- Mar 3, 2018
- 187
- 108
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Help me know whether or not what I believe is Orthodox. Below, you will find a long-winded email to my father in-law. I have only provided an excerpt since the rest is superfluous.
Some background context: my father-in-law asked me to "poke holes" in Grand Canyon University's statement of faith. Hence, I reference GCU and their SOF frequently.
-----------------------------------------------------------
6) The Church is defined differently in the two creeds. The Nicene creed clearly affirms a Church that is unified by the dogmas of the Creed and who believes that there is only 1 baptism, which is within the Church, not outside of it. At the time when the Nicene Creed was canonized and afterwards, the Church was One. If you believed a heresy and were propagating it, if you rejected the dogmas established by the ecumenical councils and by Holy Tradition through the Holy Spirit, then you would be excommunicated and even condemned if you did not repent and believe and practice orthodox Christian dogmas. It is clear that when the Church said that they believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, they meant that they believed that no one could be part of any other "church" since the true Church of Christ could not be divided but one, nor could the true Church differ in the things that it believed, practiced, and promoted as dogmas, which they considered to be handed down by the Apostles themselves to faithful men in the Church by the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Church was clear and remains clear that if you reject the dogmas established in the ecumenical councils as inspired by the Holy Spirit, then you reject the Truth (you reject Christ). And if anyone were to do this, they could not be considered to be a faithful Christian part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church since the essence of being One and Holy and Catholic and Apostolic is marked by absolute unanimity. How is the Church One if it is divided on dogma? How is the Church Holy if it is defiled by lies? How is the Church Catholic (Universal) if not all are of the same mind, heart, and voice? And how is the Church Apostolic if it does not perpetuate the dogmatic Traditions related to theology and praxis, which were transmitted to faithful men of God by the Apostles through the leading of the Holy Spirit? A Church that is void of these things cannot be said to be led by the Holy Spirit into all Truth, as Christ had promised, but is instead falsely called one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
DISCLAIMER: My last point is most likely, just like everything else, a straw-man argument. I truly believe it is unfair to analyze an organization's belief system by relying merely on their statement of faith, which by nature is incredibly concise and not comprehensive. Take everything I have said and will say with a large grain of salt. I am making baseless assumptions and formulating my arguments on those assumptions. If my assumptions are false, then my entire argument does not apply to GCU's position whatsoever.
7) GCU's SOF promotes contradictory tenets, both of which are false. Firstly, GCU says that man has a sinful nature. We need to define sinful nature. I'll quote some definitions that perhaps hit the mark.
The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, the first creed adopted by the Baptist churches in the United States, says,
John Wesley said: "We are condemned before we have done good or evil, under the curse before we know what it is." (Sermons on Original Sin, p. 340)
Returning to GCU, they say that because man fell, he thereby inherits a sinful nature (which has been loosely defined above). This is absolutely false.
What man has inherited is a fallen nature, yet not a sinful nature. Fallen nature because man is not born exalted in Paradise with God but below on the earth. Fallen because man is not born walking with God like Adam but walking with beasts and demons. Fallen because man's flesh is no longer immortal but liable to death. Fallen because completely and unbroken communion with God is not innate from birth as it was with the first Adam. Man's nature is also fallen in the sense that it no longer solely possesses a proclivity towards the Divinity but now it also gravitates towards those things which are opposed to God. In other words, man's nature is tainted and corrupt; it is not the same nature that existed in Adam and Eve before the fall. But we do not say that because the nature of man is fallen that he is incapable of choosing to do good and has only a desire for sin. No; man has both a a natural desire for God and for sin. And what is most definitive about his fallen nature is that man is now innately attracted to sin.
However, it is important to highlight that an inclination towards sin is different from a compulsion towards sin. For example, you happen to see an attractive woman very briefly and then you feel tempted by a sinful desire to look at her with more intensity for the sake of gratifying your lust. You realize that it would be sinful to act in this way, so you decide to turn to God in earnest prayer for grace to overcome your temptation and perform His will. And what will we say about an atheist who voluntarily sacrifices his life for the sake of saving the lives of his loved ones? He had two choices: he could watch his loved ones die before his very eyes but preserve his life by inaction; or he could act conversely and trade his life for theirs. Will anyone with a rational mind judge this man to be evil in his actions and incapable of choosing the good because of his sinful nature?
