A perspective on Baptism and the plan of salvation that I have not heard before

boughtwithaprice · Oct 12, 2025

prodromos said:
If Mary was "kept" from sinning, then there is nothing praiseworthy of her sinlessness.

Mary was conceived with the same nature as every other human since the fall of Adam.

I see your point of view. By saying Mary was kept from sinning, I did not mean to imply that she lacked free will. It is precisely by her consent that she became the mother of Our Lord. God does not force His will upon us.
Mary was kept from sinning by the grace of God in that the Father did not allow her to be deceived. For us the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We would always choose the good if we were able, but we don’t and we fall. Mary is virtuous in that she always chooses the good, without counting the cost.

Your second statement is where we differ. It is a theological debate that we need not have unless you are willing.

My post was not meant to mischaracterize your position, but simply a statement that despite our disagreement on Immaculate conception and original sin, we both agree that the Theotokos is sinless. Is that not true?

The Liturgist · Oct 12, 2025

boughtwithaprice said:
Your second statement is where we differ. It is a theological debate that we need not have unless you are willing.

Forgive me, but according to my understanding of Roman Catholic Christology and the EO-RC Joint Theological Declarations, I believe it would be an error to assert your church believes that the Blessed Virgin Mary is of a different nature, substance or essence from other humans, since Ephesus and Chalcedon declare our Lord is in a hypostatic union of two natures, His uncreated divine nature and the human nature He assumed in the incarnation, which are united hypostatically without change, confusion, separation or division. If the Theotokos actually has a different nature, which every Roman Catholic theologian I’ve met denies was the intention of the Immaculate Conception, then our Lord would not share our human nature.

Indeed a primary reason why the Orthodox object to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is because of concerns it would lead people to deny the full humanity of Christ our True God and His consubstantiality with us, that is to say that God became one of us, a man, in order to redeem our fallen nature, restoring and glorifying it through His Passion and Resurrection.

Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man without change, confusion, separation or division. Indeed St. Athanasius, who your church very strongly venerates, said God became man so that man could become god, becoming by grace what Christ is by nature.

I can indeed quote numerous Catholic liturgical texts that prove Christ is of the same essence as the rest of humanity.

Rather, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, if understood correctly, means that Theotokos was conceived without original sin, but with our human nature, but in objecting to the saying that she had the same nature as the rest of us, and by implication objecting, by accident, to the full humanity of her son, you illustrated the main concern the Orthodox have about the idea of the Immaculate Conception.

+

I would also note that most concerns you might have about the Orthodox rejection of the doctrine are likely predicated on the basis of St. Augustine’s model of original sin, but we use the model of St. John Cassian’s Ancestral Sin, in which original sin is less about inherited forensic guilt and more of a hereditary disease that predisposes us to the sinful passions and causes us to be mortal. This model does an equally good job at precluding Pelagianism since no one afflicted with this disease could save themselves. However one can, through faith in Christ, who defeated death on on the Cross and remade humanity in his image, becoming the firstfruits of the resurrection, we can be saved, as the Blessed Virgin Mary was, and so close to God was she, closer physically than any other human by virtue of carrying Him in her immaculate and voluntarily sinless womb, that in response to her faith, which she affirmed in agreeing to carry Christ our God at the Annunciation, that when she reposed, she was taken up into Heaven bodily, which the Orthodox church has always celebrated, since the first century, on the Feast of the Dormition, celebrated by the Armenians at the end of July and by everyone else on August 15th, called the Assumption by the Oriental Orthodox, but which your church apparently did not formally dogmatize until Pope Pius XII declared it ex cathedra in the 1950s, which has the unfortunate effect of causing some anti-Orthodox polemicists to falsely accuse us of having followed the Roman church in adopting a recent doctrinal innovation (ignoring the fact that the Eastern Catholic churches had celebrated the feast since antiquity, and the Roman church historically was liturgically minimalist, particularly in August, probably due to the notorious heat in Rome in that month, and thus the Transfiguration was also never a prominent part of the Roman calendar).

