to Mr Moss (WAS: Guilt By Accusation Is Not Guilt)

[chrsstms]

I posted the following as a response to a post in "Monasteries and the Monastic Life" but felt, for a proper response, that it should be included here:

Without proof, you cannot found your claims, and it is kind of hard to maintain I do not have a voice on the topic when your star witness says that I AM a FIRSTHAND witness and confidant of his.

... I am increasingly bothered by the practice of using this forum as a vehicle for attacking people who aren't here. Mr. Kapner has done this, you have done it, and now I see that Vladimir Moss has appeared to do it...

Personally, I would think than only ignorance would attempt to tie these two names together. Firstly, the subject of which Mr. Moss speaks in these posts is a tried-and-true heresy, from the more United Church (more united than today, anyhow.)

Mr. Moss is one of the few (although the only one I can think of) modern theologians who can truly give the other side a fair shake. And this is coming from one who accepts the "Dogma of the Redemption" and "The River of Fire" to the point where he allowed himself out of the Church! (This last statement shall go unexplained, however.)

Mr. Moss at least allows the other side of his argument tell their side of the story fairly, without characterization and ad hominem attacks. In other words, he appears to me to be a very fair and thorough theologian. He is the only one who has seriously caused me to question the above (by his article "THE MYSTERY OF REDEMPTION" http://romanitas.ru/eng/The%20Mystery%2 ... mption.htm ), and for that I would like to ask him to elaborate on the conclusion one could take from such teachings:

1) If there are tollhouses, how could one who is a great sinner like myself find any hope for salvation if he had to be tried by his sins? I know there are attempts to answer this question, but they seem unsatisfactory to me. Remember, I have left the Church (over a decade ago).

2) If a large part of the pain of hell (according to the "River of Fire" theory) is the anguish of separation from God and the hatred caused by such a sentence, what of those who know they are horrible sinners and expect Hell anyway, and would praise God for a just decision in sending them to where their mind is at anyway, and would realize that it is their own weak will that landed them there in the first place?

(Also, the Lamians left for administrative purposes, NOT Heresy, which, as far as I can determine, is the only canonical excuse to seperate from your Bishop.)

Thank you.

Chrysostomos

[Myrrh]

Since when has 'original sin' been Orthodox doctrine? Or been associated with 'the Fall'? The Fall is rebellion in heaven in which St Michael the Archangel leads the defence, by giving his name which means 'who is like God?' , while original sin is a concept dreamed up by I think, by Tertullian originally and picked up by Augustine who then developed all kinds of notions around it and when told he contradicted the teaching of the Church he said he didn't care, his personal revelation was greater. This led to all kinds of strange ideas about our relationship to God and salvation.

Russia, 'sfar as I've explored, was very strongly influenced by Jesuit teaching , since Peter the not so Great?, perhaps this is where the idea came from. People like Seraphim Rose wouldn't know any other kind of salvation as Christianity in the West developed from Rome's influence which entered into, many times forced onto, other Churches, such as those in Britain and although some split from the RCC they still retained the very limited understanding of salvation as concentrated in Genesis II, and that from a misreading by Augustine.

[Myrrh]

p.s. isn't this called the "Western Captivity of the Church" in Russia?

[Justin Kissel]

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." - Rom. 5:12-21

"But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." - 1 Cor. 15:20-22

"It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever denies the little ones newly born from the wombs of their mothers when they are being baptized, or asserts that they are baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have inherited no original sin from Adam obliging them to be purified in the bath of renaissance (whence it follows that in these persons the form of baptism for the remission of sins is not true, but is to be regarded as factitious), let him be anathema; for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the Apostle has said, viz., 'Sin entered the world through one human being' (Rom. 5:12), and thus it passed over into all human beings; wherefore all of them have sinned, than that which the catholic Church diffused and spread abroad every-where has ever understood those words to mean. For it is on account of this Canon of the faith that even the little ones too, who are as yet incapable of committing if any sin of their own to render them guilty of any offense, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of renaissance." - Council of Carthage (419), Canon 121; this Canon was confirmed and accepted by the Orthodox Church at the 6th Ecumenical Council (Canon 2)

[Myrrh]

What is Paul actually saying here? I don't know the Greek language so if there's any who can help here please jump in.

Before the law there was no sin, not that they didn't sin, but they didn't know they sinned; Christ said the same thing, 'if your sins hadn't been pointed out then you had no sin'. Now, Orthodox teaching is that we are created in the image and likeness of God with free will, if God meant us to obey without thinking we become automatons without free will. How can we decide whether to obey or not to obey unless we have some idea of consequences? In knowing good and evil, we know what is good and what is evil and from that we can make a choice, including whether a command is good or evil... Knowing what is evil, according to Christ, is the beginning of sin.

So it seems to me that although Paul is saying that through Adam sin entered the world, exactly as Christ teaches when knowledge of sin begins, Paul is denying that we're created with free will as he appears to be implying that it was an offence to exercise it.

[Justin Kissel]

What is Paul actually saying here?

That there was an original sin, and it effects us, thus the (main) reason for Christ's work on earth.

[Vladimir Moss]

Chrysosomos writes:

Mr. Moss at least allows the other side of his argument tell their side of the story fairly, without characterization and ad hominem attacks. In other words, he appears to me to be a very fair and thorough theologian. He is the only one who has seriously caused me to question the above (by his article "THE MYSTERY OF REDEMPTION" http://romanitas.ru/eng/The%20Mystery%2 ... mption.htm ), and for that I would like to ask him to elaborate on the conclusion one could take from such teachings:

1) If there are tollhouses, how could one who is a great sinner like myself find any hope for salvation if he had to be tried by his sins? I know there are attempts to answer this question, but they seem unsatisfactory to me. Remember, I have left the Church (over a decade ago).

Moss: We have to answer for our all words, deeds and thoughts at the Judgement Seat of Christ. "For God shall bring every work into judgement, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (Ecclesiastes 12.14). "But I say to you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement" (Matthew 12.36).

But this is no reason to despair. We can blot out our sins by repentance, almsgiving and reception of the Holy Mysteries. And even after our death the prayers of the Church (at pannikhidas, and during the proskomedia of the Liturgy) help us. But to receive that help we have to be in the Church, brother....

Chrysostomos: 2) If a large part of the pain of hell (according to the "River of Fire" theory) is the anguish of separation from God and the hatred caused by such a sentence, what of those who know they are horrible sinners and expect Hell anyway, and would praise God for a just decision in sending them to where their mind is at anyway, and would realize that it is their own weak will that landed them there in the first place?

I don't think it is a weak will that lands us in hell first of all. Many people with weak wills have been saved through repentance. The first and most essential condition of salvation, it seems to me, is a love for the truth. Those who accept the Antichrist will do so "because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved" (II Thess. 2.10). But those who love the truth, even if they have committed terrible sins, are able to be saved because they can face the truth about themselves without going into denial.

Christ has died for the sins of all men. What is required from us is grateful recognition of that fact, and humble recognition of our sins.

I don't believe that the sinners who are sent to hell will praise God for anything, least of all for His justice. The Lord says that they will "gnash their teeth". That means, according to the Holy Fathers, that, being deprived of all grace, they will be consumed by hatred and anger against God.

Vladimir Moss