Moreover, we draw a clear link between our fallen nature and our flesh. Paul constantly talks about walking according to the Spirit instead of according to the flesh. "If you sow to the flesh, you shall reap corruption. But if you sow to the Spirit, you shall inherit eternal life." And in another place he says, "The flesh is contrary to the Spirit." And again he says, "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." Lastly, we know Paul called the flesh "this body of death". Nevertheless, we do not describe man's nature as sinful or utterly depraved or as incapable of doing anything but sin. We also reject the notion that the guilt of Adam's sin was transmitted to all of mankind. Listen to what St. John Chrysostom explains:
"But what does it mean, 'for all have sinned' (Rom. 5.12) This: he having once fallen, yet they that had not eaten of the tree inherited mortality ... From this it is clear that it was not Adam's sin, his transgression — that is of the Law — but by the virtue of his disobedience that all have been marred. What is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law all died: 'for death reigned,' St. Paul says, 'from Adam to Moses, even over them who had not sinned' (Rom 5:14). How did it 'reign'? After the manner of Adam's transgression, he who is 'the type of Him that was to come.' Thus, when the Jews ask, how was it possible for one Person to have saved the world? you will be able to reply, in the same way that the disobedience of one person, Adam, brought its condemnation" (Commentary on Romans, X).
With the help of a few great theologians, I will present to you some points to consider as the true doctrine regarding man's natural state:
In the East, then, the concept of original sin has come to mean, as Fr. Michael Pomazansky very succinctly defines it, "the sin of Adam, which was transmitted to his descendants and weighs upon them."[5] Or, as John Karmiris puts it in an expanded definition, original sin is "'sin-sickness,' the sinful situation of human nature which deprived man of Divine Grace, and subjected him to death, to departure from the Divine life, [and] has been transmitted by means of natural heredity to all of the descendants of the first-born, along with the stigma, the consequences, the fruits of that Original Sin."[6] Indeed, Karmiris reminds us, "it was for this reason that the ancient Church instituted the Baptism of infants, specifically that they might be freed from the stigma of sin of their ancestors, although the infants possessed no guilt of 'actual sin.'"[7]
The Orthodox view of fallen human nature is remarkably sober and balanced, gravitating neither to the unwarranted optimism of the Pelagian view, which sees human nature as having remained essentially in its pristine innocence and goodness, nor to the equally unwarranted pessimism of the predestinatarian view, which sees human nature as hopelessly perverted and corrupt. "Man fell unconsciously, unintentionally; he was deceived and seduced," writes the 19th-century Russian bishop and ascete, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov. "For this reason his natural goodness was not destroyed, but was mixed with the evil of the fallen angels. But this natural goodness, being mixed with evil, poisoned with evil, became worthless, inadequate, unworthy of God who is perfect, purest goodness. Man for the most part does evil, meaning to do good, not seeing the evil wrapped in a mask of goodness on account of the darkening of his mind and conscience."[15] - (St Ignatius Brianchaninov)
God originally created Adam and Eve as very good with only an inclination towards the Divine, yet man's nature was not incapable of sin because it was imbued with free choice. By free will, after being prompted by the devil, Adam and Ever disobeyed God and sinned. The Lord promised that they would surely die if they did not keep His commandment. Orthodoxy teaches that man, after the ancestral transgression, received the due wage for his sin: death. This death permeated his whole being in the sense that his body was subject to physical corruption and his soul also subject to spiritual corruption. The body was no longer incorruptible and therefore returned to the dust. The soul and mind, instead of being completely illumined, became darkened and disposed towards darkness. Mankind received death, however, primarily because man no longer abided in God, the giver of life, the Resurrection and the Life, the Light of Life. Man must be completely united with God by retaining unbroken communion with God in order to be alive, perfect, and free from death. When Adam and Ever received death for their sin, they freely chose to change their nature. If I place my hand on a flame, it will be scorched and my hand will no longer be whole and healthy. In a sense, the nature of my hand has changed in that now I experience pain from my burns and the skin is disfigured or disintegrated. Likewise, Adam chose to depart from the Dayspring of Life and place himself upon the flames of sin, disfiguring his nature, suffering permanent injury, and damaging the natural order of his dispositions. Because we share the same essence or nature as Adam, all his subsequent offspring even to this day inherit their nature from Adam. God is not held accountable for man's fallen nature because Adam is the one who chose to sin and bring death upon himself and all of mankind.