At any rate the assumption of the Theotokos at the time of he repose is one of many indicators of her obedience, this being an honor previously granted only to a few, notably St. Moses and St. Elias, who as prophesied were present at the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. Orthodox hymns describe her as Immaculate. But we do not say, nor do we need to say, that there was anything supernatural about her conception, because our hamartiology, while perfectly refuting Pelagius, does not require this. It should also be noted that historically the hamartiology of St. John Cassian was preferred in the West as well, until St. Augustine overtook him and all other Church Fathers during the early Scholastic period.

boughtwithaprice · Oct 13, 2025

The Liturgist said:
Forgive me, but according to my understanding of Roman Catholic Christology and the EO-RC Joint Theological Declarations, I believe it would be an error to assert your church believes that the Blessed Virgin Mary is of a different nature, substance or essence from other humans, since Ephesus and Chalcedon declare our Lord is in a hypostatic union of two natures, His uncreated divine nature and the human nature He assumed in the incarnation, which are united hypostatically without change, confusion, separation or division. If the Theotokos actually has a different nature, which every Roman Catholic theologian I’ve met denies was the intention of the Immaculate Conception, then our Lord would not share our human nature.

Indeed a primary reason why the Orthodox object to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is because of concerns it would lead people to deny the full humanity of Christ our True God and His consubstantiality with us, that is to say that God became one of us, a man, in order to redeem our fallen nature, restoring and glorifying it through His Passion and Resurrection.

Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man without change, confusion, separation or division. Indeed St. Athanasius, who your church very strongly venerates, said God became man so that man could become god, becoming by grace what Christ is by nature.

I can indeed quote numerous Catholic liturgical texts that prove Christ is of the same essence as the rest of humanity.

Rather, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, if understood correctly, means that Theotokos was conceived without original sin, but with our human nature, but in objecting to the saying that she had the same nature as the rest of us, and by implication objecting, by accident, to the full humanity of her son, you illustrated the main concern the Orthodox have about the idea of the Immaculate Conception.

+

I would also note that most concerns you might have about the Orthodox rejection of the doctrine are likely predicated on the basis of St. Augustine’s model of original sin, but we use the model of St. John Cassian’s Ancestral Sin, in which original sin is less about inherited forensic guilt and more of a hereditary disease that predisposes us to the sinful passions and causes us to be mortal. This model does an equally good job at precluding Pelagianism since no one afflicted with this disease could save themselves. However one can, through faith in Christ, who defeated death on on the Cross and remade humanity in his image, becoming the firstfruits of the resurrection, we can be saved, as the Blessed Virgin Mary was, and so close to God was she, closer physically than any other human by virtue of carrying Him in her immaculate and voluntarily sinless womb, that in response to her faith, which she affirmed in agreeing to carry Christ our God at the Annunciation, that when she reposed, she was taken up into Heaven bodily, which the Orthodox church has always celebrated, since the first century, on the Feast of the Dormition, celebrated by the Armenians at the end of July and by everyone else on August 15th, called the Assumption by the Oriental Orthodox, but which your church apparently did not formally dogmatize until Pope Pius XII declared it ex cathedra in the 1950s, which has the unfortunate effect of causing some anti-Orthodox polemicists to falsely accuse us of having followed the Roman church in adopting a recent doctrinal innovation (ignoring the fact that the Eastern Catholic churches had celebrated the feast since antiquity, and the Roman church historically was liturgically minimalist, particularly in August, probably due to the notorious heat in Rome in that month, and thus the Transfiguration was also never a prominent part of the Roman calendar).

At any rate the assumption of the Theotokos at the time of he repose is one of many indicators of her obedience, this being an honor previously granted only to a few, notably St. Moses and St. Elias, who as prophesied were present at the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. Orthodox hymns describe her as Immaculate. But we do not say, nor do we need to say, that there was anything supernatural about her conception, because our hamartiology, while perfectly refuting Pelagius, does not require this. It should also be noted that historically the hamartiology of St. John Cassian was preferred in the West as well, until St. Augustine overtook him and all other Church Fathers during the early Scholastic period.

Yes I said this is a theological debate. Mary is human, not something different. We say she is immaculately conceived, you do not, although you still agree she is sinless, correct?

We take the scripture which says in Adam, all died, to mean original sin, as it is sin that brings forth death. Mary was spared this condition, and she always chose the good.
We can think of Moses and Elijah as great men of God, but their condition was different. They came from the stain of original sin and chose God when they were called.
Mary was called to God’s purpose at conception, and John the Baptist was called while he was still in the womb. We believe his condition was being born without original sin because he was cleansed in the womb by Our Lord at the sound of Mary’s voice. Our Lord said among those born of women, there is none greater then John the Baptist. We say it is because he was cleansed from original sin.
We also recognize that we are called to humility. There are those that deserve greater honor. Heaven is a kingdom and there is no demand for egalitarianism. We voluntarily submit to serve according to God’s purpose. We have no problem admitting that Mary and John are creatures, yet are deserving of greater honor than ourselves

boughtwithaprice · 2025-11-09T14:26:55-0600

I have prayed and thought of this thread and the reasons I wanted to discuss it here. We all want to worship our Lord Jesus Christ. He states, I am the Alpha AND the Omega, the first and the last.

