with the Local Council of Carthage (419 CE), Canon 110.
,,Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.
For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned (Romans 5:12), than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.‘‘
The Catechism of Protopresbyter Dmitriy Vladikov (1863-1955) is published on the website of the missionary center dedicated to the New Martyr Daniel Sysoev - ,,Missionary center after the name of Hiereus Daniel Sysoyev“, A course of lectures. (,,Миссионерский центр имени иерея Даниила Сысоева, Курс лекции.). (mission-center.com/netraditsionnie/410-seventh-day-adventists/9506-netr-advent-krech-mladenchev). It says the following regarding the original sin:
,,According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, all men by descending according to the flesh from Adam who sinned and was condemned, are born not only with a sinful depravity of their spiritual-bodily nature but also guilty before God for their sinful state…“ (The Orthodox Church and sectarians. Part 8. The baptism of infants and the universality of the original sin. Protopresbyter Dmitriy Vladikov (1863-1955)).
(,,Православная Церковь и сектанты“, Часть 8. Крещение младенцев. Всеобщност первородного греха.
По учению православной Церкви все люди как происходящие по плоти от Адама, согрешившего и осужденного, рождаются не только с греховною поврежденностью своей духовно-телесной природы, но и виновными пред Богом за свое греховное состояние…“).