Nonetheless, the Lord also did not ordain a spiritual law that would result in the total depravity of man's nature. Turning again to the fire example I just mentioned, there is a law that governs the severity of my hand's burn. There is also a law governing the extent to which my hand's functionality is injured, if at all. Who has established these laws? Only He who created all things, even these laws. Likewise, God has ordained to what degree Adam fell, and to what degree and all of mankind fell with him. Thus, the Church, relying on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit rejects St Augustine's heretical teaching that all of mankind inherits not only the fallen nature of Adam but also his guilt. Thus, a newborn babe is guilty of sin, according to Augustine, many Roman Catholics, Calvin, and numerous Protestant reformers. But Orthodoxy, and the Church, has never taught this falsehood. The Church also establishes that the spiritual law of God does not dictate that man is entirely compelled to do evil by nature, nor does it dictate that he become incapable of doing good and abstaining from evil. We most certainly do affirm, like many reformed theologians, that it is impossible to please God without faith in Christ and that we cannot bear good fruit or be righteous apart from the grace of God. That is not being refuted; what we refute is the notion that man's fallen nature is utterly depraved and incapable of acting morally, virtuously, and altruistically. We reject the notion that the only reason that man does not relentlessly and solely lust and indulge in evil is that God's sovereignty does not permit him to be evil without limit (which is something that some Calvinists argue for when discussing total depravity). Instead, we say something similar but very distinct: we say that God did not permit man to fall without limit to the depths of evil (or, at the least, this is what I believe the Church has always taught, but I'm not completely sure.)
Yet again, we run into another fallacy if we continue to promote the existence of a sinful nature in man. Because if man's nature is sinful, man naturally chooses sin; moreover, man will always choose sin since that is his nature. The nature of sin is that it opposes God and is not directed towards the Divinity. If man's nature is sinful, then sin is all a man is capable of doing. The reformed theologians would easily counter me by quoting the Divine Scriptures and saying, "Whatever is not of faith is sin". But to this I offer an easy counter and say this: Whatever is not contrary to the law of God is not sin. And, further, I reject the aforementioned verse in Romans 14 and deem it an invalid proof-text. It does not prove their position that whatever man does apart from faith in Christ is sin. It proves that whatever a Christian does apart from Christ is sin. This is because we do not apply the same spiritual laws to both believers and Gentiles. That this is a valid opinion is substantiated by Paul himself in Romans chapter 2 as we will see. So, if a man loves his neighbor, this man does not sin nor is he considered evil for loving his neighbor, nor is he deemed worthy of wrath for having chosen to live according to the law written in their hearts by God. These reformed theologians greatly err and ignore the great Apostle who says: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; ) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" (Romans 2:14-16).
Therefore, the Orthodox use the phrase "fallen nature", because this more accurately describes man's natural inclinations. Conversely, those who hold that a man's nature is sinful must also believe that this sinful nature requires an essential change from being sinful to being good in nature so that man will be capable of doing what is pleasing to God instead of what is evil. Because, tell me please, how can a man be "morally capable" of anything, as GCU argues, if the man has not the capacity to choose either good or evil. If his natural disposition is immorality, then we can never say he had even a glimmer of potential to perform anything moral or good.
Another issue with the doctrine of man's total depravity, i.e. sinful nature, is that a man who has a sinful nature will never ask God to change his nature towards the good. How then can man choose (I do not say accomplish, but choose) God and repent of his sins and live by faith if he has a sinful nature incapable of choosing good? God must change him. And He must do it against man's free will since man would never freely choose God due to his nature being entirely sinful. This is why the Calvinists purport the doctrine of "irresistible grace". But since choice is dictated by one's nature, man does not choose God, but God chooses Him; and this encounter is completely unilateral. In this case, God must give grace to a man so that he will be able to act contrary to his sinful nature, being enabled to repent and believe in Christ. Calvinists go so far as to say that man cannot resist the grace of God and will choose the Lord because the will of the Lord cannot be resisted or prevented from being accomplished since, otherwise, God could not be omnipotent and sovereign. According to this view, man's free will, which was completely inclined towards evil and unrighteousness, is violated and overcome by God's grace so that he will choose righteousness and faith. An example of this view, according to them, is observed when someone who is drowning or who is unconscious is then rescued and resuscitated by a lifeguard or paramedic, even if the person did not ask for this sort of aid. They further say that this act of violating man's free will is an act of love because man would have perished without this sort of intervention. While this seems reasonable, it neglects the fact that it is a person's right to sign a "do not resuscitate" form so that a paramedic is legally restricted from breaching the incapacitated person's wishes. The reason for this is primary because some people prefer to cease living in cases where emergency medical aid is needed in order to revive them. This is their choice, and we do not violate their free will. If they want to die, we let them die because they willed it to be the case that no one would prevent their inevitable death. In order for the doctrine of irresistible grace to be true, reformed theologians must how the love of God can be explained in the case of violating man's free will. We Orthodox reject the definition of love which destroys both God's and man's free choice. Thus, whatever violates free will is not considered loving. Whatever is not desired by man but is forced upon man, regardless of whether or not the agent acting upon man is God or anyone else, this is not love. If man's nature is sinful, then God must neglect the free will of man in order to save him because sinful nature will never freely choose repentance and faith in the Lord.