Revelation 1:8

8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty

Baptism is a sign for His believers.
Matthew 28:19-20

Baptism is described as the circumcision of Christ.
Colossians 2:11-12

Water was present on the first day. Genesis1:2
Circumcision was to occur on the eighth day.
Leviticus 12:3

Water is important to God as He says it is life giving. See scriptures

Psalm 1
Isaiah 35
Isaiah 43
Isaiah 55
Isaiah 58
Jeremiah 17
Ezekiel 47

John 4
John 7
Apocolypse (Revelation) 22:1-2

John 7 describes the Holy Spirit as the river of living water, while revelation says the river flows from the throne of God AND the Lamb
Filioque?

Scripture tells us that there will be theological disagreements and variances of understanding, yet it says whatever we do, we do from the heart as for God and not men (paraphrase) Col 3:23

We are not here to lord ourselves over one another. The Sabbath came after creation, not at the beginning. Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, not the end only. The Sabbath was a sign of the Old Covenant. Jesus chose water to represent the New Covenant and told us we must be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of Heaven. John 3

Water represents the first day of creation and baptism the circumcision if heart on the eighth day. The Sabbath is not to be profaned, but it has been fulfilled. We are no longer limited to worshipping God in the temple on the Sabbath, but can now worship Him in spirit and in truth any time and anywhere. Matthew 18:20

Life comes from Christ, not obeying the Old Covenant. Galatians 3:11

People may disagree with the Catholic Church due to their personal opinion, but the teaching of the Catholic Church is thoroughly based in Scripture.
Calling her the harlot of Babylon or Sunday worship the mark of the beast is presumptuous and misleading. The sacraments all point to Christ whom we worship. Our honor of Mary amplifies the Word of God as described in Gen 3:15. Mary says that her soul amplifies the Lord. She does not detract from Him

There is no scriptural cause to oppose the Catholic Church. Personal opinion may give one cause, but personal opinion does not a scriptural reason make. 2Peter 1:20

Pray for the salvation of all men for the greater glory of God the Father and Our Lord Jesus Christ in the unity of the Holy Spirit

The Liturgist · 2025-11-09T14:57:54-0600

boughtwithaprice said:
Yes I said this is a theological debate. Mary is human, not something different. We say she is immaculately conceived, you do not, although you still agree she is sinless, correct?

Yes, our hymns even declare her to be immaculate.

We take the scripture which says in Adam, all died, to mean original sin, as it is sin that brings forth death.
Mary was spared this condition, and she always chose the good.

We reject Pelagianism and follow the doctrine of original sin of St. John Cassian, which your church also used to follow, rather than the Augustinian model, although we do absolutely venerate St. Augustine as a saint (by the way, the feast day for St. John Cassian is February 29th interestingly enough, which shows how highly we regard him - in those years that are not a leap year, and leap years are every fourth year on the Julian Calendar, the typikon makes the unique provision to celebrate the service for St. John Cassian that would be celebrated at Matins at Compline, the only saint so honored; thus St. John Cassian is one of only a few saints to receive special treatment in our liturgy, the others being the Theotokos, the Holy St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, St. Joachim and Anna, the holy angels and archangels, and St. Nicholas of Myra, with the the Angels, St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, St. Nicholas and the Theotokos being subjects of weekly veneration in the hymns of the Octoechos, part of the theme of Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday respectively, with Wednesday and Friday focused on the Cross and Sunday on the Resurrection).

Sin is a disease that afflicts humanity, that the Theotokos through the aid of the Holy Spirit was able to resist, although she still required salvation as she was still mortal. Our view is that the immaculate conception creates a problem, because if the Theotokos were conceived under unusual circumstances, Christ our God would not inherit our mortal human condition and thus not be able to die and rise again on the third day.

Likewise, if the Theotokos were immaculately conceived, she would not have been mortal and thus her bodily assumption into heaven on the occasion of her repose, which according to the ancient sources did follow her death, that her body was miraculously taken up, thus she along with St. Elias and St. Moses is one of only a few people to be physically taken up into heaven), would not have happened.