But we reject all of these sophistries as nonsense and solve the matter in a word by saying that God created man with a good nature but that Adam corrupted it with the death of sin. Therefore, sin and death entered into the world through Adam. And, moreover, all of Adam's offspring received this corrupted nature, or fallen nature, because of the consequences of Adam's original transgression. Inasmuch as we share the same essence as Adam, we also possess the same fallen nature. Yet, as we established, God in His wisdom and sovereignty, did not ordain Adam's nature to fall to the depths of total depravity. And we have already discussed the issues associated with this heretical doctrine so we do not need to say more. So, we inherit a fallen nature from our forefather, Adam, not a totally depraved and sinful one. In our fallen nature, we are disposed towards sin, but we are not entirely compelled to act sinfully. Our souls are darkened, but we have the law of God written on our consciences so that we know by nature to do what is good. Hence, we also have the free will to choose to do either evil or good. And that this is true we know without a doubt because a person could not be capable of acting morally, as GCU confesses, if a man were not also capable of free choosing to act either morally or immorally. For this reason, again we default to asserting that man's nature is fallen and not sinful--since to be fallen is to be crippled, maimed, blind, leprous, lame, withered, deaf, mute, ill, and defiled. In other words, a fallen nature implies that man is not functioning according to his original integrity when he knew only what is good; it implies that man's nature now also knows evil, but it does not mean that the entirety of God's image and likeness has been erased. Otherwise, we could not affirm that man received the image and likeness of God from the beginning of creation, nor could we say that St James speaks piously when he says, "therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God" (James 3:9).
God is good and created man good also. Therefore, man is good insofar as the Lord created him. The nature of goodness is that it is free and capable of exercising liberty of the will. A man's nature is good not because it is absolutely inclined towards doing the good as if by impulse. A man's nature is good because God's nature is good, and man received his nature from God when the Lord said, "Let us make man in Our image and Our likeness". A fallen nature still retains the image and likeness of God, whereas a sinful nature completely contradicts anything related to God.
-----------------------------
This has been edifying for me. Like I said before, I do not believe I have accurately assessed GCU's actual dogmas of the faith because it is improbable that I can fairly judge them by solely referencing a statement of faith. Regardless of GCU's beliefs, I ardently assaulted the falsehoods of Calvinistic theology because they preach a false gospel, a gospel of demons and of Satan. I do not hate the people who have been deceived by the wicked one, but I fervently despise the words they preach to others. They ignorantly lead souls into pits of darkness with their false gospels. St Paul might even call such people accursed; I don't make a judgment or issue a condemnation since I am not a saint and am incapable of righteous judgment. But one thing I know: to be Christian, you must believe orthodox dogmas of the faith as taught through holy men of God who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Even GCU admits that the Holy Spirit leads all men to the fullness of truth; we assert the same principle in relation to dogmatic theology. There is only one truth, not several. Truth by nature is exclusive and objective, not relative and subjective. If anyone errs on dogma, he preaches a false gospel. If anyone preaches that man has a sinful nature, that he is born guilty of sin and is condemned to hell from the womb, he preaches a lie of Satan. If anyone preaches that the Church is not one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in the proper sense of these words (which we established above), then they do not preach the true gospel. And if anyone reject the dogmas of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which is led by the Holy Spirit of the Father and of the Son into the fullness of truth, then that person rejects Christ's Church and rejects Christ Himself. And if anyone rejects Christ, let him be accursed.
Some background context: my father-in-law asked me to "poke holes" in Grand Canyon University's statement of faith. Hence, I reference GCU and their SOF frequently.
-----------------------------------------------------------
6) The Church is defined differently in the two creeds. The Nicene creed clearly affirms a Church that is unified by the dogmas of the Creed and who believes that there is only 1 baptism, which is within the Church, not outside of it. At the time when the Nicene Creed was canonized and afterwards, the Church was One. If you believed a heresy and were propagating it, if you rejected the dogmas established by the ecumenical councils and by Holy Tradition through the Holy Spirit, then you would be excommunicated and even condemned if you did not repent and believe and practice orthodox Christian dogmas. It is clear that when the Church said that they believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, they meant that they believed that no one could be part of any other "church" since the true Church of Christ could not be divided but one, nor could the true Church differ in the things that it believed, practiced, and promoted as dogmas, which they considered to be handed down by the Apostles themselves to faithful men in the Church by the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Church was clear and remains clear that if you reject the dogmas established in the ecumenical councils as inspired by the Holy Spirit, then you reject the Truth (you reject Christ). And if anyone were to do this, they could not be considered to be a faithful Christian part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church since the essence of being One and Holy and Catholic and Apostolic is marked by absolute unanimity. How is the Church One if it is divided on dogma? How is the Church Holy if it is defiled by lies? How is the Church Catholic (Universal) if not all are of the same mind, heart, and voice? And how is the Church Apostolic if it does not perpetuate the dogmatic Traditions related to theology and praxis, which were transmitted to faithful men of God by the Apostles through the leading of the Holy Spirit? A Church that is void of these things cannot be said to be led by the Holy Spirit into all Truth, as Christ had promised, but is instead falsely called one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
DISCLAIMER: My last point is most likely, just like everything else, a straw-man argument. I truly believe it is unfair to analyze an organization's belief system by relying merely on their statement of faith, which by nature is incredibly concise and not comprehensive. Take everything I have said and will say with a large grain of salt. I am making baseless assumptions and formulating my arguments on those assumptions. If my assumptions are false, then my entire argument does not apply to GCU's position whatsoever.
7) GCU's SOF promotes contradictory tenets, both of which are false. Firstly, GCU says that man has a sinful nature. We need to define sinful nature. I'll quote some definitions that perhaps hit the mark.
The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, the first creed adopted by the Baptist churches in the United States, says,
- "Our first parents by the sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them, whereby death came upon all; all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all faculties, and parts of soul, and body." (p. 24)
- "They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room, and stead of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus sets them free." (p. 24)
- "From this original corruption whereby all are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions." (p. 24)
John Wesley said: "We are condemned before we have done good or evil, under the curse before we know what it is." (Sermons on Original Sin, p. 340)
Returning to GCU, they say that because man fell, he thereby inherits a sinful nature (which has been loosely defined above). This is absolutely false.
What man has inherited is a fallen nature, yet not a sinful nature. Fallen nature because man is not born exalted in Paradise with God but below on the earth. Fallen because man is not born walking with God like Adam but walking with beasts and demons. Fallen because man's flesh is no longer immortal but liable to death. Fallen because completely and unbroken communion with God is not innate from birth as it was with the first Adam. Man's nature is also fallen in the sense that it no longer solely possesses a proclivity towards the Divinity but now it also gravitates towards those things which are opposed to God. In other words, man's nature is tainted and corrupt; it is not the same nature that existed in Adam and Eve before the fall. But we do not say that because the nature of man is fallen that he is incapable of choosing to do good and has only a desire for sin. No; man has both a a natural desire for God and for sin. And what is most definitive about his fallen nature is that man is now innately attracted to sin.
However, it is important to highlight that an inclination towards sin is different from a compulsion towards sin. For example, you happen to see an attractive woman very briefly and then you feel tempted by a sinful desire to look at her with more intensity for the sake of gratifying your lust. You realize that it would be sinful to act in this way, so you decide to turn to God in earnest prayer for grace to overcome your temptation and perform His will. And what will we say about an atheist who voluntarily sacrifices his life for the sake of saving the lives of his loved ones? He had two choices: he could watch his loved ones die before his very eyes but preserve his life by inaction; or he could act conversely and trade his life for theirs. Will anyone with a rational mind judge this man to be evil in his actions and incapable of choosing the good because of his sinful nature?