Thus in rejecting the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception we are disagreeing neither with the idea that the Blessed Virgin Mary is sinless, nor with the concept of original sin having infected all humanity and causing mortality - indeed we are affirming both concepts, and protecting them, by adhering to the more carefully developed theology of original sin of St. John Cassian, which was the consensus of both the Eastern and Western churches for centuries.[/quote][/QUOTE]

The Liturgist · 2025-11-09T15:07:19-0600

boughtwithaprice said:
I have prayed and thought of this thread and the reasons I wanted to discuss it here. We all want to worship our Lord Jesus Christ. He states, I am the Alpha AND the Omega, the first and the last.

Revelation 1:8

8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty

Baptism is a sign for His believers.
Matthew 28:19-20

Baptism is described as the circumcision of Christ.
Colossians 2:11-12

Water was present on the first day. Genesis1:2
Circumcision was to occur on the eighth day.
Leviticus 12:3

Water is important to God as He says it is life giving. See scriptures

Psalm 1
Isaiah 35
Isaiah 43
Isaiah 55
Isaiah 58
Jeremiah 17
Ezekiel 47

John 4
John 7
Apocolypse (Revelation) 22:1-2

John 7 describes the Holy Spirit as the river of living water, while revelation says the river flows from the throne of God AND the Lamb
Filioque?

Scripture tells us that there will be theological disagreements and variances of understanding, yet it says whatever we do, we do from the heart as for God and not men (paraphrase) Col 3:23

We are not here to lord ourselves over one another. The Sabbath came after creation, not at the beginning. Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, not the end only. The Sabbath was a sign of the Old Covenant. Jesus chose water to represent the New Covenant and told us we must be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of Heaven. John 3

Water represents the first day of creation and baptism the circumcision if heart on the eighth day. The Sabbath is not to be profaned, but it has been fulfilled. We are no longer limited to worshipping God in the temple on the Sabbath, but can now worship Him in spirit and in truth any time and anywhere. Matthew 18:20

Life comes from Christ, not obeying the Old Covenant. Galatians 3:11

People may disagree with the Catholic Church due to their personal opinion, but the teaching of the Catholic Church is thoroughly based in Scripture.
Calling her the harlot of Babylon or Sunday worship the mark of the beast is presumptuous and misleading. The sacraments all point to Christ whom we worship. Our honor of Mary amplifies the Word of God as described in Gen 3:15. Mary says that her soul amplifies the Lord. She does not detract from Him

There is no scriptural cause to oppose the Catholic Church. Personal opinion may give one cause, but personal opinion does not a scriptural reason make. 2Peter 1:20

Pray for the salvation of all men for the greater glory of God the Father and Our Lord Jesus Christ in the unity of the Holy Spirit

This is absolutely correct, there is no basis for calling the Roman Catholic Church the harlot of Babylon or any of the other obscene things that people have said about it, such as accusing it of having killed 120 million people as one member claimed, or accusing it of being responsible for censorship on the Internet (yes, someone actually said that).

This is not to say the Roman Catholic Churches has not committed grievous actions, for example, the martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut*, a 15 year old Aleutian boy who was on a fishing expedition to California who was arrested along with his fellow Aleutians because the Franciscans felt threatened by his Russian Orthodoxy, and he received the crown of martyrdom for refusing to renounce it. St. Peter the Aleut, pray for us!

However, the important thing is that the Roman Catholic Church made amends for these actions, it apologized for these errors under Pope St. John Paul II, it has returned relics to the Orthodox church, even those which were given to it for safekeeping at the onset of Turkocratia such as the head of St. Andrew the Apostle, which itself is a noble act, since the Roman church preserved the relics of the Orthodox church and then returned them in the late 20th century, and the Roman Catholic Church from a doctrinal perspective is mostly correct, differing from the Orthodox Church on only a small number of issues such as the aforementioned question of the exact nature of the conception of the Theotokos or the actual powers of the Bishop of Rome. In terms of Roman Catholic Eucharistic doctrine, and the veneration of icons and relics and Our Glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, the Roman church is correct, likewise her sacramental theology is substantially the same as the Orthodox church, and her more ancient liturgies, such as the Traditional Latin Mass according to the Tridentine, Dominican, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Norbertine, Carmelite and related uses, are on a par with the liturgies of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox church in terms of beauty.

*Coincidentally, the place of his martyrdom was San Pedro, most likely the San Pedro near Los Angeles, and not that near San Francisco.

Search

Search

A perspective on Baptism and the plan of salvation that I have not heard before

boughtwithaprice

Legend

More options

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian

More options

boughtwithaprice

Legend

More options

boughtwithaprice

Legend

More options

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian

More options

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian

More options

Similar threads