Moreover, we draw a clear link between our fallen nature and our flesh. Paul constantly talks about walking according to the Spirit instead of according to the flesh. "If you sow to the flesh, you shall reap corruption. But if you sow to the Spirit, you shall inherit eternal life." And in another place he says, "The flesh is contrary to the Spirit." And again he says, "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." Lastly, we know Paul called the flesh "this body of death". Nevertheless, we do not describe man's nature as sinful or utterly depraved or as incapable of doing anything but sin. We also reject the notion that the guilt of Adam's sin was transmitted to all of mankind. Listen to what St. John Chrysostom explains:
"But what does it mean, 'for all have sinned' (Rom. 5.12) This: he having once fallen, yet they that had not eaten of the tree inherited mortality ... From this it is clear that it was not Adam's sin, his transgression — that is of the Law — but by the virtue of his disobedience that all have been marred. What is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law all died: 'for death reigned,' St. Paul says, 'from Adam to Moses, even over them who had not sinned' (Rom 5:14). How did it 'reign'? After the manner of Adam's transgression, he who is 'the type of Him that was to come.' Thus, when the Jews ask, how was it possible for one Person to have saved the world? you will be able to reply, in the same way that the disobedience of one person, Adam, brought its condemnation" (Commentary on Romans, X).
With the help of a few great theologians, I will present to you some points to consider as the true doctrine regarding man's natural state:
In the East, then, the concept of original sin has come to mean, as Fr. Michael Pomazansky very succinctly defines it, "the sin of Adam, which was transmitted to his descendants and weighs upon them."[5] Or, as John Karmiris puts it in an expanded definition, original sin is "'sin-sickness,' the sinful situation of human nature which deprived man of Divine Grace, and subjected him to death, to departure from the Divine life, [and] has been transmitted by means of natural heredity to all of the descendants of the first-born, along with the stigma, the consequences, the fruits of that Original Sin."[6] Indeed, Karmiris reminds us, "it was for this reason that the ancient Church instituted the Baptism of infants, specifically that they might be freed from the stigma of sin of their ancestors, although the infants possessed no guilt of 'actual sin.'"[7]
The Orthodox view of fallen human nature is remarkably sober and balanced, gravitating neither to the unwarranted optimism of the Pelagian view, which sees human nature as having remained essentially in its pristine innocence and goodness, nor to the equally unwarranted pessimism of the predestinatarian view, which sees human nature as hopelessly perverted and corrupt. "Man fell unconsciously, unintentionally; he was deceived and seduced," writes the 19th-century Russian bishop and ascete, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov. "For this reason his natural goodness was not destroyed, but was mixed with the evil of the fallen angels. But this natural goodness, being mixed with evil, poisoned with evil, became worthless, inadequate, unworthy of God who is perfect, purest goodness. Man for the most part does evil, meaning to do good, not seeing the evil wrapped in a mask of goodness on account of the darkening of his mind and conscience."[15] - (St Ignatius Brianchaninov)
God originally created Adam and Eve as very good with only an inclination towards the Divine, yet man's nature was not incapable of sin because it was imbued with free choice. By free will, after being prompted by the devil, Adam and Ever disobeyed God and sinned. The Lord promised that they would surely die if they did not keep His commandment. Orthodoxy teaches that man, after the ancestral transgression, received the due wage for his sin: death. This death permeated his whole being in the sense that his body was subject to physical corruption and his soul also subject to spiritual corruption. The body was no longer incorruptible and therefore returned to the dust. The soul and mind, instead of being completely illumined, became darkened and disposed towards darkness. Mankind received death, however, primarily because man no longer abided in God, the giver of life, the Resurrection and the Life, the Light of Life. Man must be completely united with God by retaining unbroken communion with God in order to be alive, perfect, and free from death. When Adam and Ever received death for their sin, they freely chose to change their nature. If I place my hand on a flame, it will be scorched and my hand will no longer be whole and healthy. In a sense, the nature of my hand has changed in that now I experience pain from my burns and the skin is disfigured or disintegrated. Likewise, Adam chose to depart from the Dayspring of Life and place himself upon the flames of sin, disfiguring his nature, suffering permanent injury, and damaging the natural order of his dispositions. Because we share the same essence or nature as Adam, all his subsequent offspring even to this day inherit their nature from Adam. God is not held accountable for man's fallen nature because Adam is the one who chose to sin and bring death upon himself and all of mankind.
Nonetheless, the Lord also did not ordain a spiritual law that would result in the total depravity of man's nature. Turning again to the fire example I just mentioned, there is a law that governs the severity of my hand's burn. There is also a law governing the extent to which my hand's functionality is injured, if at all. Who has established these laws? Only He who created all things, even these laws. Likewise, God has ordained to what degree Adam fell, and to what degree and all of mankind fell with him. Thus, the Church, relying on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit rejects St Augustine's heretical teaching that all of mankind inherits not only the fallen nature of Adam but also his guilt. Thus, a newborn babe is guilty of sin, according to Augustine, many Roman Catholics, Calvin, and numerous Protestant reformers. But Orthodoxy, and the Church, has never taught this falsehood. The Church also establishes that the spiritual law of God does not dictate that man is entirely compelled to do evil by nature, nor does it dictate that he become incapable of doing good and abstaining from evil. We most certainly do affirm, like many reformed theologians, that it is impossible to please God without faith in Christ and that we cannot bear good fruit or be righteous apart from the grace of God. That is not being refuted; what we refute is the notion that man's fallen nature is utterly depraved and incapable of acting morally, virtuously, and altruistically. We reject the notion that the only reason that man does not relentlessly and solely lust and indulge in evil is that God's sovereignty does not permit him to be evil without limit (which is something that some Calvinists argue for when discussing total depravity). Instead, we say something similar but very distinct: we say that God did not permit man to fall without limit to the depths of evil (or, at the least, this is what I believe the Church has always taught, but I'm not completely sure.)
Yet again, we run into another fallacy if we continue to promote the existence of a sinful nature in man. Because if man's nature is sinful, man naturally chooses sin; moreover, man will always choose sin since that is his nature. The nature of sin is that it opposes God and is not directed towards the Divinity. If man's nature is sinful, then sin is all a man is capable of doing. The reformed theologians would easily counter me by quoting the Divine Scriptures and saying, "Whatever is not of faith is sin". But to this I offer an easy counter and say this: Whatever is not contrary to the law of God is not sin. And, further, I reject the aforementioned verse in Romans 14 and deem it an invalid proof-text. It does not prove their position that whatever man does apart from faith in Christ is sin. It proves that whatever a Christian does apart from Christ is sin. This is because we do not apply the same spiritual laws to both believers and Gentiles. That this is a valid opinion is substantiated by Paul himself in Romans chapter 2 as we will see. So, if a man loves his neighbor, this man does not sin nor is he considered evil for loving his neighbor, nor is he deemed worthy of wrath for having chosen to live according to the law written in their hearts by God. These reformed theologians greatly err and ignore the great Apostle who says: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; ) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" (Romans 2:14-16).
Therefore, the Orthodox use the phrase "fallen nature", because this more accurately describes man's natural inclinations. Conversely, those who hold that a man's nature is sinful must also believe that this sinful nature requires an essential change from being sinful to being good in nature so that man will be capable of doing what is pleasing to God instead of what is evil. Because, tell me please, how can a man be "morally capable" of anything, as GCU argues, if the man has not the capacity to choose either good or evil. If his natural disposition is immorality, then we can never say he had even a glimmer of potential to perform anything moral or good.
Another issue with the doctrine of man's total depravity, i.e. sinful nature, is that a man who has a sinful nature will never ask God to change his nature towards the good. How then can man choose (I do not say accomplish, but choose) God and repent of his sins and live by faith if he has a sinful nature incapable of choosing good? God must change him. And He must do it against man's free will since man would never freely choose God due to his nature being entirely sinful. This is why the Calvinists purport the doctrine of "irresistible grace". But since choice is dictated by one's nature, man does not choose God, but God chooses Him; and this encounter is completely unilateral. In this case, God must give grace to a man so that he will be able to act contrary to his sinful nature, being enabled to repent and believe in Christ. Calvinists go so far as to say that man cannot resist the grace of God and will choose the Lord because the will of the Lord cannot be resisted or prevented from being accomplished since, otherwise, God could not be omnipotent and sovereign. According to this view, man's free will, which was completely inclined towards evil and unrighteousness, is violated and overcome by God's grace so that he will choose righteousness and faith. An example of this view, according to them, is observed when someone who is drowning or who is unconscious is then rescued and resuscitated by a lifeguard or paramedic, even if the person did not ask for this sort of aid. They further say that this act of violating man's free will is an act of love because man would have perished without this sort of intervention. While this seems reasonable, it neglects the fact that it is a person's right to sign a "do not resuscitate" form so that a paramedic is legally restricted from breaching the incapacitated person's wishes. The reason for this is primary because some people prefer to cease living in cases where emergency medical aid is needed in order to revive them. This is their choice, and we do not violate their free will. If they want to die, we let them die because they willed it to be the case that no one would prevent their inevitable death. In order for the doctrine of irresistible grace to be true, reformed theologians must how the love of God can be explained in the case of violating man's free will. We Orthodox reject the definition of love which destroys both God's and man's free choice. Thus, whatever violates free will is not considered loving. Whatever is not desired by man but is forced upon man, regardless of whether or not the agent acting upon man is God or anyone else, this is not love. If man's nature is sinful, then God must neglect the free will of man in order to save him because sinful nature will never freely choose repentance and faith in the Lord.
But we reject all of these sophistries as nonsense and solve the matter in a word by saying that God created man with a good nature but that Adam corrupted it with the death of sin. Therefore, sin and death entered into the world through Adam. And, moreover, all of Adam's offspring received this corrupted nature, or fallen nature, because of the consequences of Adam's original transgression. Inasmuch as we share the same essence as Adam, we also possess the same fallen nature. Yet, as we established, God in His wisdom and sovereignty, did not ordain Adam's nature to fall to the depths of total depravity. And we have already discussed the issues associated with this heretical doctrine so we do not need to say more. So, we inherit a fallen nature from our forefather, Adam, not a totally depraved and sinful one. In our fallen nature, we are disposed towards sin, but we are not entirely compelled to act sinfully. Our souls are darkened, but we have the law of God written on our consciences so that we know by nature to do what is good. Hence, we also have the free will to choose to do either evil or good. And that this is true we know without a doubt because a person could not be capable of acting morally, as GCU confesses, if a man were not also capable of free choosing to act either morally or immorally. For this reason, again we default to asserting that man's nature is fallen and not sinful--since to be fallen is to be crippled, maimed, blind, leprous, lame, withered, deaf, mute, ill, and defiled. In other words, a fallen nature implies that man is not functioning according to his original integrity when he knew only what is good; it implies that man's nature now also knows evil, but it does not mean that the entirety of God's image and likeness has been erased. Otherwise, we could not affirm that man received the image and likeness of God from the beginning of creation, nor could we say that St James speaks piously when he says, "therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God" (James 3:9).
God is good and created man good also. Therefore, man is good insofar as the Lord created him. The nature of goodness is that it is free and capable of exercising liberty of the will. A man's nature is good not because it is absolutely inclined towards doing the good as if by impulse. A man's nature is good because God's nature is good, and man received his nature from God when the Lord said, "Let us make man in Our image and Our likeness". A fallen nature still retains the image and likeness of God, whereas a sinful nature completely contradicts anything related to God.
-----------------------------
This has been edifying for me. Like I said before, I do not believe I have accurately assessed GCU's actual dogmas of the faith because it is improbable that I can fairly judge them by solely referencing a statement of faith. Regardless of GCU's beliefs, I ardently assaulted the falsehoods of Calvinistic theology because they preach a false gospel, a gospel of demons and of Satan. I do not hate the people who have been deceived by the wicked one, but I fervently despise the words they preach to others. They ignorantly lead souls into pits of darkness with their false gospels. St Paul might even call such people accursed; I don't make a judgment or issue a condemnation since I am not a saint and am incapable of righteous judgment. But one thing I know: to be Christian, you must believe orthodox dogmas of the faith as taught through holy men of God who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Even GCU admits that the Holy Spirit leads all men to the fullness of truth; we assert the same principle in relation to dogmatic theology. There is only one truth, not several. Truth by nature is exclusive and objective, not relative and subjective. If anyone errs on dogma, he preaches a false gospel. If anyone preaches that man has a sinful nature, that he is born guilty of sin and is condemned to hell from the womb, he preaches a lie of Satan. If anyone preaches that the Church is not one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in the proper sense of these words (which we established above), then they do not preach the true gospel. And if anyone reject the dogmas of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which is led by the Holy Spirit of the Father and of the Son into the fullness of truth, then that person rejects Christ's Church and rejects Christ Himself. And if anyone rejects Christ, let him be accursed.
